| Author | Message | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 11 Registered: 4-2007 |
a bit of a lighthearted post, though on topic, Jeremiah's post reminded me of this.  Sung to the tune of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, its a menmonic song I learned once in theology class (well, not IN class, but studying for it anyway) sorting out the terms defining the Trinity. That Jesus is fully God and fully man, that the Trinity is One undivided God in three persons. Arius, of course, said that Jesus was not fully God, and Gnosticism said that God could not be man. I can't remember what Origen's angle was, its been ages ago. The ditty also references a legend that Bishop Nicholas of Myra slapped Arius at the Nicean council for saying that Jesus was not truly God. So here it is, enjoy! (CHORUS)Superchristological and homoouisiosis. Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious. If you understand them all you'll put an end to Gnosis. Superchristological and homoouisiosis! (Verse 1) Now Origen and Arius were quite a clever pair. \Immutable divinity made Logos out of air. But then one day Saint Nicholas gave Arius a slap.. And told them if they can't recant, They ought to shut their trap! (CHORUS) (Verse 2) One Prosopon, two Ousia are in one Hypostasis. At Chalcedon this formula gave our faith its basis. You can argue that you don't know what this really means,... But don't you go and try to say there's a 'Physis' in between! (Chorus) On a more serious note, it really does seem to me that a faulty understanding of the Trinity underlies so many problematic doctrines that are floating around these days. MarysRoses | ||
| Javagirl Registered user Username: Javagirl Post Number: 388 Registered: 6-2005 |
Colleen, I as still struggling to understand your point number two. I dont think I fully grasp, or could put into simple language to someone else, why the warped adventist view of the trinity is so dangerous. I think I am missing something important here, I just don't know what! I do know that I definitely experience Jesus differently now. I just dont know how to tie my expeience into a doctrinal definition. Lori | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 12 Registered: 4-2007 |
Hi Javagirl, I'm not Colleen, but this is my thinking. I've written how that after leaving Adventism, I eventually gave up on Christianity for a while. The Adventist view of God is wrong in such a subtle way, its not always easy to root out. The false, Adventist Jesus, while seemingly more approachable, is less than fully God, which leads to not being able to trust and rely on Him. (in my experience). The Adventist Holy Spirit, is a vague force, hard to distinguish as a real person, also leaving one feeling isolated. (again, in my experience). The Adventist God, is a remote judge, leaving one feeling like its hard to please Him, hard to know where one stands, and for me especially, hard to understand his Justice. This left me not trusting, and having no confidence in God. What I eventually realized, was that I left Christianity rejecting the Adventist view of God, not God Himself. Even though I was no longer Adventist, I was relating to God and seeing him in an Adventist way, which left me still understanding my faith in a legalistic way. This led to discouragement and a very dry spiritual life, and I eventually drifted away from Christianity. Thats why its dangerous, imho. Because it is a false view of God, its difficult to find your way to the real Jesus. I think also this is why Adventists (at least in my experience) minimize Christmas. While my mom's church does a little more for the Christmas holiday than they did in the past, they seem to see Jesus's birth as a good thing, but just a necessary step along the 'plan'. They don't seem to really celebrate the Mystery of God becoming a man. MarysRoses | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 549 Registered: 3-2001 |
Whoa, let me see if I understand this. Let's just say for a moment that I'm God (I'm know I'm not, I'm just saying it for the sake of the example), and I seperated myself for the purpose of becoming incarnate and also for indwelling. Each of these entities would be separate and distinct, but they would all still each be 100% me. And, if it were possible for me to cease to exist, all three of these entities would have to cease as well? Am I understanding this correctly? Also, if this is correct (which is a huge assumption), then what was the separation that Jesus experienced on the cross? Thanks Doug | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 13 Registered: 4-2007 |
If Christ is one in being with the Father, then there was no separation involved in becoming man, as God remains undivided, One in substance, One in being(homoousion). I learned as an Adventist that God seperated himself from Jesus at the crucifixion, as he could not look on sin. That is not my current understanding, as the separation cannot happen if Jesus is truly God and God is undivided. What I never knew as an Adventist, is that Jesus is quoting a psalm when He asks why God has forsaken him. Psalm 22 (NIV) 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent. 3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. [a] 4 In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them. 5 They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed. You should read the entire psalm, I didn't know if I could post that much. It contains a foreshadowing of the crucifixion, and also expresses trust in God. In Jewish synagogues at the time, the cantor would begin by quoting the first line of a psalm, and then the congregation would join in and recite the entire psalm. In that context its like Jesus was reminding his followers that as bleak as things seemed, God had *not* abandoned them. There are two extremes (as I see it) in understanding the Trinity. Both extremes fall into error. Modality - The idea that there is only one God, one person, who has three roles or functions. The other end of the spectrum is Trithieism, three distinct persons, who are separately and individually God, or more correctly gods. MarysRoses (Message edited by MarysRoses on May 28, 2007) | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2007 |
OOps! In struggling to express myself, I exceeded the 10 minute limit on edits! I wanted to add the following comment to my previous post: It seems to me most of the posts would agree with that assumption, that both extremes (modalism and trithiesm)are false. Agreeing on exactly where the truth lies is more difficult, and also dependent on our vocabulary and what we are meaning by the words we are using. I know my own understanding has shifted over time, even as I can continue using the same words to describe it. I'm offering my perspective as a point of discussion, not in a spirit of divisiveness. God bless! MarysRoses | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 761 Registered: 7-2004  |
MWH, Check out Isaiah 9:6: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." That song can certainly be backed up with Scripture! Notice even that He's called "Wonderful Counselor" which we're more familiar with as a reference to the Holy Spirit. If this verse doesn't show the full Divinity of Jesus and the triune nature of God, I don't know what does! | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 787 Registered: 9-2006  |
Doug, I think the separation you speak of is referring too Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Now one automatically might think “My God, why have I forsaken myself” but I think we need to remember the One God in three persons yet not separate. Now when I try to get into this my eyes start rolling back in my head so to speak but I do want to touch on a point here if I could. Jesus took our sin upon himself on the cross, when I say he took our sin, I think that means literally, not in any way symbolically, but literally took our sin, our judicious punishment, on himself, now we know that sin separates us from God (Adam on), so although he knew no sin, he took our sins upon himself that we may be reconciled to God. Many times we don’t understand the seriousness of this or the price he paid. Jesus, the Lamb of God, the ultimate and only true sacrifice, our sins are what separated the person of Jesus from whom or what? Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. For he was cut off out of the land of the living, get that? He died for us that we might live. Oh God, help me to bring Glory to your name here. He did not cease being God but through the virgin birth, death and resurrection, became our sacrifice. I don’t pretend to understand this all fully but I think the key here is his bodily death, as colleen said ” Second, this fact of Adventism's non-orthodox Trinity is the heart of the subtle deception that makes Adventism the most dangerous and subtle false church out there today. Because Adventism has retained its founding fathers' Arian and non-Trinitarian legacy embedded in its doctrines, not only Adventists but the Christian community as well believes that Adventism is an authentic Christian church with a quirky love for Sabbath and vegetarianism.” This heresy of a trithestic god instead of the true One God is the heart of what's wrong with Adventism. This is the fact that the Christian world would understand--if they knew that the Adventists' words actually meant something different from what Christians think they mean. Absolutely agreed Colleen, dangerous and diabolical. A form of Godliness but denying the power thereof. Jesus power to save once and for all. Sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption because of Jesus sacrifice. We could not, now or then, save ourselves, through Sabbath keeping or any other such thing. Our own righteousness stands as filthy rags before a Holy and almighty God, but thanks be to God he has become our righteousness, God our creator has become our redeemer and he is one. He has become our total fulfillment. ” not only Adventists but the Christian community as well believes that Adventism is an authentic Christian church with a quirky love for Sabbath and vegetarianism.” Exactly right Colleen, I have told you before how I have become isolated from my own people in a strange way, not rejected by any means but if I approach them with this knowledge they back away, they don’t want to know what I know, they like to think that the nice Adventist church down there with its nice buildings and programs they put on once a year is just a part of the nice Christian community and everything is just nice and hunky dory jolly good. I am sorry to inform you but there is not a burden in the Christian community for your Adventist friends and loved ones, if you don’t have a burden or outreach for them then who will? They don’t give a squat about the former Adventist either because they don’t know or understand. Now I may not be being very spiritual here but just trying to say it like I see it as looking at it from a cold logical stand point. That is one reason why, to my own thinking, it is so important to try to get a better understanding of the trinity so that you can get Adventism out of you so that you can help someone else is one reason. I may not be justified in what I am saying here but if not, de-justify it or ignore it. We have a choice folks; we can either pick up the cross or let it lay. Leave the wounded by the side of the road or take him to the inn and agree to settle with the inn keeper later. Now who do you suppose that Inn keeper was? Sometimes I break out into a little comedy but I’m not being funny now. I am not being personal here with anyone here. God may be but I’m not. I believe someone said awhile back “It doesn’t seem like God has given me a burden for the lost” but folks it ain’t all that complicated, once we begin to look around for crosses you will see nothing but crosses. We had a missionary to the children of Fiji come to our church Wednesday night, he gives help where needed, flip flops, tooth brushes, I won’t try to explain why flip flops and tooth brushes, but he ask us, Please, could you add another five dollars a month, I desperately need it. That’s a cross to me because I am already giving to thin stretched, but by the help of God I intend to pick up that cross, I am not sayings this to crow about my giving but to demonstrate that the cross is there, I have the choice to pick it up or let it lay there, the man has already ask for help. To tell you the truth it’s about reached the point where I want to ask Pastor to notify me when a missionary is coming so that I can stay home. Cross? What cross? Adventist? What Adventist? False teaching? What false teaching? Wounded? What wounded? Forum? What forum? Adventist relative? What Adventist relative? I started to apologize for this before I posted it, but no, I am not going to apologize for it. River | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 937 Registered: 8-2004  |
Thank you for your post River. The Trinity is such a huge paradoxical subject. I'm grateful for the insights shared here and elsewhere and continue to stretch my brain in thinking about it. The second part of your post was spot on as well. Thanks again! Blessings, Mary | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5910 Registered: 12-2003  |
Lori, I understand what you're saying. In fact, I am realizing that my bringing up this topic in Proclamation this issue will likely evoke many similar responses. I will try to clarify what I mean. No, the doctrinal statement is not significant in tiself. Further, the way we "picture" God is insiginificant as well. Absolutely NO ONE will agree in all expressions of this mystery of the Trinity. (And by the way, Marysroses, I appreciated your clarifying statements.) It's not the words or the mental pictures that are important. What's important here are two things: 1. We need to understand that Jesus is truly and fully God, on a par with the Father, and we need to understand that God Is ONE. 2. We need to understand that Adventism is confusing because it emerged from the heresy of Arianism, not from the true apostolic church. This foundation still permeates all SDA doctrines; it has never renounced its foundation. I'll comment a bit on each point: 1. The Adventist teaching of the Trinity and of Jesus kept us (and keeps our loved ones) from knowing the following: A) Jesus is not fallible. He is not primarily our example; He is our Substitute. As an infallible Jesus (God cannot sin even though human nature can--and Jesus WAS/IS God), our salvation is guaranteed. Jesus is thus qualified to be our high priest forever (Hebrews 7:20-22). B) Jesus is not a "separate" god from the Father. The Trinity was not in danger of splintering when Jesus died. God is God—His omnmipotent, eternal power was never at risk from the consequences of sin. Had the Trinity been threatened by Jesus' death, then sin would have been potentially strong enough to shatter God and win out as the most potent force in all reallity. In concord with Ellen's statements about Satan and His arrogant claims, a shattered Trinity would have proven Satan to be powerful enough to destroy God. But we know such a thing is not possible. Satan is a created being; he has no ultimate power over his Creator. C) Jesus COULD NOT have had a sinful nature nor a "fallen nature" as some SDAs now say. Adventism has never had a doctrine of the nature of Christ. Ellen said both that He had no sinful nature and that He did have Mary's sinful nature. This confusion gave rise to the SDA teaching that Jesus had no advantage over us that we do not have. He "set aside" all His godly power to live as a man. Yet because Jesus is FULLY God (not just 1/3 of the Godhead), He had a sinless nature. He was conceived as a human by the Holy Spirit—He was conceived with a living spirit and was not, as are we, "by nature objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). He was the only human not born dead. Sin did NOT reign in Him in any way. The mystery of the incarnation cannot be explained and systematized, but His humanity did not make him with a "sinful bent" or a "fallen nature" that has sinful weaknesses that He "overcame". D) I'll share a metaphor borrowed from Hugh Ross, the Christian astrphysicist who runs the website AnswersInGenesis and has written several books. Imagine a creature in front of a pliable screen. One day he experiences a form, a protrusion, pushing the screen out and reacting to and initiating responses from him. As the creature watches, he becomes aware of three such protrusions interacting with him. They are seaparate and actually do different "things", but they see to be working together. They all have a similar interest and concern for him, and they respond to him and to one another as if they are connected in some way—yet they are separate. What the creature cannot see is that behind the screen, those protrusions are not separate, distinct entities but are fingers connected to one Hand. From the creature's persepctive they are different; in reality, however, they are parts of one Entitiy functioning as as a single Whole. They are not, in the big picture, "fingers" alone, but they comprise Hand. Obviously there are flaws in this metaphor, but it has helped me to understand how we experience God as Three when He is One. It's not a perfect metaphor, nor does it encompass all the issues. 2. Finally, we need to understand that because the founders of Adventism were Arian (and the church admits this), all the doctrines of Jesus, of salvation, of sin, of Satan, of the spirit of man...all these were shaped by an Arain viewpoint. As the church moved towards a Trinitarian stance (its first doctrinal statement that proclaimed the Trinity did not happen until 1946), it never renounced the foundational Arianism or Ellen's "prophetic utterances" about Jesus originally being an angel, as someone God "exalted" to be His equal, as someone who begged God to allow him to be our sacrifice, as someone with whom Satan had a right to be in competition, of whom to be jealous. The foundational beliefs make it possible for us to have believed in the Great Controversy, to believe that Satan has a legitimate claim that needs to be disproved by the "pre-advent" judgment, that we have a "Right" to expect God to show us why He does what He does. This Arian foundation is still actively promulgated in Adventism. For some examples, see these quotes from The Clear Word as Verle Streifling examines them: http://www.ratzlaf.com/currupt.htm The issue here is that Adventists are in bondage because they are trying to understand the gospel with a foundational belief in a heretical God. It's really very sad—and because Adventists have tried to become "mainstream" without renouncing their foundational heresies, they've succeeded in confusing themselves as well as the rest of Christianity. Jesus is faithful—He finds us and reveals Himself to us, and praise Him that He brings us to the place where we can believe in the real HIM! He is more awesome than we can imagine! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1819 Registered: 10-2004  |
I agree with MarysRoses about Jesus on the Cross. In fact, to go along with what she said, here is a short video clip of Tony Campolo (yes, the "LIBERAL" Tony Campolo! ) from Mark Lowry's website--I love how firm he is on this: http://www.marklowry.com/mlshow/mls/mlshow-016.htm (Go to show #074--the discussion starts at about the 1:45 mark, after the song.) Doug, you wrote:
No, as MarysRoses said, God did not separate Himself at all in becoming a Man. And God does not separate Himself to indwell us either. As the quotes that I posted above explain, wherever God is He is there in entirety. And He is omnipresent. God is an infinite, indivisible, simple (not an aggregate) Being. Adventism taught us the heresy that Jesus is not (and "CANNOT" be!) omnipresent now that He is human, and that He doesn't indwell us--but that is just plain heresy. They deny Jesus' own words that He is with us "always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20); that "where two or three have gathered together" in His name, He is "there in their midst." (Matthew 18:20); that He Himself will come to us (John 14:23); Paul's words that "Christ lives in me" (Galatians 2:20); etc. Also, if Jesus were to cease to exist, God would cease to exist, since Jesus is God. The Adventists teach that when Jesus died, He ceased to exist--but the other 2 gods continued to exist and run the universe. In other words, all 3 of the gods aren't even needed! It is absolute Tritheism. I can't get over how HORRIFIC that teaching is--they're saying that Jesus is not even needed, that He is not necessary!!!!! What BLASPHEMY! Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 28, 2007) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1821 Registered: 10-2004 |
Here is an interesting quote from the reformer John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5914 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, very helpful quotes and insights. Yes, I see that God cannot separate Himself, that even on the cross He did not separate Himself. He certainly did not die! Another text that confirms that Jesus had to retain His omnipresence, even while on earth, is Colossians 1:17: "He is [note the present tense here!] before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Gary Inrig specifically referred to this text in the class he teaches on Friday mornings which Richard has been attending. He pointed out a few weeks ago that Jesus as a man retained all the fullness of God (Col 1:19), and that meant that He retained His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Since Col 1:17 identifies Him as being the One in whom all things hold together, they still held together in Him while He was a man—which, by the way, He still is! Nothing in creation has fallen apart since the incarnation! We really were taught wrong things about Jesus. Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3691 Registered: 3-2004  |
All I can say is WOW!!!! We, as adventists did not learn who Jesus truly is. I have a difficult time wrapping my brain around the concept of the trinity and am so thankful God is there. I am so glad the understanding of the trinity is not a salvation issue. Thank you God. I do know that you are awesome. Diana | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 789 Registered: 9-2006 |
Quote: Yes, I see that God cannot separate Himself, that even on the cross He did not separate Himself. He certainly did not die! Colleen, whatever did you mean by that? | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 550 Registered: 3-2001 |
Add me to the list of inquiring minds. Are you saying that we died to sin through the body of Christ, but that his spirit could not die (which is why he said, "Father into your hands I commit my spirit?" I think I may have answered this question for myself. Doug (Message edited by Doug222 on May 28, 2007) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 790 Registered: 9-2006 |
Thanks Doug, yes I believe you did, I was hoping you would ask first! Heh heh. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5915 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, you both did--and I'm sorry for not being more clear! Actually, what I was thinking about when I wrote that bad statement was that God did not split off from Himself by allowing part of "God" to be in Jesus, separate from the One God. We were taught that when Jesus was on earth, none of the "eternal" "God-qualities" remained in Him. He was not omnipresent, omniscient, nor omnipotent. Our believing this untruth went together with believing that God was separate from Himself: The Father was separate from the Son was separate from the Spirit. It translated into our believing that when Jesus died, His "part" of God could have been eternally lost from the Godhead. Such a belief is heresy. It is not possible for God to be separate from Himself or to die. The man Jesus died. God did not. Does that make more sense? Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1822 Registered: 10-2004 |
Well, Colleen, you're kind of using two different definitions for "die"--"ceasing to exist" and physical death. God cannot die in the sense of "cease to exist." He did however become a man and die a physical death as both God and Man. "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28 NASB.) Furthermore, when Jesus died, His humanity did not cease to exist (no human ceases to exist when they die!) and His humanity was not separate from His divinity at any time (unlike what Adventism teaches.) Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 28, 2007) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 791 Registered: 9-2006 |
Yes, sorry for the question, thought you might like to make that a little more clear. It is sad though these heresy's mentioned effect so many people, most of all it detracts from our saviors glory I think. I can only imagine in a small way how so little understanding must hurt the heart of God. River |
