Angel Michael
- Thread starter Chomsky
- Start date
For you and I and the readers of this thread YES, you are independent of me and everyone else. The Son is not independent of the Father or the Holy Spirit, or any other combination. The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Ontologically One God - not three independent Beings as Ellen White taught. You are getting this idea from the programming of Ellen White's Great Controversy, an Arian work that was inspired by an accomplished Arian writer (Paradise Lost by John Milton). If Ellen White was in a college writing class she would have received an "F" and been expelled from the college for stealing ideas and phrases from someone else and trying to pass it off as her own work. This is now a fact that even the scholars of the SDA Church can't deny.
Rob, there are certain things God CAN'T do.
Titus 1, 2
"Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior"
Paul is saying God CANNOT LIE, this is something that God does not have free will to do, Rob. The same verse is telling you that this great God of Heaven also promised eternal life / salvation BEFORE the world began. This means "THE SAVIOR" AKA Christ - was identified as "THE CHRIST" (The Savior) in eternity before Jesus was born.
Rob (and SDA's watching this thread), think about this for just a minute.
John the Baptist was PLUGGED IN, he had been dedicated to the Lord prior to his birth. Read Matthew 11, 1-6 and realize that while John was in prison he sent two of his disciples to ask "THE CHRIST" if He was the one they had been waiting for or should they keep looking for another (as in another Christ). Jesus (who was the Christ from Eternity) answers John's disciples by quoting Isaiah 35! Any Jew or pagan at that time familiar with the Book of Isaiah would know that Isaiah was quoting God Almighty when God Almighty said that He Himself would come and save.
So, I've given 3 Scriptures (out of over 150) to ponder and apply your logic to. God CANNOT lie or break His promises combined with Christ being the express promise of God before the world was even created defaults into a situation where IF Ellen White's hypothetical Christ sinning, loosing it's salvation and eternally ceasing to exist had been realized God would have been both a liar AND a promise breaker.
This is why Ellen White's (& your) 'God has freewill to not be God' is easily dismissed because God CAN'T LIE or BREAK PROMISES.
Ellen White took her Arian position to such an extreme that she gloated that after Christ Resurrected, He immediately winged his way to heaven to make sure the flesh father accepted his sacrifice! If this doesn't make the hair stand up on the back of your neck Rob may God help you.
Think of all the things Christ said before His death about "coming in the clouds of heaven", "when you see the Son of Man come in His glory", "When the Son of man comes with His angels" and scores of other statements of Christ where He is affirming what IS GOING TO HAPPEN in the future. Why would the Resurrected Christ need to fly up to heaven to make sure "The Father" approved of his stunt on the cross????
You'll notice I'm not dealing with your other questions because we've not settled the paramount question (THIS QUESTION). Prior to running down a plethora or endless rabbit holes about free will we need to build on the sure foundation of Almighty God and work out from there. This is why I've been discussing this subject with you in this way. I hope you understand.
I'm not saying something here that is only distinctive to Catholics and Catholicism. A Lutheran, a Baptist, an Evangelical Christian, an Orthodox Christ and a Reformed Christian would agree with every ounce of what I've just said. On the other hand the position you (Rob) are advocating are championed by the Jehovah's Witnesses Christadelphians, Branch Davidians and groups like that - ALL of which are Anti-Trinitarian. What do you say about this fact?
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
You say a basic premise that affects your primary theme:
The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Ontologically One God - not three independent Beings as Ellen White taught.
Ellen White never said the Father, Son and HS are independent beings
You also need to show me from the CCC the "term Ontologically One God" explained - I cannot find a single reference
The CCC says the Father, Son and HS are "one God, one nature" yet three distinct persons.
I can find no commentary about how "three persons can be one "?
If A is a human and B is a human and C is a human, you have by maths, 3 humans. They can be only 1 human in the sense of compound unity - they seem independent as personalities, yes, but they press together as functionally one function of love.
They can also be cardinally one human by marriage.
Therefore the simple English "family" can explain the nature of God easily, and there are Bible verses for this idea, but while the CCC commentary "human families are a simile of God, God is not like a human family"?
I don't get that, if a simile works one way, it should also work the other way?
If the Father is called "el" in the Bible, and the Son is called "el" in the Bible and the HS is termed "el" in the Bible, by maths we have three "el" - other Hebrew words like "echad" tell us they press together as one. Just as heart cells press together give up their independent nature as one cell and press all sixteen trillion cells into a single cell of dependence, a heart organ. Compound unity/
And if we make them into a Divine Family Deity, we have using Bible terms "one God" without making complex ideas.
If logically we take the idea the three persons are one "therefore there is no showing of them working together as one, dependent upon each other out of love, there is therefore no showing of "independent" verses "dependent" as a theme. Therefore no provision for free will. No provision for rebellion.
A simple way to explain my view (Rom 1:20) Mt Sinai which is located in Arabia (not where the Catholic temple is) is One Mountain with TWO peaks where you get close to it. The top of the mountain is charred black to this day.
These pictures were taken by Dr Kim Young, a SDA doctor to the Jordan prince in the Country Jordan.
The area is now fenced off and nobody is allowed there.
Shalom
You say a basic premise that affects your primary theme:
The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Ontologically One God - not three independent Beings as Ellen White taught.
Ellen White never said the Father, Son and HS are independent beings
You also need to show me from the CCC the "term Ontologically One God" explained - I cannot find a single reference
The CCC says the Father, Son and HS are "one God, one nature" yet three distinct persons.
I can find no commentary about how "three persons can be one "?
If A is a human and B is a human and C is a human, you have by maths, 3 humans. They can be only 1 human in the sense of compound unity - they seem independent as personalities, yes, but they press together as functionally one function of love.
They can also be cardinally one human by marriage.
Therefore the simple English "family" can explain the nature of God easily, and there are Bible verses for this idea, but while the CCC commentary "human families are a simile of God, God is not like a human family"?
I don't get that, if a simile works one way, it should also work the other way?
If the Father is called "el" in the Bible, and the Son is called "el" in the Bible and the HS is termed "el" in the Bible, by maths we have three "el" - other Hebrew words like "echad" tell us they press together as one. Just as heart cells press together give up their independent nature as one cell and press all sixteen trillion cells into a single cell of dependence, a heart organ. Compound unity/
And if we make them into a Divine Family Deity, we have using Bible terms "one God" without making complex ideas.
If logically we take the idea the three persons are one "therefore there is no showing of them working together as one, dependent upon each other out of love, there is therefore no showing of "independent" verses "dependent" as a theme. Therefore no provision for free will. No provision for rebellion.
A simple way to explain my view (Rom 1:20) Mt Sinai which is located in Arabia (not where the Catholic temple is) is One Mountain with TWO peaks where you get close to it. The top of the mountain is charred black to this day.
These pictures were taken by Dr Kim Young, a SDA doctor to the Jordan prince in the Country Jordan.
The area is now fenced off and nobody is allowed there.
Shalom
Last edited:
She most certainly did say that. Ellen claimed that Christ, had he sinned, would have rotted in the tomb to NEVER wake up again. Ellen taught that the Divine and Human Natures of Christ were MIXED / Blended so that they (the two natures of Christ) became one.
Mixing / blending the two natures of Christ is absolutely incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine Rob.
So, if as Ellen White repeatedly gloated, i.e. that had Christ failed He would have ceased to exist - you know absolutely from that affirmation that we're talking about a different God and absolutely NOT the Trinitarian God. You see now why I've insisted that we move on ONLY after establishing the foundation for our conversation.
You've already established you are not a Trinitarian and I've told you numerous times I'm not going to grind on you about that. What I'm doing here is asking you to state why you believe a woman from the 19th century has the authority to say something about God that God directly repudiates. This is your reasonable task and you appear to be literally doing backflips to keep from answering it.
So, in direct answer to your statement it's easy to demonstrate as false. If the Son can eternally cease to exist under the Ellen White / Arius / Adventist theological rubric it's proven that The Father is a separate BEING than The Son because under Ellen's teaching had The Son potato'D the bed and ceased to exist The Father would have remained. Nothing more needs to be said about this, Rob. Certainly, you can see where your theology has led you.
The word ontological comes from the Greek word "ontos" which mean "being" - the word refers to what God is, in God's internal Nature. In Christianity the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, true God from true God. The Son isn't a percentage of God such as Ellen White gloated where the Son could be eternally killed off.