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.
rob
Active member
Ok Grunion, let me answer you question with a little about your own saints and prophets of inspiration.
(1)
Thomas Aquinas, as a Doctor of the Church, Thomas is considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians and philosophers.[15]
What Is Faith? (Aquinas 101) by Friar Gregory Pine is perhaps the best explanation of Faith I have ever seen, based on the inspiration of Thomas Aquinas.
The CCC is riddled with so called inspired writings of Thomas Aquinas. This video published by me on my website testifies that I like some things by Thomas Aquinas. But he was an ordinary saint like all of us blessed by God and inspired by God's wisdom. And not all statements made by Aquinas is inspired because he was human, and like all humans sometimes we write fuzzy.
Now one thing I find about Aquinas is his writing of the term "ontological" about God. I want you to publish CCC about this term, I get the feeling this term is not used by the CCC?
(2)
I listened to the Thomas Instutite and discovered from "did Lucifer sin from a desire?"
Quote: "In the case of Lucifer, what he desired was to be like God, but he desired to be like God in a wrong way.
It is not wrong to desire to be like God,
and in fact the desire to be like God directs us to the source of our bliss and our one true path to happiness.
Quote: "
But the devil appears to have desired likeness to God in a different way,
seeking to become like God by his own strength, rather than finding that happiness in God alone and receiving it as a gift from God alone.
So the Thomas Institute are nearly there with me, the Devil saw in Elohiym powers demonstrating "dependence and therefore by virtue of dependence also independence" and thus the Devil wanted to be like God, but by his own strength"
Thank your Thomas Institute - the Devil wanted to be independent.
The basic notion of breaking faith and sin.
Please discuss these 2 themes I raise. Shalom
(1)
Thomas Aquinas, as a Doctor of the Church, Thomas is considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians and philosophers.[15]
What Is Faith? (Aquinas 101) by Friar Gregory Pine is perhaps the best explanation of Faith I have ever seen, based on the inspiration of Thomas Aquinas.
The CCC is riddled with so called inspired writings of Thomas Aquinas. This video published by me on my website testifies that I like some things by Thomas Aquinas. But he was an ordinary saint like all of us blessed by God and inspired by God's wisdom. And not all statements made by Aquinas is inspired because he was human, and like all humans sometimes we write fuzzy.
Now one thing I find about Aquinas is his writing of the term "ontological" about God. I want you to publish CCC about this term, I get the feeling this term is not used by the CCC?
(2)
I listened to the Thomas Instutite and discovered from "did Lucifer sin from a desire?"
Quote: "In the case of Lucifer, what he desired was to be like God, but he desired to be like God in a wrong way.
It is not wrong to desire to be like God,
and in fact the desire to be like God directs us to the source of our bliss and our one true path to happiness.
Quote: "
But the devil appears to have desired likeness to God in a different way,
seeking to become like God by his own strength, rather than finding that happiness in God alone and receiving it as a gift from God alone.
So the Thomas Institute are nearly there with me, the Devil saw in Elohiym powers demonstrating "dependence and therefore by virtue of dependence also independence" and thus the Devil wanted to be like God, but by his own strength"
Thank your Thomas Institute - the Devil wanted to be independent.
The basic notion of breaking faith and sin.
Please discuss these 2 themes I raise. Shalom
Rob, you didn't answer the question, the same one you've been dodging.
Why do you reject what God calls impossible in favor of what a woman who lived in the 19th century said was possible?
"Immanent Trinity" or "Trinitas ad intra" means the same thing.
Don't worry about terms which describe precise definitions Rob. You need to keep it very simple and reconcile why it is that you accept Ellen White telling you something about Christ was possible when God has clearly told you in the Bible that the thing Ellen was gloating about was impossible. This is the important and simple task you have - it's been calling you to complete it.
Why do you reject what God calls impossible in favor of what a woman who lived in the 19th century said was possible?
"Immanent Trinity" or "Trinitas ad intra" means the same thing.
Don't worry about terms which describe precise definitions Rob. You need to keep it very simple and reconcile why it is that you accept Ellen White telling you something about Christ was possible when God has clearly told you in the Bible that the thing Ellen was gloating about was impossible. This is the important and simple task you have - it's been calling you to complete it.
rob
Active member
But Grunion I did answer your question. You have prophets like Thomas Aquinas who made many remarks that I too feel the Bible do not agree with, the problem is our view of Scripture is influenced by our prophets who influence us. You are no different to the SDA and our prophet. Now I am not picking on Saint Thomas, as I said he is the best explainer of faith I have ever come across, so I like some of his ideas, and some I don't like.
Now I don't find her statement in our cultural view wrong. I am sure your ontological views of God are fine in your cultural view too, but I would like to know them, and why you think that way.
{I would like you to explain what an ontological God means using CCC statements.
I listened to this - boring stuff - philosophy ideas of God. }
I would also like you to explain to me how the three Divine Persons are one Person. I have read this is a common Catholic question and no simple answer is forthcoming. I tried to ask this of my SDA this Sabbath and they are confused like I am, so what on earth does 3 in 1 mean? Usually we SDA speak of 3 Divine Persons who are one by unity of love - but this is a different view of the trinity to a Catholic?
Shalom
Now I don't find her statement in our cultural view wrong. I am sure your ontological views of God are fine in your cultural view too, but I would like to know them, and why you think that way.
I would also like you to explain to me how the three Divine Persons are one Person. I have read this is a common Catholic question and no simple answer is forthcoming. I tried to ask this of my SDA this Sabbath and they are confused like I am, so what on earth does 3 in 1 mean? Usually we SDA speak of 3 Divine Persons who are one by unity of love - but this is a different view of the trinity to a Catholic?
Shalom
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Greetings again
www.catholicculture.org
CCC: “253The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". 83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." 84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature." 85
If this saying the divine persons of elohiym are all deity, the same deity,
they do not share deity, they are deity.
Therefore there is only one deity. This deity consists of three persons of deity.
If the word “god” means “deity” we have one god and three persons of one god.
The problem is the Hebrew has no word for “deity”
only a word for elohiym and a word for el.
CCC: “254The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." 86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." 87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." 88 The divine Unity is Triune.
Deity is not solitary. The Divine Unity is Triune.
English Translation of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America © 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.
Now I am confused? How is this any different to my view of God as three persons who are one person by unity of love.
Grunion are you sure the CCC says The Divine Unity is Triune.
I thought I read in the CCC that the Father and Son and HS are one God, that's not triune, but monotheism?
Confused?
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Search or browse the Catechism of the Catholic Church. An excellent tool for learning more about the Faith and for research.
www.catholicculture.org
CCC: “253The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". 83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." 84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature." 85
If this saying the divine persons of elohiym are all deity, the same deity,
they do not share deity, they are deity.
Therefore there is only one deity. This deity consists of three persons of deity.
If the word “god” means “deity” we have one god and three persons of one god.
The problem is the Hebrew has no word for “deity”
only a word for elohiym and a word for el.
CCC: “254The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." 86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." 87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." 88 The divine Unity is Triune.
Deity is not solitary. The Divine Unity is Triune.
English Translation of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America © 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.
Now I am confused? How is this any different to my view of God as three persons who are one person by unity of love.
Grunion are you sure the CCC says The Divine Unity is Triune.
I thought I read in the CCC that the Father and Son and HS are one God, that's not triune, but monotheism?
Confused?