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
Active member
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
Active member
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
Active member
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
Active member
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.