| Author |
Message |
Cindy (Cindy)
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 9:33 pm: |     |
The Trinity doctrine is the ultimate reality of unity in diversity. A diversity in roles, but a unity in purpose... the God of the Christian as a Being who is "beyond personality".
The following excerpts from C.S.Lewis' "Beyond Personality" may be helpful:
"In God's dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaing one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something super-personal--something more than a person....
....What I mean is this. A ordinary simple Christian kneels down to say his prayers. He is trying to get into touch with God. But if he is a Christian he knows that what is prompting him to pray is also God: God, so to speak, inside him. But he also knows that all his real knowledge of God comes through Chrst, the Man who was God--that Christ is standing beside him. You see what is happening. God is the thing to which he is praying--the goal he is trying to reach. God is also the thing inside him which is pushing him on--the motive power. God is also the road or bridge along which he is being pushed to that goal. So that the whole threefold life of the three-personal Being is actually going on in that ordinary little bedroom where an ordinary man is saying his prayers....
....People already knew about God in a vague way. Then came a man who claimed to be God; and yet he was not the sort of man you could dismiss as a lunatic. He made them believe Him. They met Him again after they had seen Him killed. And then, after they had been formed into a little society or community, they found God somehow inside them as well: directing, making them able to do things they could not do before. And when they worked it all out they found they had arrived at the Christian definition of the three-personal God."
Grace always,
Cindy |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 7:21 am: | |
Gotta love C.S. Lewis!
Speakeasy, by definition the finite can never fully comprehend the infinite. If we could fully understand the nature of God He would not be a God worth worshiping because ultimately He would be a limited God. We can however, apprehend what He has deemed to reveal about Himself in scripture. We can either bow the knee to what the inerrant word of God teaches or we can choose to try and mold God into something we can understand by denying one or more of the things that scripture tells us about God. Most cults deny one or more of the following:
1) There is only one God (Mormons would probably argue with my characterization, but ultimately they deny this truth).
2) The Father is God, The Son is God, The Spirit is God (some early SDAs denied the full divinity of Jesus, Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God or that the Spirit is God).
3) The Father, Son, and Spirit are eternally personally distinct (Oneness Pentecostals deny the eternal distinctions between the Father, Son, and Spirit, and Jehovah's Witnesses claim the Spirit is only an impersonal force).
Notice that all these groups also start with a misunderstanding of God. That misunderstanding leads them into all sorts of other doctrinal deviations. Every one of these groups is extremely legalistic and works oriented. Refusing to accept what scripture says about God (no matter how hard it may be for our finite minds to fully grasp) leads to a refusal to fully accept many of the other difficult to grasp tenets of scripture such as the propitiation of our sins through God the Son who mediates with God the Father or the indwelling of God the Spirit. Failure to accept these central Biblical teachings leads to legalism, at best, and separation from God at worst. I truly can think of few teachings more central to the Christian faith. You may say, "But wait, Paul focussed on nothing but Christ and Him crucified". Absolutely!!! So must we all. But the context of Christ's sacrifice must always be the context of God incarnate coming to this world, the unblemished lamb, bearing the sins of His creation so that we might be forgiven, have life, and that the gulf might be closed between Him and us. Outside of this context the crucifixion loses it power. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was crucified (albeit on a stake), but since they don't believe He was the Lord God Almighty they do not see His sacrifice as all sufficient. This is the danger of discarding any one of the things that God chooses to reveal about Him. May the Lord guide you in your study and give you great wisdom, understanding, and blessing.
Chris Lee |
Speakeasy (Speakeasy)
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 12:14 pm: | |
That is another Topic. The shape of the cross. The bible goes back and forth it will say the Cross and then will say a tree. To me it doesn't matter if My Jesus was hung on a T-shaped cross, A stake or hung on a tree. That is not the point. The point is that Jesus died and was buried and rose from the grave.
The Trinity I still don't understand how we say the things we say. The bible does not make it as clear as what we say it is on this subject. It maybe not a point of salvation that churchs make it to be. I know that we do not worship 3 people as being G-d.
speakeasy |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 2:20 pm: | |
Speakeasy, you can probably tell that I believe the trinitarian nature of God to be a core element of the Christian faith. Anytime God deems to reveal something of Himself to us it is our duty to search out what He has said in His Word and then bow the knee before His revelation (even if we cannot entirely comprehend all aspects of it). As such, I truly want to be helpul to anyone who might struggle with the concept. May I ask which of the three tenets or planks of Trinitarian doctrine you feel the Bible is unclear on? It might be helpful to take each tenet one at a time and discuss it in the light of scripture. If I can be of assistence with this please let me know.
Chris |
Speakeasy (Speakeasy)
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 6:29 pm: | |
I am much reluctant to view my questions on the net. I may incriminate my self. By asking blunt and to the point questions.Just what are some good verses that state that God ,Jesus and the Holy Spirit are co-equal. verses like that.
speakeasy |
Leigh (Leigh)
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 7:08 pm: | |
Speakeasy, here is at least one,
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I John 5:7 (KJV) |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 7:21 pm: | |
Speakeasy,
It appears one of your questions revolves around the second plank of Trinitarian doctrine: Each person is fully God or to put it another way, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. I will start with the assumption that we agree the Father is God since I have met relatively few people that question this. So the question becomes, ìIs Jesus, the Son, really Jehovah God?î We may also want to address the Spirit later, but letís start with the Son first. Let me list some texts without commentary at this point. We may want to discuss one or more of these texts in more detail after weíve had time to contemplate them.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing, came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 1:1-5 (NASB)
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, ``We have seen the Lord!'' But he said to them, ``Unless, I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.''
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came*, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, ``Peace be with you.'' 27 Then He said* to Thomas, ``Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.'' 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, ``My Lord and my God!'' 29 Jesus said* to him, ``Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.'' John 20:24-29 (NASB)
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 (NASB)
1 Now in those days John the Baptist came*, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 ``Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'' 3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said,
``THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
`MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT!' '' Matt 3:1-3 (NASB)
(One bit of commentary here: please note that John is quoting Isaiah 40:3. The Hebrew for ìLORDî in Isaiah 40:3 is ìYhvhî)
Please let me know if you would like more texts. I can come up with several others or we can discuss these first. Nice dialoging with you Speakeasy.
May the Lord bless you,
Chris Lee |
Speakeasy (Speakeasy)
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 9:19 pm: | |
What is the second plank mean? I thought G-d ,Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one NOT three diferent Gods (planks). Or a better way to say it 3 Gods. And Leigh thanks that is a very good verse. So this verse if I am understanding it. Is telling me the three are the same. The Father is G-d The Word (Jesus?) and the Holy Spirit are the same. So the three are one G-d. And all three are really 1 person. Let me back up. I understand that we say Jesus is G-d. He created the world. Why then would Jesus cry out to himself on the cross and why would Jesus pray to himself when he was tempted by satan. This doesn't make since if G-d ,Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same. |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 10:07 pm: | |
Speakeasy, the second "plank" isn't referring to the members of the Trinity. It is a phrase referring to the discussion of the Trinity. There are different questions people have about the Trinity, and the particular question Chris was addressing was what is known as the "second plank", or the "second main component or question" of or about the Trinity.
Hugh Ross describes the Trinity with a metaphor that you might find helpful. I'm retelling it from the memory of having heard it, so I may have some of his details wrong, but here's the main idea. Suppose a creature who had never seen a human hand found himself before a large soft screen he could not see through. He knew, however, that this "thing" he had never seen was behind that screen, and he also knew that he would be able to experience some sort of interaction with unseen hand through the screen.
He could neither see through the screen nor hear, but as he watched, he observed a bump appear on the screen. The bump was a finger, and it seemed to be reaching for him from behind the screen. "Aha," he thought to himself, "a hand is like an appendage which can reach and poke at things."
As he watched, yet another bump, similar to the first but in a different spot, also appeared in the screen and reached toward him. Puzzled, the creature pondered what he saw. Two nearly identical appendages, hidden from direct view by the screen, both poked toward him through the fabric.
Then, to compound his puzzlement, a third appendage appeared, pushing on the screen near to the first two but in still another spot.
By now the creature is completely mystified. "A HAND is supposed to be singular," he said to himelf, "yet I see three bumps reaching toward me. How can there be one hand when I see three "hands" reaching toward me?"
While this metaphor is imperfect, it does give a helpful framework for thinking about the Trinity. We experience God our Father; we know Jesus, and humans have seen him in bodily form. We also experience the Holy Spirit in still another way. They are three expressions of God, and they are distinct. Yet they are one God, just as the veiled, poking fingers are distinct and separate, yet where the creature could not see, they are part of one hand.
We have no idea exactly HOW the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one; they exist in eternity and in different dimensions from those in which we exist. But we do know that God communicates to us via the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are part of each other; they are of one substance, yet they are three.
It is a mystery we simply cannot understand as finite humans. Yet the Bible teaches that all three exist and are truly God.
The Trinity is something we believe in by faith, and the Holy Spirit confirms it to us.
Colleen |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 6:59 am: | |
Speakeasy, I am sorry I have not found a more clear way of communicating. My use of the term "plank" was no doubt counfusing. What I'm trying to say is that there is no one single scripture passage that exhasutively teaches all of the Trinitarian concept in a single creed. Rather what we see is God progresively revealing a puicture of Himself through out the whole Bible. In terms of His essence or nature, we see three themes, ideas, concepts, truths, or planks progressively revealed throughout the pages of scripture. Without a doubt these concepts are less develped in the OT and become much more clear in the NT and God reveals more of Himself through the incarnation of the Son. To reiterate, the three truths or concepts that emerge through out the pages of scripture (or what I was calling "planks of the docrine" are:
1) There is only one God (stressed throughout the entire bible)
2) The Father is God, The Son is God, the Spirit is God (we certainly see traces of this in the OT, at creation, in the Psalms and in the prophets, but this is most clearly developed in the NT)
3) The Father, Son, and Spirit are eternally distinct (once again we see traces of this in the OT, but it's most clearly brought forth in the NT).
Given these three truths that are taught in the Bible, you are right, it would make no sense to say the Son was praying to the Son. It does make sense to say the Son was praying to the Father though. This affirms the 3rd truth listed above. There is an eternal distintion or relationship between the Father and the Son. You see, it would be incorrect to say God is one "person" and that sometimes He's the Son, and sometimes He's the Father, and sometime's He's the Spirit. Then Jesus' prayer really would make no sense at all. It would be more correct to say God is one "being". "Being" speaks of nature or essence. But that one being who is God eternally exist in three personally distinct ways (or persons). The term "persons" denotes eternal relationships within the being of God. Of course we cannot conceive of a single Being that eternally exist in three personally distinct ways, but then we should not expect to fully comprehehnd the God of the universe. If we did, He would be a limited "god" not so differnt from us and not really a god worth worshiping. |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 9:18 am: | |
Colleen, I like that Hugh Ross illustration as well. Ross asks us to imagine a world of 2D creatures that have been created in a computer and live in the 2D computer screen. They experience the dimensions of length and width, but not the dimension of depth. They cannot begin to comprehend what a 3D being that lives and moves in all 3 dimensions might be like. So when the programmer/creator sticks his hand up to the wrist in the screen they start "The Church of One Large Circle". When the programer withdraws his hand so that only 3 fingers are sticking in the screen another groups starts "The Church of the 3 Small Circles". All the while failing to comprehend that both things might be true without any contradiction in regards to a 3D being. All the while failing to even guess at how much more there is to this fantastical 3D being that is beyond their site or grasp. Obviously the analogy for God's nature is woefuly inadequate and rather misleading, but the very helpful part of the analogy is the realization that the 2D creatures could have no possible way of conceiving of a 3D being. They have no experience or frame of reference for such concept. They can either choose to accept a 3D programmer because the programmer told them that's what he is, or they can instead create a 2D programmer that fits into their 2D understanding of reality.
Chris |
Melissa (Melissa)
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 9:48 am: | |
The illustration I heard as a child was that of H2O. It comes as water, snow and ice...three forms, same component. Each serving its own function. Again, not perfect, but it was helpful to me. |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 10:01 am: | |
I used to really look for a really good analogy, but I've kind of given up on it because I've realized that every single earthly analogy, once examined, leads to a misconception of God. I like the Hugh Ross illustration because it demonstrates how limited our perspective is, but when I analyze the hand analogy it has big problems. The persons of the Godhead are nothing like appendeges attached to a greater being, they are completely the one being that is God in His entirety. We simply have nothing to compare in this world. I quickly dropped the H2O analogy once I started attempting to reason with Oneness Pentacostals becasue it really promotes a modalistic view of God much more then it describes the Trinity. In the end, every analogy I've looked at has major problems. I've tried to swear off using analogies for God, but it's human nature to want to describe something and I keep breaking my own rule :-)
Chris |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
Chris, thanks for straightening out the Hugh Rosee analogy! I only heard it described a couple of years ago, and I couldn't remember exactly how he set up the idea.
I agree that it definitely has problems representing what God really is. The part I most appreciate, though, is what you mentioned: the reality that in our three dimensions we have no idea how reality in more dimensions would actually look.
I keep remembering that Scott Peck says in his book "A Different Drum" that truth is always a paradox. If we teach only half of the paradox, we teach heresy. The Trinity is definitely a paradox. In fact, all the great truths of salvation and eternity we must accept by faith. We really have no objective proof that can 100% prove our convictions with physical evidence. That fact, I believe, is necessary in order for us not to begin believing we manage our own salvation and faith.
Our faith, our surrender to Jesus, our trust in the Bible, our eternal security--all are gifts of grace from God, and none of them can be objectively proven to a skeptic.
Praise God for the mystery of paradox--for the fact that God is eternal while we are finite!
Colleen |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
Quotes: "truth is always a paradox. If we teach only half of the paradox, we teach heresy."
"That fact, I believe, is necessary in order for us not to begin believing we manage our own salvation and faith."
"Praise God for the mystery of paradox--for the fact that God is eternal while we are finite!"
Excellent points from both Peck and you Colleen! Definately a thought I'll remember.
Chris |
Speakeasy (Speakeasy)
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 7:12 am: | |
Well thanks for all your inputs on this subject. I still don't understand any of it. I hope this does not put me on the outside of G-ds gospel of the work of the cross. It's just I have been told that it is a must to believe in a few things. And this upsets me when Good meaning people say these things. When none of there views of this nature is found in the bible.
By the way is there such a thing as a "FORMER ADVENTIST" t-shirt? If so I want to buy one. I would were it proudly.
Speakeasy |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 8:19 am: | |
I'm passionate about this topic because I truly believe most harmful heresy starts with a misconception of God. I'll just say this one last thing then let it go :-) ...I truly do not want to offend anyone, but sometimes feel compelled to articulate the core essentials of Christianity (hopefully in a loving, polite, and Godly way)......
When discussing the subject of God I sometimes hear people say something like, "The Tinity is not in the Bible". Now if you said that the word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible, that would be a true statement. However, we use many theological terms as a kind of short hand for concepts that most definately are in the Bible. For instance, we often talk about "escatology". The word escatology is never used in the Bible, however, we would all agree that the concept of end time events and the second coming of Christ is taught throughout scripture. The word escatology is just a shorthand way of referring to all the teachings on this subject contained throughout scripture. In the same manner, the concept of our Trinitarian God is also articulated throughout scripture. The three truths I have listed in several other posts are clearly taught in a number of places in scripture. To state that the concept of the Trinity is not taught in scripture would be a false statement because it would deny one or more of the truths about God that scripture clearly teaches. It usually means either denying that there is one God, or denying that Jesus is God, or denying that there is any eternal distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit. If we deny any one of these three truths then we reject the clear teaching of scripture. If we accept all three of these truths taught in scripture than we have a picture of God that is described by the short hand term "Trinity". The word may not be used in scripture, but the truths the word represents are most assuredly clearly taught in scripture.
Once again, I in no way wish to be contentious or argumentative. I just sincerely want to avoid confusion on one of the essential teachings of the Christian faith. Coming out of Adventism it's easy to feel adrift in a sea of change, blown about by the winds of doctrine. It's good to know there are a few core essentials we can hang onto and agree upon based on scripture alone.
In sincere and humble Christian love,
Chris Lee |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 12:11 pm: | |
Chris, thank you for explaining your position so well. I experience the same gratefulness you expressed that we can hang onto certain Biblical teachings as absolute because they're clearly stated in the Bible.
Speakeasy, I continue to pray for you to understand the truths God wants you to understand. He knows "where you are", and he knows how to teach you the things he wants you to know. Keep asking him to reveal truth, and keep your heart open to Jesus and to his revelation of himself through the scriptures.
As for the T-shirt: no, none exists, although there has been quite a lot of discussion about having one! (Richard has a shirt from our web-hosting company that has our web address, formeradventist.com, printed across the back, but he's the only lucky one right now!)
Colleen |
Speakeasy (Speakeasy)
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
Colleen, Chris: I am sorry to bother you. I understand that G-d and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all under the G-d head. But I if someone asked me were we get this I would have no Idea were to show people what all this means. But after talking to you I fear for my own salvation.So when you say "one of the essential teachings of the Christian faith" what does this mean? It is telling me that I am not saved. AM I hell bound? I hope not. I have asked Jesus to forgive me. And I have excepted his death on the cross for my forgiveness! Is this enough?
I wish I could buy a formeradventist t-shirt. There is a BIG SDA church in Tulsa. it runs about 400 plus. It has moved into a big building and once was in a small strip mall running 40 or so just a few years back when I was going to the same SDA church.
Thanks again for all you input. More web sites and study's if any are out there send them my why. Any body with study's on topics on what was the shape of the cross and Easter and Christmas origins and how acurate is the New Testament? I would love that as well. Please post them on the forum. This would be great for all to see and study.
Have a great Labor day weekend!!
Speakeasy |
Chris (Chris)
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 6:59 pm: | |
Speakeasy, lest there be any misunderstanding, I do indeed believe that when we truly confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead we will be saved. Good doctrine does not save us and never could. I do not doubt your sincerity nor your place in Christ. Perhaps the term "essentials" could use some explanation. I know some (incorrectly in my opinion) understand Augustine's dictum, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity" to mean the "the bare essentials of salvation" as opposed to "the doctrinal essentials necessary for Christian unity". I think the former interpetation is demonstrably wrong given Augustine's dealings with the Donatist. It is much more likely that this is referring to the essentials that make Christianity, Christianity. In other words, thet beliefs that set Christianity apart, define it, shape it, and form the foundation for faith, worship, and Christian unity. I believe it's entirely possible for a person to be saved with only the tiniest sliver of Gospel light. However, part of the Christian walk then is to grow in knowledge, in wisdom, in understanding, in love, in unity with fellow believers, and to always be ready to give a defense for your faith. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives and I have no doubt that He is actively doing this work in your life. May He guide you in all your study, dwell within you, and seal you as God's own possseion.
In brotherly love,
Chris Lee |
Dennis (Dennis)
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 7:52 pm: | |
THE TRIUNITY OF GOD
Sometimes it is thought that Christianity teaches the absurd notion that 1+1+1=1. That is clearly a false equation. The term TRINITY describes a relationship not of three gods, but of one God who is three persons. Trinity does not mean tritheism, that is, that there are three beings who together are God. The word TRINITY is used in an effort to define the fullness of the Godhead both in terms of His unity and diversity.
The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person.
Though the term TRINITY is not found in the Bible, the concept is clearly there. On the one hand the Bible strongly affirms the unity of God (Deut. 6:4). On the other hand the Bible clearly affirms the full deity of the three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church has rejected the heresies of modalism and tritheism. Modalism denies the distinction of persons within the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses Himself. Tritheism, on the other hand, falsely declares that there are three beings who together make up God.
The term PERSON does not mean a distinction in essence but a different SUBSISTENCE in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference but not an ESSENTIAL difference in the sense of a difference in being. Each person subsists or exists "under" the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.
There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity. The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers.
The Trinity does not refer to parts of God or even to roles. Human analogies such as one man who is a father, son, and a husband fail to capture the mystery of the nature of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three.
SUMMARY
1. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the triunity of God.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction: God is one in essence and three in person.
3. The Bible affirms both the oneness of God and the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
4. The Trinity is distinguished by the work assumed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
5. The doctrine of the Trinity sets the limits of human speculation about the nature of God.
CREDIT: Dr. R. C. Sproul, ESSENTIAL TRUTHS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, pp. 35, 36.
NOTE: Dr. R. C. Sproul is one of my favorite theologians. Hopefully, this quotation from one of his many books will be helpful to many. For more comprehensive information, simply log unto his website: www.ligonaire.org. He also has a 30-minute daily radio program, RENEWING THE MIND.
Dennis J. Fischer |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
This is a very interesting discussion for me. I too have always had a hard time understanding the concept of the Trinity. For me the best analogy I could come up with is myself. I am me, one person, Susan. I am also a mother and a daughter. Or, I also am a wife and a daughter. Any configuration will do. I will say though that I was brought up mostly SDA and also somewhat Worldwide Church of God (Herbert W. Armstrong stuff back then that old HWA was spouting) as well as also Church of God (Seventh-day). WCG and the Church of God (Seventh-day) both teach that God is a family. My mother would tell me when I was a child that just as her, my dad and me are each individual people we make up one family so our family is a trinity. My parents would tell me that they went to the SDA church mostly because it had the best Sabbath School for the kids but really the other two churchs were more right on a lot of things and that it was too bad that the SDA church taught the Trinity the same was as those Sunday-keeping churchs do. I sure did get a schitzopherenic religious training as a child! I could even get into more of the really totally spun stuff that I was brought up to believe but this discussion is on the Trinity so I won't get into too many other topics. I did pick up a JW tract awhile back on the Trinity and the very first sentence was that the word trinity is not found in the Bible anywhere so that right there proves it is just a made-up idea. I would like to be able to tell a JW someday that the term Kingdom Hall is not in the Bible anywhere either nor is a lot of other terms they use. |
Susan_2 (Susan_2)
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 8:56 pm: | |
Heb. 8:12, "For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more". Tell me, how does the SDA church interpert this text? It seems to me with their doctrine of the Investigative Judgement then they would not believe this text? Growing up SDA I would read this text and passages similiar that tell us that as we confess ur known and unknown sins we are truly, 100% forgiven. Yet at the same time I think I was taught in SDA schools and church that we really don't know if we have been forgiven or not and we cannot know until we stand before Jesus and he reads our sentence to us It is an awful concept of Jesus in my way of thinking. It all goes to the SDA teaching that we are to never say we are saved because we cannot know that. Anyway, does the SDA church have a teaching on this text and if so, what is it? |
Jerry (Jerry)
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
Susan,
EGW references this verse in two places. In both places, she makes it clear that you must ask forgiveness for all sins. Then your sins will be remembered ìno more.î Implicit in this statement and the surrounding context is the concept that you must free yourself from all sin before you are in this new covenant.
Beyond that, I have heard several TSDAís ìmorphî this new covenant into the parousa. That is, they imply that the new covenant occurs only after the second coming.
That, of course, goes against many Scriptures. The New Covenant is here, now. |
Steve (Steve)
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 3:12 pm: | |
Y s0 much wanted t0 artcate n ths discuss0n 0n the Trnty, but m keyb0ard s malfunctnng S0 much 4 a 4 year 0ld latp0p
Steve |
|
