Arianism vs the Trinity

Posted By: JCS

Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/24/10 05:32 AM

I started this thread to provide an opportunity to discuss view points that were brought up in "The Sunday Law is near!" thread.
Posted By: kland

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/24/10 07:18 PM

Perhaps you could define what Arianism is. I've heard of "Arian nation" used in a way that makes me think of neonazis. But then, there's "trinitarian" which could mean 3 of "arians" so singular could mean one of the Trinity?

Reference to the Trinity should include an explanation of John 14.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/24/10 07:30 PM

Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about various theological concepts associated with Arius. For other uses, see Arian. (Not to be confused with "Aryanism" which formed the core of Nazi racial ideology.)

Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the entities of the Trinity ('God the Father', 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit') and the precise nature of the Son of God. Deemed a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre[1], and then pronounced a heretic again after his death at the First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.

Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological dogma, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches. "Arianism" is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).

It appears Arianism and Aryanism are two different belief systems.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/24/10 07:33 PM

I believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God. Jesus is as eternal as the Father. And the Spirit is as much a person as the Father. They have existed from eternity.
Posted By: JCS

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/24/10 08:01 PM

The topic of Arianism was in direct referance to David Clayton's video "The Omega of Deadly Heresies" hosted by Restoration Ministries. The link was provided by gordonb1 in the thread "The National Sunday law is near!" In the video, the speaker repetitively refered to a majority of the Adventist founders as Arianists. I looked up Christology in the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia #10 and found out that people like James White and Joseph Bates had once been members of the "Christian Connection" of which at the time held to a form of the Arian belief concerning Christ's nature. There are many subtle points of belief and disagreement relative to the true nature of God when studying anti-Trinitarian beliefs. It was my hope that Elle could expand on what her conflicts in belief with the Trinity were and how Ellen White's works align with those beliefs. I have no bias for or against our church's present day beliefs, my bias is solely to find the truth.
Posted By: Elle

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/25/10 01:29 AM

Originally Posted By: JCS
The topic of Arianism was in direct referance to David Clayton's video "The Omega of Deadly Heresies" hosted by Restoration Ministries. The link was provided by gordonb1 in the thread "The National Sunday law is near!" In the video, the speaker repetitively refered to a majority of the Adventist founders as Arianists. I looked up Christology in the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia #10 and found out that people like James White and Joseph Bates had once been members of the "Christian Connection" of which at the time held to a form of the Arian belief concerning Christ's nature. There are many subtle points of belief and disagreement relative to the true nature of God when studying anti-Trinitarian beliefs. It was my hope that Elle could expand on what her conflicts in belief with the Trinity were and how Ellen White's works align with those beliefs. I have no bias for or against our church's present day beliefs, my bias is solely to find the truth.

Sorry JCS, I should of been more clear in my statement and definetly see that my statement led you on thinking that I studied EGW's writings versus the Trinity. Before I explain myself, let me bring my quote here so everyone can see how poorly I express myself at times blush

Originally Posted By: Elle
Well, I come to believe that any writings, with a little time, can become cleverly twisted and interepretated to anything man wants to embrace. So I don't share the same perspective with you JCS in saying that it is so clear that EGW upheld the trinity. I don't want to bring a trinity debate here, but just want to understand what we will be facing in the end time's great deception.

Well, my statement was based on my experience on this forum this pass year as I learned how many people can take EGW statements or even the Bible or any other writings and have twisted it and interpret it to uphold any views. I have learn also that the Church has done that very cleverly in interpreting how we should read difficult EGW writings in the way they want to portray it. For example, if you read the topic “Is EGW a futurist” you will see that Ellen has written that Daniel 12 and the trumpets are future. However, this view is denied by our Church because it puts in jeopardy the validity of the history of our Church. I could go on and on, on this versus the prophecies, but not on the trinity.

It’s not only the SDA Church, but all denominations has done this in their own ways to refute any truth so they can embrace anything their heart desires. It only takes eloquent words and sound logics and a hierarchical design system in power to quickly and effectively teach the mass skillfully any diversion in doctrines and within a few generations, you can have a brand new doctrine different from the original.

Even societies have done it by re-writing history, promoting new idealism, phylosophies etc.. so to better control the people and to establish a society of master-slaves.

This type of wicked manipulations are to promote “robotics” and stamp on our God given-freedom to use our own minds. All societies and denominations are doing it to transform people into “a bunch of dummies” by making them dependant of MAN’s TEACHINGS(or doctrines) via brain washing tactives and propaganda. To top it all, we don't need to go very far to understand this, as we only need to look at our own heart.

Regarding Arianist/EGW,I have seen many "Anti-trinitarian" websites which wrote endless pages of the pioneers and EGW writings believing the Arianist view. I'm sure there must be some validity to them, but I haven't studied them at all. Plus I did get some literature and sets of studies here, but all of these put fear in my heart as I didn't want to be brain-washed again and to be taught by man Again. When I was reading them initially, all I could see that these writings could be viewed in either way. Which one should I pick?

It’s only have been 7 months that I have started to become convicted of the “Arianist” doctrine(is that a proper way you say it?). It wasn’t via the writings of EGW that I was convicted either. I have resolved a year ago, that I was going to establish all my belief on the Bible alone. I have been engaged to re-evaluate all doctrines that I have been spoonfed and want to chuck in the garbage anything that is not from God.

The way I was convicted about the Godhead Truth, it was passive study via studying the Gospel message. I decided to not actively engage myself in viewing texts or studies that are design to promote Arianist belief. I prayed and acknowledge my wretched brain-washed state of mind and my unability to discern truths and ask to have the promise of the Spirit(Jesus in me) to teach me the Truth and claiming 1Jn2:27. Since I was in the Epistles and the 4 gospels all the time with my Gospel study, the Lord was impressing me with a little text here, and a little text there. I always take notes in a study of any texts that impresses me and organized them in Excell worksheets by subjects. Gradually within 2-3 months of that, then it started to happen that I viewed scripture with a new mind and understanding. Passages started to have a new ring to it. I started to see that there were only One God, the Father and One mediator, the man Christ-Jesus.

Sorry again for the badly stated sentence and for this to be lenghty. I'm sure someone else can answer you.....Keep on searching for the truth and ONLY the TRUTH.
Posted By: JCS

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/25/10 03:21 AM

I definitely need to study this topic further. My pastor advised me to read the book "The Trinity" but the fact is I already have. I have a very unique and independent perspective on the nature of God. My thought was that since God is the Alpha and the Omega (the begining and the end), that God essentially exists independently of space and time. This being the case, the true nature of God lies beyond human understanding. (like a one dimensional creature, that moves along the path of a string, trying to visualize and comprehend a three dimensional object moving through space and effected by gravity) My belief is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely different facets of one God. They seem like separate beings based on our limited views on time and space but are really just alternate higher dimensional perspectives of the one true God. I could attempt to illustrate my complex, hyperdimensional view of the Godhead but doubt that my ideas would successively convey themselves clearly enough to understand. Regardless, my idea isn't fully proven via scripture or Ellen White and thus shouldn't be considered to be anything more than a fanciful conjecture.
Posted By: asygo

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/25/10 09:10 AM

That's a very interesting concept of one hyper-dimensional God manifested through 3 different facets. It might even explain some semi-arian statements that imply a beginning for the Son - He has always existed, but was "begotten" when He became manifest in our dimension. Interesting.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/25/10 10:48 AM

If I understand Arianism, it is a belief that Christ was not God in the same way as the Father. Basically, Arianism makes Christ and the Holy Spirit an extension of "God," a proxy for God, if you will, as if God would simply make a manifestation of Himself through other personages. Have I understood correctly?

I have a friend who basically believes that, whatever it might be called. I have attempted to show from the Bible where this concept is incorrect, but my friend is quite settled in mind about these beliefs, and does not accept the texts at face value, but rather reinterprets them based on less-complete passages.

For example, if one passage mentions only God and Jesus, and leaves out the Holy Spirit, then it is assumed that the passage has excluded the Holy Spirit with reason, and not merely narrowed the focus. Here is an example:

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
“After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God says to his Son, "Let us make man in our image."” {1SP 24, 25}


Here is their logic:

Quote:
Question 1 (Genesis 1:2):
The Holy Spirit was present at creation; therefore He must be an individual person like the Father and the Son. “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:2.

What do you say about that?

Answer:
Creation has been attributed to the Holy Spirit as much as to the Father and the Son due to the above text. But what the readers sometimes fail to acknowledge is the possessive terminology used in the above verse. In this verse the possessive is used: “The Spirit of God”. It does not say “God the Spirit”.

Psalms 33:6 “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath
of his mouth.”

The Hebrew word for “breath” is ‫( רּוח‬rûach) which is the same word translated „spirit‟ in Genesis 1:2. The meaning should be clear: the spirit of God is the breath of God. This is confirmed further by Jesus in John 20:22 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” Jesus breathed His own Spirit, not someone else. It is this same spirit that is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, “the Spirit of God”, which can also be translated “breath of God”.

“The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” Job 33:4

The Spirit of God is equated with His breath. That is what the word means.


In my response to this wind of doctrine, I carefully addressed many of the passages in the Bible which clearly speak of the Spirit as more than just "breath." There are certainly two (or more) usages of the word "spirit" in the Bible, and I agree that in some contexts it does refer to breath. But that this cannot be the case when referring to the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost is clear.

Because it is long, I will put my material in a quote box. It is worth reading, however, if you have questions on the nature of the Godhead.
Quote:
THE SPIRIT SPEAKS:

The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. (2 Samuel 23:2, KJV)

And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them. (Ezekiel 11:5, KJV)

While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. (Acts 10:19, KJV)

Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. (Acts 8:29, KJV)

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (Acts 13:2, KJV)

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (1 Timothy 4:1, KJV)


THE SPIRIT MOVES:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2, KJV)


THE SPIRIT COMES:

And when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands. (Judges 15:14, KJV)

And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly. (1 Samuel 11:6, KJV)


THE SPIRIT ENTERS:

And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me. (Ezekiel 2:2, KJV)

Then the spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet, and spake with me, and said unto me, Go, shut thyself within thine house. (Ezekiel 3:24, KJV)


THE SPIRIT DEPARTS:

But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. (1 Samuel 16:14, KJV)


THE SPIRIT DESCENDS:

And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: (Mark 1:10, KJV)


THE SPIRIT LIFTS/TAKES UP:

Then the spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of a great rushing, saying, Blessed be the glory of the LORD from his place. (Ezekiel 3:12, KJV)

So the spirit lifted me up, and took me away, and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit; but the hand of the LORD was strong upon me. (Ezekiel 3:14, KJV)

And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate that looketh toward the north; where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy. (Ezekiel 8:3, KJV)

So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. (Isaiah 59:19, KJV)

And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:39, KJV)


THE SPIRIT LEADS:

Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (Matthew 4:1, KJV)


THE SPIRIT BLOWS:

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. (Isaiah 40:7, KJV)


THE SPIRIT CAN PRESENT A BODILY FORM (VISIBLE):

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (Matthew 3:16, KJV)

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luke 3:22, KJV)


THE SPIRIT IS MANIFESTED:

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. (1 Corinthians 12:7, KJV)


THE SPIRIT FATHERED JESUS:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:18, KJV)

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:20, KJV)


THE SPIRIT REVEALS:

And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. (Luke 2:26, KJV)


THE SPIRIT INTERCEDES*:

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26, KJV)


THE SPIRIT SEARCHES:

And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:27, KJV)


THE SPIRIT FORBIDS:

Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, (Acts 16:6, KJV)

After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. (Acts 16:7, KJV)


THE SPIRIT WITNESSES:

Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. (Acts 20:23, KJV)

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6, KJV)


THE SPIRIT HAS INTELLIGENT THOUGHT:

Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? (Isaiah 40:13, KJV)

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28, KJV)


THE SPIRIT CAN BE VEXED:

But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. (Isaiah 63:10, KJV)


THE SPIRIT CAN BE GIVEN:

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luke 11:13, KJV)


THE SPIRIT CAN BE TAKEN AWAY:

Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. (Psalms 51:11, KJV)


DEVILS CAST OUT BY THE SPIRIT:

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12:28, KJV)


THE SPIRIT ONE OF THREE PERSONS (REFERENCES WITH ALL THREE):

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (2 Corinthians 13:14, KJV)

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: (Ephesians 1:17, KJV)

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me; because the LORD hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (Isaiah 61:1, KJV) [CAPITALIZATION OF "me" ADDED FOR CLARITY.]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7, KJV)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19, KJV)

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Mark 12:36, KJV)


BELIEF IN SPIRIT SEPARATE FROM BELIEF IN GOD:

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (Acts 19:2, KJV)


* NOTE: When the Spirit "intercedes" for us, why does the Spirit need to make intercession? 1) If the Spirit were God Himself, this would be silly for God to intercede to Himself--both redundant, and unnecessary. Remember that Jesus taught the disciples to pray to the Father in Jesus' name. The Spirit is then said to "translate" (intercede with "groanings" which were not expressed in words) those prayers to the Father. 2) If the Spirit were Jesus Himself, how is it that Jesus could father Himself--thus becoming both Father and Son? Therefore, there remains only the possibility that the Spirit is a separate, third Person, and that the Godhead consists of three persons. Considering the Bible has no fewer than six verses which mention all three persons of the Godhead within the verse, this is a very supportable option from Scripture.

------------------------------------------

ELLEN WHITE'S COMMENTS:

In describing to His disciples the office work of the Holy Spirit, Jesus sought to inspire them with the joy and hope that inspired His own heart. He rejoiced because of the abundant help He had provided for His church. The Holy Spirit was the highest of all gifts that He could solicit from His Father for the exaltation of His people. The Spirit was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail. The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of men to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church. {DA 671.2}

The Power of God in the Third Person.--The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.--Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 10, p. 37. (1897)

In describing to his disciples the office work of the Holy Spirit, Jesus sought to inspire them with the joy and hope that inspired his own heart. He rejoiced because of the abundant help he had provided for his church. The Holy Spirit was the highest of all gifts that he could solicit from his Father for the exaltation of his people. The Spirit was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail. The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of men to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given his Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress his own character on his church. {RH, November 19, 1908 par. 5}
Of the Spirit, Jesus said, "He shall glorify me." The Saviour came to glorify the Father by the demonstration of his love; so the Spirit was to glorify Christ by revealing his grace to the world. The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of his people. {RH, November 19, 1908 par. 6}

Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power. Another spirit must be met; for the essence of evil was working in all ways, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing. {SpTA10 25.2}

The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. {SpTA10 37.1}



Personality of the Holy Spirit.--We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.--Manuscript 66, 1899. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.) {Ev 616.5}
The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. When this witness is borne, it carries with it its own evidence. At such times we believe and are sure that we are the children of God. . . . {Ev 616.6}
The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."--Manuscript 20, 1906. {Ev 617.1}
The Power of God in the Third Person.--The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.--Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 10, p. 37. (1897) {Ev 617.2}
In Co-operation With the Three Highest Powers.-- We are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven,--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, --and these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God.--Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p. 51. (1905) {Ev 617.3}


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Elle

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/25/10 02:48 PM

Originally Posted By: JCS
I definitely need to study this topic further. My pastor advised me to read the book "The Trinity" but the fact is I already have. I have a very unique and independent perspective on the nature of God. My thought was that since God is the Alpha and the Omega (the begining and the end), that God essentially exists independently of space and time. This being the case, the true nature of God lies beyond human understanding. (like a one dimensional creature, that moves along the path of a string, trying to visualize and comprehend a three dimensional object moving through space and effected by gravity) My belief is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely different facets of one God. They seem like separate beings based on our limited views on time and space but are really just alternate higher dimensional perspectives of the one true God. I could attempt to illustrate my complex, hyperdimensional view of the Godhead but doubt that my ideas would successively convey themselves clearly enough to understand. Regardless, my idea isn't fully proven via scripture or Ellen White and thus shouldn't be considered to be anything more than a fanciful conjecture.

I do encourage you to pursue to study this further for I believe that the correct understanding of the Godhead is the foundation of all Truths. It will open up scriptures and shed light in all understandings of nature.

I had my own “fanciful conjecture” with the understanding of 3 quarkz forming all protons and neutrons. To me I was sure it was the signature of the Trinity that God had put into all matter. I knew this because of my studies of health science and interest in understanding how the body works. I was blessed with some “understandings” and some “knowledges” through my studies. However, these are only scratching the surface of God’s wonders and Truths. I value greatly studying nature for it is the second Bible and both shed light on each other. However, what we see in nature today is all under the effect of sins. Our knowledge is limited for God is hidden behind "a cloud" or is in "thick darkness".

To know Truths(God's Character and Ways), from my experience, I came to acknowledge that what I know is equivalent to a grade 1, plus it is tinted with errors, plus I know my heart is evil and very incline to self-deception; so I come to God depending on Him to reveal Himself to me and opening my heart to receive His Truth or else I’m totally lost.

When I did receive the first conviction that there was only the Father and The Son in the Godhead, then scriptures became more clear and alive to me.

Let me give you an example: from Prv 8 where it’s talking about Wisdom. In parenthese is my own application to the body, however I believe this concept is applicable to all dimension of animated or inaminated objects, from the tiniest sub-atomic particles levels to the big galaxies for by Christ "all things consist"(Col 1:17):

v. 2 She(He) standeth in the top of high places (brain)
v. 2b by the way in the places of the paths (neuro-connection paths)
v. 3 She(He) crieth at the gates (cells)
v. 4 at the coming in at the door (genes)
v. 5 Unto you O man, I call and my voice is to the sons of man (Man)
v. 8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness (Jesus)

Jesus voice is heard by all living creature’s cells and genes, not because they have brains nor ears, but because they know and can respond to their Creator’s vibrations/signals. Nothing in nature is automated. All chemical reactions, all gene activations, all cellular processes, all inter-relations between tissues, organs, and systems are under God’s constant care and direct intervention. This all happen without our doing so and we are totally unconscious of any of these activities. For simplicity, we'll skip what happens at the conscious(brain) level.

To me Jhn 15, gives more insight of the relationship between the living creatures and the Godhead. We have the Father being the Husbandman; he is the provider, the carer, the one that has knowledge of the creature’s needs, and the foreknowledge of the seasons. Then we have Jesus, the True Vine, in having all creation attached to him. Jesus is the voice to every creatures, teaching them the Father’s care and ways, delivering the Father’s resources, walking beside them and being with them through all processes which comes to bear much fruits.

I see Jhn 15 as the description of the process of Life that existed at the beginning of Creation and will always be for eternity. It is only through Jesus, the Only Mediator, which flows all Life(Husbandman’s provision, care, knowledge). Jesus reveals us, by teaching us, His Father’s ways and will. Jesus’ presence is continual by being our life partner, walking beside us and with us; guiding all creatures into all righteousness. This is Life Eternal.

In this description, I do not see mention of a third person, nor can I see how it can fit in this context.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/25/10 05:13 PM

Elle,

Mrs. White tells us much about the Holy Spirit, including the following counsel: "We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds."

Breath doesn't "walk" and is not a person. Neither is God to be reduced to mere breath. Whatever the Spirit is, that is the same substance, according to Mrs. White, that God is. So if we try to say the Spirit is not a Person, then we also declare that God the Father is not a Person.

Furthermore, why, oh why would the Holy Spirit need to translate our prayers to God the Father (see Romans 8:26, KJV) if in reality they were the same person? It would be senseless for the Father to translate to Himself, wouldn't it?

This doctrine of the Holy Spirit not existing as His own Person is both unbiblical and out of keeping with the doctrines of the Advent movement within the lifetime of Ellen White. Those who hold the view try to say it is the traditional Adventist view, and that the church has left its foundation on this point. They could hardly be less correct. The church had many members in the early days of the Advent movement, from many churches. In those days, Ellen White herself ate unclean meats. Should we all go back to that? Do we worship "tradition" or follow the Bible? The Advent message received more light, and gradually the views changed. This is as it should be. God is pleased when we grow in a knowledge of truth, and are willing to accept the new light.

Mrs. White, within the last decade of her life, wrote a number of statements regarding the office of the Holy Spirit which may differ from some of the early pioneers' beliefs, but which do not differ with our current doctrine (as far as I am aware).

Elle, if you haven't taken the time yet to do so, I would encourage you to read the list of Bible texts that I posted just above. I, too, like to support my doctrines on Bible alone, and the Bible is quite clear about the Holy Spirit if you study from the Majority Text translations. It is unfortunate that starting in the early 1900's, the Bible translators started using faulty, minority texts which they touted as more "ancient." The modern translations, as a result, have altered much on several key doctrines, one of them being the Holy Spirit. If you are using an NIV Bible or similar, and if you will not accept the KJV, then there will be great difficulty finding the truth about the Holy Spirit, as multiple key texts on the Holy Spirit have been changed or completely removed. It seems a new theology that is coming into Christianity in general, and not just the Adventist church. Personally, I am very uncomfortable with all of the new theological trends. Theistic evolution is now acceptable among most Christians. Homosexuality is becoming acceptable, as well as women's ordination, and a number of other "politically correct" beliefs. It is becoming a "hate crime" to speak against homosexuality, as if it were discriminatory. But if you use the NIV Bible, you will soon discover that homosexuality was painted in a much different light in its translation than in the faithful text of the KJV. All of these new doctrines started with the influence of two men: Westcott and Hort. They were not even Christians, but they took it upon themselves to undermine the KJV by retranslating the Bible into a more "acceptable" form. The Holy Spirit and Jesus were both undermined. Sin and sinfulness was not portrayed as so evil. In fact, the law is said to have been abolished. All of these changes are quickly recognized in the theology of Christians today. When the Bible changed, so did people's thinking. That should not be a surprise to us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/25/10 07:31 PM

Elle, I agree with you that the truth about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is foundational. Getting it right is a matter of grave importance. The idea that Jesus is the result of divine mitosis, that He has not existed from eternity in the same sense as the Father, is pregnant with problems. And the idea that the Holy Spirit is not as much a person as the Father, that "it" is merely a metaphor for the thoughts and feelings of God, is also ripe with problems. For one thing it means there was an eternity when the Father dwelt all alone in a vast, empty universe. It also means Jesus is not equal to the Father in an essential sense, which, like angels, disqualifies Him to serve as our Savior.
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/26/10 08:52 AM


If we presume to accept & imbibe this doctrine of Rome, indeed what she claims as her very central doctrine, upon which all other RC teachings are based, we should have very solid ground for our feet.

Years past I sat by the hospital bed of a veteran evangelical preacher who had recently joined my (SDA) church. We discussed numerous doctrinal points, some quite fresh to him, and how it drew division with his former denomination. But he concluded by exclaiming with conviction, that these matters of Sabbath, or soul sleep or atonement were quite immaterial, for we all held to the Trinity, the one unifying ecumenical bond. We were all one in the Trinity.

While the Trinity is a “mystery”, not so the Godhead: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,4161 even his eternal power and Godhead.” We are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20) if we fail to 'clearly' discern the Godhead.

(Note this word 4161 occurs one other time: “For we are his workmanship4161” – Ephesians 2:10.

The origins of the human order are seen in the Father and Son.

Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God. He was God’s Son long before creation, “whose goings forth4163 have been from of old,6924 from everlasting* 5769" (Micah 5:2)(*margin ~ Heb. the days of eternity)

Only at Bethlehem did He become Son of Man.

Christ’s going forth4163 (from 4161 ~ proceed, spring, bud...from root 3318 ~ And the earth brought forth grass – Genesis 1:12) is further described in the special passage of Proverbs 8:22-30.

Christ is known as the Wisdom of God – “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”…”But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory. (1 Corinthians 1:24; 1 Corinthians 2:7) “Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of they shall slay and persecute” (Luke 11:49)

Christ’s beginning is found in Proverbs 8, just as Sister White claims He is here speaking of Himself in Patriarchs & Prophets (1st chapter – no books with me for page reference) (Doubters of the KJV & EGW please note one finds three different Hebrew words translated as ‘wisdom’ in this chapter.)

Here's verse 22 as a sample study. Same truth revealed through verse 30.

“The LORD possessed me7069 in the beginning of7225 his way1870, before6924 his works4659 of old.227.”(Proverbs 8: 22)
  • possessed me7069 – first found in Genesis 4:1 – “she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man7069 from the LORD.”
  • in the beginning of7225 as in Genesis 1:1
  • his way1870 as in “This is the way,1870 walk ye in it" Isaiah 30:21.
  • before 6924 – as in Micah 5:2 above

This does not scratch the surface.

Elle, keep on with your KJV.

Green, are you finished with Jasher?
Posted By: Elle

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/26/10 06:40 PM

Quote:
Breath doesn't "walk" and is not a person. Neither is God to be reduced to mere breath. Whatever the Spirit is, that is the same substance, according to Mrs. White, that God is. So if we try to say the Spirit is not a Person, then we also declare that God the Father is not a Person.

The Spirit of God or at time expressed as "the Holy Spirit" for God is Holy, so therefore His Spirit is Holy, I believe it is the Omnipresence of God. Since it is the "presence of God" therefore it is a person. It can be the Presence of Jesus, or it can be the Presence of the Father. But by making God's(the Father or Jesus) presence into another different person, is introducing "Spiritualism" into the doctrine.

Originally Posted By: Bible Isaiah 63
63:7 I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.

63:8 For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.

63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

63:10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?
63:12 That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?

63:13 That led them through the deep, as an horse in the wilderness, that they should not stumble?

63:14 As a beast goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of the LORD caused him to rest: so didst thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name.


Again, Green and all, there's numberous topics here on this forum on this subject. These Anti-trinitarian discussion becomes endless because convictions needs to come from the Lord. That's why I shared my personal trying to make that point.

FYI, Green and Gordon, I do use the KJV and ONLY the KJV!
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/26/10 07:43 PM

Does it bother anyone else that the anti-trinitarian view means the Father existed for an eternity by Himself in a vast and void universe?
Posted By: JCS

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/26/10 08:46 PM

On the topic of versions of the Bible, I've discovered the importance in comparing translations. Sometimes there are translational errors in the NIV when the KJV is the most accurate, and in rare occasion the KJV projects old English errors corrected by NASB. As a result I prefer to use a comparative study Bible with NIV, KJV, NASB, and AMP. For the most part I rely on KJV unless something doesn't quite make sense (like water flowing from a jawbone or God instructing people to eat in the Most Holy Place). I do not have any faith in the Clear Word and have reservations against solely trusting the AMP or NIV when dealing with fundimental beliefs due to the false bias's made evident by the translators.

Back to the topic, I still see a very clear contradiction between Ellen White's statements about the Holy Spirit in the 73rd chapter of DA and anti-trinitarianism. I concur that there is only one true God but that God reveals himself to us in three distinct forms that would, by man's standards of reality, be three different persons. This is part of the reason we will be studying the nature of Christ and the act of salvation for eternity. I suspect there may be subtle truths mixed with error in the anti-trinitarian movement and that the generally accepted view of the trinity may also contain subtle points of confused truth (kind of like what happened during Ellen White's day when congregations were divided over whether we are saved by faith or works. Both parties had a part of the truth but both view points were also in error.)
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/27/10 02:05 AM

Quote:
Christ is known as the Wisdom of God

Yes, and based on the view you are presenting, Gordon, there was a time when God existed, but His wisdom didn’t - which doesn’t make any sense.
And it should be noted that, even in the highly poetical language of Proverbs 8 - which wasn’t meant to be taken literally - what the text says is that at the beginning of His [God’s] way (which could be interpreted as "course of life"), He already possessed His wisdom.

Quote:
Since it is the "presence of God" therefore it is a person. It can be the Presence of Jesus, or it can be the Presence of the Father. But by making God's(the Father or Jesus) presence into another different person, is introducing "Spiritualism" into the doctrine.

Elle, how do you harmonize what you’ve just said with the fact that the Holy Spirit is called the third Person of the Godhead? And with the fact that the Godhead is called a heavenly Trio?

About John 16:13, 14. Do you see this as referring to the presence of the Father?

“However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me...”
Posted By: Elle

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/27/10 03:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Originally Posted By: Elle
Since it is the "presence of God" therefore it is a person. It can be the Presence of Jesus, or it can be the Presence of the Father. But by making God's(the Father or Jesus) presence into another different person, is introducing "Spiritualism" into the doctrine.

Elle, how do you harmonize what you’ve just said with the fact that the Holy Spirit is called the third Person of the Godhead? And with the fact that the Godhead is called a heavenly Trio?
There is a sharp difference to make the third person another person beside the Father and the Son, versus acknowledging that the Father and Son are Spirit so therefore has an omnipresence which is called "spirit of Truth", or "holy spirit" or "holy ghost" or "spirit" that is the person of the omnipresence of the Father, or the Son.

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
About John 16:13, 14. Do you see this as referring to the presence of the Father?
This is how I understand it. v. 13 the Spirit of truth can be either Jesus or the Father or both.

Concerning Jesus's presence and His words, Jesus always says what He receives from the Father. It's always been like that, from the beginning of Creation and will be like that for eternity. Jesus is the "Word of God" and is also known as Wisdom, because Jesus is the vine and he is the Mediator of all life, and through Him The Father's words (which is filled with wisdom) are conveyed to all living creatures. That's the meaning of Life Eternal written in John 15 and in Prov 8.
Originally Posted By: John 16 KJV
16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/27/10 03:36 PM

How does one explain the following verse where we see all three in action at the same time, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
Quote:

Luke 3:21 KJV Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

Luke 3:22 KJV And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/27/10 08:21 PM

Elle, how do you respond to the fact the view held by anti-trinitarians means the Father existed for an eternity by Himself in a vast and void universe until the day Jesus came along and started creating everything?
Posted By: Elle

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/27/10 09:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Elle, how do you respond to the fact the view held by anti-trinitarians means the Father existed for an eternity by Himself in a vast and void universe until the day Jesus came along and started creating everything?

Sorry MM. I wasn't ignoring you. I was hoping that Gordon would reply since I'm kinda new in understanding this.

Well, as far as I can see from Prv 8:22 that Jesus was brought forth before anything was created.
Originally Posted By: Prv 8
22. The LORD 3068 possessed 7069 me in the beginning 7225 of his way 1870, before 6924 his works 4659 of old.

23. I was set up 5258 from everlasting 5769, from the beginning 7218, or ever 6924 the earth 776 was.

30. Then I was by him 681, [as] one brought up 525 [with him]: and I was daily 3117 3117 [his] delight 8191, rejoicing 7832 always 6256 before 6440 him;

It doesn't say exactly how long Jesus existed before any creation was made, but it does say a very long long time with the word everlasting(H5769)in v.23.

Besides that I don't think the Bible specifies, and I'm not going to speculate. (H5769) does come from the root word H5956 which means concealed, i.e. the vanishing point, (generally)time out of mind.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/27/10 10:24 PM

Elle,

Did you read my last post here about the simultaneous interaction of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with One Another?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/27/10 10:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Elle, how do you respond to the fact the view held by anti-trinitarians means the Father existed for an eternity by Himself in a vast and void universe until the day Jesus came along and started creating everything?

Sorry MM. I wasn't ignoring you. I was hoping that Gordon would reply since I'm kinda new in understanding this.

Well, as far as I can see from Prv 8:22 that Jesus was brought forth before anything was created.
Originally Posted By: Prv 8
22. The LORD 3068 possessed 7069 me in the beginning 7225 of his way 1870, before 6924 his works 4659 of old.

23. I was set up 5258 from everlasting 5769, from the beginning 7218, or ever 6924 the earth 776 was.

30. Then I was by him 681, [as] one brought up 525 [with him]: and I was daily 3117 3117 [his] delight 8191, rejoicing 7832 always 6256 before 6440 him;

It doesn't say exactly how long Jesus existed before any creation was made, but it does say a very long long time with the word everlasting(H5769)in v.23.

Besides that I don't think the Bible specifies, and I'm not going to speculate. (H5769) does come from the root word H5956 which means concealed, i.e. the vanishing point, (generally)time out of mind.

Elle, I agree speculating about this would have dire consequences. However, must we speculate to believe the Father is eternal, that there has never been a time when He didn't exist? If not, if it's true, and if there was a time when the Son didn't exist, it is also true, then, that there was an eternity before the Son existed that the Father existed by Himself all alone in a vast and void Universe.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 01:46 AM

I honestly don't know how someone can see just two beings involved here. To me it's clear Ellen White is speaking of three beings:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption (Counsels on Health P 222). (7BC 442) [How can a presence give itself? If the Father gave Himself, this would already include His presence. The same is true about the Son. So how can it be mentioned that the Holy Spirit gave Himself?]

You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. ... When I feel oppressed, and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just call upon the three great Worthies, and say; You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me, and by me and through me, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. {7MR 267.2} [If there are just two beings, how can their person be classified as a third being? How could this possibly make any sense? Besides, did Ellen White pray to the Father, to Christ, and to their presence? Does this make any sense?]

When you gave yourself to Christ, you made a pledge in the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--the three great personal Dignitaries of heaven. "Hold fast" to this pledge. {7BC 959.8} [If the presence of the Father and of the Son already is the Holy Spirit, how can the presence of three be mentioned? Just one presence should be mentioned]

Those who claim to be Christ's followers pledge themselves to obedience at the time of their baptism. When they go down into the water, they pledge themselves in the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that they will henceforth be dead unto the world and its temptations, and that they will arise from the watery grave to walk in newness of life, even a life of obedience to God's requirements. Ms 80, 1903, p. 2. ("Whoso Offereth Praise Glorifieth God," August 1, 1903.) [same as above]


The three great and glorious heavenly characters are present on the occasion of baptism. --Ms 45, 1904, pp. 9, 10. ("That They All May Be One," May 14, 1904.) [If only two are present, how can it be said that three are present?]
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 01:58 AM

Quote:
Concerning Jesus's presence and His words, Jesus always says what He receives from the Father.

The text says:

"However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me..."

If the "Spirit of Truth" is the presence of the Father, this means that the Father does not speak from Himself. If the "Spirit of Truth" is the presence of the Son, this means that Christ would glorify Himself. Should we understand that Christ would glorify Himself?
Posted By: Elle

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 03:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Daryl F
How does one explain the following verse where we see all three in action at the same time, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
Quote:
Luke 3:21 KJV Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

Luke 3:22 KJV And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Hi Daryl wave

Can I confess something to you and everyone? Well, I was spending some time at another forum; and I can tell you, this forum has a real kind spirit with better honest discussion that we can really study and learn something. I want to thank you Daryl, for all your effort and time to give us this priviledge to talk here.

Ok back to the topic. Well I wasn't ignoring you either, but I was hoping someone else could answer this one too.

Anyway, I did go and read all the occurances of Jesus Baptism. I don't see any problem having the Holy Spirit coming down "like" the shape of a dove. I'm sure you realize it was not a real dove. It was like a form like a dove and it "abided" G3306 on Jesus.

Originally Posted By: John 1
32. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.


Since the Father and Jesus both have a spirit and their Spirit have an omnipresence, then I have no difficulty to see that this was the Father's omnipresence descending as a form like a dove and remained(abided) on Jesus. We all know that Jesus was filled with the Father's Spirit.

Quote:
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him]. Jhn 3:34

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14:10, KJV)


When I was studying the prophecies, my attention was caught on Rev 10:7 for awile : it reads the following
Quote:
But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. Rev 10:7

I wondered what was that Mystery of God that would be finish at the beginning of the sound of the 7th Trumpet(after the 1260 days). So I found the following quotes :
Quote:
Col 1:26 [Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 03:34 AM

Elle,

Thank you for the good report regarding this forum in relation to other forums. thumbsup

We are working really hard to keep it this way.

back

How is it that all three of them were interacting with each other at the same time:

1 - Christ coming up out of the water after being baptized.
2 - The Holy Spirit descending in the bodily form of a dove.
3 - The Father speaking out of the cloud.

In other words, all three Persons of the Godhead were there, all at the same time.

I do not see the Father nor the Son manifesting the descending of the Holy Spirit in the bodily form of a dove in those verses.
Posted By: Elle

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 04:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Concerning Jesus's presence and His words, Jesus always says what He receives from the Father.

The text says:

"However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me..."

If the "Spirit of Truth" is the presence of the Father, this means that the Father does not speak from Himself. If the "Spirit of Truth" is the presence of the Son, this means that Christ would glorify Himself. Should we understand that Christ would glorify Himself?

The way I understand this text is that the Father testifies(glorify) His Son and in other instance we have Jesus that testifies(glorify) of His Father.
Quote:
Jhn 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

If you read two verse down from v. 13, It says that the Father takes from Jesus and shall show it to us.
Quote:
Jhn 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

Also, if you read
Quote:
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God (The Father) dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

According to Ep 4:4 there's only 1 Spirit that both the Father and Christ shares (see Jn 14:23 & Rm 8:9)

I will expand more in detail in another post.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 06:09 AM

Quote:
According to Ep 4:4 there's only 1 Spirit that both the Father and Christ shares (see Jn 14:23 & Rm 8:9)

Or it could be referring to the one and only 3rd Person of the Godhead, namely the Holy Spirit.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 04:22 PM

Quote:
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God (The Father) dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

What I understand from this verse and others similar to it is that, since both God sends the Spirit (John 14:26) and Christ sends the Spirit (John 15:26, 16:7), the Spirit is called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Both send Him, it's not that God sends Christ and Christ sends God, which, to me, does not make any sense.

Quote:
According to Ep 4:4 there's only 1 Spirit that both the Father and Christ shares (see Jn 14:23 & Rm 8:9)

And how do you apply this to John 16? If God and Christ don't send themselves, then God sends Christ and Christ sends God. Is this how you understand it? It can also be concluded from your explanation that God does not speak from Himself, but speaks what He hears from Christ, and Christ does not speak from Himself, but speaks what He hears from God. Is this correct?

Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 08:48 PM


While it’s important to study the original words to ascertain truth, we must also examine common Christian traditions & terminology. Do they have a Biblical base?

E.g., the terms ‘God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost.’ Only the first phrase ‘God the Father’ is found in the Bible (KJV).

‘God the Son’ is not found , but instead the ‘Son of God’, ‘Son of the Father’.

‘God the Spirit’ is not found, but instead the Spirit of God, God’s Spirit, the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of Christ.

When non-Biblical terms are oft-repeated, they form habit and shape our thinking, even our view of God: Trinity and Rapture are ‘common Christian words’, but not Biblical. So they imprint doctrines not found in the Bible.

John 17 demonstrates that the Father and Son are quite separate and distinct, while being one in nature, will and purpose, as were the disciples with Christ.

For those seeking an EGW position, not isolated quotations, refer to Ministry of Healing and the chapter: 'A True Knowledge of God'. She claimed this book contains the wisdom of God.
_________________
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 10:11 PM

Quote:
E.g., the terms ‘God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost.’ Only the first phrase ‘God the Father’ is found in the Bible (KJV).

The question is, are the three called "God" in the Bible? If so, there is nothing wrong with this terminology, as there is nothing wrong with "millennium," or "plan of salvation."
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 10:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Elle, how do you respond to the fact the view held by anti-trinitarians means the Father existed for an eternity by Himself in a vast and void universe until the day Jesus came along and started creating everything?

Sorry MM. I wasn't ignoring you. I was hoping that Gordon would reply since I'm kinda new in understanding this.

Well, as far as I can see from Prv 8:22 that Jesus was brought forth before anything was created.
Originally Posted By: Prv 8
22. The LORD 3068 possessed 7069 me in the beginning 7225 of his way 1870, before 6924 his works 4659 of old.

23. I was set up 5258 from everlasting 5769, from the beginning 7218, or ever 6924 the earth 776 was.

30. Then I was by him 681, [as] one brought up 525 [with him]: and I was daily 3117 3117 [his] delight 8191, rejoicing 7832 always 6256 before 6440 him;

It doesn't say exactly how long Jesus existed before any creation was made, but it does say a very long long time with the word everlasting(H5769)in v.23.

Besides that I don't think the Bible specifies, and I'm not going to speculate. (H5769) does come from the root word H5956 which means concealed, i.e. the vanishing point, (generally)time out of mind.

Elle, I agree speculating about this would have dire consequences. However, must we speculate to believe the Father is eternal, that there has never been a time when He didn't exist? If not, if it's true, and if there was a time when the Son didn't exist, it is also true, then, that there was an eternity before the Son existed that the Father existed by Himself all alone in a vast and void Universe.
Posted By: Elle

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 02/28/10 11:30 PM

MM, Do you have some Biblical support that says that the Father was never alone? If so, show them to me.

Personally, I'm not going to use a logic to discredit portion of the Bible. If the Bible says Jesus was begotten, I will believe what the Bible says. If the Bible doesn't say how long exactly Jesus was begotten before the creation, then I will not speculate outside what the Bible tells me. If the Father was alone in a void for a long time, then He was. I will still not discredit any portion of the Bible to support an idealogy.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/01/10 01:36 AM

The question is, what does "only begotten" mean?

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son

Here Isaac is called the only begotten son of Abraham. Was he literally the only begotten son of Abraham? If not, what does the expression "only begotten" mean?
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/01/10 04:15 AM

I gleaned this from the other related topic that I bumped:
Quote:

Personality of the Holy Spirit.-- We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.--Manuscript 66, 1899. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.) {Ev 616.5}
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/01/10 09:26 AM


In the ‘Godhead or Trinity’ discussion, most contention stems from two points:

1) Are Christ and the Father one Person or two Persons?
  • Could Christ be Divine if He had a Beginning?
  • Is He equal with the Father?
2) Who or what is the Holy Spirit?
  • Is it a Person or a Divine influence - the 'mind of God'?
None should be satisfied with surface study or quotations removed from context. Our beliefs should be based upon the weight of evidence - the majority testimony.

“For precept must be upon precept...line upon
line…here a little and there a little.” Isaiah 28:10

The Bible reveals that the Father and Son are separate persons and this in turn portrays the Spirit in a sense we can understand.

The Father & Son are Separate Persons

Long before He became a man in Bethlehem, Jesus was called the Son of God:

  • Proverbs 30:4 – “Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?”
  • Daniel 3:25 – "He [Nebuchadnezzar] answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” (see Prophets & Kings 509)

In the first Great Controversy (1858), on the opening page we find that Jesus is called the Son of God before the creation of man, before the fall of Satan. (Shown to the author in vision).

“The Lord has shown me that Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Jesus Christ…. And I saw that when God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to he consulted concerning the formation of man…. He wished to be the highest in heaven, next to God, and receive the highest honors.” p.17 Spiritual Gifts Volume 1, also known as 1858 Great Controversy. (we see that Christ is the Son of God before creation - next to God – the position coveted by Satan).
___________
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/01/10 07:30 PM

Gordon,

Yes, of course the Father and the Son are two separate persons. And Christ has been the Son of God - a name allusive to His role as Mediator of the Covenant - as long as the plan of redemption has existed, that is, from all eternity, since there never was a time when the plan of redemption did not exist.

The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. --The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906, p. 8.

But while God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding his preexistence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with his Father. From everlasting he was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

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.--Evangelism, p. 616.

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother and without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, he abideth a priest continually.


Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/01/10 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle
Elle: MM, Do you have some Biblical support that says that the Father was never alone? If so, show them to me. Personally, I'm not going to use a logic to discredit portion of the Bible. If the Bible says Jesus was begotten, I will believe what the Bible says. If the Bible doesn't say how long exactly Jesus was begotten before the creation, then I will not speculate outside what the Bible tells me. If the Father was alone in a void for a long time, then He was. I will still not discredit any portion of the Bible to support an idealogy.

Rosangela: The question is, what does "only begotten" mean? "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." (Hebrews 11:17) Here Isaac is called the only begotten son of Abraham. Was he literally the only begotten son of Abraham? If not, what does the expression "only begotten" mean?

Elle, thank you for answering my question honestly and candidly. So many budding anti-trinitarians dismiss it by arguing the Father was never really alone because He is not bound by time and space, which to them means not only Jesus, but every one of us, have always existed in His mind and heart and that in this sense He has never been alone. I appreciate you're willingness to confess that, yes, according to this view, there was an eternity when the Father was all alone in a vast and vacant Universe.

Now, do I know of an inspired passage that clearly teaches that there was never a time in the past when the Father was all alone? Yes, of course. The Father created everything through the Son. Since the Father created nothing without Jesus it stands to reason the Father did nothing to cause Jesus to come into existence. It also stands to reason the Father did not do something through Jesus to cause Jesus to come into existence.

Also, it stands to reason the vast and void Universe had to be created. Jesus was the One who created it. He had to have existed prior to the creation of the Universe in order to create it. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were together in the beginning when Jesus created the Universe. I don't know of anyone who believes the Father dwelt all alone in the absence of a Universe.

Regarding Rosangela's comment and question I would like to say as it relates to Isaac and Jesus "only begotten" means birth which is the result of God's promise. As she said, obviously Isaac and Jesus were not the only begotten children of Abraham or God. But both were "only begotten" in the sense of "promise" and "preeminence". Jesus was "begotten" in the womb of Mary. Nevertheless, like Isaac, Jesus is the "only" and "first begotten" son of God in the same sense He is the "firstborn from the dead".
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/01/10 08:01 PM

Gordon, I agree with Rosangela. Also, the mere fact Jesus has been called the Son of God from eternity does not mean there was a time when He didn't exist. The Son of God is merely a title. It is not proof He hasn't existed from eternity the same as the Father. One of Jesus' titles is, Everlasting Father, which, if anything, indicates He is as eternal as the Father.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/02/10 08:52 PM

The term "everlasting Father" is found here:
Quote:

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Not only is the Child, as in Jesus Christ, as in the Son of God, is called "The everlasting Father", He is also called "The mighty God".

This says that Christ is actually Jehovah God.
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/02/10 09:42 PM


Hi Daryl,

Yes, everlasting father refers to Christ in Isaiah 9:6. He is our everlasting father, always was our father, and will always be the father of the human race.

We all have access to everlasting life, but this word does not apply to our past, only our future.

While it may seem that Christ is here called Jehovah(3068), it's not the case, as 'God' here is the word 'el'(410).

Part of the Trinity confusion blends the identities of Father and Son, a dangerous twist which I'll attempt to clarify in the following posts. Your questions are important and must be considered in the light of fuller scripture evidence. I'm on a poor connection w/o all customary references, so thank you for your patience.
_____________
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/02/10 10:48 PM


The Father & Son are Separate Persons - l

The Bible describes their differences. The Father is the God of Christ. Never are these positions reversed.

The God of Christ:
  • Ephesians 1:17 – “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.”
  • John 20 :17 – “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
  • 1 Peter 1:3 – “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
  • Matthew 27:46 – “My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me”
  • Hebrews 10:7 – “Then said I, Lo, I come…to do thy will, O God.”
  • Revelation 3:12 – Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God,…and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God
  • 1 Corinthians 11:3 – But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

The Son is never God of the Father.
______________________________
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/03/10 12:05 AM

Quote:
We all have access to everlasting life, but this word does not apply to our past, only our future.

However, this does not apply to Jesus.

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother and without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, he abideth a priest continually

Quote:
While it may seem that Christ is here called Jehovah(3068), it's not the case, as 'God' here is the word 'el'(410).

Yes, but Christ Himself claimed to be Jehovah.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!"

I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike to God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things that are transpiring daily. ... ‘Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. Then took they up stones to cast at Him’ because of that saying [verses 57-59]. Christ was using the great name of God that was given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence.”{14MR 22.2}

Quote:
The Son is never God of the Father.


God the Father calls Him God.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son He [God the Father] saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom”.

As to the passages you quoted, please bear in mind that, until the completion of the plan of salvation at the end of the millennium, Christ must be subordinate to God the Father as the representative of the human race, for He took the place of Adam.
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/03/10 08:23 AM


The Father & Son are Separate Persons - II

Christ derives from the Greek word Christos,(5547) which means ‘the Anointed One.’
Messiah derives from the Hebrew word Mashiyach,(4899) which means ‘the Anointed One.’

The Son is Christ, ‘the anointed one of God’. The Father is never called the anointed one.

The Christ of God:
  • John 1:41 – “We have found the Messias, which is , being interpreted, the Christ.” (margin ~ the Anointed)
  • Luke 2:26 – “And it was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
  • Luke 9:20 – “He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.
  • Acts 4:26 – “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
  • John 4:25 – “I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ
  • Acts 9:22 – But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.” [truly the Anointed One]
  • Acts 2:36 – “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
  • Revelation 12:10 – “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ


The Son is ‘the anointed one’, the Christ of God.

The Father is never called Christ or ‘the anointed one’.

The Father anointed His Son.
________________________
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/03/10 09:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela

Yes, but Christ Himself claimed to be Jehovah.

As to the passages you quoted, please bear in mind that, until the completion of the plan of salvation at the end of the millennium, Christ must be subordinate to God the Father as the representative of the human race, for He took the place of Adam.


Hi Rosangela,

Christ never claimed to be God the Father - please don't confuse their individual persons. There is only one Ancient of Days. The Father alone hath immortality. I hope to make such distinctions more plain in following posts.

Christ is subject to the Father, and always will be, demonstrating the order of Heaven. He delights to carry out Father's will.

"Nearly two thousand years ago, a voice of mysterious import was heard in heaven, from the throne of God, "Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart."...Christ was about to visit our world, and to become incarnate." - Desire of Ages 23.

Christ remains subject to the Father once the Great Controversy closes:

"And when all things shall be subdued unto5293 him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto5293 him that put all things under5293 him, that God may be all in all." 1 Corinthians 15:28
____________
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/03/10 07:01 PM

Gordon, I would appreciate hearing your response to the comments and questions I posed to Elle (post #123741 toward the bottom of the previous page). Thank you.
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/03/10 09:54 PM


The Father & Son are Separate Persons - III

The Father anointed the Son, and for this reason, Jesus is called the Christ, the Anointed One.

The Son never anointed the Father.

The Father anoints the Son:

  • Acts 10:38 – “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost [Spirit] and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”
  • John 3:34 – “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.”
  • Acts 4:27 – “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together”
  • Psalms 2:7 – “Yet have I set (5258 – margin – anointed) my king upon my holy hill of Zion.”
  • Hebrews 1:9 – “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”
  • Isaiah 61:1 - The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek.”


“The Father gave His Spirit without measure to His Son,
and we may also partake of its fullness.”
Great Controversy 477


Philippians 2:5 - "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."

Numbers 11:29 – “And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them.”
________________
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/03/10 10:51 PM


Hi Mike, It seems you had scripture for Elle, but then you offered 'stands to reason'. If there is no scripture then we should not speculate. However, the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9) is a matter of Biblical record. Not everyone chooses to believe that God gave His Only Begotten Son. But this is the theme of the New Testament, the Desire of all Nations. The Jews also denied the Son:

"Christ claimed to be the Only Begotten of the Father, but men encased in unbelief, barricaded with prejudice, denied the Holy and the Just One." - 1 Selected Messages 271.

If the Bible states that God sent His Son, then He had a Son to send. More on this. If you study (not skim) Proverbs 8: 22-30, it becomes apparent that the Son was brought forth in the days of eternity. Ellen White testifies the same. For those who are vacillating, please read the Epistles of John & John 17.

The opening chapters of Patriarchs & Prophets, as well as the Story of Redemption, make this case quite plainly. Christ was God's Son before creation. It's not 'merely a title' Mike, it's both the foundation of the gospel and the root of the Great Controversy. (Matthew 4:3 - "If thou be the Son of God...")

"Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the king declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into his purposes, and to Him it was comitted to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the host of heaven, and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due." - Patriarchs & Prophets 36.

We must seek the weight of evidence Mike, not traces of doubt.
__________
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/04/10 05:13 AM

Just a brief answer, as it's too late here.

Quote:
R: Yes, but Christ Himself claimed to be Jehovah.
G: Christ never claimed to be God the Father - please don't confuse their individual persons.

Gordon, I'm not confusing their individual persons. The name Jehovah means "the Self-Existent One," and is not applied exclusively to the Father. Jesus claimed to be the "I AM" of Ex 3:14, and the Jews understood this perfectly. The Bible text is clear and the Ellen White passage is clear. You can't quote just some passages and ignore others.

“The name of God [I AM], given to Moses to express the idea of eternal presence, had been claimed AS HIS OWN by this Galilean Rabbi [Jesus]. He had announced Himself to be the Self-existent One…” (Desire of Ages p. 469-70)

Quote:
R: As to the passages you quoted, please bear in mind that, until the completion of the plan of salvation at the end of the millennium, Christ must be subordinate to God the Father as the representative of the human race, for He took the place of Adam.
G: Christ is subject to the Father, and always will be, demonstrating the order of Heaven. He delights to carry out Father's will.

Gordon, 1 Cor. 15:28 says Christ will subject Himself to the Father at the end of the millennium, in order to close the history of sin. It doesn't say Christ will be subject to the Father during all eternity.
Posted By: kland

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/04/10 05:06 PM

Gordon, if Jesus was 100% human and 100% God, would it follow that he would say, "to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" reflecting that 100% human part and relating it to us?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/04/10 05:59 PM

Originally Posted By: gordonb1

Hi Mike, It seems you had scripture for Elle, but then you offered 'stands to reason'. If there is no scripture then we should not speculate. However, the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9) is a matter of Biblical record. Not everyone chooses to believe that God gave His Only Begotten Son. But this is the theme of the New Testament, the Desire of all Nations. The Jews also denied the Son:

"Christ claimed to be the Only Begotten of the Father, but men encased in unbelief, barricaded with prejudice, denied the Holy and the Just One." - 1 Selected Messages 271.

If the Bible states that God sent His Son, then He had a Son to send. More on this. If you study (not skim) Proverbs 8: 22-30, it becomes apparent that the Son was brought forth in the days of eternity. Ellen White testifies the same. For those who are vacillating, please read the Epistles of John & John 17.

The opening chapters of Patriarchs & Prophets, as well as the Story of Redemption, make this case quite plainly. Christ was God's Son before creation. It's not 'merely a title' Mike, it's both the foundation of the gospel and the root of the Great Controversy. (Matthew 4:3 - "If thou be the Son of God...")

"Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the king declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into his purposes, and to Him it was comitted to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the host of heaven, and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due." - Patriarchs & Prophets 36.

We must seek the weight of evidence Mike, not traces of doubt.
__________

Thank you for responding to my post. Do you think it is speculating to say Jesus isn't eternal in the same way the Father is eternal, that is, without beginning and without end? Or, do you think it is clear in the Bible and in the SOP that Jesus is not eternal in the same way the Father is eternal, that Jesus had a beginning, that there was a time back in eternity when Jesus did exist in the same way the Father existed?
Posted By: gordonb1

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/05/10 11:10 PM


The Spirit of God – 1

God gave this to His Son “without measure” – John 3:34

Old testament writers understood the meaning of ‘spirit’ and used it about 380 times (7307 - ruwach), establishing its definition and common usage. It was no mystery to them. It occurs just as often in the new testament (4151 - pneuma), a combined total of almost 770 examples for comparison & study.

This word Spirit (7307)is found from Genesis through Malachi (in all but seven OT books), and it’s here that the word is defined. We don’t use the new testament to define a word which has been used since creation.

The definition of ‘spirit’ lies with Moses and the prophets. The gospel writers of the NT were raised with this understanding.

As explained below, the spirit of a man reflects his inner person, his thinking, attitude, mind, and character; though tainted with sin.

For God, of course, His thoughts are holy, thus Holy Spirit.

[N.B. – ‘Spirit’ and ‘spirit’ are the same word ruwach (7307). Capitalization was imposed by the translators, but without consistency.]

Spirit - Hebrew (7307) – ruwach:

  • Genesis 26:35 – “Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and unto Rebekah.” (margin ~ bitterness of spirit)
  • Genesis 41:8 – “And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled” (Pharaoh)
  • Genesis 41:38 – “Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?” (Joseph)
  • Genesis 45:27 – “…and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived”
  • Exodus 6:9 – “…but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.”
  • Exodus 28:3 – “…speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom”
  • Exodus 31:3- “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship”
  • Exodus 35:21 – “And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD’S offering”
  • Numbers 5:30 – “Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife.”
  • Numbers 11:25 – “And the LORD…spake unto him [Moses], and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it to the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.”
  • Numbers 14:24 – “But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land”
  • Numbers 27:18 – “And the LORD said unto Moses, take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit
  • Deuteronomy 2:30 - “…for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate”
  • Joshua 2:11 – “our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man”
  • Judges 8:3 – “Then their anger was abated toward him.”
  • Proverbs 29:11 – “A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.”
  • Daniel 7:15 – “I Daniel was grieved in my spirit (7308) in the midst of my body”


These few examples show the obvious similitude of mind and spirit.
_________
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/06/10 07:36 PM

Hebrews
1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

According to the passage above, the "day" Jesus was "begotten" the angels were commanded to "worship" him, which means they already existed. But we know Jesus created the angels so obviously He existed before they did. Therefore, it stands to reason that the "day" Jesus was "begotten" was the day He became a human. In other words, He was not "begotten" on a "day" before He created the angels.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/07/10 12:49 AM

Interesting point MM in that He created all things as the following shows:
Quote:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.


To be certain of what the Word is referring more specifically to, also read the following:
Quote:

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/07/10 07:24 PM

Right, Daryl, not only did Jesus create the angels, He also created the Universe. So the question remains unanswered - If the Father predates Jesus, if He existed eternally before Jesus was begotten, does it mean the Father spent an eternity all alone in a void, in a vacancy, in the absence of a Universe?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/13/10 06:03 PM

Thank you, Gordon: your study is good and I agree. I also agree with Elle, that the Holy Spirit is the omnipresence of Father and Son; I agree with most of what both of you say, too, but not the 3 manifestations in sequence or all at once, since the personalities are distinct.

Must the Son be eternal?? Not according to the vast majority of Bible teachers in 1919, opposing the minority led by F M Wilcox (the Review), Daniels and Prescott. It took another generation to change that majority view; Judson Washburn was one of several who held out till his death.

The Son's begotten Sonship is both in Jn 3:16 KJV and other texts and Ellen White consistently uses "begotten" and "only begotten" as the basis of Christ's eternal divine Sonship. She speaks of Father and Son as literally such, and I find that is a Biblical truth.

Eternity is not so fundamental to the truth of the Godhead, is it: Holiness is the most important attribute and then all other attributes, not so? Bible statements suggest a divine family, like "his Son" in O & NT.

The Holy Spirit is the Father and Son's individual omnipresence, without body but with personality. She writes both of "as much a person" as the Father, and of "not the same type of person" as Father and Son. We may not entangle ourselves with "person". Power and personality of God in omnipresence: simple. grin wink

The essence of our pioneers' non-trinitarianism - including Ellen White - is accepting Jn 3:16 KJV "only begotten" and not rejecting it for the NIV's wording, instead - both versions are usable, not mutually exclusive. That's my understanding of non-trinitarianism as we used to hold as a church and what I believe, too. I've kept my points brief here, too, of course.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/13/10 06:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Right, Daryl, not only did Jesus create the angels, He also created the Universe. So the question remains unanswered - If the Father predates Jesus, if He existed eternally before Jesus was begotten, does it mean the Father spent an eternity all alone in a void, in a vacancy, in the absence of a Universe?


Basically, MM & Daryl: "In the beginning was the Word," who is the begotten Son of God from eternity - too far back for us to calculate (as EGW states in comments on Jn 8:58), before becoming flesh and dwelling among us. God always was possessed of wisdom and his Word, without beginning; 'presenting' his son to the angels doesn't mean his Son was suddenly begotten just then... wink
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/14/10 10:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: gordonb1

Hi Mike, It seems you had scripture for Elle, but then you offered 'stands to reason'. If there is no scripture then we should not speculate. However, the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9) is a matter of Biblical record. Not everyone chooses to believe that God gave His Only Begotten Son. But this is the theme of the New Testament, the Desire of all Nations. The Jews also denied the Son:

"Christ claimed to be the Only Begotten of the Father, but men encased in unbelief, barricaded with prejudice, denied the Holy and the Just One." - 1 Selected Messages 271.

If the Bible states that God sent His Son, then He had a Son to send. More on this. If you study (not skim) Proverbs 8: 22-30, it becomes apparent that the Son was brought forth in the days of eternity. Ellen White testifies the same. For those who are vacillating, please read the Epistles of John & John 17.

The opening chapters of Patriarchs & Prophets, as well as the Story of Redemption, make this case quite plainly. Christ was God's Son before creation. It's not 'merely a title' Mike, it's both the foundation of the gospel and the root of the Great Controversy. (Matthew 4:3 - "If thou be the Son of God...")

"Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the king declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into his purposes, and to Him it was comitted to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the host of heaven, and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due." - Patriarchs & Prophets 36.

We must seek the weight of evidence Mike, not traces of doubt.

Thank you for responding to my post. Do you think it is speculating to say Jesus isn't eternal in the same way the Father is eternal, that is, without beginning and without end? Or, do you think it is clear in the Bible and in the SOP that Jesus is not eternal in the same way the Father is eternal, that Jesus had a beginning, that there was a time back in eternity when Jesus did exist in the same way the Father existed?

Not speculating, MM, as, yes, the Bible and SOP are clear that despite Jesus being the literal, begotten, Son of God, he is equal with the Father without being said to be absolutely co-eternal with him yet eternal, too.

Here are links to two really detailed studies - something the GC Biblical Research Institute and ATS (www.atsjats.org) doesn't do or make space to do: would they be able to hold to trinitarianism if they did? It's not about 3 or 1 but about "only begotten" and defending it. Other issues there are too, like "one indivisible substance" (trinitarian dogma) and the personality of the Spirit, etc.

http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBBS.htm

The homepage is emphatic but gentle - do read the comments below the 'gallery' of pioneers for the study bears it out, and the main menu has links to material from 8 years of part time study by...
An English lay Adventist in Bristol, England, after his acceptance of the trinity doctrine was challenged after 30 years as an Adventist.

The challenge was that Prof George Knight was 98% right: Ellen White couldn't be a member of the church today, either, along with all her contemporaries. Hence the debate today.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/14/10 10:55 PM

Yes..., after reading most of that website's quotes from our church publications and Bible studies, I'm content to believe God's Son was begotten of him in the "days of eternity" while being the Word of God "in the beginning"...

I give time to all the statements of our pioneers.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/15/10 09:08 PM

Colin,

Would you call "eternal" a time in the future too far ahead for us to calculate, but which would have an end? If we would live during a time too long for us to calculate now, but would eventually die, would you call this eternal life?
"Eternal," backwards, means "without beginning," and "eternal," forwards, means "without end." Anything short of this can't be classified as "eternal."
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/16/10 06:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Colin,

Would you call "eternal" a time in the future too far ahead for us to calculate, but which would have an end? If we would live during a time too long for us to calculate now, but would eventually die, would you call this eternal life?
"Eternal," backwards, means "without beginning," and "eternal," forwards, means "without end." Anything short of this can't be classified as "eternal."


Just read (from a quarter or so onwards of the page) the Ellet Waggoner and Ellen White quotes from this link on the Son's divine pre-existence as God's begotten Son: http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/DetHis/oDHS15.htm

We cannot rely on the Oxford or any other dictionary definitions for Biblical principles, Rosangela, and Christ's eternal divine pre-existence needs better definitions than we are used to, not so? smile
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/16/10 02:53 PM

Colin,

As I said previously, I don't believe that "only begotten" has a literal meaning, for the Bible calls Isaac the only begotten son of Abraham, something which obviously can't be taken literally.
I also don't believe Christ had a beginning, for the Bible explicitly says He had "neither beginning of days nor end of life." Ellen White says His life is underived, and she also says that children derive life and being from their parents.
Finally, it does not make any sense to say the word "eternal" has one meaning backwards and a different meaning forwards. This is not Oxford's definition, but common sense.


Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/16/10 10:37 PM

So, you haven't read EJW & EGW's statements from that link, then? This is Biblical teaching and what our church officially taught, including Sister White: They are clear. What do you think of them, now, if you would?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/19/10 03:43 AM

Colin, I'm having time constrictions this month with two deadlines to meet; one was met last week, the other one must be met by the end of the month.
So, I took just a quick look at the statements. Briefly, I would say I do not believe EGW "begotten" statement is parallel to Waggonner's and, so, that she is endorsing what he said. If you read EGW's paraphrase of other authors, you will see that she borrows what she agrees with and leaves out what she disagrees with. She never, ever, uses the expression "birth" or "born" referring to Christ before His incarnation. The author admits this but says that this is because the word could be misinterpreted. I don't see how "birth" can be misinterpreted but "beget" can't.
The author also tries to equate “begotten” and “made" with "birth." This is completely unwarranted, because "made" means "created." God made man; He didn't beget man. The same is true of the angels. God made the angels; He didn't beget them. Why would EGW use a word whose meaning is exaclty the opposite of the idea she was intending to convey?
I also don't believe Ellen White had the same concept of eternity as Waggoner. In fact, not even Waggoner believed that the concept he was presenting was really that of eternity, but, in order not to be found contradicting the Bible, he creates an explanation of his own. He says, "There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, ... but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning." So what he is saying is that there was a beginning for Christ, but, for practical purposes, we can say there wasn't (obviously to agree with what the Bible says). This doesn't make any sense, because the finite mind can perfectly understand what a beginning is, in spite of when it occurred.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/19/10 08:09 PM

Here are some EGW quotes, some of which I have bolded for emphasis only, regarding this discussion thread:
Quote:

There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers --the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.-- Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (1905) {Ev 615.1}

The Pre-existent, Self-existent Son of God.--Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. {Ev 615.2}
He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, self-existent Son.--Manuscript 101, 1897. {Ev 615.3}

In relation to the above quotes, what does "He is the eternal, self-existent Son" of God mean? Note particularly the words eternal and self-existent.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/20/10 03:22 AM

Thank you for taking time out to handle their statements, and I wasn't in a hurry, y'no. There's time to wait for taking a good look at that website if not just that webpage, as she says much else besides.

Essentially, though, yes, it appears from our church teachings of Ellen White's day - including her own position, that the Son of God's "only begotten" pre-existence was not as 'equally', absolutely eternal as his Father's existence. The trinitarian doctrine's need for equal co-eternity is implicitly thus misplaced, they were saying.

I'll try to find more statements to paste them here, and make the 'search' a little easier.

BTW, Elder Judson Washburn, who witnessed Minneapolis 1888 as an ordained pastor, was one of 2 or 3 notable pastors of the 20th century to defend Jesus' literal, divine pre-existent Sonship till they all died by the 70's. Defenders keep appearing; a good defence is worthy of examination, though: some are not good. The full history of that teaching in our church is an alarm bell for me: What have we done and what are we doing with our Saviour's divine nature - our leaders, ourselves??!
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/20/10 06:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Daryl F
Here are some EGW quotes, some of which I have bolded for emphasis only, regarding this discussion thread:
Quote:

There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers --the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.-- Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (1905) {Ev 615.1}

The Pre-existent, Self-existent Son of God.--Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. {Ev 615.2}
He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, self-existent Son.--Manuscript 101, 1897. {Ev 615.3}

In relation to the above quotes, what does "He is the eternal, self-existent Son" of God mean? Note particularly the words eternal and self-existent.

Thanks, Daryl, but that isn't the pertinent question. wink That is accepted also by non-trinitarians like me.

Is Jesus the "only begotten" and "begotten" literal, divine Son of God before Bethlehem, in SOP and church literature generally - as the Bible also reads, that is the question. The best research I've found yet on historical literature and teachings is the website I referenced for Rosangela. The church hasn't argued current, changed, teachings adequately, sadly.

The current SDA trinitarian doctrine has similar and sometimes identical key words to our original, non-trinitarian belief in Jesus' divinity - like "eternal" and "self-existent", and that website, www.theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk, explains all this and sorts out the literature of Christian history generally and Adventist history, too.

DA 530: "In him is life, original, unborrowed, underived," is not automatically trinitarian, especially since everything else she wrote maintains Jesus as the pre-existent begotten Son of God. The full reading is necessary, as "trinity" almost inevitably is unbiblically defined, while non-trinitarian meanings can be Biblical nevertheless.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/20/10 02:21 PM

I looked at that link by Terry Hill, who is also a registered member here, but hasn't been actively posting here lately.

We need to be careful about pulling out and interpreting a set of EGW quotes and not comparing it to a set of other EGW quotes that may change the way the first set was interpreted, which is why I am trying to look at all the EGW quotes relative to this topic.

Will say more when I have more time.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/21/10 05:59 AM

Yes, we have to look at it all, of course. I know Terry is a member on here, but let's see what the evidence says.

There's time for this discussion to move when we actually have time for it, indeed. grin
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/25/10 08:00 PM

Terry's website is so thorough it'll take several months of part-time reading, not several hours or days! It's 8 years worth of part-time research uploaded July 08, with several sections, most relatively short compared to the "research paper" section, on the "main menu".

I've personally read only up to two thirds of all the material, but realisticly maybe only half: that was enough for me to know what's wrong with Nicene orthodoxy and what's wrong with SDA trinitarianism...Clarified is also what Adventism held as truth on the Godhead and the 3 powers "of the Godhead", throughout Ellen White's lifetime and held by several leading individuals decades beyond - till their deaths. More have followed their lead, having discovered their careers.

Within our church the issue is "only begotten", which has been rejected in favour of the NIV's "one and only", in denying that Jesus is the literal Son of God in his pre-existence. Therefore, one section of this website is about this very word, with 6 chapters. Basically, behind that section, Strong's maintains - as do all reputable concordances - that "only begotten" is the correct translation, and Terry's website deals with that.

Assurance of Christ's deity is the Bible's emphasis and our need, and keeping that assurance safe and sound is the debate about the trinity in our church (other church's members do whatever they do!). What about working through the material of the website bit by bit, starting perhaps with his personal testimony - 1st under "a brief undocumented overview" on the main menu, and then the other chapters of that section before the other short sections on Christ, the Holy Spirit, Ellen White and the other bits like "the unaddressed issue"..., before the huge "research paper" with its 60-odd chapters on the Christian era itself. Not suggesting one can't dip into the "research paper" before the rest of the site, but there you go.

Having a similar experience to Terry, I have found his research and style very helpful. I think his style is humble and suitable for all here.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/25/10 09:36 PM

Quote:
Within our church the issue is "only begotten", which has been rejected in favour of the NIV's "one and only", in denying that Jesus is the literal Son of God in his pre-existence. Therefore, one section of this website is about this very word, with 6 chapters. Basically, behind that section, Strong's maintains - as do all reputable concordances - that "only begotten" is the correct translation, and Terry's website deals with that.

I haven't read the mentioned chapters, but the issue is if monogenes comes from monos + gennao (= to beget) or from monos + ginomai (= to become).
Moulton and Milligan, the etymologists, have pointed out: “Monogenes is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique:’ not ‘only begotten’ which would be monogennetos.” (With double "n," like in gennao.)
Since Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1886), students have known that monogenes means "single of its kind, only". Monogenes is used in the LXX to translate most of the occurrences of the hebrew word yachiyd, whose meaning is "only", not "only begotten."
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/26/10 11:56 PM

Is that all??? Keeping this thread in a straight line is really difficult, too, hey! wink

Etymology?!...You really need to read those chapters! grin

Why did the Apostle John use "monogenes" for Jesus and Christendom translates it as "only begotten" till the critical 19th century - when source criticism and open questioning of the Bible began? I'd say that's a reliable history of usage and meaning, before etymologists reckoned better than native speakers.

Why did Ellen White use "only begotten" for Jesus and treat him as the literal Son of God from the days of eternity?

There clearly are huge theological implications in this issue, and we're either with our church's founders or we're not. If we're not, why not. smile Etymology isn't a good enough reason, is it?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/27/10 03:59 PM

I re-checked that "begotten series" of 6 chapters, and the word examined is ginomai..., so don't be so sure.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/27/10 07:21 PM

Quote:
Why did the Apostle John use "monogenes" for Jesus and Christendom translates it as "only begotten" till the critical 19th century

Colin,
Monogenes was translated as "only begotten" for theological reasons - to harmonize it with the idea of the eternal generation of the Son and at the same time to counteract Arian claims that Jesus was not begotten, but made. Thus Jerome, in the fourth-century Vulgate, translates monogenes as unigenitus (only begotten) only in the passages referring to Jesus Christ (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9), and translates it as unicus (only) in the other passages (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb 11:17).
The influence of Jerome's Vulgate on the King James Version made "only begotten" the standard English rendition.

Quote:
I re-checked that "begotten series" of 6 chapters, and the word examined is ginomai..., so don't be so sure.

Ginomai doesn't convey the meaning of literal generation. In fact, even if "only begotten" was the best rendering of the term, it also doesn't necessarily convey the meaning of literal generation. If it did, monogenes couldn't have been employed, for instance, in Heb 11:17, because Isaac wasn't the only begotten son of Abraham. The idea conveyed is clearly that of preeminence, and not of literal generation.

Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/27/10 11:41 PM

Aha..., but have you read those chapters, or just given your ready opinion? I'm familiar with the SDA trinitarian argument for figurative meanings of "Son" and "Father"...: why not figuratively a "Holy Spirit", too, but...you see how facetious their argument is on that point? The Greek doesn't have one meaning only, after all.

Justin Martyr (spelling?) was a disciple of a disciple (Irenaeus) of a disciple (Polycarp) of the Apostle John: they were clear, centuries before Nicea, that Jesus is the literal Son of God, since before Bethlehem. I've also seen evidence that Arius wasn't the heathen orthodoxy makes him out to be: he wrote to friends (his library was torched after Nicea...!)that Jesus is the fully divine Son of God wink . The point of contention - when and how in eternity Jesus was begotten the Son of God - is most interesting, between Arius and Alexander & Athanasius. cool

Yes, the Nicene history is checkered, and "eternal generation" in that sense is "eternally occurring generation" of one "persona" or "centre of consciousness" in the formless substance of the "one God", hence no literal generation of the Son in any literal sense. crazy

Adventism has historically been clear, including Ellen White, on a literal reading of Jesus' divine Sonship, his divinity being without beginning. This has equally clearly changed, within Adventism: the evidence points to Prescott & Daniels leading the change, not Sister White, at all. Those chapters by Terry Hill on "only begotten" are worth reading, when time allows. smile
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/28/10 12:34 AM

I see what Ellen White says in a completely different way than you see it. I don't see her defending a literal reading of Christ's divine Sonship at all. And I don't understand how someone can defend that Christ had a beginning but His divinity didn't. dunno
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/28/10 05:40 AM

Anything and everything she says about Jesus and God strongly suggest him as the literal Son of God. I know you see it differently, but she speaks well for herself, without the help of Woodrow Whidden III, or Jerry Moon, etc, with apologies. She wasn't defending it, btw, just saying so. So were all her contemporaries - just saying so: that Jesus is the literally begotten Son of God before Bethlehem.

It's all sufficiently documented on that website, and not just Adventism, either. Please take a tour once you have time to.

To be continued... wink
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/28/10 06:02 AM

Elders Judson Washburn (1863-1955), Charles Longacre (1871-1958) and W. R. French (1881-1968) each refused to budge on this issue. You can read of them here: http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBDH.htm

This defence today of the beliefs Ellen White called on us to support in 1904, against the pantheism crisis, refuses to lie down, you know.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/28/10 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
I see what Ellen White says in a completely different way than you see it. I don't see her defending a literal reading of Christ's divine Sonship at all. And I don't understand how someone can defend that Christ had a beginning but His divinity didn't. dunno

That's me being very precise about Christ's divinity, but Jesus being the literal Son of God, the "only begotten" of the Father, is what was the teaching of our church till after Ellen White's death. Altogether, it's what the Bible says.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/28/10 06:23 PM

Now, let's suppose that at a certain moment of eternity Christ was born, or begotten. A thousand years after this (it could be just a week after this) He and the Father decide to create the angels. All this was too far back in eternity for us to calculate. According to the concept of eternity that is being proposed here, the angels are also eternal.

Quote:
Quote:
And I don't understand how someone can defend that Christ had a beginning but His divinity didn't.

That's me being very precise about Christ's divinity

So you believe Christ's divinity preexisted Him?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/28/10 08:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Now, let's suppose that at a certain moment of eternity Christ was born, or begotten. A thousand years after this (it could be just a week after this) He and the Father decide to create the angels. All this was too far back in eternity for us to calculate. According to the concept of eternity that is being proposed here, the angels are also eternal.

...but we know angels are created: in EGW's famous statement, the saints are adopted children of God, angels are created children, and Christ is alone the begotten child of God.

Does the Bible say that Christ is as eternal as his Father as well as that he's as divine as his Father? Doesn't it say his divinity is evidenced primarily by his Sonship, in O & NT? He creates, saves, is worshiped, too, etc, of course, and is the express image of his Father. Also, both EGW and Ellet Waggoner said his existence as God's Son goes incalculably far back in eternity for us: as you suggest. Isn't that what the Bible says, too. smile

The angels' creation in eternity, incidently, is informative for us, but we needn't worry about their eternal existence - as creatures..., just ours.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I don't understand how someone can defend that Christ had a beginning but His divinity didn't.

That's me being very precise about Christ's divinity

So you believe Christ's divinity preexisted Him?

I believe, and find SOP statements and the Bible saying so, too, that the Son of God is a major form taken by the Word of God, existing within God the Father "in the beginning" and equal with God. Christ, therefore, has taken "the form of God" (Phil 2:6), as in personal appearance (Heb 1:1-3), having been the Word of God all along.

So, yes, the divinity of the Godhead is of the Father and his Son and their Holy Spirit; and each of them are fully of the Godhead, concealed from mortal eyes, revealed to mortal eyes, and manifesting divine grace among us who believe, as you know her quote.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/28/10 08:40 PM

I know the trinity doctrine requires co-existence and co-eternity: is that Biblical?.... smile Why did God found our church with leaders who opposed that trinitarian notion while upholding Christ's divinity, including Ellen White and her husband among others?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/28/10 11:58 PM

Quote:
The angels' creation in eternity, incidently, is informative for us, but we needn't worry about their eternal existence - as creatures..., just ours.

What I mean is, if Christ was as "eternal" as some creatures (or just a little more "eternal" than they), He couldn't be described as eternal at all.

Quote:
I believe, and find SOP statements and the Bible saying so, too, that the Son of God is a major form taken by the Word of God, existing within God the Father "in the beginning" and equal with God. Christ, therefore, has taken "the form of God" (Phil 2:6), as in personal appearance (Heb 1:1-3), having been the Word of God all along.

Sorry, Colin, but I can only disagree with these statements, and I don't see how any biblical or SOP statement could be quoted in support of any of them. In fact, I don't believe you can find support for these ideas even in the views of the pioneers which you defend so much.
Christ has always been the Word, and He has always been the Son - He is the eternal Word and the eternal Son. But what you are saying is that the eternal Word is "more eternal" than the eternal Son. We can't be in agreement about this.

"The eternal Word consented to be made flesh! God became man! It was a wonderful humility." {TMK 68.2}

"The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God. ... Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. ... The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father." {1SM 247.2-4}

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/29/10 12:07 AM

Quote:
I know the trinity doctrine requires co-existence and co-eternity: is that Biblical?.... smile Why did God found our church with leaders who opposed that trinitarian notion while upholding Christ's divinity, including Ellen White and her husband among others?

Co-equality involves and pressuposes equality in everything, including eternity. Infinity also pressuposes no end, either forwards or backwards. This view destitutes Christ from a number of attributes of the Deity. I can't see how it's possible to consider Him God in this way.
Why did God found our church with leaders who opposed the trinitarian notion, you ask. Well, these leaders also ate pork and other unclean meats, and we have evidence Ellen White herself ate oysters until almost the last decade of the 19th century, if memory serves me well. Truth is progressive.
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/29/10 01:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Colin
I know the trinity doctrine requires co-existence and co-eternity: is that Biblical?.... smile Why did God found our church with leaders who opposed that trinitarian notion while upholding Christ's divinity, including Ellen White and her husband among others?


IMHO so we could see both sides of the coin and choose the correct one, if we didnt have Sunday keepers who formed the Adventist movement, there would always be that lingering doubt about the Sabbath and we could be shaken. But when you come from the Arian point of view and are converted to the proper understanding of the GodHead, there is no going back...Gods has blessed us and has openned our eyes and ears, why close them..
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/29/10 05:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Truth is progressive.

Yes, we changed some positions during Ellen White's lifetime, but not our beliefs on the Godhead! I'll speak to that in my next post. That you think it's impossible for Jesus to be divine that way, does that make that view a mistake, or should you and I and each of us check and check again, until all the evidence has been seen and evaluated? smile
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/29/10 06:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Richard
Originally Posted By: Colin
I know the trinity doctrine requires co-existence and co-eternity: is that Biblical?.... smile Why did God found our church with leaders who opposed that trinitarian notion while upholding Christ's divinity, including Ellen White and her husband among others?


IMHO so we could see both sides of the coin and choose the correct one, if we didnt have Sunday keepers who formed the Adventist movement, there would always be that lingering doubt about the Sabbath and we could be shaken. But when you come from the Arian point of view and are converted to the proper understanding of the GodHead, there is no going back...Gods has blessed us and has openned our eyes and ears, why close them..

What our founders believed wasn't a proper understanding of the Godhead??? Sorry, Richard, but: CHECK YOUR SOURCES! I know you read a lot, now, so check Terry Hill's website for Adventist publications on the Godhead including e v e r y b o d y, till the present. What the church publishes now about Ellen White's day is misrepresentative in the extreme; but philosophies have also changed - for the worst...It's all there, on that website.

It's really bad that our church founders are labelled as Arian when they consistently upheld the deity of Christ as equal with his Father - James White, Joseph Waggoner, and others including Uriah Smith, eventually! Saying in print - even the SS lesson! - they didn't believe that is truly bad manners.

Having compared the historical writings with the Handbook of SDA Theology in detail, I go with the historical position as non-speculative and Biblical. Check out Terry Hill's materials: they're an eye-opener! Who is Jesus in Biblical truth, is the question here: is he the literal Son of God or does the Bible not mean "son" when it says so, in Old or New Testament, as believed by God's people since by Moses day...till the last hundred or so years?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/29/10 08:36 AM

I really don't understand the big debate here regarding Jesus. The Bible seems so simple and clear on this point. I can understand the questions regarding the Holy Spirit somewhat better, but regarding Jesus, the issue seems straightforward.

1) As of the writing of the book of Numbers, God was neither a man nor his son.

2) Jesus has always existed, according to the Bible, and will always exist. "From everlasting to everlasting..."

3) Jesus may have many names, but it would appear that He was first called "Jesus" when He was born as a man. Since this is the name by which we know Him, it is not inappropriate to refer to "Jesus" in speaking of His pre-incarnate times--likewise for the terms "Son of Man" and "Son of God," which were applicable to His incarnation.

4) That the Bible refers to Jesus, prophetically, as the "Son of God," should not surprise us. It also refers to Him as a lamb, and speaks of His future crucifixion in the past tense (see Isaiah 53). He had been promised, and therefore, it was as good as done in God's reckoning, in spite of the fact that the event was yet future. None of this means that He had ever been God's Son before His incarnation except by covenant.

5) In John 3:16, we see that Jesus was the only "become-son" (begotten) member of the Godhead. Whereas He had not been a son before, He became one for us. [Note: This is a truth that the modern versions do try to efface, by changing "begotten" to "one and only," which is a falsehood.]

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/29/10 05:49 PM

Thanks for that on Jn 3:16, Green grin ginomai should read "only begotten".

The ramifications of the "trinity doctrine or not" reach round all the truths of the Bible, including salvation itself ("The trinity" is actually a speculative doctrine - since Nicea, not a teaching from Bible texts). The sacrifice of the atonement itself is at risk because of the Nicene and SDA "trinity doctrines" (they differ from each other!): that's why our church pioneers really opposed it and taught the Godhead truths Biblically and not of this doctrine, which sadly adds to the Bible.

About salvation???...Did God die for our sins, or just man??? It's common in Adventism that Jesus' divinity didn't die, since deity cannot die, isn't it: what's the actual truth of this, since we need a worthy sacrifice?!

www.theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk has enough evidence from church publications to sort this all out - for securing the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation: why there's a debate, what the problems are, who thought & taught what and now is thought & taught, and suggestions on what to do today.

Here, though, for starters - for everyone here! - is Terry Hill's personal testimony, since 10 years ago he hadn't given this all any thought, either!! grin

http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBUH.htm
Posted By: Colin

Re: Arianism vs the Trinity - 03/29/10 10:51 PM

I know I'm in a tiny minority, here, so Terry's testimony is there.
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church