Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

What about the TRINITY....have we lost our WAY?


Sauliga
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

One  additional comment:

Gustave quotes a singele sentence from EGW, as found in MS 99, 1903.  It is true that EGW did write thta sentence.  However, I find it to be of value to quote more than just a single sentence.  An expanded quote will often be of value.  The following is an expanded quote of that citation:

Before his fall, Adam was free from the results of the curse. When he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He was created perfect in thought and in action. But he yielded to sin and fell from his high and holy estate. Ms99-1903.14

Christ, the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In man’s behalf, He became subject to sorrow, to weariness, to hunger, and to thirst. He was subject to temptation, but He yielded not to sin. No taint of sin was upon Him. He declared, “I have kept My Father’s commandments (in My earthly life).” He had infinite power only because He was perfectly obedient to His Father’s will. The second Adam stood the test of trial and temptation that He might become the Owner of all humanity. Ms99-1903.15

 

Before his fall, Adam was free from the results of the curse. When he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He was created perfect in thought and in action. But he yielded to sin and fell from his high and holy estate

Christ, the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In man’s behalf, He became subject to sorrow, to weariness, to hunger, and to thirst. He was subject to temptation, but He yielded not to sin. No taint of sin was upon Him. He declared, “I have kept My Father’s commandments (in My earthly life).” He had infinite power only because He was perfectly obedient to His Father’s will. The second Adam stood the test of trial and temptation that He might be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Earlier, Gustave posted a series of quotes from EGW in response to a post made to The Wanderer.  I, personally, have problems with what I believe is characteristic of the manner in which Gustave posts.

*  I am often confused as to  whether Gustave is actually posting a quote, or whether he is stating a personal belief as to what someone said/wrote.  There is a difference.  Both may be done in writing and I do both when I write.  But, Gustave often leaves me confused as to what he has done.

*  In one place Gustave wrote that Longacre got a position from EGW.  It is true that EGW supported the position that Gustave stated Longacre held.  That does not mean that Longacre got it from EGW.  He may have gotten it from some other source.  Gustave does not support his idea that Longacre actually got it from EGW.

*  In the statement above, Gustave does not provide a source to support what EGW is alleged to have believed.  As a source is not provided, It becomes hard to locate a source for the alleged position of EGW.  In actual fact, I was able to locate that statement..  It is also a fact that Gustave was accurate in quoting her.  But, it would have been better if a source had been given.  It seems  to me that Gustave often fails to give a source, even though,  he often does provide a source.

*  I also find that often when Gustave provides a source, that source is either incomplete, or it is not a source that is  easily available, to be checked, by most people reading his post.  I would suggest that any source be complete, and of a source that is easily available to  most reading his post.  As an example,  Gustave cited a  quote form EGW as found in Vol. 7, page 926, of the SDABC.  That source was incomplete in a couple of aspects.  The SDABC has been printed in two major editions--1957 & 1980.  Both are easily available and are owned by SDAs.  His source is actually from the 1980 edition.  I seriously doubt that it was on that same page, in the 1957 edition, if it was in that edition at all.

*  You will note that in my listing, I have not challenged what Gustave actually posted, although I have challenged such in other cases.  My point here was to specific frustrations that I have with his posts.

*  In general, due in part to what I have stated above, Gustave comes across to me as one who has often based his views upon  what he has read in another Internet post and  has not checked actual sources.  Why?  Due to the fact that the issues that I have stated here, I can sometimes (I have not checked all.) find to exist on other Internet websites.    IOW when Gustave states a partial source, another Internet website may also partially state that same source.

 

"That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin". Excerpt from the Charles Longacre quote I provided earlier.

If "the spirit of prophecy" isn't Ellen White then Gregory Matthews is right. Am I wrong to assume "the spirit of prophecy" is understood by SDA's to be Ellen White?

Like I've told others, I do my own research - I don't pull stuff off other sites UNLESS I was the one who posted it there in the 1st place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

One  additional comment:

Gustave quotes a singele sentence from EGW, as found in MS 99, 1903.  It is true that EGW did write thta sentence.  However, I find it to be of value to quote more than just a single sentence.  An expanded quote will often be of value.  The following is an expanded quote of that citation:

 

 

Ellen did say that Christ had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will.

Would there be any reason whatsoever that would allow for The Father to cease to exist eternally - either from a cosmic accident ( Like the Father being to close to a star that went super nova ) or lapse of Judgment ( such as God sinning )? Does the SDA understanding of the Trinity allow for any situation wherein it could be said that God is conditional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Gustave, you seem to me to project a wooden, verbal inspiration of EGW that she rejected and is not SDA teaching.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I recognize much of what he is posting from other web sites; however, I will not go to the trouble of identifying and listing them here. I do not have time or emergy to do it. If people really are interested they can do a little "googling" and they will find "similar" but not exactly the same material. Much of what he has posted comes with erroneous references, and non-Adventist teachings. My suggestion to anyone who is interested in official Adventist Teaching would be to go to official Adventist sources. Make sense?

Wanderer, I've answered everyone of your questions each time you called me out - I'm now calling you out to produce what it is that I've lifted from someone else. You've made the claim so it should be easy for you to produce something. I predict you'll produce NOTHING and given this comes after I showed you exactly where Ellen said what I claimed she did instead of disputing that you attempt to disinterest the readers of this thread. It's not going to work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, you seem to me to project a wooden, verbal inspiration of EGW that she rejected and is not SDA teaching.

 

wooden? I don't know what you mean by that? 

If you mean that Ellen claimed that she was essentially a sock puppet saying what she was told to say by a higher power then I would agree with that. If not you will have to help me a bit. 

R&H Jan 26,1905
The word given me is, 'You are faithfully to reprove those who would mar the faith of the people of God. Write out the things which I shall give you, that they may stand as a witness to the truth till the end of time.' I said, 'If any of the citizens of Battle Creek wish to know what Mrs. White believes and teaches, let them read her published books. My labors would be naught should I preach another gospel. That which I have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been instructed to change that which I have sent out

1MR 28
Before I stand on my feet, I have no thought of speaking as plainly as I do. But the Spirit of God rests upon me with power, and I CANNOT but speak the words GIVEN me. I dare not withhold one word of the testimony.... I speak the words GIVEN ME by a higher power than human power, and I CANNOT, if I would, recall [retract] one sentence

Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 298
We MUST follow the directions given through the Spirit of Prophecy [Mrs. White's writings]. ... God has spoken to us through His Word. He has spoken to us through the Testimonies to the church and through the books that have helped to make plain our present duty and the position that we should now occupy

Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One "The Inspiration of the Prophetic WritersThe Bible is written by inspired men, but it is NOT God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen."

Review & Herald Jan 26,1905
The word given me is, 'You are faithfully to reprove those who would mar the faith of the people of God. Write out the things which I shall give you, that they may stand as a witness to the truth till the end of time.' I said, 'If any of the citizens of Battle Creek wish to know what Mrs. White believes and teaches, let them read her published books. My labors would be naught should I preach another gospel. That which I have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been instructed to change that which I have sent out

Ellen White
As soon as I take my pen in hand, I am not in darkness as to what to write. It is as plain and clear as a voice speaking to me, ‘I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go’” (2MR 319).


Ellen White

There are those who say, ‘Someone MANIPULATES her writings.’ I acknowledge the charge. It is One who is mighty in counsel, One who presents before me the condition of things” (1MR 30).

Ellen White

In ancient times God spoke through the mouths of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the Testimonies of his Spirit" (Testimonies, Vol. 4, p. 148; Vol. 5., p. 661)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • Members

Here's an interesting article on the Trinity:

The Trinity Doctrine: Is It Biblical?

by Marvin Moore
cover.jpg  
From the November 2021 Signs  

Some time ago, a reader of Signs of the Times® wrote and asked us why Seventh-day Adventists believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, which he said is “about as pagan as Nimrod’s Christmas tree or the Aztec’s totem pole.” In this article, I will share with you my response.

I’ll begin by defining the word Trinity. It’s the Christian teaching that God is One in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Of course, all informed Christians will tell you that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. However, Christians have given names to other doctrines that do not appear in the Bible, including the millennium (1,000 years) and the incarnation (Christ, a divine Being, taking on human nature). Similarly, the word Trinity expresses what many Christians, including most Seventh-day Adventists, believe to be a correct teaching of the Bible.

However, my purpose in this response is neither so much to prove that the Trinitarian doctrine is true nor to persuade you to believe it. Primarily, I want to give you the biblical evidence Trinitarians cite for this teaching.

One of the most famous verses in the Old Testament clearly affirms that God is one: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). How, then, can New Testament Christians say that God is three—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? It doesn’t seem like both could be true.

Let me ask you three questions. First, is a clover leaf one leaf or three? It’s both, of course! The one leaf has three parts. Similarly, the one God is also three. Second question: Are husband and wife one person or two? They are two, of course, yet the Bible proclaims them to be “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Their oneness is not mathematical but rather a oneness of spirit and purpose. And third, shortly before His death, Jesus prayed to His Father that His disciples “may be one as we are one” (John 17:11). But Jesus had 12 disciples. How could He pray that they all be one? Because their oneness was spiritual, not mathematical. Jesus went on to compare the oneness of His disciples to the oneness that exists between the Father and Himself: “that they may be one as we are one” (emphasis added). It’s the same with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their oneness is spiritual, not physical.

The next basic question about the Trinity is whether Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate Persons from the Father and equal with Him as Deity.

Let’s begin with Jesus. There can be no question that He is a separate Person from the Father. While Jesus was on earth, He continually prayed to His Father as a separate Person from Himself, and He always spoke to others about His Father as a separate Person. Is Jesus divine then? Those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity either deny that Jesus Christ is divine or, if He is divine, they believe His divinity is of a lower order than the Father’s. However, there is significant evidence in the New Testament that Jesus is a fully divine Being. Following is some of the primary evidence that Trinitarians offer in support of the full deity of Jesus Christ.

In one of His temple discourses, Jesus said, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Bible says that “at this, they [the people listening to Him] picked up stones to stone him” (verse 59). When Moses asked God how he should identify Him to the Israelites enslaved in Egypt, God told Moses to call Him “I am” (Exodus 3:14). The Jews considered it blasphemy—a crime punishable by death—for a human being to claim to be God, which is why they started to stone Jesus when He spoke of Himself as “I am.” On another occasion, the Jews tried to stone Jesus, and when He asked them why, they said, “Because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). It’s very significant that Jesus did not deny the charge.

Consider the following biblical evidence of Jesus’ divinity:

  • He raised people from the dead, which only God can do (John 11:43, 44).
  • He claimed to have life in Himself, which only God has (John 10:17, 18).
  • He created all things, which only God can do (Colossians 1:16).
  • He sustains the entire universe by His power, which only God can do (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17).
  • He has existed from eternity and is self-existent, which are qualities of Deity alone (John 1:1–3; Revelation 1:17, 18).
  • Numerous texts about God in the Old Testament are applied to Jesus in the New Testament (Psalm 68:18 and Ephesians 4:8; Psalm 102:25–27 and Hebrews 1:10–12; and John 1:23).
  • In several places, the New Testament calls Jesus God (John 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Titus 2:13).

What about the Holy Spirit? Most Christians accept the idea that the Spirit is divine. The question is whether the Spirit is merely a manifestation or attribute of God the Father or a separate Person from the Father. Jesus consistently spoke of the Spirit as a Person in His own right. In John chapters 14 to 16, He repeatedly referred to Himself, the Father, and the Spirit as separate Persons. For example, He said to His disciples, “I [Jesus] will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16, 17). The Bible also speaks of the Spirit acting in His own right and not merely as an attribute of the Father. For example, Jesus said that the Spirit convicts people, guides them, and speaks to them (John 16:8, 13). And Paul said that the Spirit intercedes on our behalf with God (Romans 8:26, 27). If the Spirit is merely an attribute or manifestation of the Father, that would mean that the Father intercedes with Himself!

The Spirit also has the primary attributes of God: He is eternal (Hebrews 9:14), He is everywhere present—He dwells in every believer (1 Corinthians 6:19), and He knows all things (1 Corinthians 2:10). The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible (2 Peter 1:21), and He can be blasphemed (Mark 3:28, 29). So, there is significant biblical evidence that the Spirit is as much a divine Person as are the Father and the Son.

Several places in the New Testament speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit separately. I will mention three. I have already called attention to John 14:16, 17, which records Jesus’ statement “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth.” Second, all three Persons of the Trinity were present at Jesus’ baptism. Obviously, Jesus was there, since He was the One baptized; the Father said, “This is my Son, whom I love”; and the Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove (Matthew 3:13–17). And third, the baptismal formula of the Great Commission mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

There is also significant Old Testament evidence for the Trinity. One of the Hebrew names for God is Elohim, which is plural. In the Creation story, God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26; emphasis added). Notice that God refers to Himself in the plural with the pronouns Us and Our. And Isaiah 9:6—which for two thousand years Christians have considered to be a Messianic prophecy—attributes to Jesus Christ the names “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father.” These are obviously titles of Deity in the fullest sense of the word.

My primary purpose in this article has been to provide the biblical evidence on which Trinitarians base their understanding of God. The evidence I have provided makes it clear that, whether you agree with the doctrine of the Trinity or not, it has a strong biblical basis. It did not arise out of paganism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...