Just for a bit of fun, I thought I would look at the Catholic version of the trinity doctrine. It is based on the Nicene Creed. I used the 1975 ecumenical version (ICET) from Wikipedia "English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use". I have numbered the lines for ease of reference.
In 1975, ICET published, in the book Prayers We Have in Common, an ecumenical English translation of the Nicene Creed that was adopted by many Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Following is the text of this 1975 version as printed in the English-language Roman Missal used outside the United States. The only difference between this presentation and the way ICET presented the text is that ICET printed the Filioque clause as a parenthesis, thus: "[and the Son]".
1 We believe in one God,
2 the Father, the Almighty
3 maker of heaven and earth,
4 of all that is, seen and unseen.
5
6 We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
7 the only Son of God,
8 eternally begotten of the Father,
9 God from God, Light from Light,
10 true God from true God,
11 begotten, not made,
12 of one Being with the Father.
13 Through him all things were made.
14 For us men and for our salvation
15 he came down from heaven:
16 by the power of the Holy Spirit
17 he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
18 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
19 he suffered death and was buried.
20 On the third day he rose again
21 in accordance with the Scriptures;
22 he ascended into heaven
23 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
24 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
25 and his kingdom will have no end
26
27 We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
28 who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
29 With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
30 He has spoken through the Prophets.
31 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
32 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
33 We look for the resurrection of the dead,
34 and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Both mainline SDAs and antitrinitarians would agree with most of this.
Mainline SDAs disagree with lines 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 28 and depending on interpretation, 31. That is a total of seven lines
Antitrinitarians would disagree with lines 8, 12, 27, 29 and depending on interpretation, 31. That is a total of five lines.
Therefore the antitrinitarians are closer to the Catholic doctrine of the trinity, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, than are mainline SDAs.
Comments and corrections welcome.
Showing posts with label The Son. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Son. Show all posts
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Where We Disagree with James White
To finally sum up our discussion of James White on the Trinity, I will discuss where we disagree. Before I do, just a reminder that this is one of the few places where we disagree with James, most of what he says is orthodox SDA doctrine.
Where Antitrinitarians disagree with James White but the mainline SDA church agrees:
James White on the Personality of God
I take the views of The Godhead in Black and White" as the antitrinitarian norm.
Where Mainline SDAs Disagree with James, but antitrinitarians agree
So that means that the antitrinitarians disagree with James on four points while the mainline SDA church disagrees on one point, albeit a major point.
James rarely mentions the trinity and he never wrote an antitrinitarian article in his long writing career. This probably indicates the low importance he attached to this doctrine, which goes against the whole tenor of present-day antitrinitarians who hold this area as so important it deserves compilations, websites and separation from the church.
After looking carefully at what James White says on this issue, I agree that he was non-trinitarian but his actions are a far cry from those who claim to follow his beliefs. Not only are they disagreeing with him on a number of points but they are working to pull apart the church that he spent his life and health to build up.
I know this is probably a surprise to most antitrinitarians, it certainly was to me, so I would love comments.
Where Antitrinitarians disagree with James White but the mainline SDA church agrees:
James White on the Personality of God
- "Personality" means a distinct personage and physical form. (See Personality of God)
I take the views of The Godhead in Black and White" as the antitrinitarian norm.
- There are two distinct Comforters
- The Holy Spirit is another Comforter, it is not Christ because Christ is absent, after the ascension.
- The "three-one God" is a fallacy, "but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse".
Where Mainline SDAs Disagree with James, but antitrinitarians agree
- Jesus Christ is NOT the very and Eternal God
So that means that the antitrinitarians disagree with James on four points while the mainline SDA church disagrees on one point, albeit a major point.
James rarely mentions the trinity and he never wrote an antitrinitarian article in his long writing career. This probably indicates the low importance he attached to this doctrine, which goes against the whole tenor of present-day antitrinitarians who hold this area as so important it deserves compilations, websites and separation from the church.
After looking carefully at what James White says on this issue, I agree that he was non-trinitarian but his actions are a far cry from those who claim to follow his beliefs. Not only are they disagreeing with him on a number of points but they are working to pull apart the church that he spent his life and health to build up.
I know this is probably a surprise to most antitrinitarians, it certainly was to me, so I would love comments.
We all Agree with James White
We have looked at all the information that Geoff could find on James White and the Godhead. So this post and the next will be a summary of the main points.
First we will look at the parts of Godhead belief we can all agree on. Using myself as an example of mainline SDA belief, I think we can all agree with the antitrinitarians and James himself on the following:
From the post, James White on the Personality of God
This is a fairly long list and means that there is much common ground even over the Godhead. I invite comments and corrections. Next we will look at where we disagree with James and each other.
First we will look at the parts of Godhead belief we can all agree on. Using myself as an example of mainline SDA belief, I think we can all agree with the antitrinitarians and James himself on the following:
From the post, James White on the Personality of God
- God the Father has a physical form
- God can be anywhere by his representative, the Spirit
- Jesus has a physical form
- Heaven is a physical place
- Christ was "in a special sense" Comforter while on earth with his disciples.
- While Christ is absent the Holy Spirit is His representative and Comforter.
- The Catholic trinity doctrine is error
- The Father and Son were one in man's creation and in his redemption
- The "three in one and one in three" formulation is a fallacy, neither Biblical or explicable.
- The Father and the Son are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption.
- The old Trinitarian creed is unscriptural
- Jesus is second in authority to the Father
- Jesus is the Father's "only beloved"
- The Catholic trinity doctrine "does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ"
- The Father is never called an angel but Jesus is frequently called an angel in the Old Testament.
- Jesus is given credit for what angels do because they are His agents.
- Jesus represents the Father's mind (thinking) in the events of deliverance.
This is a fairly long list and means that there is much common ground even over the Godhead. I invite comments and corrections. Next we will look at where we disagree with James and each other.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The First Rule of Bible Study
Geoff has said that "the first rule of Bible study is that we are to understand the words according to their obvious meaning unless a figure or metaphor is indicated."
In a private email Geoff said "I cannot understand why you will not apply the first rule of Bible study to the discussion. "God is the Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God." "The Son of God in truth." If you want to infer a different meaning to what is obviously stated, then it is up to you to show cause why. Are you forgetting that the Bible was not written for theologians, "but the common man, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is in the best position to understand the Scriptures."
First off, I want to say that I am no theologian, I have not had any theological training, so according to the quote (I'm not sure where it is from) I should be in the "best position to understand the Scriptures".
Geoff has asked for several things:
1. Why I don't apply the first rule of Bible study specifically to the terms "Son of God" and "Father" (I'm not sure that "Father of Christ" is a Biblical reference)
2. That I show cause for inferring that Jesus is not the literal Son of God but figurative.
Before we begin, the big difference between myself and Geoff is that Geoff believes that Jesus is the literal Son of God ie. that God actually Fathered Jesus and Jesus is not from eternity past but had a beginning. I believe that Jesus is a figurative Son of God, from eternity past, without beginning.
Ultimately both positions are unprovable and we must both infer from Scripture (and from Mrs White, to some extent).
So why do I say Jesus is the figurative Son of God.
1. Jesus is the antitypical Son - he is the original Son - we are all typical. The type is not always the same as the antitype in every particular. The sacrificial lamb was a type of the "Lamb of God" but not exactly the same. In many ways Jesus was like the sacrificial lamb just as Jesus is, in many ways, like human sons. More importantly, in what ways are human sons and fathers, like the antitypical Son and Father? Geoff would say "in procreation", I say "in close relationship".
2. "Son" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal son". Ezekiel is repeatedly called the "son of man" as is Jesus, this is redundant if "son" is literal. Jesus is called the "son of David" (Mt 1:1, Mk 10:47) as is Joseph (Mt 1:20). Even though both were descendents of David, neither are literal sons. The overcomer is promised to become God's son (Rev 21:7). John says we are already sons of God ,1 Jn 3:1,2, Jn 1:12, as does Paul in Rom 8:14. James and John are called "sons of thunder" (Mk 3:17) by Jesus. These are the examples I could think of at present.
3. "Father" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal father". In John 8, Jesus calls God His Father many times which may or may not be literal. The Jews claimed Abraham was their father (v39) and that they only had one Father - God (v41). Jesus said that the devil was their father (v44) and that the devil was the father of lies (v44). None of these later references can be literal.
4. "Monogenes" (usually translated "only begotten son") is about "preciousness" not literal sonship. I say this because the writers of the New Testament used monogenes in the context of the Old Testament. They called Isaac monogenes even though he was not Abraham's "only son" (Heb 11:17). I could find two occurrances of monogenes in the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament most readers of the New Testament in the first years of the Christian church were most familiar with. These references were Psalms 22:20 and 35:17 where it is translated "my darling" (in NKJV it is translated "my precious" and life is added in both cases). These would be the references most people reading the New Testament would apply to that word at the time it was written.
To sum up, it is quite possible that the original writers of the New Testament meant "Son of God" as a figure or metaphor, so I infer that Jesus is the figurative Son of God. The writers may also have meant it to be taken literally, which is why I'm not dogmatic and certainly won't ask anyone to change their mind on this matter.
Does that answer your question Geoff?
In a private email Geoff said "I cannot understand why you will not apply the first rule of Bible study to the discussion. "God is the Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God." "The Son of God in truth." If you want to infer a different meaning to what is obviously stated, then it is up to you to show cause why. Are you forgetting that the Bible was not written for theologians, "but the common man, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is in the best position to understand the Scriptures."
First off, I want to say that I am no theologian, I have not had any theological training, so according to the quote (I'm not sure where it is from) I should be in the "best position to understand the Scriptures".
Geoff has asked for several things:
1. Why I don't apply the first rule of Bible study specifically to the terms "Son of God" and "Father" (I'm not sure that "Father of Christ" is a Biblical reference)
2. That I show cause for inferring that Jesus is not the literal Son of God but figurative.
Before we begin, the big difference between myself and Geoff is that Geoff believes that Jesus is the literal Son of God ie. that God actually Fathered Jesus and Jesus is not from eternity past but had a beginning. I believe that Jesus is a figurative Son of God, from eternity past, without beginning.
Ultimately both positions are unprovable and we must both infer from Scripture (and from Mrs White, to some extent).
So why do I say Jesus is the figurative Son of God.
1. Jesus is the antitypical Son - he is the original Son - we are all typical. The type is not always the same as the antitype in every particular. The sacrificial lamb was a type of the "Lamb of God" but not exactly the same. In many ways Jesus was like the sacrificial lamb just as Jesus is, in many ways, like human sons. More importantly, in what ways are human sons and fathers, like the antitypical Son and Father? Geoff would say "in procreation", I say "in close relationship".
2. "Son" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal son". Ezekiel is repeatedly called the "son of man" as is Jesus, this is redundant if "son" is literal. Jesus is called the "son of David" (Mt 1:1, Mk 10:47) as is Joseph (Mt 1:20). Even though both were descendents of David, neither are literal sons. The overcomer is promised to become God's son (Rev 21:7). John says we are already sons of God ,1 Jn 3:1,2, Jn 1:12, as does Paul in Rom 8:14. James and John are called "sons of thunder" (Mk 3:17) by Jesus. These are the examples I could think of at present.
3. "Father" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal father". In John 8, Jesus calls God His Father many times which may or may not be literal. The Jews claimed Abraham was their father (v39) and that they only had one Father - God (v41). Jesus said that the devil was their father (v44) and that the devil was the father of lies (v44). None of these later references can be literal.
4. "Monogenes" (usually translated "only begotten son") is about "preciousness" not literal sonship. I say this because the writers of the New Testament used monogenes in the context of the Old Testament. They called Isaac monogenes even though he was not Abraham's "only son" (Heb 11:17). I could find two occurrances of monogenes in the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament most readers of the New Testament in the first years of the Christian church were most familiar with. These references were Psalms 22:20 and 35:17 where it is translated "my darling" (in NKJV it is translated "my precious" and life is added in both cases). These would be the references most people reading the New Testament would apply to that word at the time it was written.
To sum up, it is quite possible that the original writers of the New Testament meant "Son of God" as a figure or metaphor, so I infer that Jesus is the figurative Son of God. The writers may also have meant it to be taken literally, which is why I'm not dogmatic and certainly won't ask anyone to change their mind on this matter.
Does that answer your question Geoff?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
More Inferences
Some more inferences from Adrian's article:"No Other Foundation"
The quote given to support this was
Notice the author is saying that it is the "truth" that our eternal life depends upon, not as Adrian infers, our "belief" in that "truth". The author also explicitly states how the trinity saves; because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate Persons.
Does the author believe that non-belief in this "truth" will "cause the loss of salvation"? We could infer that, but remember it is only an inference, he (or she) does NOT SAY that.
Adrian will need a much stronger quote to make his inference a fact.
To state my own belief here; I don't think that it matters one way or the other for our salvation, what we believe on this subject. And the reason I believe that is because if it did matter, there would be "positive testimonies" on this subject from our pioneers.
Another inference from page 5:
"How God's people had a door opened for them into the Most Holy. It came by means of... finding the true Son of God."
There is no mention of the "true Son of God" in either quote. It can't even be infered. This statement cannot be sustained by quotes given. There is nothing at all about the Sonship of Jesus in either quote.
"...Christ, his mission and His priesthood... are labeled as old landmarks and pillars"
Once again Adrian is sloppy here. Yes, I agree that these are probably landmarks and pillars BUT it DOESN'T SAY THAT. Adrian has put the two bits of the two quotes together and inferred that is what it means.
To be true to the first quote it would be best to say "Christ, his mission, and his priesthood were truths that the pioneers understood after earnest prayer, Bible study and Mrs White's visions. "
Also trinitarians can believe the same as Adrian on Christ's mission and priesthood. So Adrian is inferring that making the word "Christ" mean "the literal Sonship of Christ". That is quite a long shot.
"...notice carefully the linking of the sanctuary and the personality of God and Christ. This is our anchor. But our Adventist scholarship must certainly deny this..."
Once again there is no reference given for this assertion. In fact the earlier quote (I am assuming the author was an Adventist scholar) states specifically that God and Christ are separate Persons.
But if Adrian understands personality in the modern sense, of "the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual" then that is not a problem for even a Trinitarian to enumerate these attributes and connect them to the atoning work on earth and heaven.
However, if you infer that "personality" means the literal Sonship of Jesus, Fatherhood of God then Adrian better supply some more positive evidence that this is what Mrs White had in mind. She certainly doesn't say that here.
I believe that the Sonship of Jesus and for that matter, the Trinity are NOT pillars or landmarks of the Adventist church. I also believe that the personality of God and Christ is essential. I want to thank you Geoff, for pointing this out to me in the past.
Also from page 5:
"Christ and the Sanctuary stand or fall together." Amen and amen... Preach it brother!! I couldn't agree more.
"If Christ is not literally the Son of God, then the foundations for a literal sanctuary in heaven have been smashed."? - I still can't see the link. Why would the fact that Jesus in not literally a Son, affect the literality of the heavenly sanctuary. I thank you for showing how real and literal the sanctuary in heaven is, but the inference that it is somehow linked to Christ's Sonship is still inference.
No quotes are given to back Adrian's statement up. Personally I don't think Jesus is the literal Son of God and I'm very happy to see you preaching the heavenly sanctuary as it is a subject that we should major in. As for the investigative judgement, and the day of atonement, I believe this is probably the most powerfully evangelistic doctrine of our church. Non Christians are especially attracted to it, as are post-moderns and Muslims, in my experience. "The hour of His judgement has come" is wonderful news indeed! Preach it LOUD!
In this lawless time, the Law of Covenant is a shining light in this dark and hopeless world. Preach it too.
"Victory over sin" is the message that our youth and especially the men need to hear. This is a doctrine of hope and encouragement for the neutered Aussie man of today. When this catches on we will see a revival here in Australia that will send missionaries to every corner of our country and world. I really mean "men on a mission", real soldiers, soldiers of Christ, real men in their families, communities and churches.
Preach on brethren, this is why you guys are here... Don't get sidetracked with these inferences.
From page 6
The first sentence is true, the second is inference.
The Son of God is not spiritual in the sense that James White uses it. The spiritualisers that he was battling in "The Parable" believed that Jesus returned "spiritually" in 1844 (or when we were converted). They believed heaven was 'spiritual'. Another good article by James on this subject is "Personality of God". I agree with his conclusion there, that heaven is real and physical, as are the Father and Son.
My plea to Geoff, Adrian and any other anti-trinitarian is that you would give me "one positive testimony" from James White or any other person in the White family. I'm getting tired of inferences.
The wise man built his house upon the rock, but our leaders now want us to believe that we built it on a very dangerous belief (literal Sonship of Jesus), that will in fact cause the loss of salvation! This is a fantastic claim that must be clearly understood. Our church claims that our forefathers ignorantly laid a poisonous corner stone that would kill us all and that later wiser leadership would have to correct this most terrible situation!
The quote given to support this was
"What do we forfeit if God is only one Person? For one, Christ could not be our Savior. It took the Holy Spirit to bring Christ to Mary. It took the Father to answer Christ's prayers and give Him needed help. That's how important the Trinity is to us. Our eternal life depends upon this truth."Geoff, you and I both believe that the Father and Son are not the same Person, so we both believe that Christ can be our Saviour because of this. You would probably also agree with the examples given as to why the it is important that the Godhead consists of separate Persons. The offending part of the quote must be "Our eternal life depends upon this truth (the trinity)."
Adventist World Magazine - February 2010 Issue - Page 30 par. 2
Notice the author is saying that it is the "truth" that our eternal life depends upon, not as Adrian infers, our "belief" in that "truth". The author also explicitly states how the trinity saves; because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate Persons.
Does the author believe that non-belief in this "truth" will "cause the loss of salvation"? We could infer that, but remember it is only an inference, he (or she) does NOT SAY that.
Adrian will need a much stronger quote to make his inference a fact.
To state my own belief here; I don't think that it matters one way or the other for our salvation, what we believe on this subject. And the reason I believe that is because if it did matter, there would be "positive testimonies" on this subject from our pioneers.
Another inference from page 5:
The whole of chapter 23 of Great Controversy outlines the history of how God's people had a door opened for them into the Most Holy. It came by means of measuring the temple and finding the true Son of God. Notice carefully the words of the prophet concerning our pillars...
"After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the Scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me." RH, May 25, 1905 par. 24
"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the
personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor." MR760 9.5
Here is a definitive statement that light was given to the pioneers regarding Christ, his mission and His priesthood. They are labeled as old landmarks and pillars and notice carefully the linking of the sanctuary and the personality of God and Christ. This is our anchor. But our Adventist scholarship must certainly deny this.The logic of our current position in the church is that our pioneers dragged in their false beliefs concerning Christ and we all had to suffer the consequences for over 100 years.
"How God's people had a door opened for them into the Most Holy. It came by means of... finding the true Son of God."
There is no mention of the "true Son of God" in either quote. It can't even be infered. This statement cannot be sustained by quotes given. There is nothing at all about the Sonship of Jesus in either quote.
"...Christ, his mission and His priesthood... are labeled as old landmarks and pillars"
Once again Adrian is sloppy here. Yes, I agree that these are probably landmarks and pillars BUT it DOESN'T SAY THAT. Adrian has put the two bits of the two quotes together and inferred that is what it means.
To be true to the first quote it would be best to say "Christ, his mission, and his priesthood were truths that the pioneers understood after earnest prayer, Bible study and Mrs White's visions. "
Also trinitarians can believe the same as Adrian on Christ's mission and priesthood. So Adrian is inferring that making the word "Christ" mean "the literal Sonship of Christ". That is quite a long shot.
"...notice carefully the linking of the sanctuary and the personality of God and Christ. This is our anchor. But our Adventist scholarship must certainly deny this..."
Once again there is no reference given for this assertion. In fact the earlier quote (I am assuming the author was an Adventist scholar) states specifically that God and Christ are separate Persons.
But if Adrian understands personality in the modern sense, of "the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual" then that is not a problem for even a Trinitarian to enumerate these attributes and connect them to the atoning work on earth and heaven.
However, if you infer that "personality" means the literal Sonship of Jesus, Fatherhood of God then Adrian better supply some more positive evidence that this is what Mrs White had in mind. She certainly doesn't say that here.
I believe that the Sonship of Jesus and for that matter, the Trinity are NOT pillars or landmarks of the Adventist church. I also believe that the personality of God and Christ is essential. I want to thank you Geoff, for pointing this out to me in the past.
Also from page 5:
"Christ and the Sanctuary stand or fall together." Amen and amen... Preach it brother!! I couldn't agree more.
"If Christ is not literally the Son of God, then the foundations for a literal sanctuary in heaven have been smashed."? - I still can't see the link. Why would the fact that Jesus in not literally a Son, affect the literality of the heavenly sanctuary. I thank you for showing how real and literal the sanctuary in heaven is, but the inference that it is somehow linked to Christ's Sonship is still inference.
A denial of the literal Son of God MUST of necessity destroy the foundation of the Sanctuary in heaven which flows onto an erosion of a literal investigation; a literal law and literal victory over sin. All must stand and fall together and all are linked to the literal Son of God, for He is the WAY into the Most Holy His very identity as the Son of God is the Door to understanding. pp5,6
No quotes are given to back Adrian's statement up. Personally I don't think Jesus is the literal Son of God and I'm very happy to see you preaching the heavenly sanctuary as it is a subject that we should major in. As for the investigative judgement, and the day of atonement, I believe this is probably the most powerfully evangelistic doctrine of our church. Non Christians are especially attracted to it, as are post-moderns and Muslims, in my experience. "The hour of His judgement has come" is wonderful news indeed! Preach it LOUD!
In this lawless time, the Law of Covenant is a shining light in this dark and hopeless world. Preach it too.
"Victory over sin" is the message that our youth and especially the men need to hear. This is a doctrine of hope and encouragement for the neutered Aussie man of today. When this catches on we will see a revival here in Australia that will send missionaries to every corner of our country and world. I really mean "men on a mission", real soldiers, soldiers of Christ, real men in their families, communities and churches.
Preach on brethren, this is why you guys are here... Don't get sidetracked with these inferences.
From page 6
By its very definition, the Trinity denies us the right to believe that the Son of God is literal. It demands of us a belief that the Son of God is spiritual, an application, a working title but not His true identity.
The first sentence is true, the second is inference.
The Son of God is not spiritual in the sense that James White uses it. The spiritualisers that he was battling in "The Parable" believed that Jesus returned "spiritually" in 1844 (or when we were converted). They believed heaven was 'spiritual'. Another good article by James on this subject is "Personality of God". I agree with his conclusion there, that heaven is real and physical, as are the Father and Son.
My plea to Geoff, Adrian and any other anti-trinitarian is that you would give me "one positive testimony" from James White or any other person in the White family. I'm getting tired of inferences.
Inferences on James White
I must really thank Geoff and Adrian for alerting me to "The Parable" from James White. It has clarified his position and gave me a vocabulary to express my unease with the the anti-trinitarian argument. As always I have learned lots of other things too, so a genuine thank you.
Also thank you for the advice to "Read it again carefully". I did, and learned a great deal about the things that you should be telling us about Geoff...
The problem of "spiritualising"
The importance of a literal Sanctuary in heaven
The real meaning of the parable of the 10 virgins
The meaning of the 'bride of Christ'
The history of our church.
Now for a couple of principles from James White on how to find the truth from Scripture:
1. Positive Testimony not Inferences
Starting at page 21 when James is talking about the bride of Christ, he says
from pp21,22
My impression is that most of the anti-trinitarian argument is inferences and Adrian's "No Other Foundation" provides some excellent examples.
Immediately preceding the quote in the previous post, Adrian says:
The quote does not back up this claim:
"Only"? - Also listed as being literal are our High Priest, the Sanctuary in heaven, Jesus, the candlestick, the Son of man, the Ark containing the ten commandments in heaven, the City and finally, the Son of God. Far from 'only'.
"Literal Sonship of Jesus"? - is never mentioned. The "literal Son of God" is what James says. We can infer that he is talking about "sonship" here because we know his theology, but a stronger inference would be that he is simply using another name of Jesus to drive home the point that He is the "literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven".
"Sonship"? - the subject of this quote is to provide "a perfect safeguard against spiritualism". It is not an argument on the subject of sonship. In fact he states clearly that the perfect safeguard against spiritualising God and heaven is the "position...that a change has taken place in the position and work of our literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven."
"only through an understanding"..."could the door into the Most Holy be opened"? - the part of the quote missed out indicates that it is was the ending of the 2300-day prophecy (not our understanding) that opened the atoning work in the Most Holy...
So to sum up: There is no part of Adria's assertion that is not proven false by the context.
James' subject in the The Parable is to combat the deceptions of spiritualising (p16) and of thinking that Jesus is still High Priest in Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary (pp19, 20), that come from a misinterpretation of the Matthew 25 parable of the Ten Virgins in the "few years" (p6) after 1844, (probably just after 1850 or 1851 p13).
Using James' second principle, this quote and the whole article is NOT on the subject of the Sonship of Jesus. While James is definitely non-trinitarian, I have never seen a single article he has written on the subject. (If you can find one, please let me know).
Sorry Adrian, but this is a very weak inference indeed.
Also thank you for the advice to "Read it again carefully". I did, and learned a great deal about the things that you should be telling us about Geoff...
The problem of "spiritualising"
The importance of a literal Sanctuary in heaven
The real meaning of the parable of the 10 virgins
The meaning of the 'bride of Christ'
The history of our church.
Now for a couple of principles from James White on how to find the truth from Scripture:
1. Positive Testimony not Inferences
Starting at page 21 when James is talking about the bride of Christ, he says
One positive testimony is worth more on this point, or any other, than a hundred inferences.2. The Subject not Weak Inferences
from pp21,22
The principle Scripture brought to prove that the church is the bride of Christ, is Eph.v,22-33. But it should first be particularly noticed, that Paul's subject is the duty of husband and wife. The union that should exist between them is strikingly illustrated by the union that exists between Christ and the church. But the Apostle does not intimate that the church is the bride of Christ. Those who use this text to prove that the church is the bride, infer that it is so, merely because Paul chose the union existing between Christ and the church, to show the duty of man and wife. Those who have had much to say upon the (22) insufficiency of inferential reasoning should not rest their faith relative to the bride, on such a weak inference, which contradicts the plain testimony of John. Rev.xxi,9,10.
My impression is that most of the anti-trinitarian argument is inferences and Adrian's "No Other Foundation" provides some excellent examples.
Immediately preceding the quote in the previous post, Adrian says:
It is only through an understanding of the literal Sonship of Jesus could the door into the Most Holy be opened. p3
The quote does not back up this claim:
"Only"? - Also listed as being literal are our High Priest, the Sanctuary in heaven, Jesus, the candlestick, the Son of man, the Ark containing the ten commandments in heaven, the City and finally, the Son of God. Far from 'only'.
"Literal Sonship of Jesus"? - is never mentioned. The "literal Son of God" is what James says. We can infer that he is talking about "sonship" here because we know his theology, but a stronger inference would be that he is simply using another name of Jesus to drive home the point that He is the "literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven".
"Sonship"? - the subject of this quote is to provide "a perfect safeguard against spiritualism". It is not an argument on the subject of sonship. In fact he states clearly that the perfect safeguard against spiritualising God and heaven is the "position...that a change has taken place in the position and work of our literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven."
"only through an understanding"..."could the door into the Most Holy be opened"? - the part of the quote missed out indicates that it is was the ending of the 2300-day prophecy (not our understanding) that opened the atoning work in the Most Holy...
And more, when John says that he saw "one like the Son of man" "in the midst of the seven candlesticks," that is, in the Holy Place, we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place. John also had a view of another part of the Sanctuary, which view applies to the time of the sounding of the seventh angel. He says, "The temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT." Rev.xi,19. Also, "The tabernacle of the testimony was opened in heaven." Chap.xv,5.
This being an event to take place under the sounding of the seventh angel, it could be fulfilled at no other time than at the end of the 2300 days. The Most Holy, containing the Ark of the ten commandments, was then opened for our Great High Priest to enter to make atonement for the cleansing of the Sanctuary.
So to sum up: There is no part of Adria's assertion that is not proven false by the context.
James' subject in the The Parable is to combat the deceptions of spiritualising (p16) and of thinking that Jesus is still High Priest in Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary (pp19, 20), that come from a misinterpretation of the Matthew 25 parable of the Ten Virgins in the "few years" (p6) after 1844, (probably just after 1850 or 1851 p13).
Using James' second principle, this quote and the whole article is NOT on the subject of the Sonship of Jesus. While James is definitely non-trinitarian, I have never seen a single article he has written on the subject. (If you can find one, please let me know).
Sorry Adrian, but this is a very weak inference indeed.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
James and the Parable
Geoff sent me the following in an email. It is a quote from Adrian Eben's "No Other Foundation" which in turn quotes from James White's "The Parable".
Quote from No Other Foundation by Adrian Ebens:
Notice carefully the observations of James White
As I read the above statement, I am forced to stop and weep for joy. WHAT A GIFT God has given us in the person of James White and this statement! When I get to heaven I am going to grab this man and hug him and hold him tight and greet him with a holy kiss.
Here is the secret to our entry into the Most Holy Place. It is based on an identification of Jesus as the literal Son of God. Read it again carefully we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place.
Our pioneers measured the temple of God and found the WAY into the Most Holy. Let us remember that a measuring of the Sanctuary is a measuring of the person of Christ.
Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
End of quote
Thanks for this Geoff (and Adrian) I will post about this, again.
For some more information, from Adrian's home page, download the excellent "Comparison Chart", under point 6.
Quote from No Other Foundation by Adrian Ebens:
Notice carefully the observations of James White
Our position is, that a change has taken place in the position and work of our literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven, which is to be compared to the coming of the bridegroom in the marriage. This view is a perfect safeguard against spiritualism. We not only believe in a literal Jesus, who is a "Minister of the Sanctuary," but we also believe that the Sanctuary is literal. ‐ And more, when John says that he saw "one like the Son of man" "in the midst of the seven candlesticks," that is, in the Holy Place, we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place. John also had a view of another part of the Sanctuary, which view applies to the time of the sounding of the seventh angel.
...The Most Holy, containing the Ark of the ten commandments, was then opened for our Great High Priest to enter to make atonement for the cleansing of the Sanctuary. If we take the liberty to say there is not a literal Ark, containing the ten commandments in heaven, we may go only a step further and deny the literal City, and the literal Son of God. Certainly, Adventists should not choose the spiritual view, rather than the one we have presented. We see no middle ground to be taken. - The Parable Page 16
As I read the above statement, I am forced to stop and weep for joy. WHAT A GIFT God has given us in the person of James White and this statement! When I get to heaven I am going to grab this man and hug him and hold him tight and greet him with a holy kiss.
Here is the secret to our entry into the Most Holy Place. It is based on an identification of Jesus as the literal Son of God. Read it again carefully we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place.
Our pioneers measured the temple of God and found the WAY into the Most Holy. Let us remember that a measuring of the Sanctuary is a measuring of the person of Christ.
Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
End of quote
Thanks for this Geoff (and Adrian) I will post about this, again.
For some more information, from Adrian's home page, download the excellent "Comparison Chart", under point 6.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Geoff on Criticism
(a slightly edited email from Geoff to Bruce 21 March, 2010 - posted with permission)
As we see the increasing efforts to silence criticism of the trinity doctrine; John Carter, and others, had a meeting with all the pastors in Russia to counteract unauthorized people questioning the church's position on that and other issues. John Carter himself was going to address the issue of the trinity, at Lakeside church they were having a whole weekend of meetings on the topic, and the new pastor at Avondale Memorial is planning talks likewise, he has already stated that he believed Matthew was a trinitarian, and we have been urged to attend his meetings; it is with a feeling of sadness that we visit our friends in other churches, not to argue the point, but just to say, we still love you.
We have been warned to be careful not to have the same attitude as the Jews, who hardened their hearts in rejecting truth and evidence, and ended up rejecting Him who was the Truth. Every where you turn, you see groups engaged in activity and having a measure of success, assuming that all is well and they are enjoying the favour of God. It is a trap we can all fall into. But if that were the real test of our position, any number of divergent groups could claim God's sanction for their program. In fact the bigger pentecostal groups could claim greater evidence of God's favour.
It seems the church is determined to not only reject the light themselves, but like the Jews, prevent others who might be inclined to listen, from hearing anything different as well.
The facts are that the trinity teaching has no part in the "faith, once delivered to the saints." as the firsttrinitarian leanings did not appear in the church till late in the second century. The doctrine of the trinity was not known among the first Christians.
Did Jesus teach it? Matt. 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." If the Holy Spirit were a third equal being, would he not have known who the Father and Son were? Would He need Jesus to reveal to Him who the Father was?
Did Paul teach it? Romans 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
From the book, The Trinity by Whidden Moon and Reeve, "If indeed the Holy Spirit is a third equal person in the Godhead, then it only seems logical that we should pray to and worship Him." Yes indeed, since we are admonished to worship God, then we must worship Him. But is that scriptural? Nowhere in Scripture is worship or prayer directed to the Holy Spirit. In fact in Jude 20 says that we are to pray "in the Holy Ghost." not to the Holy Ghost. Obviously their deduction is not correct, because it is not borne out in Scripture. Yet even in our church services we sing hymns that are prayers to the Holy Spirit, but because the trinity doctrine is so entrenched, no one seems to see the unscriptural nature of what they are doing, and Satan succeeds in his plan of hiding Jesus from view as "the Comforter."
We can see that our beliefs will never be acceptable in the church, even though they are no different to James White and his two sons, whom the prophet affirmed many times as being especially blessed of God to correct the erring, and who were as true as steel to the cause of God. When we see a lying report that deceives the people, being advocated and promoted, while those who appeal for all the evidence to be laid openly upon the table, are condemned as being divisive, we can only conclude that our beliefs are not welcome, and that we could never function in any meaningful way within the church. As Mrs White said when Kellogg was advocating the trinity and receiving enthusiastic support, many had changed tracks, and were not even aware of it.
I long that our fellowship could be on a deeper level than this.
With our love,
Geoff
As we see the increasing efforts to silence criticism of the trinity doctrine; John Carter, and others, had a meeting with all the pastors in Russia to counteract unauthorized people questioning the church's position on that and other issues. John Carter himself was going to address the issue of the trinity, at Lakeside church they were having a whole weekend of meetings on the topic, and the new pastor at Avondale Memorial is planning talks likewise, he has already stated that he believed Matthew was a trinitarian, and we have been urged to attend his meetings; it is with a feeling of sadness that we visit our friends in other churches, not to argue the point, but just to say, we still love you.
We have been warned to be careful not to have the same attitude as the Jews, who hardened their hearts in rejecting truth and evidence, and ended up rejecting Him who was the Truth. Every where you turn, you see groups engaged in activity and having a measure of success, assuming that all is well and they are enjoying the favour of God. It is a trap we can all fall into. But if that were the real test of our position, any number of divergent groups could claim God's sanction for their program. In fact the bigger pentecostal groups could claim greater evidence of God's favour.
It seems the church is determined to not only reject the light themselves, but like the Jews, prevent others who might be inclined to listen, from hearing anything different as well.
The facts are that the trinity teaching has no part in the "faith, once delivered to the saints." as the firsttrinitarian leanings did not appear in the church till late in the second century. The doctrine of the trinity was not known among the first Christians.
Did Jesus teach it? Matt. 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." If the Holy Spirit were a third equal being, would he not have known who the Father and Son were? Would He need Jesus to reveal to Him who the Father was?
Did Paul teach it? Romans 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
From the book, The Trinity by Whidden Moon and Reeve, "If indeed the Holy Spirit is a third equal person in the Godhead, then it only seems logical that we should pray to and worship Him." Yes indeed, since we are admonished to worship God, then we must worship Him. But is that scriptural? Nowhere in Scripture is worship or prayer directed to the Holy Spirit. In fact in Jude 20 says that we are to pray "in the Holy Ghost." not to the Holy Ghost. Obviously their deduction is not correct, because it is not borne out in Scripture. Yet even in our church services we sing hymns that are prayers to the Holy Spirit, but because the trinity doctrine is so entrenched, no one seems to see the unscriptural nature of what they are doing, and Satan succeeds in his plan of hiding Jesus from view as "the Comforter."
We can see that our beliefs will never be acceptable in the church, even though they are no different to James White and his two sons, whom the prophet affirmed many times as being especially blessed of God to correct the erring, and who were as true as steel to the cause of God. When we see a lying report that deceives the people, being advocated and promoted, while those who appeal for all the evidence to be laid openly upon the table, are condemned as being divisive, we can only conclude that our beliefs are not welcome, and that we could never function in any meaningful way within the church. As Mrs White said when Kellogg was advocating the trinity and receiving enthusiastic support, many had changed tracks, and were not even aware of it.
I long that our fellowship could be on a deeper level than this.
With our love,
Geoff
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sanctuary, sanctuary...
Geoff asked why I insisted that the Godhead question be tied to the sanctuary doctrine. The reason is the quote that leads my post True Knowledge of God
Geoff comments:
That is interesting. (I'm thinking out loud) The atonement... The purpose of the sanctuary was so that God can safely dwell with His people (atonement). The priests and Christ as priest stand between us and the destroying fire or holiness of God. So Christ must be another individual for this to work. "As a personal Saviour He intercedes in the heavenly courts" Ministry of Healing 418.1. The whole system falls if He is not 'personal'.
Christ had to be 'a personal Saviour' to die for us too, He was personal as a human of course, but did He have to have separate divinity to His Father to die for us?
Most Christians, I'm surprised to learn, don't have, or at least haven't thought through, this 'personal' aspect to their religion. I think this message of a 'personal Saviour' makes atonement and the judgement and the sanctuary vivid and full of life. Thanks for leading me to this Geoff.
Geoff then talked about the love of God. I replied:
Thanks for the sharing, Geoff. Yes, of course, you reminded me of the most basic principle of them being separate! If they are sort of "one being" then ANY relationship is simply self love. Love is only possible between individuals in a relationship. So the Father and Christ being separate makes relationship possible. Great!
..remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary OR concerning the personality of God or of Christ."The context is firmly "The Sanctuary" (title of the article) and is largely against Ballanger's attack on the sanctuary. The reason I want 'correlate' the two is that this is the only place I have seen where the Godhead is part of the 'pillars'. So the 'personality' of God and Christ are important present-truth as they relate to the sanctuary.
Geoff comments:
I notice that Waggoner felt that those views destroyed the atonement. It is an area that I have not explored.
That is interesting. (I'm thinking out loud) The atonement... The purpose of the sanctuary was so that God can safely dwell with His people (atonement). The priests and Christ as priest stand between us and the destroying fire or holiness of God. So Christ must be another individual for this to work. "As a personal Saviour He intercedes in the heavenly courts" Ministry of Healing 418.1. The whole system falls if He is not 'personal'.
Christ had to be 'a personal Saviour' to die for us too, He was personal as a human of course, but did He have to have separate divinity to His Father to die for us?
Most Christians, I'm surprised to learn, don't have, or at least haven't thought through, this 'personal' aspect to their religion. I think this message of a 'personal Saviour' makes atonement and the judgement and the sanctuary vivid and full of life. Thanks for leading me to this Geoff.
Geoff then talked about the love of God. I replied:
Thanks for the sharing, Geoff. Yes, of course, you reminded me of the most basic principle of them being separate! If they are sort of "one being" then ANY relationship is simply self love. Love is only possible between individuals in a relationship. So the Father and Christ being separate makes relationship possible. Great!
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Victory for the Weak
I've just thought of a whole new reason why the it is important that the Father and Son are separate Persons.
When Jesus was on earth, He lived by faith, that is He didn't use His own divine power to live a victorious life. He depended wholly on His Father's power (John 5:19,30).
If we believed in the nebulous '3 in 1 God' of many churches then there is no separation between the power of God and the power of the Son. So if Jesus trusted "God's power" in this system, He was simply trusting in His own, innate divine power. In other words, unless the Father and Son are different individuals then Jesus was trusting Himself! This is the very temptation that Satan used in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11) and again at the cross (Matt 27:41-43).
So the implications are:
Rev 14:12 says the saints are those who keep the commandments of God and the FAITH of Jesus. - the saints (hopefully us) must trust Jesus the way that He trusted His Father for the power to overcome (John 15:5 and all of ch 15).
Second, and here is the link to the sanctuary: We have a "great High Priest" who can "sympathise with our weaknesses" (Heb 4:14,15) because He was weak too (He willingly became totally dependent). So in v16 He can invite us to come and boldly ask for mercy and grace so we can overcome as He did.
Neither of these things, empowering trust and enabling sympathy, would be possible unless Christ and the Father were separate individuals.
When Jesus was on earth, He lived by faith, that is He didn't use His own divine power to live a victorious life. He depended wholly on His Father's power (John 5:19,30).
If we believed in the nebulous '3 in 1 God' of many churches then there is no separation between the power of God and the power of the Son. So if Jesus trusted "God's power" in this system, He was simply trusting in His own, innate divine power. In other words, unless the Father and Son are different individuals then Jesus was trusting Himself! This is the very temptation that Satan used in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11) and again at the cross (Matt 27:41-43).
So the implications are:
Rev 14:12 says the saints are those who keep the commandments of God and the FAITH of Jesus. - the saints (hopefully us) must trust Jesus the way that He trusted His Father for the power to overcome (John 15:5 and all of ch 15).
Second, and here is the link to the sanctuary: We have a "great High Priest" who can "sympathise with our weaknesses" (Heb 4:14,15) because He was weak too (He willingly became totally dependent). So in v16 He can invite us to come and boldly ask for mercy and grace so we can overcome as He did.
Neither of these things, empowering trust and enabling sympathy, would be possible unless Christ and the Father were separate individuals.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
True Knowledge of God
In connection with A.F. Ballenger's sanctuary theory, Mrs White said in Manuscript Releases p. 9. :
Ballenger's attacks on the sanctuary, with the doctrine of universal justification, are still used to denigrate the sanctuary doctrine. I didn't realise that he also attacked the personality of God or of Christ. Even now after thinking about it for some time, I'm just beginning to see how they are linked.
One link I see is that if God is only Spirit and Jesus and the Father are sort of merged into one being, how can any work be done in the sanctuary at all? 'One' being cannot be the mediator between us and Himself. While Christ can be the sacrifice and priest only because he has these functions at different times ie. He was the sacrifice and now He is the priest. But this cannot apply to a priest before the throne of God, as both are present simultaneously.
Geoff mentioned a chapter in Ministry of Healing on worship, chapter 35 "A True Knowledge of God". It was a great reminder to read it again. A few highlights:
p410 We need to study the revelations of Himself that God has given.
413
So we NEED to study that God, though Spirit, is a personal Being
pp 418, 419
We NEED to study God as a personal being revealed in Jesus, a personal Saviour on earth, ascended and as intercessor. Revealer of the nature and attributes of invisible God. Ballenger didn't believe in Christ as High Priest so maybe he couldn't have Him as 'personal' as well.
There are heaps of great quotes about the saved looking upon the face of God (What greater joy..indeed) and personality of the Father and the Son on page 421 and the quotes keep coming, as Geoff pointed out, right to the end of the chapter.
p425 The knowledge of God as revealed in Christ is the knowledge that all who are saved must have.
it transforms character, recreates the image of God in the soul, imparts divine, spiritual power. No wonder she finishes with "beside (this knowledge) all else is vanity and nothingness."
Wow, to see the unity and, at the same time, the person of God revealed in Jesus is amazing and powerful. But I don't think I have seen clearly yet how this relates to the sanctuary.
Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.
Ballenger's attacks on the sanctuary, with the doctrine of universal justification, are still used to denigrate the sanctuary doctrine. I didn't realise that he also attacked the personality of God or of Christ. Even now after thinking about it for some time, I'm just beginning to see how they are linked.
One link I see is that if God is only Spirit and Jesus and the Father are sort of merged into one being, how can any work be done in the sanctuary at all? 'One' being cannot be the mediator between us and Himself. While Christ can be the sacrifice and priest only because he has these functions at different times ie. He was the sacrifice and now He is the priest. But this cannot apply to a priest before the throne of God, as both are present simultaneously.
Geoff mentioned a chapter in Ministry of Healing on worship, chapter 35 "A True Knowledge of God". It was a great reminder to read it again. A few highlights:
p410 We need to study the revelations of Himself that God has given.
413
God is a Spirit; yet He is a personal Being; for so He has revealed Himself:
"The Lord is the true God,
He is the living God, and an everlasting King: . . .
The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth,
Even they shall perish from the earth, and from under
these heavens."
"The portion of Jacob is not like them:
For He is the former of all things."
"He hath made the earth by His power,
He hath established the world by His wisdom,
And hath stretched out the heavens by His discretion."
Jeremiah 10:10, 11, 16, 12.
So we NEED to study that God, though Spirit, is a personal Being
pp 418, 419
As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son... Jesus as a personal Saviour, came to the world. As a personal Saviour, He ascended on high. As a personal Saviour, He intercedes in the heavenly courts. Before the throne of God in our behalf ministers "One like unto the Son of man." Rev 1:13And it goes on to "He sent His Son into the world to manifest, as far as could be endured by human sight, the nature and the attributes of the invisible God.
We NEED to study God as a personal being revealed in Jesus, a personal Saviour on earth, ascended and as intercessor. Revealer of the nature and attributes of invisible God. Ballenger didn't believe in Christ as High Priest so maybe he couldn't have Him as 'personal' as well.
There are heaps of great quotes about the saved looking upon the face of God (What greater joy..indeed) and personality of the Father and the Son on page 421 and the quotes keep coming, as Geoff pointed out, right to the end of the chapter.
p425 The knowledge of God as revealed in Christ is the knowledge that all who are saved must have.
it transforms character, recreates the image of God in the soul, imparts divine, spiritual power. No wonder she finishes with "beside (this knowledge) all else is vanity and nothingness."
Wow, to see the unity and, at the same time, the person of God revealed in Jesus is amazing and powerful. But I don't think I have seen clearly yet how this relates to the sanctuary.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Two Distinctly Loving Personages
I'm glad God the Father is a Person but much of Christianity, on the basis of John 4:24, 'God is Spirit', would disagree with us and make Him out to be some amorphous being. This, I guess, has something to do with Greek dualism - 'the body is bad and the spirit is good'. A non-Biblical idea.
As Mrs White points out, such a belief takes away the glory of both God and heaven. I know I am dwelling on this, but it IS really important that God and heaven and Christ are all physical.
The fact that the devil attacks at this point, all through Mrs White's ministry and into our time means that it is important. As she summed up in the quote below, men try to make the Son a nonentity by making Him 'one' with the Father.
Satan would like nothing better than for the Son of God to be a nonentity, a person of no influence. And he will try anything to do it and a 'loose, lax religion' certainly would. As Mrs White points out below, the fact that Christ and the Father are two personages, yet are united, means that we are to be one with Christ. This unity proves God sent his Son to save us.
This concept of 'oneness yet distinct personalities' lived out by us, makes salvation clear to a bewildered world. The unity of the Father and Son are an example of our unity with Christ. But this sets a very high bar because they were one in spirit, heart and character 'from eternity'. That spirit, heart and character was of unfathomable love.
A church united with such love would be a powerful witness indeed. 'Almost identical' in loving, giving and longsuffering. Are we up to this Geoff?
So God and Son must be distinct personages or else 'love' becomes 'self-love'. No wonder Satan wants confusion here. He wants to make God's greatest attribute into selfishness.
I would really like verses that back this concept up. Do you know of any Geoff? From my limited knowledge, a few verses which seem to show the Father as being a Person are the vision of Daniel 7 where the Ancient of Days (v9-10) show Him as an awesome Being seated on a throne. which is similar to "Him who sat the the throne" in Revelation 5:1 with His right hand holding the scroll (v7) and being approached by "One like the Son of Man" (v13). In Revelation He is approached by the Lamb.
As Mrs White points out, such a belief takes away the glory of both God and heaven. I know I am dwelling on this, but it IS really important that God and heaven and Christ are all physical.
The fact that the devil attacks at this point, all through Mrs White's ministry and into our time means that it is important. As she summed up in the quote below, men try to make the Son a nonentity by making Him 'one' with the Father.
And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." All through the Scriptures, the Father and the Son are spoken of as two distinct personages. You will hear men endeavoring to make the Son of God a nonentity. He and the Father are one, but they are two personages. Wrong sentiments regarding this are coming in, and we shall all have to meet them.
{Review and Herald, July 13, 1905 par. 3}
Satan would like nothing better than for the Son of God to be a nonentity, a person of no influence. And he will try anything to do it and a 'loose, lax religion' certainly would. As Mrs White points out below, the fact that Christ and the Father are two personages, yet are united, means that we are to be one with Christ. This unity proves God sent his Son to save us.
Christ is one with the Father, but Christ and God are two distinct personages. Read the prayer of Christ in the seventeenth chapter of John, and you will find this point clearly brought out. How earnestly the Saviour prayed that his disciples might be one with him as he is one with the Father. But the unity that is to exist between Christ and his followers does not destroy the personality of either. They are to be one with him as he is one with the Father. By this unity they are to make it plain to the world that God sent his Son to save sinners. The oneness of Christ's followers with him is to be the great, unmistakable proof that God did indeed send his Son into the world to save sinners. But a loose, lax religion leaves the world bewildered and confused.
{Review and Herald, June 1, 1905 par. 14}
This concept of 'oneness yet distinct personalities' lived out by us, makes salvation clear to a bewildered world. The unity of the Father and Son are an example of our unity with Christ. But this sets a very high bar because they were one in spirit, heart and character 'from eternity'. That spirit, heart and character was of unfathomable love.
The love of God was Christ's theme when speaking of his mission and his work. "Therefore doth my Father love me," he says, "because I lay down my life, that I might take it again." My Father loves you with a love so unbounded that he loves me the more because I have given my life to redeem you. He loves you, and he loves me more because I love you, and give my life for you. "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you." Well did the disciples understand this love as they saw their Saviour enduring shame, reproach, doubt, and betrayal, as they saw his agony in the garden, and his death on Calvary's cross. This is a love the depth of which no sounding can ever fathom. As the disciples comprehended it, as their perception took hold of God's divine compassion, they realized that there is a sense in which the sufferings of the Son were the sufferings of the Father. From eternity there was a complete unity between the Father and the Son. They were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit, and heart, and character.
{Youths Instructor, December 16, 1897 par. 5}
A church united with such love would be a powerful witness indeed. 'Almost identical' in loving, giving and longsuffering. Are we up to this Geoff?
So God and Son must be distinct personages or else 'love' becomes 'self-love'. No wonder Satan wants confusion here. He wants to make God's greatest attribute into selfishness.
I would really like verses that back this concept up. Do you know of any Geoff? From my limited knowledge, a few verses which seem to show the Father as being a Person are the vision of Daniel 7 where the Ancient of Days (v9-10) show Him as an awesome Being seated on a throne. which is similar to "Him who sat the the throne" in Revelation 5:1 with His right hand holding the scroll (v7) and being approached by "One like the Son of Man" (v13). In Revelation He is approached by the Lamb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)