| Author |
Message |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 109
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 3:30 pm: |     |
Hello everybody!
I've found that SDA has a bit diferent view of Jes™s Christ and the Holy Spirit and how the trinity works.
Now I'm wondering if they have a different view of God the father as well. Anyone know something about this issue?
Have fun! |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4392
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 5:13 pm: | |
Mwh, I'd like to hear what you understand the Adventist views to be. I see Adventism as overtly teaching the Trinity, but in practice they teach "three gods", or tri-theism. They vaguely understand the Holy Spirit to be a "power", and they understand Jesus to be somehow the "weaker" god who could have failed in the process of salvation. The Father, I believe, is seen various ways. Some see Him as remote and benign, allowing things to go on and benevolently providinhg Jesus for the great example of what our sin yielded. Others see Him as vengeful and capricious.
In fact, Adventism is not clear about the Trinity, and in its beginnings, the church was anti-Trinitarian.
Colleen |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 2258
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 6:14 pm: | |
I asked a SDA to explain how she understood the Trinity. The answer I got went like this, "You are an only child so it will be easy to explain the Trinity to you. Just as you have a father and a mother and you are their only child is the Trinity. There is God the father who is like your dad, the head to the home. there is the mother who like Jesus is in perfect harmony in decision making and running the home like Jesus is with God the Father and after the union of those two you came along to complete the family just as Jesus left behind the Holy Spirit." I am not saying I agree with this as the O.T. has references to the Holy Spirit and even the SDA curch teaches Jesus did the creating in the creation story of genesis. This is just how one SDA explained it to me. |
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 96
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 6:42 pm: | |
As an Adventist I was always confused about the Trinity. My view of God the Father depended on the amount of legalism I practiced. I had a period of years where I would have seen Him as someone to be afraid of in case I did something wrong. But towards the end of my SDA years I saw God the Father as a loving Father. |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 309
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:06 pm: | |
My daughter received another (unreadable)book from the relatives called "God has three names." It actually seems to go in the other direction from tri-theism with quotes like "I have three names. My names are SUSAN, JEAN, DAVIS. ... God has three names too. Do you know what God's names are? Later on in the book, it says God's three persons are like three limbs on an apple tree. Interestingly in the chapter about God the Father it says "Jehovah is the name of God the Father. ... We do not say the name Jehovah very often because it is a holy name. We would not want to be disrespectful to God by calling Him by His first name." And this book will soon also be off to the great circular file holder in the sky.
Unregretfully,
Hannah |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 2261
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:46 pm: | |
Hannah, Is that a SDA book? It sounds more like a JW book. I'm courious. |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 310
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:07 pm: | |
Oh yes, it is SDA. Written by the same woman who wrote "naughty heart, clean heart." How do Jehovah's Witness get around not saying "Jehovah" very often since it is in their name?
Curiously,
Hannah |
Justdodie
Registered user
Username: Justdodie
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 3:33 am: | |
Hmmmm......
vengeful, capricious, angry, demanding, unreasonable, uncaring, and hopelessly impossible to please....
Father, Father-God.... it's all melded together in my mind. I guess you can see why I prefer an impersonal God-force, myself, and why I moved far, far away from the 'personal God' view. No anthropomorphic god-persons for me, thank you!
Joyce,
(A believer in accepting, non-judgemental, Universal Mind)
P.S. Just my opinion and feelings, of course. |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 112
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 4:06 am: | |
Colleen, basically that they are confused about the Trinity in general, leaning towoards tri-theism. Also that they have a kind of hierarchy, like God the father, Jes™s and then the Spirit and then of course man (like we should work and not let the Spirit work in us).
They do not teach much of the Spirit, they are leaving out the sealing part.
With Jesus they teach he is also named Michael the Archangel, well that adds another name to God Hannah. I see now how they can teach this, its obvious when you view God in a tri-theism kind of way.
So there are two obvious wrong teachings:
1. About the spirit (no sealing, its the Sabbat instead).
2. About Jesus (he is Michael the archangel)
Now I would like to know if they teach some heresy about God the father. |
Peperpat
Registered user
Username: Peperpat
Post Number: 15
Registered: 7-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 7:34 am: | |
Mwh - I have heard that sda think Jesus is also Michael the Archangel before, but cant find any resource to confirm this. I had purchased a book some 5 yrs ago (when I first heard my son was getting involved with sda) called "Seventh-day Adventists Believe...A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines." It is 300+ pages and claims that Adventist Church members can use the book to dig down to the roots of their faith. It also states "If you worship in another church, anticipate some fresh perspectives in this book...We need to draw together and grow from each other's knowledge". Anyway, that aside, I cannot find a mention of Jesus as Michael t he Archangel anywhere in this book. Is that a 'hidden' teaching? - Patti |
Jerry
Registered user
Username: Jerry
Post Number: 494
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:18 am: | |
I almost hate to get this subject started. We should probably set up a new thread if you want to go into more detail.
The BRI has a paper here.
I am thoroughly unimpressed by the author, but it probably is the best indication of how SDA theologians try to justify this heresy.
The website home lets you see as many "official" statements about various points of SDA theology.
(Yet, almost any one of them can be disavowed by any SDA if it serves a defensive purpose.)
|
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 97
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:51 am: | |
As a SDA I definitely thought that Jesus and Michael the Archangel were the same thing. Of course that is obviously wrong, but I didn't know that at the time. |
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 98
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:52 am: | |
Oh, I forgot to say. As an SDA I didn't believe that Jesus was not divine and was an angel, but that Michael was another name for Jesus. |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 521
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:07 am: | |
The main reason SDA's bother defending that Jesus is Michael the archangel, even though I think it's not in their official fundamental statement of beliefs, is because EGW explicitly believed it, as the following EGW quote shows:
quote:"Satan exulted that he had succeeded in causing Moses to sin against God. For this transgression Moses came under the dominion of death. If he had continued faithful, and his life had not been marred with that one transgression, in failing to give God the glory of bringing water from the rock, he would have entered the Promised Land, and would have been translated to heaven without seeing death (wonder how she knows that extrabiblical piece of information?). Michael, or Christ, with the angels that buried Moses, came down from heaven, after he had remained in the grave a short time, and resurrected him and took him to heaven. (SR 173.2)"
The verse in Jude 1:9 reads: "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" If Michael is truly Jesus, and Jesus is truly God, then why couldn't Michael rebuke Satan? Of course God (and Jesus is God) can and do rebuke Satan!
So, instead of seeing the obvious that EGW and the Bible contradict each other, Adventism instead looks for every defense to prove EGW agrees with the Bible. All because the assumption has already been accepted that EGW is a true prophet so she has to agree with the Bible. A little backwards I'd say...
Whoa! I just noticed something else with the quote. The idea that the one sin kept Moses from being translated. Do you suppose he really only had that one sin? Is the reason people physically die because they haven't reached perfection yet? At first I thought EGW taught that only worked at the end of time, that those who had reached perfection could be translated without seeing death first. Apparantly, that could have happened all along even in Moses' day. I guess Enoch and Elijah are the only ones out of the entire human race who have succeeded so far. Even EGW didn't succeed with her own requirement! |
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777
Post Number: 558
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:35 am: | |
I hesitate even asking questions here but here goes.
How do we deal with the other texts in the Bible that speak of "God" as an angel. This is only one example of several.
And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. . . . And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen. 22:11, 12, 15-18)
To Abraham this "Angel" spoke as if He was God Himself.
wondering,
Richard
rtruitt@mac.com
|
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 522
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:06 am: | |
Good question, Richard! However, regardless of the answer, that still doesn't make Michael and Jesus synonymous. I think Jude is pretty clear they're not synomous because of the fact that Michael "dared not" pronounce a judgment against Satan, but instead said "The Lord rebuke you." Jesus, being God, can pronounce a judgment against anyone. |
Jerry
Registered user
Username: Jerry
Post Number: 495
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:24 am: | |
Richard,
This may be an unwelcome opinion here. However, I would like to suggest that there was a distinct change in the usage of the words translated as "angel" from before the Babylonian exile to afterwards.
Before, the term is much less distinct. The Hebrew word rendered as ma'lak (Strongs 04397) simply means "messenger" and can refer to any means that God sends a message. It can mean God Himself, a created celestial being other than God (or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost), or, even more vaguely, a message from God where the method or being is unclear. There is, however, a sense that when the term "angel of the LORD" is used, it more likely refers to the presence of God Himself.
After the Babylonian exile, the term becomes more distinctly referring to created beings OTHER THAN God, the Son, or Holy Ghost, though not exclusively so.
Just my opinion. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:46 pm: | |
Mwh, one heresy regarding God the Father (besides the Tritheism) is that they deny the orthodox doctrine of the incorporeality of God. They teach that God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, have bodies.
Here is an excerpt from a previous post of mine:
In their official belief book [the book Patti mentioned above], the Adventists teach that spirits have "spiritual bodies" (they just can't accept the idea of bodiless spirits, even though Jesus Himself says very clearly that spirits do not have flesh and bones!). Therefore, they teach that all three divine beings/gods (the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus) have bodies, although Jesus' body somehow "prevents" omnipresence. In contrast, the Mormons teach that the Father and Jesus have bodies, but that the Holy Ghost is a spirit without a body.
And here is another post which I posted before about this: http://rtinker.powweb.com/discus/discus/messages/11/4169.html#POST55687
Jeremy
(Message edited by jeremy on July 28, 2006) |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 113
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 2:26 pm: | |
Jeremy, thanks for this pointer.
While reading one of the links of yours about Jesus and the father being present whereever the Spirit is and vice versa I got to think about this verse in the Bible:
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. Matthew 24:36 (NIV)
I can make this harmonizy in my mind when thinking that its one part of God, the Father, who knows. Do you have a comment on this verse? |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4396
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 2:55 pm: | |
Mwh, the NIV Study Notes on Mark 13:36, the parallel passage of Matthew 24:36, says this about the Father only, not the son: "While on earth, even Jesus lived by faith, and obedience was the hallmark of his ministry."
Richard, most theologians consider the "angel of the Lord" in the OT to be a manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ. Following is an exerpt from the New Bible Dictionary, pub. InterVarsity Press:
"The angel of the Lord, sometimse 'the angel of God' or 'my (or his) angel', is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman. In many passages he is viturally identified with God and speaks not merely in the name of God but as God in the first person singular (e.g. with Hagar, Gn. 16:7ff; 21:17f; at the sacrifice of Isaac, Gn. 22:11ff; to Jacob, Gn. 31:13...etc.) Sometimes he is distinguished from God, as in 2 Sam 24:16; Zc 1:12f; but Zechariah does not consistently maintain the distinction (cf. Ac 3:1f; 12:8).
"In the NT there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. He appears as Gabriel in Lk 1:19, though from Acts 8:26, 29 some would infer an identification with the Holy Spirit. In function, the angel of the Lord is the agent of destruction and judgment (2 Sa 24:16; 2 Ki 19:35; Ps 35:5f; Acts 12:23); of protection and deliveranceÖ'the angel of his presence'Öhe offers guidance and gives instructionsÖhe gives advance warning about the birth of SamsonÖ and JesusÖHe is not recognized at once in Jdg. 13:3f, and is not even visible to Balaam; but mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is addressed as GodÖ.
Colleen |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 125
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 7:53 pm: | |
Here's a good quote about the subject from Justin in 150 AD;
Chapter CXXVII.-These Passages of Scripture Do Not Apply to the Father, But to the Word.
"These and other such sayings are recorded by the lawgiver and by the prophets; and I suppose that I have stated sufficiently, that wherever God says, `God went up from Abraham, ' or, `The Lord spake to Moses, ' and `The Lord came down to behold the tower which the sons of men had built, ' or when `God shut Noah into the ark, ' you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by any one, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth, when the people at Sinai were not able to look even on the glory of Him who was sent from Him; and Moses himself could not enter into the tabernacle which he had erected, when it was filled with the glory of God; and the priest could not endure to stand before the temple when Solomon conveyed the ark into the house in Jerusalem which he had built for it? Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: `And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven; ' and again, when it is thus said by David: `Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates; and the King of glory shall enter; ' and again, when He says: `The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.'
Jeremiah |
Fbasten
Registered user
Username: Fbasten
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 9:13 am: | |
U2bsda wrote:
As an Adventist, I was always confused about the Trinity. My view of God the Father depended on the amount of legalism I practiced. I had a period of years where I would have seen Him as someone to be afraid of in case I did something wrong. But towards the end of my SDA years I saw God the Father as a loving Father.
Can I suggest as a primer on the topic, St Augustine's book "On the Trinity." It was a mind-blower for me, but in it I found how it was/is the dynamics within the Trinity that prompted the creation of a universe in the first place, and how salvation is an integral effort in the finalisation of this plan of creation. And the big question is this: What is the hottest issue in the universe? What is the really exciting issue that drives the highest minds in the universe to research the issue, to have conferences on the topic on an ongoing basis. What is the surprise of surprises that the Trinity has for us to discover, even if there was no plan of salvation, and Adam did not sin? If there was no need for salvation and the topic of Jesus as Saviour did not need to be raised as there were no sinners, what would excite the hearts and minds of the highest intelligent beings?
If you cannot answer that, then you need to examine the relationship within the Trinity. There you will find the key to why they decided to create in the first place.
[Have I expressed myself inappropriately and not been circumspect with anthropomorphism? Do I care? Describing the Trinity and the relationship within the Trinity is like an ant going home to his nest and trying to describe the inside of a computer motherboard he was walking over, or trying to explain to his offspring that above those big shoes that nearly squashed him, there is a big moving living thing, if only he had the vision to see up that high. And how can the ant possibly hope to understand our language, let alone our body language, let alone the meaning of our facial hints, let alone our thinking. Think of us in relation to our understanding of God, as that ant in his efforts to understand a human!! ìGo to the ant Öand be wiseî]
Frank Basten
|
|
