Bill - 07 June 2008 10:56 PM

I never said Phen B intentionally meant what he wrote.  As for the removal of the “veil… the removal of the filters through which we looked at the Bible”, you would have me look at the Bible through your filters of John 6 and Romans 8/9.  You know I object to looking at the Bible through any filters, so reject your claim that Adventists look at the Bible through filters.

There is more in the Bible in regard to election and predestination than John 6 and Romans 8 and 9, some time ago I brought enough proof that Jesus taught these truths in many other occasions (John 10:26-28, Matthew 11:25, Matthew 13:11-15), but even if I have only John 6 and Romans 8 and 9 interpreted correctly, I can be sure that unconditional election and predestination are true.

It’s not a surprise that you disagree with me regarding your filters. You obviously had not went through our experience, which is described in 2 Cor. 3. It is related with the way in which reading the Old Testament can function as a filter for understanding the gospel, keeping people in a work-righteousness system. Instead of using the New Testament as an interpretative grid of the Old Testament, Adventists use the Old Testament as an interpretative grid of the New. This is doing theology backwards, and the entire sanctuary doctrine of the SDA Church is a proof of this. Instead of recognizing that the Epistle of Hebrews shows that the two apartment ministry was a representation of the deficiencies of the Old Covenant, and there are not two apartments or two different ministries in the New Covenant priesthood of Jesus, they pushed the model of the Old Covenant sanctuary in heaven like the New Covenant = Old Covenant.  Instead of acknowledging that Jesus opened to us a new and living way to God which is far better than the limited access to God represented by the two apartment sanctuary, they kept this limited access intact pushing into the future the blessing of a finished atonement which are manifested in the eternal redemption of our souls accomplished by Jesus which is the present blessing of any true believer.

But no, the SDAs must wait until the judgment to know if they have or not eternal redemption. They must wait as the old jews waited in expectation for the Redeemer to make atonement for their sins, to bring God’s kingdom. They must wait like Jesus never came on this planet, never finished the atonement, never brought the eternal righteousness, never defeated Satan decisively, and never broke the power and dominion of sin and Satan over the sinners.  There is no finality in The SDA gospel, people are kept in uncertainty about their destiny, and they can only hope some day that they were faithful to God enough that Jesus will plead their case before God and cleanse their sins from the heavenly books. And all of this because they read the New Testament through the lens of the Old Testament, so that a veil remains on their face which makes them unable to see the beauty and clarity of the gospel.

gabriel

Bill - 07 June 2008 11:10 PM

What your saying here is that I am free to reject the “orthodox” definition of Trinity because I believe that it may contain unbiblical components.  You are free at any time to show me where the Bible says that the Trinity is one physically and that 1-1=0.  I have already shown you where that is unbiblical and you have not responded.  I don’t ask that you respond here but where this subject is being discussed.  I have also read different versions of the “orthodox” definition of Trinity and I do not see your concept of 1-1=0.  You continue to want to call me a heretic for believing what the Bible says and rejecting your unbiblical assertions.  I find that interesting.  I believe that you are simply calling me names because of your need to convince yourself that you are right.  When you lack the evidence you will revert to name calling…

Bill, here is how CARM, Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry defines Trinity
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm

God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father.  They are not three gods and not three beings.  They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God.  Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood.  They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

CARM is a dedicated counter-cult ministry which deals with JWs, Mormons, and a lot of others who are anti-trinitarian, and it formulated the Trinity in a language adequate to eliminate misunderstandings and to make clear where people who want to be considered orthodox must take their stand.

Bill - 07 June 2008 11:10 PM

You are free at any time to show me where the Bible says that the Trinity is one physically and that 1-1=0.

Bill, I don’t see any reasons to post here all the biblical affirmations that God is one, all the biblical proof for monotheism. You already know these texts, but you are not willing to acknowledge that God is one being. If God is one (1) and Jesus is God (1), one God minus God results in zero. 1 - 1 = 0.

I don’t know what orthodox creeds you read about Trinity,. it is sufficient that you cannot subscribe to the Athanasian creed and to the affirmation that God is one in substance that was ratified at Nicaea. Your own opposition to the orthodox formulations of the Trinity is placing you outside of the orthodox faith, in the polytheistic realm.

You said that my posts lack grace. I have a different opinion than yours. I think that if the subject will be less important than it is, disagreement regarding can be tolerated without problem, but when we discuss doctrines essential for our salvation, it will be the most ungracious thing to say “Go in peace, even if I believe you’re wrong, you’re views will not send you to hell”. 

Bill, the problem is not between me and you, and who wins this debate. I recognize that my language is offensive for you, but better be offended and repent, than remain in your current position and go straight to hell. My language is proportionate with the seriousness of the subject, and I’ll make you a disservice if I’ll tell you that your views about Trinity are orthodox.

Gabriel

Bill - 07 June 2008 11:19 PM

Greg wrote:
I notice you passed over my comments about Adventism being founded on the very judgmental behavior you are accusing me of exhibiting. Would you like to comment on why Ellen White said that Protestant pastors had the “blood of souls” on their hands for not accepting the Millerite date-setting error? How is this not the very same judgmental behavior you say I exhibit?

I passed over this because I believe you want to drag me into a “argument” over EGW.  While you continue to want to quote EGW to support your views, I prefer to stick to the Bible and judge your views based on those writings.

Again, you ascribe a motive to me that is not true. I have no intention of arguing about EGW, I am simply asking you to admit that your denomination was founded in the midst of a highly judgmental “us vs. them” mentality that persists to this day. You don’t like it when we conclude that an Adventist teaching is unbiblical, unorthodox and possibly heretical, so you appeal for more graciousness in the discussion. We already discussed that truth claims are mutually exclusive, so we should not be surprised when a clash of theological positions appears, on the surface, to be lacking in graciousness. But what I find highly ironic Bill is that as an Adventist, you appeal for us to be softer in our assessment of Adventism when your church wrote the book on how to marginalize anyone who doesn’t agree with it, labeling themselves as “God’s Remnant” while accusing professed Christians as being “apostate Protestants”, part of “spiritual Babylon”, and having the “blood of souls” on their hands. Before asking for graciousness from us, you should at least admit that your church has a very poor track record for showing graciousness to anyone who disagrees with its unique message.

Greg

Greg - 08 June 2008 08:41 AM

Bill - 07 June 2008 11:19 PM

Greg wrote:
I notice you passed over my comments about Adventism being founded on the very judgmental behavior you are accusing me of exhibiting. Would you like to comment on why Ellen White said that Protestant pastors had the “blood of souls” on their hands for not accepting the Millerite date-setting error? How is this not the very same judgmental behavior you say I exhibit?

I passed over this because I believe you want to drag me into a “argument” over EGW.  While you continue to want to quote EGW to support your views, I prefer to stick to the Bible and judge your views based on those writings.

Again, you ascribe a motive to me that is not true. I have no intention of arguing about EGW, I am simply asking you to admit that your denomination was founded in the midst of a highly judgmental “us vs. them” mentality that persists to this day. You don’t like it when we conclude that an Adventist teaching is unbiblical, unorthodox and possibly heretical, so you appeal for more graciousness in the discussion. We already discussed that truth claims are mutually exclusive, so we should not be surprised when a clash of theological positions appears, on the surface, to be lacking in graciousness. But what I find highly ironic Bill is that as an Adventist, you appeal for us to be softer in our assessment of Adventism when your church wrote the book on how to marginalize anyone who doesn’t agree with it, labeling themselves as “God’s Remnant” while accusing professed Christians as being “apostate Protestants”, part of “spiritual Babylon”, and having the “blood of souls” on their hands. Before asking for graciousness from us, you should at least admit that your church has a very poor track record for showing graciousness to anyone who disagrees with its unique message.

Greg

I’ll take it, Greg, that you have a disagreement with the SDA church and not me.  Thus the nasty tone.  You’ve done me a great favor.  I have been reading the threads you referenced on the IJ.  That is so far the best discussion I have come across in all my searching on the web.  Thank you very much!

I’m not sure I see any need to involve myself in the discussion, but will likely print out parts of it and study the texts in context to see what is true.  It will likely wind down my involvement here as I am TIRED of dealing with the judgmental statements and misstatements.

Thanks again,

Bill.

Gabriel:
Bill, I don’t see any reasons to post here all the biblical affirmations that God is one, all the biblical proof for monotheism. You already know these texts, but you are not willing to acknowledge that God is one being. If God is one (1) and Jesus is God (1), one God minus God results in zero. 1 - 1 = 0.

Of course I believe God is One.  What “One” means we differ on.  You say that God is three beings and yet one being.  Three physical beings and yet one physical being.  Where is this in the Bible.  I don’t think that is too much to ask for!

As for using the OT as a “lens” for the NT.  I have made it clear that I believe the whole Bible and interpret all Scripture against ALL Scripture.  I’m sorry this offends you.

As for the rest, I refer you to the following:

1 Corinthians 13: “1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

You say its for my good, that you are unwilling to show charity or be gracious!

Gabriel, unless you are going to provide some Biblical support for the Godhead being One physically and deal with why the Godhead didn’t disappear when Jesus was separated from God at the cross, don’t bother with any more name calling and diatribe against the SDA church in general.  Its not endearing me to you in the least!

Bill.

Gabriel:
Bill, the problem is not between me and you, and who wins this debate. I recognize that my language is offensive for you, but better be offended and repent, than remain in your current position and go straight to hell. My language is proportionate with the seriousness of the subject, and I’ll make you a disservice if I’ll tell you that your views about Trinity are orthodox.

If you read back to my previous posts, I am not trying to win a debate.  I’m trying to find out what the Bible teaches.  I couldn’t care LESS if my present view is “orthodox” if it is not found in the Bible I’m not going to agree with it.  If all you care about is what was “approved” at the council of Nicaea, then by all means, believe that.

Bill - 08 June 2008 11:46 AM

I’ll take it, Greg, that you have a disagreement with the SDA church and not me.  Thus the nasty tone.  ... It will likely wind down my involvement here as I am TIRED of dealing with the judgmental statements and misstatements.

Bill, you studiously avoid coming to terms with what your own church claims for itself, saying that I am being “nasty” when I have the audacity to bring it up. I didn’t make these statements, Bill, so why is it my fault when I object to them?

Greg

Bill - 08 June 2008 12:13 PM

I couldn’t care LESS if my present view is “orthodox” if it is not found in the Bible I’m not going to agree with it.  If all you care about is what was “approved” at the council of Nicaea, then by all means, believe that.

Ok, I already said that you are free to reject what it was said at Nicaea, if you think is not biblical, but at the same time you should cease to claim that you’re trinitarian, because you use the word Trinity unlawfully, changing it’s meaning.  You cannot have the cake and eat it too. The discussion about Trinity started with your complaint that you are unjustly accused of not believing in the Trinity as the rest of the Christian world. You had a lot of opportunity to show that you believe like the other Christians, instead you proved the opposite.

Bill - 08 June 2008 12:07 PM

You say that God is three beings and yet one being.  Three physical beings and yet one physical being.  Where is this in the Bible.  I don’t think that is too much to ask for!.

Three beings and one being? And physical? I reject such a view as much you do. Where in my posts I argued for this, it is beyond my understanding. If I remember, I protested twice to the use of word physical, since God is spirit....

Gabrel

Gabriel/CARM:
God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father.

Agreed.

They are not three gods and not three beings.

Didn’t we just say they were separate persons?  I can agree on One God, but where does “not three beings” come from?  Three distinct persons, but not three beings?

They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. 

No problem.

Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood.  They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance.

Absolute perfect harmony, no problem (Biblical).  Consisting of one substance?  Whats that?

They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful.

Agreed.

If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

Biblical support please!

Gabriel, what surprises me is that you suggest I’m going to hell for not believing what you believe and you don’t have the Biblical support, so far, to defend these statements.  Why would you think I am going to go to hell for not believing something that you have not been able to give me a plain thus saith the Lord?

I believe in a Trinity Godhead.  One God, three distinct persons.  In perfect absolute harmony.  Coeternal, coequal, and copowerful (although I’m not sure if Jesus may have given up some of His divine attributes by becoming a man, ie omnipresence).

Its like you want to insult me by trying to claim that I am not Trinitarian because I don’t hold to all parts of your definition.  Furthermore, the parts I am not sure about in your definition are parts that you cannot seem to substantiate.

My goodness brother, listen to what you are saying and show a little grace!  I’m not trying to say your going to hell over this.  The Bible doesn’t say “Believe on the Orthodox Trinity and you’ll be saved”!

Simple answer. If one of the divine Persons of the Trinity ceased to exist, God would no longer be triune and his nature would fundamentally be changed.

Some Bible doctrines are explicit and some are implicit. If you are looking for a text to explicitly define the Trinity, you will miss what Scripture implies and end up in error.

Greg

Hey, look at this:

Jesus Himself claimed equality with God. He identified Himself as the “‘I AM’” (John 8:58), the God of the Old Testament. He called God “‘My Father’” instead of “our Father” (John 20:17). And His statement “‘I and My Father are one’” (John 10:30) sets forth the claim that He was of “one substance” with the Father, “possessing the same attributes.” Referenced in Seventh-day Adventists Believe, page 45, quoting Ellen White, “The True Sheep Respond to the Voice of the Shepherd,” Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, p. 54. (source here)

Here’s the full quote:

With what firmness and power he uttered these words. The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes. The Jews understood his meaning, there was no reason why they should misunderstand, and they took up stones to stone him. Jesus looked upon them calmly and unshrinkingly, and said, “Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?” {ST, November 27, 1893 par. 5}

Do we still need a “Thus saith the Lord” or is Ellen White’s word good enough?

Greg

Bill - 08 June 2008 05:48 PM

Its like you want to insult me by trying to claim that I am not Trinitarian because I don’t hold to all parts of your definition.  Furthermore, the parts I am not sure about in your definition are parts that you cannot seem to substantiate.

Bill, what am I asked to substantiate? That God is ONE? Monotheism?

Please understand that your definition of the oneness of God is not rising above the level of a pagan definition of a triad, like the Egyptian Osiris (man), Isis (wife) and Horus (Son). The family image for gods is a patter which is found in almost every pagan belief, and all these triads are composed of multiple gods, not one God. Where is the radical distinction between Israel’s monotheistic belief and the polytheistic belief of the other cultures? If the God of Israel is a family like the gods of the heathen, we no longer speak about monotheism and the meaning of biblical texts which teach us that God is one is lost.

It happens that my definition is the definition of the Trinity to which the Christian world subscribe. It’s not up to you to reject any part of this definition, as the word Trinity can have different meanings. The Christian church already rejected your view under the heading of tritheism, clearly indicated that Trinity cannot be defined as tritheism. Claiming to be trinitarian is claiming to be something you are not, because you cannot reject the part of definition which was formulated in order to preserve monotheism.

Gabriel

Brother Bill, You have done a good job in diverting the “Sanctuary” topic as discussed in the letter by R.A.Grieve, former Conference President in the SDA church, who was dumped by his superiors, and turned it into a pity party about name calling.

Look at the post where an SDA, (jaguy1) pranced in here, calling what we say on here “B.S propaganda,” (posted 01 June 2008 04:14 AM) and you calling Dennis “bitter” and notice who are the name callers.

There had been an overwhelming desire on here to be charitable towards you. The brethren have already answered you poke concerning

“I too “thought” I knew the bible very well,”

, so I will refrain from persuing it any further.
It would be nice if you would consider the things R.A Grieve mentioned and think about how your church, “the remnant” dismissed him. Reminds me of the situation with another SDA pastor of note some years ago. I am sure you know what I am speaking about.

Concerning your not reading anything so far to cause you to change your mind, remember that “a wise man changes his mind, a fool never does.”

Also, “wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” Plato

It is interesting reading on the ex-jehovah witnesses web site. Remove a name or two and insert the SDA name and it reads just like Adventism. Interesting that the current Jehovahs Witnesses would make the same arguments against the people who left their ranks.

By the way brother, my bible indicates who is or is not a true prophet and Ellen fails miserably, so I do call her a false prophet, and I do believe that the SDA church preaches a different gospel than the bible, and yes they do place a great emphasis on Satan being the “sin bearer” instead of Jesus, as indicated in Leviticus 16.  Now I’ ve done all the things you asked me not to do, so I guess I am in your mind “attacking the SDA church.”

One does not have to leave Adventism in order to live in sin, as some suggest that people who leave do. One could be in the SDA church and live as one likes, just as some do, who are still there cheating on their wives or husbands, and everyone knows about it, and if they are in leadership positions, they get transferred, instead of losing their jobs, if they are more important and have more sway than others.

The reason this happens is because the more one looks into the law, the greater the sin is magnified, because God set it up that way. The law brings death, (even the sabbath commandment), that is why it is called the “ministration of death.” (but that is another discussion altogether)

It is preferable to leave the SDA church at the promptings of the Holy Spirit, if one cannot in good conscience even sing the “sabbath” songs which worship a DAY instead of the Lord Jesus Christ, or if one can no longer attempt to “change the church from the inside,” since that is an impossibility.

The root is too deep and too corrupt, and that is the job of the Holy Spirit to remove the veil and uproot those whom God wants to place in his invisible church where they worship in “spirit and truth.” One cannot satisfy the “spiritual” with the “physical” and Adventism, like most of the churches today, is all about the physical.

Phen

Thanks for bringing us to the subject at hand, we got sidetracked by secondary things which belong to other place.

The subject of the sanctuary, in all fairness, is a big challenge for any Adventist to look with an open mind when somebody like Grieve challenges it to the core. I think we should be patient with Bill and give him time to study the subject

Phen B - 08 June 2008 10:03 PM

One does not have to leave Adventism in order to live in sin, as some suggest that people who leave do. One could be in the SDA church and live as one likes, just as some do, who are still there cheating on their wives or husbands, and everyone knows about it, and if they are in leadership positions, they get transferred, instead of losing their jobs, if they are more important and have more sway than others. .

Very true and sad. Adventism is similar to a dysfunctional family in which the problems are buried for the sake of sustaining the image of the true church, different than other, with a superior morality since it keeps “all” the commandments, not like the other churches. If you want to live a life of sin, under the covering of religious mantle, you can do a lot of things without being punished. I was physically threatened by a member of the church and felt the force of his fist, and nobody at the church bothered to sanction him because they didn’t wanted to be threatened physically, since he has the body of a football player.  But if you challenge Ellen’s dearly sanctuary doctrine in the open area, you will certainly feel the force of the elder’s rod. Sinning is more convenient than preaching the gospel.

Gabriel

Bill - 08 June 2008 11:46 AM

I’ll take it, Greg, that you have a disagreement with the SDA church and not me.  Thus the nasty tone.  You’ve done me a great favor.  I have been reading the threads you referenced on the IJ.  That is so far the best discussion I have come across in all my searching on the web.  Thank you very much!

Bill,
Thanks for acknowledging the IJ threads, and I am glad you have found them helpful. There is a wealth of information on this website. Kudos to Greg for putting this together for the glory of God.

If the basic SDA doctrine of the sanctuary cannot be supported by scripture, then by the chuch leaders own admission, the SDA chuch has no reason to exist.  It is a church based on a false view of the atonement and the gospel. The official teaching of the SDA church IJ doctrine denies the gospel. They know this, and this is why there have been so many “revisionist history” attempts to sanitize the doctrine or to change it into something else.

Stan