I've had a few discussions with members of Adventist groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists & Christadelphians) and have come to understand that people within the Adventist Faith Tradition believe / argue for the creature-christ doctrine of Arius (4th century). I was hopeful someone here could describe or break down the mechanics of this teaching for me in the specific context of Seventh-day Adventism. I'm coming from the perspective of Latin Rite Catholicism.
The Arian Creature-Christ Teaching - How Do Seventh-day Adventists define it?
- Thread starter Grunion
- Start date
rob
Moderator
This is a wonderful website on this matter
catholiceducation.org
Yet this is the case with God, where the Holy Spirit is declared by the Church as “the Love or the Sanctity of both the Father and the Son.” He proceeds from them without being another god.
As revelation tells us, within the Godhead is a plurality of Persons, so that God is defined as Love because ....
this Triune Love that love by its essence is not self-centered, that love unites, that love gives, and that love shares perfectly within the Godhead.
Notice they call the HS a "he" so while they discuss the three personalities of love, they do not endorse the three personalities of love. Something is missing in their understanding on LOVE.
The best way to rationalize GOD is to view His Creation Rom 1:20
More : https://spiritualsprings.proboards.com/thread/90/defining-god
Catholic Doctrine on the Holy Trinity
The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the most fundamental of our faith. On it everything else depends and from it everything else derives. Hence the Churchs constant concern to safeguard the revealed…
catholiceducation.org
Yet this is the case with God, where the Holy Spirit is declared by the Church as “the Love or the Sanctity of both the Father and the Son.” He proceeds from them without being another god.
As revelation tells us, within the Godhead is a plurality of Persons, so that God is defined as Love because ....
this Triune Love that love by its essence is not self-centered, that love unites, that love gives, and that love shares perfectly within the Godhead.
Notice they call the HS a "he" so while they discuss the three personalities of love, they do not endorse the three personalities of love. Something is missing in their understanding on LOVE.
The best way to rationalize GOD is to view His Creation Rom 1:20
More : https://spiritualsprings.proboards.com/thread/90/defining-god
rob
Moderator
Greetings Grunion
What are you saying - Catholic trinity assume the Father, Son and HS are all "he"
The SDA trinity also assume the Father, Son and HS are all "he"
My only private view of the HS is different to both Catholic trinity and SDA trinity, So what has that got to do with it in explaining Catholic view of the HS - I would like to know - it would help me understand the SDA view also -
At the moment I am puzzled why Church people do not follow the Bible correctly?
What are you saying - Catholic trinity assume the Father, Son and HS are all "he"
The SDA trinity also assume the Father, Son and HS are all "he"
My only private view of the HS is different to both Catholic trinity and SDA trinity, So what has that got to do with it in explaining Catholic view of the HS - I would like to know - it would help me understand the SDA view also -
At the moment I am puzzled why Church people do not follow the Bible correctly?
You are no more Trinitarian than a Latter Day Saint or Jehovah's Witness, in fact perhaps less given you believe The Father would have been risked had the Son sinned and eternally died. It's ok Rob, I'd estimate that only about 20% of the Adventist folks I speak with admit that they are not Trinitarian - the rest militantly claim to be Trinitarian while they literally demonstrate they are not. You are welcome to continue to believe that God is conditional - like I said I'm not going to grind on you about it. Hopefully another Adventist will be willing to address my question.
rob
Moderator
Greeting Grunion can't you defend your faith to me? I am asking.
I studied a really good Catholic video on Trinity by Rv Chris Aylar
7:28 “infinity plus infinity
plus infinity actually equals infinity so this in one sense is a way
to explain the trinity all three persons are uncreated
Rob: That is a good start.
7:55 God is love ...God
has to be a trinity and be able to answer you can answer when
loving people like jehovah witnesses or muslims challenge you on that
Rob: Yes
10:57 I love this picture this is three persons in one god meaning
a communion or a family so there we see the father the son and the holy spirit this is three
persons meaning god is communion or family all right
Rob: Yes a great start
11:49 God is not like your family, your family is like God
Rob: Yes
12:48 in God it's
different we are physically separate and God is not
because he's not physical
Rob: Hmm? Now we have problems.
Some things are too high for us Ps 131:1 - personally while it is OK to say Elohiym is beyond space, matter and time; it is also incorrect to conclude God is not physical.
Not once does Rv Chris use a single Bible text: His doctrines are based somewhere else??
Eze 1:20 Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
The word “ruwach” does not mean “spirit” - for all contexts, the word means “medium” and here you can see the “medium” is “physical” as a “wheel” is “physical” and “something in motion is being carried” is what the “medium” is describing here. My two pennies is the “Ruwach” is using “gyroscopic procession” to make things fly.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
He is the same Hebrew word “ruwach” translated into Greek as “pneumia” but the “wind” while “winds” looks “invisible” is actually also “physical” and “made from matter”, so the “medium affect” is not of matter, but is acted on the matter. This is why our prophet says the nature of the medium is a mystery and silence is golden.
Eze 1:26 ¶ And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Here we see Elohiym described as the likeness of “adam” a Hebrew word meaning “mankind”.
So Eloihym is “physical” and “mankind” is “physical” and both are real in this sense.
How the Elohiym is as a physical shape we are not told:-
Lu 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (KJV)
The NT speaks of a word only twice, nobody has seen the shape of the Holy Spirit and nobody has seen the shape of the Father.
17:48 “it was tertullian a third century theologian who is first credited with
using the word trinity which literally means three in one
Rob: Hmm? But now we have become slaves to a word outside of the Bible, its not a Hebrew word and now we struggle with precepts and traditions of human opinions.
21:06 :"why thomas aquinas says the intellect precedes the will meaning it comes
before the will so you can't love what you don't know
Rob: I like how Thomas Aquinas talks on faith, but you can love somebody do don’t know -
I love my Mum and Dad and hardly know anything about them as my parents?
27:47 “one is god
is he the only lover of like truth or can he also love another like i'm loving you and
hopefully you're loving me we must have two persons to love
Rob: Yes GOD has to be a community so as love is relational, God must be also relational.
29:46 “God the Father is the thinker, God the Son is the thought, what happens when I as a
thinker generate a thought of you, I love you
Rob: This concept is developed into a weird theme.
29:51 “so that love proceeds from the Thinker and the Thought once
the Thinker thinks he love, so I is the thinker thinking of you ,
I then love you;
it's the same with God why we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is because the Father is the thinker, the Son is the thought and from that comes the Holy Spirit : love
Rob: I totally disagree here. Now before we started with God as like a “family”
We do not have a “Divine Family” here. We have two beings making thinking thoughts that flow as the Holy Spirit?
I would explain this as the Father is a Provider of love (ahab) and the Son is a Collector of love but can also be a provider as a child is both a provider and a responder to love;
so this love is responded to by the Holy Spirit and thus LOVE complete flows as from a single flow into the hearts of mankind. Here in my sentence we preserve the “Divine Family of God” but the speaker does not do this.
Pr 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
The Father, the Son and Wisdom depicted in this verse, are three separate Divine Beings of Love. They function in unity, but they are also unique and separate personalities of love.
Our themes presented are very different.
31:52 “in order to have
love you need a community of persons not just the love in my mind of the
truth but the love between you and me this is manifested love
Rob: I agree. But the HS is not considered as a family member - the speaker says the Father thinks about love, the Son captured the thinking as a thought of love and this love is carried forth in the Holy Spirit - leaves out the entire personality of the Holy Spirit ??
So this speaking of “Family” etc, is “two faced” , “mouse water” I use PNG poetry terms...
32:32 so God must be a family of persons
to have love you need a lover the beloved and the love between them
Rob: Yes, but our speaker does not speak of a Divine Family?
34:07 the trinity look at this there is the husband the lover
like God the Father you have the wife like the beloved and the love between
them is so great that from it proceeds a third person the child
this is why marriage cannot be between two men by nature it doesn't work
Rob: Yes but the speaker speaks the Father, the Son and the HS are all “He”
so we do not publish a “Divine Family” at all -
I will stop here for you to consider your response. Shalom
I am asking you Grunion to prove the HS is a "he" from Scripture...
Here is one verse that clearly describes the HS as a "her"
Ho 4:19 The wind hath bound her up in her wings, and they shall be ashamed because of their sacrifices.
(KJV)
Shalom
I studied a really good Catholic video on Trinity by Rv Chris Aylar
7:28 “infinity plus infinity
plus infinity actually equals infinity so this in one sense is a way
to explain the trinity all three persons are uncreated
Rob: That is a good start.
7:55 God is love ...God
has to be a trinity and be able to answer you can answer when
loving people like jehovah witnesses or muslims challenge you on that
Rob: Yes
10:57 I love this picture this is three persons in one god meaning
a communion or a family so there we see the father the son and the holy spirit this is three
persons meaning god is communion or family all right
Rob: Yes a great start
11:49 God is not like your family, your family is like God
Rob: Yes
12:48 in God it's
different we are physically separate and God is not
because he's not physical
Rob: Hmm? Now we have problems.
Some things are too high for us Ps 131:1 - personally while it is OK to say Elohiym is beyond space, matter and time; it is also incorrect to conclude God is not physical.
Not once does Rv Chris use a single Bible text: His doctrines are based somewhere else??
Eze 1:20 Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
The word “ruwach” does not mean “spirit” - for all contexts, the word means “medium” and here you can see the “medium” is “physical” as a “wheel” is “physical” and “something in motion is being carried” is what the “medium” is describing here. My two pennies is the “Ruwach” is using “gyroscopic procession” to make things fly.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
He is the same Hebrew word “ruwach” translated into Greek as “pneumia” but the “wind” while “winds” looks “invisible” is actually also “physical” and “made from matter”, so the “medium affect” is not of matter, but is acted on the matter. This is why our prophet says the nature of the medium is a mystery and silence is golden.
Eze 1:26 ¶ And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Here we see Elohiym described as the likeness of “adam” a Hebrew word meaning “mankind”.
So Eloihym is “physical” and “mankind” is “physical” and both are real in this sense.
How the Elohiym is as a physical shape we are not told:-
Lu 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (KJV)
The NT speaks of a word only twice, nobody has seen the shape of the Holy Spirit and nobody has seen the shape of the Father.
17:48 “it was tertullian a third century theologian who is first credited with
using the word trinity which literally means three in one
Rob: Hmm? But now we have become slaves to a word outside of the Bible, its not a Hebrew word and now we struggle with precepts and traditions of human opinions.
21:06 :"why thomas aquinas says the intellect precedes the will meaning it comes
before the will so you can't love what you don't know
Rob: I like how Thomas Aquinas talks on faith, but you can love somebody do don’t know -
I love my Mum and Dad and hardly know anything about them as my parents?
27:47 “one is god
is he the only lover of like truth or can he also love another like i'm loving you and
hopefully you're loving me we must have two persons to love
Rob: Yes GOD has to be a community so as love is relational, God must be also relational.
29:46 “God the Father is the thinker, God the Son is the thought, what happens when I as a
thinker generate a thought of you, I love you
Rob: This concept is developed into a weird theme.
29:51 “so that love proceeds from the Thinker and the Thought once
the Thinker thinks he love, so I is the thinker thinking of you ,
I then love you;
it's the same with God why we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is because the Father is the thinker, the Son is the thought and from that comes the Holy Spirit : love
Rob: I totally disagree here. Now before we started with God as like a “family”
We do not have a “Divine Family” here. We have two beings making thinking thoughts that flow as the Holy Spirit?
I would explain this as the Father is a Provider of love (ahab) and the Son is a Collector of love but can also be a provider as a child is both a provider and a responder to love;
so this love is responded to by the Holy Spirit and thus LOVE complete flows as from a single flow into the hearts of mankind. Here in my sentence we preserve the “Divine Family of God” but the speaker does not do this.
Pr 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
The Father, the Son and Wisdom depicted in this verse, are three separate Divine Beings of Love. They function in unity, but they are also unique and separate personalities of love.
Our themes presented are very different.
31:52 “in order to have
love you need a community of persons not just the love in my mind of the
truth but the love between you and me this is manifested love
Rob: I agree. But the HS is not considered as a family member - the speaker says the Father thinks about love, the Son captured the thinking as a thought of love and this love is carried forth in the Holy Spirit - leaves out the entire personality of the Holy Spirit ??
So this speaking of “Family” etc, is “two faced” , “mouse water” I use PNG poetry terms...
32:32 so God must be a family of persons
to have love you need a lover the beloved and the love between them
Rob: Yes, but our speaker does not speak of a Divine Family?
34:07 the trinity look at this there is the husband the lover
like God the Father you have the wife like the beloved and the love between
them is so great that from it proceeds a third person the child
this is why marriage cannot be between two men by nature it doesn't work
Rob: Yes but the speaker speaks the Father, the Son and the HS are all “He”
so we do not publish a “Divine Family” at all -
I will stop here for you to consider your response. Shalom
I am asking you Grunion to prove the HS is a "he" from Scripture...
Here is one verse that clearly describes the HS as a "her"
Ho 4:19 The wind hath bound her up in her wings, and they shall be ashamed because of their sacrifices.
(KJV)
Shalom
Rob, you've already stated you are not Trinitarian. Why don't you let another Seventh-day Adventist give it a go in answering my questions? Unless there just isn't any SDA's here who believe differently than you do. If that's the case I'll just wish all of you the best and go somewhere else. As I said before, I'm not going to discuss these things with someone who has already stated they are not Trinitarian.
rob
Moderator
That is a strange reply Grunion, not many people post replies daily on this forum and I like your contributions and look forward to a discussion with you. I have had no luck over the years asking SDA people why they believe in trinity and that assumes we know what it means, and than along comes a person scholarly like yourself on the very subject.
Why are you unwilling to discuss Aylar view of Catholic trinity with me?
You said "You are welcome to continue to believe that God is conditional". You state things we don't know as SDA people and than you stop defining your terms? The only thing I know about God being conditional, is faith is conditional and thus salvation is conditional, You have to be doing genuine faith everyday to be saved. However they are many SDA who contend "once saved always saved". That idea is a myth. Shalom
Why are you unwilling to discuss Aylar view of Catholic trinity with me?
You said "You are welcome to continue to believe that God is conditional". You state things we don't know as SDA people and than you stop defining your terms? The only thing I know about God being conditional, is faith is conditional and thus salvation is conditional, You have to be doing genuine faith everyday to be saved. However they are many SDA who contend "once saved always saved". That idea is a myth. Shalom
The following from the Michael the archangel applies here equally.
Rob, you know your prophet contradicts the Bible in this area because I've already shown what you Isaiah 46 said:
What is the struggle here Rob? God says that there is NONE LIKE God...
...Ellen White and the SDA Church say's there is ONE LIKE GOD.
...& it's Michael the archangel.
I've also shown where Jude differentiated Michael the archangel with "THE LORD"...
...Which defaults into Michael NOT being the Lord.
But, so that Ellen White and the Sabbath Hearld can be true you make God out to be a liar???
This isn't about ancient Hebrew grammar as much as it's about your feverish zeal to posit that Michael the archangel is "LIKE GOD" when the Bible in the clearest language says NO ONE IS LIKE GOD.
Rob, you know your prophet contradicts the Bible in this area because I've already shown what you Isaiah 46 said:
What is the struggle here Rob? God says that there is NONE LIKE God...
...Ellen White and the SDA Church say's there is ONE LIKE GOD.
...& it's Michael the archangel.
I've also shown where Jude differentiated Michael the archangel with "THE LORD"...
...Which defaults into Michael NOT being the Lord.
But, so that Ellen White and the Sabbath Hearld can be true you make God out to be a liar???
This isn't about ancient Hebrew grammar as much as it's about your feverish zeal to posit that Michael the archangel is "LIKE GOD" when the Bible in the clearest language says NO ONE IS LIKE GOD.
Over the last week or so I was thinking about the stunning theology of Seventh-day Adventism...
....Which was birthed by the incantations of the SDA Pioneers & confirmed by Ellen White.
....The stunning revelation I came to is this:
Had Ellen White's Lucifierian hypothetical of Christ sinning & loosing His salvation been realized...
...The most amazing things would have happened - by default:
...For if what Ellen said was possible would have happened.
...This would have been the outcome / endgame!
...Just like it was in the Greek Pagan God's.
Happy Sabbath!
....Which was birthed by the incantations of the SDA Pioneers & confirmed by Ellen White.
....The stunning revelation I came to is this:
Had Ellen White's Lucifierian hypothetical of Christ sinning & loosing His salvation been realized...
...The most amazing things would have happened - by default:
- All of the Old Testament Prophets would have been "FALSE PROPHETS"
- The Psalms wouldn't be worth it's weight in fish wrap.
- & God Almighty would have been a liar.
...For if what Ellen said was possible would have happened.
...This would have been the outcome / endgame!
...Just like it was in the Greek Pagan God's.
Happy Sabbath!
rob
Moderator
Greetings Grunion
It's great to have you back.
It's a difficult thing to discuss God's foreknowledge of the future verses free will.
It's a thing too high for me Ps 131:1
I am reading the book of a secular Jew who became SDA - he speaks of your query
"Clifford Goldstein, a secular Jew, wrote in his book ‘The mules that Angels ride’ on a page 34: I quote “Though literally the embodiment of perfection and sinlessness, didn’t that perfection include the potential for imperfection, even sin? What purpose were His temptations, if Christ couldn’t have fallen?”
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:
If YHWH reasons with humans, who have free will to break faith and do folly, as the first angel also did (Job 4:18) , this proves the Divine Family Powers also have free will to be independent, but choose not to.
Satan tempted Jesus to be independent of His Father and do a Divine Flow of power by Himself to make bread from rock. Satan wanted His kingdom to last forever using this independent power. But the Son saw through the temptation and knew that while the Family shows some independence, they also are dependent upon each other fully for a reason - love is engineered only in this way. So the Son refused to do this.
Unless you understand love - you will not understand a personal God
Love is I see it has risk, does not force and has to be based entirely on free will.
That makes our concept of Elohiym different to yours.
Now if some atheists wanted to make God a liar, all they would have to do is rebuild the ancient city of babylon and laugh in God's face, because God declared the ancient city will never be rebuilt ever again. Saddam tried and it was destroyed by the USA.
On a personal level, with a so called Christian, all the Devil has to do to make God into a liar is to make us continually break faith.
1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
This verse says we are not to sin against God, after we are saved by God.
1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Here the word "hamartia" implies the Hebrew word "chataah" meaning once we have confessed our sin-offering to Jesus, and are forgiven and declared sinless again, we are not to continue "chata" the Greek word "hamartano" again.
God does not like you confessing your sin-offerings over and over every day because you sin.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
So the Devil in getting you to sin every day, is in fact declaring God is a liar. That God's faith is unable to stop you sinning.
I bring this to you, so you have the Devil playing around with ideas. Stop asking difficult questions about foreknowledge and ask about questions we have plenty for Scripture for.
And welcome back Grunion - I have missed your thoughts and discussions.
In our church the other day, some think we cannot stop sinning - makes God into a liar, makes faith worthless as a power.
Shalom
That's the point I've been making all along here. Clifford Goldstein is NOT A TRINITARIAN...
..So of course he would believe that Christ could have sinned, fallen to never exist again.
...& also HAD THAT HAPPENED - all the Old Testament Prophets would be FALSE.
...& God the Father would have been a LIAR.
My arguments have not been that this is standard Adventist teaching...
....My argument is that it's totally against what the Bible says.
...For Christ's sake Rob, the Reformers would have been horrified to hear what SDA say about this.
Its actually not at all difficult - you simply have to form your doctrines off what's there...
...Unlike SDA's who formally reject what the real Bible prophets said.
...And form their doctrines around what Ellen White said.
...This is a classic example of that.
God said what you're saying couldn't have happened....
...Ellen said it COULD have happened & you doctrine.
...Is all based on Ellen White - not God.
Ok, lets noodle this thing out Rob, using Isaiah as our 1st example.
Had Ellen White's hypothetical of Christ sinning, rotting in the tomb and eternally ceasing to exist been realized that above Isaiah Scripture (and hundreds of others) would have either been prophesying about LUCIFER, OR, Isaiah would have been a FALSE PROPHET along with Jeremiah, Daniel and EVERY other prophet in the Old Testament. When faced with this fact you claim that discussing this is "TO HIGH FOR YOU".
It wasn't too high for you to go with Ellen's Doctrine of a peccable Christ despite it being condemned in about 170 places in the Bible. Why was this so easy? Because you believe Ellen had better information than Isaiah or other Biblical Prophets which spoke to the unavoidable reality of Christ. Ellen White gloated that she was the pen of God and a far better resource for the Christians who kind of took liberties with what SHOULD HAVE GONE into the Bible.
Ellen (& her followers) called Ellen "the spirit of prophecy". The idea is that the prophets were for ancient times but now Ellen White is the one to listen to. So, I'm afraid I can't take your claim of "free will" in the context of God's foreknowledge being to difficult to understand - you understand it perfectly - that Ellen White explicitly contradicts those "ancient times" prophets (i.e. the Prophets in the Bible) so its just easier to feast on Ellen White's words when she repeatedly claims that Jesus could have sinned, all the Bible prophets could have been false and God "could have been" a liar.
I felt bad about pulling out of this forum because of your anti-Trinitarianism Rob, I shouldn't have done that. Therefore, as time allows, I'll keep exposing you to Bible teaching from real Biblical Prophets in hopes it will break the gravy cake that is your reliance on Ellen White's Arianism.
rob
Moderator
Greetings Grunion
I am hearing what you wrote
How does God's foreknowledge work?
Eze 4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
If God's reads the future, why did He say this to his prophet knowing the prophet would refuse?
The prophet was following the torah instructions to the letter, so why did God, who talked to His prophet, ask him to do something against His own torah? Seems like God can change His torah, and even do falsehood? I say "seems like".... why is this passage even in our Bible? I am thinking of "foreknowledge" ?
Seems to me - "foreknowledge" does not remove the daily struggles with temptation.
The prophet was asked by God to disobey his own torah -can we even suggest this? The passage is in the Bible for a reason.
Answer these questions, if you can using the theme "foreknowledge" .
Shalom
I am hearing what you wrote
How does God's foreknowledge work?
Eze 4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
If God's reads the future, why did He say this to his prophet knowing the prophet would refuse?
The prophet was following the torah instructions to the letter, so why did God, who talked to His prophet, ask him to do something against His own torah? Seems like God can change His torah, and even do falsehood? I say "seems like".... why is this passage even in our Bible? I am thinking of "foreknowledge" ?
Seems to me - "foreknowledge" does not remove the daily struggles with temptation.
The prophet was asked by God to disobey his own torah -can we even suggest this? The passage is in the Bible for a reason.
Answer these questions, if you can using the theme "foreknowledge" .
Shalom
Last edited:
Rob,
In biblical literature, God often issues a command - not because He expects the action to be completed, but to elicit a specific response or to illustrate a point.
The Parallel of Abraham: God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22). God didn't "learn" that Abraham was faithful only at the last second; the command was for Abraham’s growth and as a prophetic shadow of the Gospel.
The Point of Ezekiel 4: God wasn't "changing the Torah." He was using a shocking visual aid (the dung) to show how desperate and "unclean" the siege of Jerusalem would be. Ezekiel’s protest allowed God to show mercy (switching to cow dung), which further illustrated that while judgment is coming, God still hears the cries of His people.
If you have seen a movie 20 TIMES, you know exactly when the hero will jump off the building. Your knowledge of his jump does not FORCE HIM to jump; he chooses it every time.
Traditional Christian (and EVEN mainstream Adventist) theology holds that God exists outside of time. God sees the "end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10) because He sees the entire timeline at once, not because He is guessing what might happen.
Most importantly Rob, for you mental health - If God didn't know the future, he could not be a guarantor of prophecy. If God is just "guessing" based on current trends, then the Book of Revelation is a "best-case scenario" rather than a guaranteed victory. This undermines the entire SDA focus on the certainty of the Three Angels' Messages
In biblical literature, God often issues a command - not because He expects the action to be completed, but to elicit a specific response or to illustrate a point.
The Parallel of Abraham: God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22). God didn't "learn" that Abraham was faithful only at the last second; the command was for Abraham’s growth and as a prophetic shadow of the Gospel.
The Point of Ezekiel 4: God wasn't "changing the Torah." He was using a shocking visual aid (the dung) to show how desperate and "unclean" the siege of Jerusalem would be. Ezekiel’s protest allowed God to show mercy (switching to cow dung), which further illustrated that while judgment is coming, God still hears the cries of His people.
If you have seen a movie 20 TIMES, you know exactly when the hero will jump off the building. Your knowledge of his jump does not FORCE HIM to jump; he chooses it every time.
Traditional Christian (and EVEN mainstream Adventist) theology holds that God exists outside of time. God sees the "end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10) because He sees the entire timeline at once, not because He is guessing what might happen.
Most importantly Rob, for you mental health - If God didn't know the future, he could not be a guarantor of prophecy. If God is just "guessing" based on current trends, then the Book of Revelation is a "best-case scenario" rather than a guaranteed victory. This undermines the entire SDA focus on the certainty of the Three Angels' Messages
rob
Moderator
I really liked your answers Grunion, so if God has foreknowledge for all things, including the victory of His Son when He became a human fallen as we are in a fallen nature, just as we are, why do you suppose that this removes his daily will with its temptations, like any human has to put up with (assuming His Divine nature could not talk to His human nature).
The problem is the CCC says Jesus Divine nature talked to his human nature, that makes Him have an advantage over us? Why can't we assume the Father talked to Jesus in His human nature, just as we can through faith? The problem we is we break faith too often while Jesus never did - not even once.
God knew His prophet with human dung, would choose His torah over cooking in cow dung rather than human dung, but He asked Him anyway to show us reading Scripture that daily choices are a part of foreknowledge.
And like you said God knowing the future is great because it makes His word reliable and trustworthy. But my point is, it does not remove daily free will struggles, even though the overall result is known to God, and in Jesus' case was written down hundreds of years before He became a human.
Am I making sense or is this topic too difficult for both of us?
Shalom
The problem is the CCC says Jesus Divine nature talked to his human nature, that makes Him have an advantage over us? Why can't we assume the Father talked to Jesus in His human nature, just as we can through faith? The problem we is we break faith too often while Jesus never did - not even once.
God knew His prophet with human dung, would choose His torah over cooking in cow dung rather than human dung, but He asked Him anyway to show us reading Scripture that daily choices are a part of foreknowledge.
And like you said God knowing the future is great because it makes His word reliable and trustworthy. But my point is, it does not remove daily free will struggles, even though the overall result is known to God, and in Jesus' case was written down hundreds of years before He became a human.
Am I making sense or is this topic too difficult for both of us?
Shalom
Last edited:
It didn't remove His will.
Jesus, from His own words, ALWAYS did the will of The Father & always did those things that pleased The Father.
John 6, 38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me
John 8, 29
And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him
If Jesus is God The Son who came to earth to do the will of the Father and God The Son ALWAYS does what is pleasing to God this leaves no room or justification to hypothetically suggest that Christ could have conducted Himself in a way NOT pleasing to the Father. God became man WITHOUT ceasing to be God. Ellen White taught that the Divine and Human "natures" of Christ were "BLENDED" aka 'confused' thereby resulting in a creature-christ. This creature - christ had THE POTENTIAL of becoming the Christ provided it didn't sin, loose it's salvation and eternally cease to exist. As I shared previously - had Ellen Arian hypothetical been realized ALL of the Prophets in the Old Testament would have been FALSE PROPHETS and God The Father would have been a LIAR. The mechanics of this twisted idea should immediately instruct you that it wasn't from God.
The natures were fully united - and yes Jesus DID / DOES have an advantage as the purpose of Christ was to defeat the works of Devil.
1 John 3,8:
He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil
A medical Doctor doesn't need to have homosexual sex, contract HIV and get AIDS to be able to treat someone with AID's - nor does God have to wallow in sin to be able to provide healing to sinners. In any event God already told us how everything would work out in the end and this fact alone precludes any Arian hypotheticals about any endgame that deviates from the true Prophecies as found in Sacred Scripture over and over and over again.
The struggles Christ had were all related to His earthly body, Jesus had a body that was common to anyone thousands of years past Adam's ejections from Eden - Jesus got tired, got sick, I'm sure He stubbed His toes, got thirsty, etc. just like us. He was in all ways EXCEPT FOR SIN just like us.
Because Scripture details just how a person is tempted we know explicitly that Jesus never yearned / lusted to sleep with another man's wife, have homosexual sex with another man, to steal or to murder or do ANYTHING that didn't please The Father. This is why Scripture makes it clear PRIOR to Jesus being "tempted BY/OF the Devil" that Satan had NOTHING IN HIM. This 'THING' that Jesus didn't have in Him was CONCUPISCENCE.
John 14, 29-30:
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath NOTHING in me.
Rob, you can't say Satan has nothing in you! I can't say Satan has nothing in me for we have concupiscence - this is what Satan has in us - it's the yearning or lust to do that what we shouldn't do! My guess is that while a 600lb woman with horrific body odor could come up to you and "TEMPT YOU" to cheat on your wife with her you wouldn't be tempted within yourself to go through with it. Now, replace the 600lb stinky woman with a 100lb stunning model - you would feel the pull to commit sin because YOU WANT to do it - you must resist what you want to do so that this unborn yearning or desire doesn't get "born" exact like James 1 explains so clearly.
Romans 7,8
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Strong's G1939 (Concupiscence)
- desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust
Jesus desired food and other things which were ALL not forbidden. Hope this helps you see why I must reject Ellen White's heretical teachings about Christ.
rob
Moderator
Greetings Grunion
Grunion: “If Jesus is God The Son who came to earth to do the will of the Father and God
You just stated Jesus has free will - to do the free of the Father is to have free will - Same conditions we have to do the will of the Father - use our free will - we ask for powers from the Father or the Son using faith.
Jesus used the same exact powers available to us, meaning : faith in this Father. Do you agree with this Grunion, that Jesus showed faith in His Father?
Grunion: The Son ALWAYS does what is pleasing to God
Yes because He wanted to, free will chose to, because He loved His Father
Grunion: “this leaves no room or justification to hypothetically suggest that Christ could have conducted Himself in a way NOT pleasing to the Father.
Correct, but it does not do away with Jesus was doing faith in His Father.
Do you agree that Jesus was doing faith in His Father?
I would imagine you cannot agree to this idea because you say
Grunion : “God became man WITHOUT ceasing to be God.
What do you mean by saying this statement?
Are you saying the Father was on the earth at the same time the Father was in heaven, the one on earth you call Christ ? Are you saying the Divine personality on earth was exactly as the divine personality in heaven?
And what Hebrew word are you using? THIS I would really like to know.
1) Eloah became man WITHOUT ceasing to be Eloah.
2) El became man WITHOUT ceasing to be El
3) Elohiym became man WITHOUT ceasing to be Elohiym.
4) maybe you mean "divine" this is not a Hebrew word
I see Jesus as an El, AND this is Divine. The Father, Eloah is an El too, this is Divine.
Elohiym cannot mean ELoah, or El, and has to refer to what the CCC calls “trinity” the 3 in 1.
So you cannot use “elohiym” in this way - because it refers to 3 in 1
The Hebrew word “ELoah, El Shadday and Michael, all use “el” which means 1
I do not see much CCC written about the nature of the three “el” in Scripture
Now if the EL on earth is doing faith to the EL in heaven, that implies
1) Free will to ask
2) that the EL on earth can be independent but chooses not to, because love is always a power that is fully dependent on the members of the Elohiym.
Breaking faith, or support to each other, thus becoming independent, is a terrible thing : implosion to the Godhead, it would destroy love as a power.
Grunion: Ellen White taught that the Divine and Human "natures" of Christ were "BLENDED" aka 'confused'
And later you say "The natures were fully united “
I see an oxymoron contradiction here with your words?
Grunion: yes Jesus DID / DOES have an advantageas the purpose of Christ was to defeat the works of Devil.
What do you mean by this?
I would negate your statement. Jesus came to show us how to live perfectly by faith.
He could not have any advantage over us. Otherwise God is not personal to us - not able to be like us -
The Devils claim is faith is NOT required - we can live fine as independents.
God’s claim is ALL beings, including GOD live only by being dependent .
Faith is the law and tools for achieving this dependence. Satan hates such faith rules.
Grunion :"nor does God have to wallow in sin to be able to provide healing to sinners.
Your statement is so, so misleading - sorry bro.
What is the only thing Jesus had to do to destroy Himself and His Father?
make power independent.
Can I ask you if the CCC recognizes Gnostic beliefs?
You can feel the temptation more intensely if you have never broken faith before.
Adam and Eve had more remorse for sinning than another other human who ever lived, except Jesus - He felt the pain even more - because he remained faithful.
How faithful are we talking about? Spending all night in prayer while the Father speaks to you about the next day, all the ones coming to you and why and all the hidden agenda they have and what to claim and do about them. All in this prayer all night. That is faith.
Nothing like do in our prayers, but we do not ask. We do not pray like Jesus did.
You speak of transgressions - such sins are pathetic.
Try to speak a whole day using the Father’s words only and not you own words - using human powered speech?
That is a faith achievement. And that is just a single day.
I remember humans punching an world ex retired boxer who became a SDA, and they taunted him and He never boxed them back? Why didn't he box them back? Cause he was changed. They knew He could flatten him, so they boxed him all the more. Feel His pain?
A sinless being feels more pain than a sinning being does.
Grunion: "Jesus had a body that was common to anyone thousands of years past Adam's ejections from Eden - Jesus got tired, got sick, I'm sure He stubbed His toes, got thirsty, etc. just like us.
Amazing when you consider the brain memory was like ours, the amazing thing I find his faith experience was faultless, unlike ours.
Grunion: "This 'THING' that Jesus didn't have in Him was CONCUPISCENCE.
This is false misleading of the work meaning in Greek
Lu 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Same word, repeated twice - go figure !!!
The word means "desire" not sexual desire as the dictionaries claim.
Grunion: "Rob, you can't say Satan has nothing in you!
Yes I agree, I break faith lots of times daily.
Our most common breaking faith is forgetting to ask Jesus for something.
Jesus never forgot His Father. Amazing feat.
Now there are some questions I wanted you to answer.
Do you agree Jesus was always doing thing on the earth using faith in His is Father?
The only time He used His own divinity was in the Mount transfiguration, He divinity rushed to meet the Father’s divinity in the clouds and they shone like the sun.
Shalom
Grunion: “If Jesus is God The Son who came to earth to do the will of the Father and God
You just stated Jesus has free will - to do the free of the Father is to have free will - Same conditions we have to do the will of the Father - use our free will - we ask for powers from the Father or the Son using faith.
Jesus used the same exact powers available to us, meaning : faith in this Father. Do you agree with this Grunion, that Jesus showed faith in His Father?
Grunion: The Son ALWAYS does what is pleasing to God
Yes because He wanted to, free will chose to, because He loved His Father
Grunion: “this leaves no room or justification to hypothetically suggest that Christ could have conducted Himself in a way NOT pleasing to the Father.
Correct, but it does not do away with Jesus was doing faith in His Father.
Do you agree that Jesus was doing faith in His Father?
I would imagine you cannot agree to this idea because you say
Grunion : “God became man WITHOUT ceasing to be God.
What do you mean by saying this statement?
Are you saying the Father was on the earth at the same time the Father was in heaven, the one on earth you call Christ ? Are you saying the Divine personality on earth was exactly as the divine personality in heaven?
And what Hebrew word are you using? THIS I would really like to know.
1) Eloah became man WITHOUT ceasing to be Eloah.
2) El became man WITHOUT ceasing to be El
3) Elohiym became man WITHOUT ceasing to be Elohiym.
4) maybe you mean "divine" this is not a Hebrew word
I see Jesus as an El, AND this is Divine. The Father, Eloah is an El too, this is Divine.
Elohiym cannot mean ELoah, or El, and has to refer to what the CCC calls “trinity” the 3 in 1.
So you cannot use “elohiym” in this way - because it refers to 3 in 1
The Hebrew word “ELoah, El Shadday and Michael, all use “el” which means 1
I do not see much CCC written about the nature of the three “el” in Scripture
Now if the EL on earth is doing faith to the EL in heaven, that implies
1) Free will to ask
2) that the EL on earth can be independent but chooses not to, because love is always a power that is fully dependent on the members of the Elohiym.
Breaking faith, or support to each other, thus becoming independent, is a terrible thing : implosion to the Godhead, it would destroy love as a power.
Grunion: Ellen White taught that the Divine and Human "natures" of Christ were "BLENDED" aka 'confused'
And later you say "The natures were fully united “
I see an oxymoron contradiction here with your words?
Grunion: yes Jesus DID / DOES have an advantageas the purpose of Christ was to defeat the works of Devil.
What do you mean by this?
I would negate your statement. Jesus came to show us how to live perfectly by faith.
He could not have any advantage over us. Otherwise God is not personal to us - not able to be like us -
The Devils claim is faith is NOT required - we can live fine as independents.
God’s claim is ALL beings, including GOD live only by being dependent .
Faith is the law and tools for achieving this dependence. Satan hates such faith rules.
Grunion :"nor does God have to wallow in sin to be able to provide healing to sinners.
Your statement is so, so misleading - sorry bro.
What is the only thing Jesus had to do to destroy Himself and His Father?
make power independent.
Can I ask you if the CCC recognizes Gnostic beliefs?
You can feel the temptation more intensely if you have never broken faith before.
Adam and Eve had more remorse for sinning than another other human who ever lived, except Jesus - He felt the pain even more - because he remained faithful.
How faithful are we talking about? Spending all night in prayer while the Father speaks to you about the next day, all the ones coming to you and why and all the hidden agenda they have and what to claim and do about them. All in this prayer all night. That is faith.
Nothing like do in our prayers, but we do not ask. We do not pray like Jesus did.
You speak of transgressions - such sins are pathetic.
Try to speak a whole day using the Father’s words only and not you own words - using human powered speech?
That is a faith achievement. And that is just a single day.
I remember humans punching an world ex retired boxer who became a SDA, and they taunted him and He never boxed them back? Why didn't he box them back? Cause he was changed. They knew He could flatten him, so they boxed him all the more. Feel His pain?
A sinless being feels more pain than a sinning being does.
Grunion: "Jesus had a body that was common to anyone thousands of years past Adam's ejections from Eden - Jesus got tired, got sick, I'm sure He stubbed His toes, got thirsty, etc. just like us.
Amazing when you consider the brain memory was like ours, the amazing thing I find his faith experience was faultless, unlike ours.
Grunion: "This 'THING' that Jesus didn't have in Him was CONCUPISCENCE.
This is false misleading of the work meaning in Greek
Lu 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Same word, repeated twice - go figure !!!
The word means "desire" not sexual desire as the dictionaries claim.
Grunion: "Rob, you can't say Satan has nothing in you!
Yes I agree, I break faith lots of times daily.
Our most common breaking faith is forgetting to ask Jesus for something.
Jesus never forgot His Father. Amazing feat.
Now there are some questions I wanted you to answer.
Do you agree Jesus was always doing thing on the earth using faith in His is Father?
The only time He used His own divinity was in the Mount transfiguration, He divinity rushed to meet the Father’s divinity in the clouds and they shone like the sun.
Shalom
No, as I said earlier Jesus is God Almighty, He was / is the fullness of the Godhead in human flesh. God can do anything except not be God. I've said this so many times at this point if you don't understand it - clean your bong.
Not in the Arian sense you are saying. The Trinity is / was eternally inseparable. This may be foreign concept with your Arian theological foundation where Christ was a creature operating like "the little engine who could". Christ was, in eternity, in perfect union with the Father. The way you spin it is Christ came to show us how to live so we can save ourselves. I've checked with literally ever Protestant Denomination and all of them say the SDA Christological view is heresy. You can't be a Lutheran or a Methodist and spew what Ellen White did about Christ. You can't be a Baptist or Reformed and spew what Ellen did about Christ. This seems to be no big deal to you.
rob
Moderator
I see so you don't have separate Divine Beings from eternity.
You have one Being from eternity who expresses itself as three persons,
(like making three copies of itself - three clones of divinity perhaps?)
My view might explain the rise of sin in the angel, jealousy over three independent beings who choose not to be independent, BUT your view has no possibility for sin rising ever, because you have ONE PERSON. That means there is ONE throne?
Question: How many thrones does GOD sit upon? One or three?
Question: How many EL's is in your view? One or three?
Why does the Bible use "el" than if there is no such thing as "el" in your view?
When you study the term "el" the impression you get, is an "el" is an independent strong authority?
Why is the Bible describing three els, when according to you there is one el?
How do you show love if the "three expressions" are of the same "love personality" ? Where is the risk if there is no free will to reject love and loving?
Can you show me some CCC statements that promote your strange concept please?
Now I am beginning to see why we can't talk to you - you do not have "three persons" you really only have "one person- with three faces"
The Bible does have cherubs with four faces on their one head, so maybe you are thinking God is like this perhaps?
Eze 1:6 And every one had four faces,
But there is no example of such an angel, being in two or three or four places in space and shapes at the same time, only One being with 4 faces.
Explain how you can have ONE Being with three faces, be in two or three places across space at the same time (Gen 19:24 for example) so that means each "face" is with it's own body? Can you explain this?
So in this massive of topics, how do you ascertain if YHWH is like this?
Give me an idea of the kinds of Scripture you use?
For me, I would go looking at the number of "EL" used to describe "elohiym"
and there are three, not one.
"el-oah "micha-el" and "el-shadday"
I also find the Bible describes the three els as a Family - so there is no guessing what ELohiym power is like? SO the buck is over to you to explain?
Why was there a need for YHWH on earth to pray to the same YHWH in heaven
as in John 17. Can you answer that as well?
SHalom
You have one Being from eternity who expresses itself as three persons,
(like making three copies of itself - three clones of divinity perhaps?)
My view might explain the rise of sin in the angel, jealousy over three independent beings who choose not to be independent, BUT your view has no possibility for sin rising ever, because you have ONE PERSON. That means there is ONE throne?
Question: How many thrones does GOD sit upon? One or three?
Question: How many EL's is in your view? One or three?
Why does the Bible use "el" than if there is no such thing as "el" in your view?
When you study the term "el" the impression you get, is an "el" is an independent strong authority?
Why is the Bible describing three els, when according to you there is one el?
How do you show love if the "three expressions" are of the same "love personality" ? Where is the risk if there is no free will to reject love and loving?
Can you show me some CCC statements that promote your strange concept please?
Now I am beginning to see why we can't talk to you - you do not have "three persons" you really only have "one person- with three faces"
The Bible does have cherubs with four faces on their one head, so maybe you are thinking God is like this perhaps?
Eze 1:6 And every one had four faces,
But there is no example of such an angel, being in two or three or four places in space and shapes at the same time, only One being with 4 faces.
Explain how you can have ONE Being with three faces, be in two or three places across space at the same time (Gen 19:24 for example) so that means each "face" is with it's own body? Can you explain this?
So in this massive of topics, how do you ascertain if YHWH is like this?
Give me an idea of the kinds of Scripture you use?
For me, I would go looking at the number of "EL" used to describe "elohiym"
and there are three, not one.
"el-oah "micha-el" and "el-shadday"
I also find the Bible describes the three els as a Family - so there is no guessing what ELohiym power is like? SO the buck is over to you to explain?
Why was there a need for YHWH on earth to pray to the same YHWH in heaven
as in John 17. Can you answer that as well?
SHalom
Last edited: