Angel Michael
- Thread starter Chomsky
- Start date
rob
Moderator
Summary of comments from Grunion so far: -
Grunion: “Not in the manner that SDA's think. SDA's believe in multiple different BEINGS (like a family, or military unit) and that one or more beings could cease to exist still leaving 1 or 2 of the other beings. I believe God is ONE BEING, ONE SINGLE SUBSTANCE and so where ever the Son is the Father and Holy Spirit are also and any other combination.
Rob re-examining this statement:
When God made "adam" from DNA, he created the entire code of instructions all at once, and than from the same code built a help mate from existing DNA code, not new code. So "adam" mankind, is entirely made from a single substance of DNA code. However the difference of persons, is how the DNA code is expressed, in the woman; all Y sex code is missing and X sex code is doubly expressed, so her style of loving is different to the man, but they were made from the same single substance.
This is something the CCC seems NOT to note. Adam and Eve were of a sense independent beings but totally made to choose to be dependent upon each other,from love and makes them unite as a single unit. And from Romans 1:20 this analogy is our only premise for explaining the nature of the three Divine Persons within Elohiym.
Grunion: “There is no such thing as a "ten commandment law", the law is every page of the 1st 5 Books of the Bible. Within the law there are both moral and ceremonial commandments. Your concept is a distinctive SDA concept - its alien to Scripture.
Rob re-examining this statement:
Pr 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
This verse says otherwise. The Father's instructions are different from the Mothers teachings.
Thomas Aquinas
Therefore in the text above Sacred Scripture is commended for three
things. First, for the authority with which it changes: ‘This is the book of
the commandments of God.’ Second, for the eternal truth with which it
instructs, when it says, ‘and the law that is for ever’. Third, for the
usefulness with which it entices, when it says, ‘All that keep it shall come
to life.’
The truth of this teaching of Scripture is immutable and eternal, hence the
words, ‘and the law that is for ever’. Luke 21.33: ‘Heaven and earth will
pass away but my words shall not pass away.’
New Rob: So even the words of Thomas Aquinas say the word is immutable and eternal, including the commandments of God.
CCC: "The Son of God . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.[GS 22 § 2] [2599
CCC: " 475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.[Cf. Council of Constantinople III (681): DS 556-559] Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."[Council of Constantinople III: DS 556] [2008,2824
Old Rob: “ Oh, so the deity inside did talk to the humanity inside. Oh well than Jesus was not an example for us as a human, he had an advantage over us. A perfect loving Son of God yes, but not a personal Son of God who knew our infirmities and yet was without sin - because he had perfect faith in His Father, which while is available to all humans, we doubt and stumble over words of faith
New Rob: It seems certain CCC statements are clouding the mind of Grunion, it gets back to the Romans 1:20 analogy of Creation with the single DNA substance mankind was made from: did the man and the woman have a sense of being independent, or were they totally dependent upon each other?
Grunion: "Like the Bible, the CCC affirms that Christ was like us in all ways EXCEPT FOR SIN...
...You are not sola-scriptura Rob, that's seriously laughable.
Old Rob: You said Jesus was like us in all points but was without sin, is false because Jesus has two wills and humans have one will, so that is a massive difference between humans
Grunion: "Snap out of it Rob, please. I and anyone else reading this KNOW Your task is simply to explain why something God said was impossible in over 150 places in Sacred Scripture IS POSSIBLE because Ellen White said it was possible. THAT is my only question to you Rob. Please stay focused. You are without question deep in the Dunning Kruger effect here. Snap out of it.
That is why I'm pressuring you on your beliefs about the Book of Daniel, specifically Chapter two, at the end where Daniel tells the King that the interpretation of the dream was absolute (not conditional). I'm saying that Daniel 2 is explicit that failure by the Christ was IMPOSSIBLE. Arius, James White, Uriah Smith and Ellen White all maintained that failure WAS POSSIBLE. I'm asking you to walk me through how Ellen White can repudiate God - this is a reasonable request.
Grunion” Paul is saying God CANNOT LIE, this is something that God does not have free will to do, Rob.
New Rob re-examining again”
God just showed me something
If Paul said God cannot lie, that implies God can lie but chooses not too.
So Grunion your premise is false.
If God has no ability because he has no free will, Paul would have stated, God is always absolute truth - but Paul did NOT say it like that.
So using the same logic Paul used, only GOD can show independent power, but God chooses NOT to do independent power.
These are traits of GOD, attributes of God, and have nothing to do with Prophecy about God, not failing to do things, because God is 100% truth. So the whole time you are taking things out of context.
Grunion: "This is why Ellen White's (& your) 'God has freewill to not be God' is easily dismissed because God CAN'T LIE or BREAK PROMISES.
New Rob re-examining again”
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie,
New Rob says : "
Heb 6:17 (1) the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath
Heb 6:19(2) Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, ..even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
New Rob: Here is a massive clue about the word “lie” to walk in God is to walk in light, but this implies there is the ability to walk in less light, and thus walk in what we humans term “darkness” but this is also termed “lying” - yet technically both darkness and lying does not exist as real as light and truth do.
Grunion: "Why would the Resurrected Christ need to fly up to heaven to make sure "The Father" approved of his stunt on the cross????
New Rob re-examining again” Same reason why humans need to pray. God knows your needs before you ask and reads your groans before you say them. So as a human , why than do we pray at all? Because God loves you to support Him personally and God loves to support you personally.
Jesus was known to pray all night !!! Why is this necessary if Jesus knew the Father already?
Grunion: "She most certainly did say that. Ellen claimed that Christ, had he sinned, would have rotted in the tomb to NEVER wake up again. Ellen taught that the Divine and Human Natures of Christ were MIXED / Blended so that they (the two natures of Christ) became one.
New Rob - we have a problem with the "incarnation process" ?
Grunion: "The word ontological comes from the Greek word "ontos" which mean "being" - the word refers to what God is, in God's internal Nature. In Christianity the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, true God from true God. The Son isn't a percentage of God such as Ellen White gloated where the Son could be eternally killed off.
New Rob re-examining again” if the Son was incarnated with humanity, and the two natures and two wills kept separate, than we do NOT have an incarnated Son with humanity do we? No we have Deity talking to Humanity, something humans cannot achieve alone, unless by faith. So this theory has a massive advantage over humans?
Shalom
Grunion: “Not in the manner that SDA's think. SDA's believe in multiple different BEINGS (like a family, or military unit) and that one or more beings could cease to exist still leaving 1 or 2 of the other beings. I believe God is ONE BEING, ONE SINGLE SUBSTANCE and so where ever the Son is the Father and Holy Spirit are also and any other combination.
Rob re-examining this statement:
When God made "adam" from DNA, he created the entire code of instructions all at once, and than from the same code built a help mate from existing DNA code, not new code. So "adam" mankind, is entirely made from a single substance of DNA code. However the difference of persons, is how the DNA code is expressed, in the woman; all Y sex code is missing and X sex code is doubly expressed, so her style of loving is different to the man, but they were made from the same single substance.
This is something the CCC seems NOT to note. Adam and Eve were of a sense independent beings but totally made to choose to be dependent upon each other,from love and makes them unite as a single unit. And from Romans 1:20 this analogy is our only premise for explaining the nature of the three Divine Persons within Elohiym.
Grunion: “There is no such thing as a "ten commandment law", the law is every page of the 1st 5 Books of the Bible. Within the law there are both moral and ceremonial commandments. Your concept is a distinctive SDA concept - its alien to Scripture.
Rob re-examining this statement:
Pr 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
This verse says otherwise. The Father's instructions are different from the Mothers teachings.
Thomas Aquinas
Therefore in the text above Sacred Scripture is commended for three
things. First, for the authority with which it changes: ‘This is the book of
the commandments of God.’ Second, for the eternal truth with which it
instructs, when it says, ‘and the law that is for ever’. Third, for the
usefulness with which it entices, when it says, ‘All that keep it shall come
to life.’
The truth of this teaching of Scripture is immutable and eternal, hence the
words, ‘and the law that is for ever’. Luke 21.33: ‘Heaven and earth will
pass away but my words shall not pass away.’
New Rob: So even the words of Thomas Aquinas say the word is immutable and eternal, including the commandments of God.
CCC: "The Son of God . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.[GS 22 § 2] [2599
CCC: " 475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.[Cf. Council of Constantinople III (681): DS 556-559] Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."[Council of Constantinople III: DS 556] [2008,2824
Old Rob: “ Oh, so the deity inside did talk to the humanity inside. Oh well than Jesus was not an example for us as a human, he had an advantage over us. A perfect loving Son of God yes, but not a personal Son of God who knew our infirmities and yet was without sin - because he had perfect faith in His Father, which while is available to all humans, we doubt and stumble over words of faith
New Rob: It seems certain CCC statements are clouding the mind of Grunion, it gets back to the Romans 1:20 analogy of Creation with the single DNA substance mankind was made from: did the man and the woman have a sense of being independent, or were they totally dependent upon each other?
Grunion: "Like the Bible, the CCC affirms that Christ was like us in all ways EXCEPT FOR SIN...
...You are not sola-scriptura Rob, that's seriously laughable.
Old Rob: You said Jesus was like us in all points but was without sin, is false because Jesus has two wills and humans have one will, so that is a massive difference between humans
Grunion: "Snap out of it Rob, please. I and anyone else reading this KNOW Your task is simply to explain why something God said was impossible in over 150 places in Sacred Scripture IS POSSIBLE because Ellen White said it was possible. THAT is my only question to you Rob. Please stay focused. You are without question deep in the Dunning Kruger effect here. Snap out of it.
That is why I'm pressuring you on your beliefs about the Book of Daniel, specifically Chapter two, at the end where Daniel tells the King that the interpretation of the dream was absolute (not conditional). I'm saying that Daniel 2 is explicit that failure by the Christ was IMPOSSIBLE. Arius, James White, Uriah Smith and Ellen White all maintained that failure WAS POSSIBLE. I'm asking you to walk me through how Ellen White can repudiate God - this is a reasonable request.
Grunion” Paul is saying God CANNOT LIE, this is something that God does not have free will to do, Rob.
New Rob re-examining again”
God just showed me something
If Paul said God cannot lie, that implies God can lie but chooses not too.
So Grunion your premise is false.
If God has no ability because he has no free will, Paul would have stated, God is always absolute truth - but Paul did NOT say it like that.
So using the same logic Paul used, only GOD can show independent power, but God chooses NOT to do independent power.
These are traits of GOD, attributes of God, and have nothing to do with Prophecy about God, not failing to do things, because God is 100% truth. So the whole time you are taking things out of context.
Grunion: "This is why Ellen White's (& your) 'God has freewill to not be God' is easily dismissed because God CAN'T LIE or BREAK PROMISES.
New Rob re-examining again”
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie,
New Rob says : "
Heb 6:17 (1) the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath
Heb 6:19(2) Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, ..even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
New Rob: Here is a massive clue about the word “lie” to walk in God is to walk in light, but this implies there is the ability to walk in less light, and thus walk in what we humans term “darkness” but this is also termed “lying” - yet technically both darkness and lying does not exist as real as light and truth do.
Grunion: "Why would the Resurrected Christ need to fly up to heaven to make sure "The Father" approved of his stunt on the cross????
New Rob re-examining again” Same reason why humans need to pray. God knows your needs before you ask and reads your groans before you say them. So as a human , why than do we pray at all? Because God loves you to support Him personally and God loves to support you personally.
Jesus was known to pray all night !!! Why is this necessary if Jesus knew the Father already?
Grunion: "She most certainly did say that. Ellen claimed that Christ, had he sinned, would have rotted in the tomb to NEVER wake up again. Ellen taught that the Divine and Human Natures of Christ were MIXED / Blended so that they (the two natures of Christ) became one.
New Rob - we have a problem with the "incarnation process" ?
Grunion: "The word ontological comes from the Greek word "ontos" which mean "being" - the word refers to what God is, in God's internal Nature. In Christianity the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, true God from true God. The Son isn't a percentage of God such as Ellen White gloated where the Son could be eternally killed off.
New Rob re-examining again” if the Son was incarnated with humanity, and the two natures and two wills kept separate, than we do NOT have an incarnated Son with humanity do we? No we have Deity talking to Humanity, something humans cannot achieve alone, unless by faith. So this theory has a massive advantage over humans?
Shalom
rob
Moderator
I am sorry you feel that way Grunion, I hope you read all of my posts, for I have been thinking of you and worried about you and missed our daily dialogue, I am sorry you think we cannot discuss further. My thinking over the last few days while you were gone is about this theme of yours and the attributes of God.
The major point is Paul says God cannot lie. This verse proves this attribute of God exists, otherwise why would Paul declare it, therefore God has free will to lie but chooses not to. And that my friend is my point. God also has the ability to show independent power but chooses not to, is a second attribute of God.
Merry Christmas and have a great 2026,
The major point is Paul says God cannot lie. This verse proves this attribute of God exists, otherwise why would Paul declare it, therefore God has free will to lie but chooses not to. And that my friend is my point. God also has the ability to show independent power but chooses not to, is a second attribute of God.
Merry Christmas and have a great 2026,
rob
Moderator
Greetings readers
It seems my theory is not only expressed by me - I was able to find people from different churches who also consider this verse suggesting God could lie if He wanted to, but chooses not to.
The same idea is the SDA puzzling case of God getting angry but does not sin, is another example of free will to show emotions and also to control those emotions.
Is Choice Implied?
There seemed to be some confusion, however, based on the translation of the phrase ho apseudes theos, “God, who does not lie” (NIV, REB, NAB), “God, never lies” (ESV, NRSV), and the older, “God, who cannot lie” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB95). These are the most common translations of two terms in Titus 1:2, the adjective apseudes (truthful/deceitless) and God (theos).
It was suggested in a discussion that the translation of the NIV (cf. LEB, REB, NABR, TEV, NIRV, JB, NLT), could lend itself to the notion that it is possible for God to lie but He does not because He chooses not to lie. This would reframe the discussion of the nature and character of God by opening the possibility that God is good by choice rather than being good by nature. From Titus 1:2: Does God Choose Not to Lie?
So does this verse refer to an attribute of God by choice, or is that God is made with an impossibility to lie? The latter which Grunion believes means God has no free will, which also Grunion believes, and we no longer have a personal God.
------------------
Philosophical Perspectives on God’s Ability to Lie
Is it possible for God to lie? This is a question that has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. Some argue that God, being all-powerful and all-knowing, cannot lie because lying goes against his nature. Others believe that God, being the creator of everything, has the ability to lie if he so chooses. In this article, we will explore the philosophical perspectives on God’s ability to lie.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that God has the ability to lie, but chooses not to. They believe that God’s omnipotence means that he can do anything, including lying, but his moral character prevents him from doing so. This perspective suggests that God’s goodness and righteousness are so strong that he would never choose to engage in deceitful behavior.
www.jesus-everyday.com
There is not much else on the Internet discussing this verse.
You can see from within the Godhead, major churches differ on how the God head is structured as persons of deity.
My understanding EGW and the SDA Church consider the term "elohiym" as one term, hence there is only one true "elohiym" in heaven.
And within this elohiym are three persons of "el" the Hebrew word meaning "strong authority" - no where does EGW term "el" to mean "three gods" but she does term them as "three persons" , "three personalities" and "three powers".
We should avoid using the term "trinity" and use what the Bible uses for explaining the Godhead : "family" .
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God (elohiym),
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (YHWH):
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father (FATHER) of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit (Holy Spirit) in the inner man;
Shalom
It seems my theory is not only expressed by me - I was able to find people from different churches who also consider this verse suggesting God could lie if He wanted to, but chooses not to.
The same idea is the SDA puzzling case of God getting angry but does not sin, is another example of free will to show emotions and also to control those emotions.
Is Choice Implied?
There seemed to be some confusion, however, based on the translation of the phrase ho apseudes theos, “God, who does not lie” (NIV, REB, NAB), “God, never lies” (ESV, NRSV), and the older, “God, who cannot lie” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB95). These are the most common translations of two terms in Titus 1:2, the adjective apseudes (truthful/deceitless) and God (theos).
It was suggested in a discussion that the translation of the NIV (cf. LEB, REB, NABR, TEV, NIRV, JB, NLT), could lend itself to the notion that it is possible for God to lie but He does not because He chooses not to lie. This would reframe the discussion of the nature and character of God by opening the possibility that God is good by choice rather than being good by nature. From Titus 1:2: Does God Choose Not to Lie?
So does this verse refer to an attribute of God by choice, or is that God is made with an impossibility to lie? The latter which Grunion believes means God has no free will, which also Grunion believes, and we no longer have a personal God.
------------------
Philosophical Perspectives on God’s Ability to Lie
Is it possible for God to lie? This is a question that has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. Some argue that God, being all-powerful and all-knowing, cannot lie because lying goes against his nature. Others believe that God, being the creator of everything, has the ability to lie if he so chooses. In this article, we will explore the philosophical perspectives on God’s ability to lie.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that God has the ability to lie, but chooses not to. They believe that God’s omnipotence means that he can do anything, including lying, but his moral character prevents him from doing so. This perspective suggests that God’s goodness and righteousness are so strong that he would never choose to engage in deceitful behavior.
Is it possible for God to lie? - Jesus Everyday
Is it possible for God to lie?
www.jesus-everyday.com
There is not much else on the Internet discussing this verse.
You can see from within the Godhead, major churches differ on how the God head is structured as persons of deity.
My understanding EGW and the SDA Church consider the term "elohiym" as one term, hence there is only one true "elohiym" in heaven.
And within this elohiym are three persons of "el" the Hebrew word meaning "strong authority" - no where does EGW term "el" to mean "three gods" but she does term them as "three persons" , "three personalities" and "three powers".
We should avoid using the term "trinity" and use what the Bible uses for explaining the Godhead : "family" .
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God (elohiym),
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (YHWH):
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father (FATHER) of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit (Holy Spirit) in the inner man;
Shalom
rob
Moderator
Actually JW do not have a trinity, they see Jesus as a cherub angel, not a real Son of a real Father.
If you mix a cherub with divinity, how can that be divine - unless you push you idea that cherubs can be also divine
which I see as false.
Mormons might see a Father and Mother and Son concept, but they do not have the Bible texts to back up this idea, so while not knowing much about them, I find they do not embrace the concept much at all. The Divine Family is respected through masculine lines, because this term refers to the most important trait of God as a Provider.
I find the concept of 3 in 1 hard to fathom, and since there is no Bible verses for your idea, it makes no sense to me.
The verse "Let us reason together" tells me already that GOD must have freewill as humans have free will, so you do not follow Bible verses in your view. God has free will.
The verse in Job 4 "God has messengers he does not trust" implies He has angels with free will who decided to do folly.
This implies God must have members in it's family who also have free will to do faith in each other. They may show independence but they choose not to.
The CCC statements in your view do not consider these ideas at all, and so they do not follow Bible verses.
Shalom
If you mix a cherub with divinity, how can that be divine - unless you push you idea that cherubs can be also divine
which I see as false.
Mormons might see a Father and Mother and Son concept, but they do not have the Bible texts to back up this idea, so while not knowing much about them, I find they do not embrace the concept much at all. The Divine Family is respected through masculine lines, because this term refers to the most important trait of God as a Provider.
I find the concept of 3 in 1 hard to fathom, and since there is no Bible verses for your idea, it makes no sense to me.
The verse "Let us reason together" tells me already that GOD must have freewill as humans have free will, so you do not follow Bible verses in your view. God has free will.
The verse in Job 4 "God has messengers he does not trust" implies He has angels with free will who decided to do folly.
This implies God must have members in it's family who also have free will to do faith in each other. They may show independence but they choose not to.
The CCC statements in your view do not consider these ideas at all, and so they do not follow Bible verses.
Shalom
SDA's, at least SDA's who opt to follow Ellen White's teaching don't have a Trinity either. People who were consuming Ellen White's prophetic utterances while she was alive and passing gas were absolutely clear about her disdain for the Trinity.
Understand, the above is on the heels of perhaps the most anti-Trinitarian diatribe Ellen White ever wrote.
rob
Moderator
Greetings Grunion
I wish you would stop publishing opinions of men,
lucky enough to have their opinions published.
Their words while OK to read, are never inspired.
Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871
Rob: “I am unable to ascertain who was the SDA human
lucky enough to have this published?”
“When men can show that the manifestation of
the spirit of prophecy among us is unscriptural,
and that Mrs. W.'s writings and her oral appeals
to the people are calculated to lead the people
from God, from the Bible, from Christ, from the
Holy Spirit, from the keeping of the command-
ments of God, from the duties set forth in the
teachings of Christ and the apostles, and from
the simplicity and purity of the Christian life ;
then, and not till then, will they have a reasonable
excuse for their persistent opposition of the work,
and their persecution of the person through whom
God speaks to his people.
Rob: Note the context - people attack her messages.
“When the opposition can find in all' her writ-
ings one unchaste word, one sentence that lowers'
the character of God, of Christ, the work of the
Holy Spirit, or the standard of Christian holi-
ness, or that leads fro-m Seripliffes as a
rule of faith and duty, then it will be time to
warn the people against them. Until they can
meet the subject fairly, their sneers are hardly
worth noticing, as it is both difficult and unpleas-
ant to review and answer a sneer.
Rob: Note the context - people attack her messages.
We invite all to compare the testimonies of
the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word
of. God. And in this we do not invite you to
compare them with your creed. That is quite
another thing. The trinitarian may compare
them with his creed, and because they do not
agree with it, condemn them.
Rob: I am uncertain what he is saying here?
He is using a word “trinitarian” without defining it,
so I am unable to ascertain what he is talking about?
“The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an
important truth, and the minister that sprinkles
infants, may each condemn the testimonies of
Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their pe-
culiar views. And a hundred more, each holding
different views, may come to the same conclusion.
But their genuineness can never be tested in this
way.
Rob:” In this context, He is using the term “trinitarian”
to refer to belief practices that are different to the
SDA understanding of truth
(1) Sunday sabbath
(2) eternal torment
(3) infant sprinkling baptism
(4) + hundred more
Therefore He is NOT talking about details
about the nature of the Godhead,
but about the practices of religion
that different from SDA practices.
“The questions to be considered are, Does God's
word teach the perpetuity of the gifts, and their
special manifestation in the last days ? If so, the
manifestations will be intelligent, and for the
practical benefit of the people of God. Has there
been a manifestation of this kind among Seventh-
day Adventists that bears the heavenly creden-
tials ? and has the fruit been good ? Here are
some of the tests by which this work may be
proved; while it is too late, this work being too
well known, and its influence having extended too
far, for religious bigotry to test it by peculiar
dogmas. It must, and will, be viewed upon
broader grounds. Ins the language of another
we close for this week :—
" Every test which can be brought to bear
upon such manifestations, proves these genuine.
The evidence which supports them, internal and
external, is conclusive. They agree with the word
of God, and with themselves. They are given,
unless those best qualified to judge are invariably
deceived, when the Spirit of God is especially
present. They are free from the disgusting con-
tortions and grimaces which attend the counter-
feit manifestations of spiritualism. Calm, digni-
fied, impressive, they commend themselves to
every beholder, as the very opposite of that which
is false or fanatical.
Rob: He finishes with the idea that these practices
of which are over a hundred different from SDA
practices, can be confirmed with careful study of
the Bible....
Now I am not sure what you are trying to publish,
you did not discuss
you were into a sneer mode?
In my studies, thanks to you, the CCC
seems to teach that no member of the Godhead has free will.
That Jesus when on earth had two wills, the divine will was talking to the human will.
(this makes no sense to us SDA)
The fact the God has no free will - is bad enough already.
In Isaiah if God says "let us reason together"
that one verse alone tells me God has free will as man has free will.
What kind of love does the CCC promote if love has no free will.
I point out to you, the writer of this above column of words,
was not discussing the finer points of the "so called trinity"
You had no right to comment as you do.
Now if you wish to address finer points of the trinity
or others details, than lets discuss.
But please, stop using published uninspired messages from human sources.
Stick to the Bible and writings actually penned by EGW, which we believe came from God
Anything else is tradition and precepts of men, is dribble to me.
Shalom
I wish you would stop publishing opinions of men,
lucky enough to have their opinions published.
Their words while OK to read, are never inspired.
Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871
Rob: “I am unable to ascertain who was the SDA human
lucky enough to have this published?”
“When men can show that the manifestation of
the spirit of prophecy among us is unscriptural,
and that Mrs. W.'s writings and her oral appeals
to the people are calculated to lead the people
from God, from the Bible, from Christ, from the
Holy Spirit, from the keeping of the command-
ments of God, from the duties set forth in the
teachings of Christ and the apostles, and from
the simplicity and purity of the Christian life ;
then, and not till then, will they have a reasonable
excuse for their persistent opposition of the work,
and their persecution of the person through whom
God speaks to his people.
Rob: Note the context - people attack her messages.
“When the opposition can find in all' her writ-
ings one unchaste word, one sentence that lowers'
the character of God, of Christ, the work of the
Holy Spirit, or the standard of Christian holi-
ness, or that leads fro-m Seripliffes as a
rule of faith and duty, then it will be time to
warn the people against them. Until they can
meet the subject fairly, their sneers are hardly
worth noticing, as it is both difficult and unpleas-
ant to review and answer a sneer.
Rob: Note the context - people attack her messages.
We invite all to compare the testimonies of
the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word
of. God. And in this we do not invite you to
compare them with your creed. That is quite
another thing. The trinitarian may compare
them with his creed, and because they do not
agree with it, condemn them.
Rob: I am uncertain what he is saying here?
He is using a word “trinitarian” without defining it,
so I am unable to ascertain what he is talking about?
“The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an
important truth, and the minister that sprinkles
infants, may each condemn the testimonies of
Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their pe-
culiar views. And a hundred more, each holding
different views, may come to the same conclusion.
But their genuineness can never be tested in this
way.
Rob:” In this context, He is using the term “trinitarian”
to refer to belief practices that are different to the
SDA understanding of truth
(1) Sunday sabbath
(2) eternal torment
(3) infant sprinkling baptism
(4) + hundred more
Therefore He is NOT talking about details
about the nature of the Godhead,
but about the practices of religion
that different from SDA practices.
“The questions to be considered are, Does God's
word teach the perpetuity of the gifts, and their
special manifestation in the last days ? If so, the
manifestations will be intelligent, and for the
practical benefit of the people of God. Has there
been a manifestation of this kind among Seventh-
day Adventists that bears the heavenly creden-
tials ? and has the fruit been good ? Here are
some of the tests by which this work may be
proved; while it is too late, this work being too
well known, and its influence having extended too
far, for religious bigotry to test it by peculiar
dogmas. It must, and will, be viewed upon
broader grounds. Ins the language of another
we close for this week :—
" Every test which can be brought to bear
upon such manifestations, proves these genuine.
The evidence which supports them, internal and
external, is conclusive. They agree with the word
of God, and with themselves. They are given,
unless those best qualified to judge are invariably
deceived, when the Spirit of God is especially
present. They are free from the disgusting con-
tortions and grimaces which attend the counter-
feit manifestations of spiritualism. Calm, digni-
fied, impressive, they commend themselves to
every beholder, as the very opposite of that which
is false or fanatical.
Rob: He finishes with the idea that these practices
of which are over a hundred different from SDA
practices, can be confirmed with careful study of
the Bible....
Now I am not sure what you are trying to publish,
you did not discuss
you were into a sneer mode?
In my studies, thanks to you, the CCC
seems to teach that no member of the Godhead has free will.
That Jesus when on earth had two wills, the divine will was talking to the human will.
(this makes no sense to us SDA)
The fact the God has no free will - is bad enough already.
In Isaiah if God says "let us reason together"
that one verse alone tells me God has free will as man has free will.
What kind of love does the CCC promote if love has no free will.
I point out to you, the writer of this above column of words,
was not discussing the finer points of the "so called trinity"
You had no right to comment as you do.
Now if you wish to address finer points of the trinity
or others details, than lets discuss.
But please, stop using published uninspired messages from human sources.
Stick to the Bible and writings actually penned by EGW, which we believe came from God
Anything else is tradition and precepts of men, is dribble to me.
Shalom
rob
Moderator
Greetings Grunion
I think you are wrong
I consider "elohiym" refers to 3 in 1.
So I have some inkling along the term "trinity" what the CCC mean by that word meaning, and they will never say, hence why we should not use the term.
I stick to the Bible definition of "elohiym" this is "family power"
Moses Araon and Miriam were family power Ex 7:1
Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye are “family powers” - children of God
Ex 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the “family powers” ;
Judges are special family powers, each judge belongs to a family of judges.
Pagan deities are also family powers
eg
Egyptian gods is a Family Power: Osiris, Isis, and the child Horus.
God is a family power See Eph 3:10 to 16
So I am not opposed to a 3 in 1 idea at all.
I just do not like other aspects of the CCC about Elohiym
Shalom
I think you are wrong
I consider "elohiym" refers to 3 in 1.
So I have some inkling along the term "trinity" what the CCC mean by that word meaning, and they will never say, hence why we should not use the term.
I stick to the Bible definition of "elohiym" this is "family power"
Moses Araon and Miriam were family power Ex 7:1
Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye are “family powers” - children of God
Ex 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the “family powers” ;
Judges are special family powers, each judge belongs to a family of judges.
Pagan deities are also family powers
eg
Egyptian gods is a Family Power: Osiris, Isis, and the child Horus.
God is a family power See Eph 3:10 to 16
So I am not opposed to a 3 in 1 idea at all.
I just do not like other aspects of the CCC about Elohiym
Shalom