Adventist Online

This reminds me of when the great William Miller, who gave us Adventism, rejected the Sabbath, because of pressure from his peers:

At 2:45  "you can't change the words and say begotten is different from created."

Well, here's what EGW says:

   "A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." {ST, May 30, 1895 par. 3}

EGW and Doug Batchelor disagree. Created does not mean the same thing as begotten.

Doug Batchelor is a very good evangelist, and I've learned a lot from him, and will continue to benefit from his research on various topics, but the antichrist "..shall wear out the saints of the most High" Dan. 7:25.  Finally antichrist has worn out Adventists, and tricked us into drinking the wine of Babylon.  We agreed from the beginning of the SDA church in 1863, to never make a creed, because as soon as we do, God will have something new to teach us, and you can be sure it will disagree with our creed, and cause a division in our church.  God has to make fools of us again, like in 1844.

    "What is justification by faith? It is the work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to do for himself. When men see their own nothingness, they are prepared to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ." {FLB 111.2}

0:45 "God is past finding out." <---Very important disclaimer.

Views: 495

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Here is what the church believe rush, what part do you disagree with ? just a word?  You started saying one thing now are you agreeing with the church, Ellen White, the bible and God? 

if you "never denied the 3 persons of the Godhead" then this whole thread is useless and  boils down to mere semantics. Maybe you have a false concept of  the Trinity? 

2. The Trinity 
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)

4. The Son 
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly human, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (Isa. 53:4-6; Dan. 9:25-27; Luke 1:35; John 1:1-3, 14; 5:22; 10:30; 14:1-3, 9, 13; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:18; 5:17-19; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 2:9- 18; 8:1, 2.)

5. The Holy Spirit 
God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He is as much a person as are the Father and the Son. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ’s life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; 2 Sam. 23:2; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 61:1; Luke 1:35; 4:18; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7-13; Acts 1:8; 5:3; 10:38; Rom. 5:5; 1 Cor. 12:7-11; 2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Peter 1:21.)

rush4hire, the quote is from an article entitled "The Two Bodies" which is found in Review & Herald of 12th October 1876 on p.116. You won't find it in a list of articles written by Ellen White as it was not written by her, it was written by her husband.

He is writing on the differences between the Seventh-day Baptists and the Seventh-day Adventists. The entire paragraph reads, "The principal difference between the two bodies is the immortality question. The S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian, that we apprehend no trial here. And as the practical application of the subject of the Gifts of the Spirit to our people and to our work is better understood by our S. D. Baptist brethren, they manifest less concern for us on this account."

In the previous article (Christian Union) on the same page James White complained about "petty" sects forming around issues such as "trinity and unity" which, he says, "constitute no test of fitness for Heaven".

My response was related to your statement that, "It's hard to imagine that God would let such an error become so popular." The point was that the concept of 3 Persons in the Godhead was introduced into the SDA Church during the first 50 years of the church's existence. During that period many beliefs of the church were refined, even changed, as the Holy Spirit guided.

You question why I mention the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit? Simply this, if Christ is divine, is God, then you have two distinct Persons in the Godhead. If the Holy Spirit is divine, is God, then you have another, or third Person, in the Godhead.

Anti-trinitarians in the SDA Church today make much of the early SDAs being Arian or semi-Arian in their beliefs. However, there was a progressive revelation of the truth. Arians and semi-Arians declare that Christ was created and therefore not equal to the Father. However, once one realises that Christ is as much God as the Father is (and the Holy Spirit likewise) the arguments surrounding the divinity of Christ immediately fall.

So, if the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God then we either have three gods or we have a "heavenly trio" (as Ellen White states in Special Testimonies Series B No.7 1905, pp.63)

Your initial premise, that "Doug Batchelor says Jesus was not begotten" is not true. He does not say that and it makes me wonder whether you are deliberately misrepresenting what he said or if you just didn't listen to the video. He is clearly stating what others say but you have misrepresented that to make out that it is his statement. It is not.

When you later state, "I never denied the 3 persons of the Godhead" I have to question what you are actually trying to say? If you believe in 3 Persons in the Godhead - which is what SDAs believe and teach - then what is the problem? Just the fact that the word "trinity" is used?

In Bible Training School of February 1906 on p.156 is written, "The doctrine of the trinity is true when rightly understood." When one reads, in context, what many of the pioneers said against the trinity one notes that they often give a definition of which trinity doctrine they are writing against. In 1907 (Ms 139) Ellen White wrote, "Of all His infinite resources, God gave the whole. The three representative powers of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, were pledged to carry out God’s plan for the salvation of the lost race."

By 1908 Stephen Haskell is writing about "the great Trinity of heaven" and the next year R. Hare writes, "But God's great plan is clear and logical. There is a trinity, and in it there are three personalities." He then quotes Ellen White’s statement on three living persons in the heavenly trio and states, "This is indeed a divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity was not a created being such as His angels—He was the "only begotten" of the Father, and He came to earth as the one with the Father from the "days of eternity." "

The word "trinity" is used frequently in SDA publications and in 1913 F. M. Wilcox writes a description of SDA beliefs, "For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe,—
i. In the divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, through whom all things were created, and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the one regenerating agency in the work of redemption.”

Note that Ellen White was alive during this time and did not disagree with or object to the statements that were being made (in fact she wrote the article that precedes Wilcox's). It is also worth noting that all these statements were made within the magic "50 year" window that many now claim was a kind of "golden age" of SDAism.

Perhaps I may be going off-topic in this response but as the question of begotten or not is so closely connected with the trinity issue I feel it is worth looking at what the Church actually was teaching rather than accepting the spurious claims of anti-trinitarians - particularly any idea that God not only allowed error to creep into the church but that error came into the Church via the Spirit of Prophecy. You are declaring a position against the trinity but, unlike the pioneers, you do not define which trinity doctrine you are supposedly refuting - 3 persons in the Godhead is a trinitarian belief. So, I find your declared position very confusing - apparently refuting, whilst at the same time agreeing with, the Church's position. 

Your last point was "But, what do you know,  JohnB?"

In all honesty, very little. However, I fail to see what that has to do with your beliefs and your misrepresentation of Doug Batchelor and the teachings of the SDA Church?

So then answer a simple question....we want to know your position....Tell us the difference between three and trio and the evil thing about the word Trinity....

Good question, brother.  I don't see that my position is different than what I read from inspiration:

  • You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. {7MR 267.2}
  • The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality.  {20MR 324.2}
  • The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."--Manuscript 20, 1906. {Ev 617.1}

I guess my advantage is, I'm not influenced by politics.  I sympathize with those who can't see how these major errors can be corrected.  All the reformers eventually ran into some obstacle that seemed insurmountable.

Honestly I can't tell what's better.  To go along with the institution the way it is, not rocking the boat about the errors, and just go with the creed, and defend it with absolute fanaticism, blindly persecuting innocent persons who are held in contempt because of the creed?  Or, correct every error and be rejected by everyone.

Trinitarians say the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are one person, and if you deny that, you deny the divinity of Christ, and the three persons of the Godhead.

Anti-Trinitarians say various things, like the Holy Spirit is Jesus, and not another person.  I disagree, so they kick me out, too.

I'm not complaining, but we have to be more humble and teachable, like a child, and be aware how easy it is to use religion to exalt self:

  • Everyone must now search the Bible for himself upon his knees before God, with the humble, teachable heart of a child, if he would know what the Lord requires of him. However high any minister may have stood in the favor of God, if he neglects to follow out the light given him of God, if he refuses to be taught as a little child, he will go into darkness and satanic delusions and will lead others in the same path. {CCh 333.6}

You said: "Trinitarians say the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are one person, and if you deny that, you deny the divinity of Christ, and the three persons of the Godhead."

this is another blatant lie or total ignorance on your part. Trinitarians do not say such 

I advice you to take the counsel of the last quote and be teachable. 

where are the 'major errors',... you haven't listed one. 

you speak about creed, and politics and major errors and 'the institution', and rocking the boat and religion. 

but what exactly are you saying? 

Reply by Jason M. on Thursday:

Here is what the church believe rush, what part do you disagree with ? just a word?  You started saying one thing now are you agreeing with the church, Ellen White, the bible and God? 

if you "never denied the 3 persons of the Godhead" then this whole thread is useless and  boils down to mere semantics. Maybe you have a false concept of  the Trinity? 

2. The Trinity 
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)

When it says:  "He is infinite.. His self-revelation"  Who does "He" refer to?  Who is called God?  Not the Father, like in the Bible and EGW.  They are saying the Trinity is the one God.  "He" = The Trinity.  "He" means one person.  The Trinity is one person.  This concept comes from paganism, and was united with Christianity by Rome, and people became fanatical about this error and murdered those who would not agree with it.

In the Bible and EGW, God is the Father of Jesus.

2 Cor.  1:2 Grace [be] to you and peace from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.

   1:3 Blessed [be] God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

2 Cor.  11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.  

Eph.  1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:  

1 Peter  1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,  

1 Cor.   8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.   

John  17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.  

Satan is always casting contempt upon the Word of God, while pretending to honor God.  First thing Satan said was "Hast God said", and "If you are the Son of God", after God just got done saying exactly that.

And people are being disfellowshipped from their Adventist churches for upholding the authority of the Bible, rather than the Pope on this issue.  That's what the conflict is about.

1 John  2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is not really the Son of God, but that's just a metaphor.

Acts.  3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did [it], as [did] also your rulers.

Peace 

Ok... I guess the whole Doug B. is over huh... You made it up! 

 I really don't see how it's connected, but anyway, this is now a trinity post.

Rush wrote: "When it says: "He is infinite.. His self-revelation" Who does "He" refer to? Who is called God? Not the Father, like in the Bible and EGW. They are saying the Trinity is the one God. "He" = The Trinity. "He" means one person. The Trinity is one person. This concept comes from paganism, and was united with Christianity by Rome, and people became fanatical about this error and murdered those who would not agree with it."

 I don't use the word trinity, just to avoid any confusion. The Bible doesn't use the word, nor does the writings of EGW.

 So, you are saying "they are saying ", first, who are they? 

 Next, if they are saying the GODHEAD is ONE GOD, then they are correct. 

 Yes, HE = The GODHEAD. However, HE does not mean One Person. Because we all agree (I think) that the GODHEAD is Three Persons, which is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

 

Mark 12: 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

 Do you agree that there is One GOD, and there is none other but HE? 

 Trying to understand how ONE is Three, and Three is One at the same time is impossible. We have a better chance breaking through 10 foot thick concrete with our head before we can understand that. However, the Bible gives us what we need to know, and it says Mark 12:32, "..there is one God; and there is none other but he:". 

Rush wrote: "Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is not really the Son of God, but that's just a metaphor."

  Are you making this up, or do you have proof? Anyway, it doesn't matter, why?, because the SDA Church teaches Jesus is really the Son of GOD.

 Again, I don't know all of what trinitarianism entails, there could be some things in the teachings of other denominations that differs from SDA teachings of the GODHEAD. That is what we're talking about right, what the SDA Church teaches? 

Blessings! 

From:  https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/godgodhead-jesus-ch...

  • We are dealing with a metaphorical use of the word “son.”
  • 3. Metaphorical Significance: In our humanity the image of a child conveys some obvious ideas. First, it indicates that a child is of the same nature as that of the parents; they are human beings. When Christ is called “Son of God,” we are being told that He, like the Father, is a divine being (John 5:18). Second, a child is distinguishable from their parents. The metaphor of sonship means that although Christ and the Father have the same nature, they are different persons, implying a plurality of persons within the Godhead.

  • Reasoning said:   "Trying to understand how ONE is Three, and Three is One at the same time is impossible. We have a better chance breaking through 10 foot thick concrete with our head before we can understand that."

That's the whole point, because Babylon is the author of confusion.  People love fantasy and confusion, for the same reason they love drugs and horror movies.  It's not healthy, but it's an escape from reality.  That's why it's called the "wine of Babylon".  And Jesus said:

Luke  5:39 No man also having drunk old [wine] straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

But, when you understand how many people were martyred for Babylon to defend her wine and delicacies business, it's supposed to stir up indignation and a desire to leave Babylon.  Ellen White says when you see someone martyred, you are forced to choose sides.  To join the martyrs and risk death, or be enslaved by a murderer.  That's a sad reality of the world we live in:

  • This harlot .... has corrupted the pure truths of the Bible, and with the wine of her false doctrine, has intoxicated the nations. A few instances of her corruption of the truths of the Bible must suffice: {1855 JNA, TAR 54.1}
    1. The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. This was derived from the Pagan mythology, ........{1855 JNA, TAR 54.2}
    2. The doctrine of t
    he Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, a. d. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous measures by which it was forced upon the church, which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush. {1855 JNA, TAR 54.3}

Andrews as in "Andrews University".  Why are we not blushing?

Peace 

 

 Rush wrote: "That's the whole point, because Babylon is the author of confusion. People love fantasy and confusion, for the same reason they love drugs and horror movies. It's not healthy, but it's an escape from reality. "

 I understand that, however the things you are saying is bringing confusion.. You can tell because a few people asked what are you actually talking about, you were talking about one thing, now you have slowly transitioned to people saying Jesus is not the Son of GOD. 

 Now, there are some things from the BRI that I don't agree with, and there are many things I do agree with... Let see if what you bring forth holds any weight, let's see what they are saying in regards of the term "Son" being used metaphorically. 

BRI wrote: "3. Metaphorical Significance: In our humanity the image of a child conveys some obvious ideas. First, it indicates that a child is of the same nature as that of the parents; they are human beings. When Christ is called “Son of God,” we are being told that He, like the Father, is a divine being (John 5:18). Second, a child is distinguishable from their parents. The metaphor of sonship means that although Christ and the Father have the same nature, they are different persons, implying a plurality of persons within the Godhead. Third, the relationship between parents and children is unique. Their union is practically indissoluble. The metaphor is therefore a good symbol for the deep unity that exists within the members of the Godhead (John 17:5). Fourth, a human child comes from its parents through natural birth. In the case of the Godhead, however, the Son proceeded from the Father, not as a divine emanation or through natural birth, but to perform a work of creation and redemption (John 8:42; 16:28). There is no biblical support for the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The Son came from God but was not generated by Him. Fifth, the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead. It conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship."

 What I get from this is that there is a difference, also similarities from how we humans interpret child, son and how it relates to the GODHEAD relationship. 

 BRI wrote:

 1.)  "First, it indicates that a child is of the same nature as that of the parents; they are human beings. When Christ is called “Son of God,” we are being told that He, like the Father, is a divine being (John 5:18).

  2.) Second, a child is distinguishable from their parents. The metaphor of sonship means that although Christ and the Father have the same nature, they are different persons, implying a plurality of persons within the Godhead.

  3) Third, the relationship between parents and children is unique. Their union is practically indissoluble. The metaphor is therefore a good symbol for the deep unity that exists within the members of the Godhead (John 17:5).

 4) Fourth, a human child comes from its parents through natural birth. In the case of the Godhead, however, the Son proceeded from the Father, not as a divine emanation or through natural birth, but to perform a work of creation and redemption (John 8:42; 16:28). There is no biblical support for the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The Son came from God but was not generated by Him.

 5) Fifth, the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead. It conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship."

  On point #5, I believe it's saying we can't literally apply the father and son's image we have as humans to that of the Divine Father and Son image. In the human application, a child has a beginning, in the Divine application that's not the case. 

 I believe what we have here is you misunderstanding what is actually being taught, similar to how you misunderstood what Doug Batchelor taught. Then in turn cause you to bear false witness against him. 

Blessings! 

Reasoning said:  "I understand that, however the things you are saying is bringing confusion"

You state that as if it were a fact, but really it's just your opinion.

  • 1 Kings  18:17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, [Art] thou he that troubleth Israel? 
  • 18:18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim.

Who's causing confusion, here?  The king with his popular new religion, and books of a new order, or Elijah, who felt so alone because he thought everyone but him had gone after the new fanaticism?

Babylon means confusion.  Babyl, babble, baby.  These words are related for a reason.  But, you're pinning this on me?  The bible says nothing about me.  The concept of Babylon is about leaders being in the place of God, and the people looking to them, instead of Scripture, for authority in inspiration.  The confusion is when men are deceived in thinking the Bible doesn't cover everything, and the people need church leaders to help God out and fill in the gaps of what God forgot to cover in scripture.  Zedekiah had to watch his sons be executed and get his eyes poked out because he was a "slave to popular opinion".

  • He sacrificed the noble freedom of his manhood and became a cringing slave to public opinion. {PK 457.3}

Peace 

Rush wrote: "You state that as if it were a fact, but really it's just your opinion."

 It is a fact brother Rush, first, Doug Batchelor didn't say Jesus was not begotten, that is the title of your post, you just ignore the facts  I presented to show that you misunderstood what he actually said on that video. 

 Second, the whole thing you brought forth in regards to the metaphoric application on use of and meaning of Son, and what the BRI wrote, that doesn't whole any weight. Now your ignoring that... It's like your trying to make things up in order to have something to beef about with the SDA Church. 

 

 Now, there are things that needs to be addressed to the SDA Church, but what you brought forth is not it Rush. 

 Blessings! 

Begotten = born, but the best that a Father can say of His true child.

Only Mothers give birth.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service