A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 3:10 pm Post subject: The Meaning of Sonship
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Can we say that the heavenly trio is a trinity?
Yes. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a group of three closely related persons.
I can understand how one could see this as one definition of the trinity. What is your understanding of the three persons?
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Can we say that the heavenly trio is triune?
Yes. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three who are one. “I and my Father are one,” for example.
Is it possible that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are of God, the Father and in that context the three are one?
Quote:
Trinity n. the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.
Is it possible that the truth lies in the fact that the Son of God and the Spirit of God are both OF God, the Father and in that context we can arrive at the understanding of the three persons of one Godhead?
Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2002 8:21 pm Post subject: Not Modalism
No, I'm not talking about "modalism". That is one of the heritical flavours of the trinity doctrine. What I'm talking about is what the bible says as per 1 Corinthians 8:6 - that there is one God, the Father. The second heritical flavour of the trinity doctrine is the one that says that there are three Gods, i.e., "God the Father", "God the Son", and "God the Spirit". Now, God the Father is the one and only true God. There's no such thing as "God the Son" and there's no such thing as "God the Spirit". Those phrases are not to be found in the scriptures nor in the SOP. This second flavour of the trinity doctrine teaches tritheism. This flavour teaches that each of the three persons is their own self-existent God, hence three Gods - regardless of how much its denied.
OK, the phrases "Son of God" and "Spirit of God" - would you agree that they denote possessions of God? Yes or No?
pos·ses·sion
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the act of having or taking into control b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership c : OWNERSHIP d : control of the ball or puck
2 : something owned, occupied, or controlled : PROPERTY
3 a : domination by something (as an evil spirit, a passion, or an idea) b : a psychological state in which an individual's normal personality is replaced by another c : the fact or condition of being self-controlled
I’d say definitely no.
Mickey wrote:
If your answer is "No", then what do those phrases mean?
The “Son of God” is a title and earthly comparison illustrating the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Godhead. Why must an ordinary grammatical construction have an incredible theological meaning? The name Barabbas (which was the most common name in Jesus’ time) means “The son of the father.” What do you make of that?
I haven’t given any thought to the purpose or meaning of the phrase, “the Spirit of God.”
The “Son of God” is a title and earthly comparison illustrating the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Godhead.
So then you deny that the "Son of God" was literally and in reality, as Ellen White puts it, "God's dear Son"?
In the phrases "Son OF God" and "Spirit OF God", let's now focus on the word "OF" and its meaning. From the dictionary, the definition of "OF" is as follows:
1 -- used as a function word to indicate a point of reckoning <north of the lake>
2 a -- used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation
3 -- used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents <throne of gold> <cup of water>
4 a -- used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word
5 a : relating to : ABOUT <stories of her travels> b : in respect to <slow of speech>
6 a -- used as a function word to indicate belonging or a possessive relationship
7 -- used as a function word to indicate something from which a person or thing is delivered <eased of her pain> or with respect to which someone or something is made destitute <robbed of all their belongings>
8 a -- used as a function word to indicate a particular example belonging to the class denoted by the preceding noun
9 a -- used as a function word to indicate the object of an action denoted or implied by the preceding noun
10 -- used as a function word to indicate a characteristic or distinctive quality or possession
Based on the actual meaning of the word "OF", I'd have to disagree with your conclusion and say "YES" that "Son OF God" and "Spirit OF God" denotes a possession of God and not a symbolic analogous reference of the relationship between God and His Son. The whole foundation of the christian faith is upheld on the "Rock" of the truth of Peter's confession that Jesus Christ is the "SON of the Living God", not some ambiguous, analagous relationship using human terms to describe the relationship. That's my understanding of it. Now, my question. How do you prove from the bible that the relationship between God and Christ is not a literal Father/Son relationship?
Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:02 pm Post subject: Straining at gnats and swallowing camels
Mickey wrote:
How do you prove from the bible that the relationship between God and Christ is not a literal Father/Son relationship?
The relationship between God and Christ is literally a perfect Father/Son relationship. I’m certain that God and Christ have a relationship comparable to human father/son relationships because the Bible is replete with this kind of language. If you’re saying that the Father and the Son have a literal, exact human father/son relationship, then I’d say who commissioned you to promulgate doctrines not taught in the Bible?
Mickey wrote:
So then you deny that the "Son of God" was literally and in reality, as Ellen White puts it, "God's dear Son"?
The relationship between God and Christ is literally a perfect Father/Son relationship.
I know it is. But do you? I ask this question because your previous answer is inconsistent. You wrote previously:
Quote:
The “Son of God” is a title and earthly comparison illustrating the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Godhead.
How can the "Son of God" be merely a "title" and at the same time be "literally" a perfect Father/Son relationship?
It seems like you're playing both sides of the fense here. Therefore I ask the same of you: Don't be absurd!
And again, please let me know if you want to discuss this issue or if you're just going to hurl insults - if its the latter, then I withdraw myself from such meaningless conversation.
Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: Straining at gnats and swallowing camels
Eugene Shubert wrote:
If you’re saying that the Father and the Son have a literal, exact human father/son relationship, then I’d say who commissioned you to promulgate doctrines not taught in the Bible?
What is your response? Are you saying that the Father and the Son have a literal, exact human father/son relationship? Is the Godlike Father/Son relationship indistinguishable from human father/son relationships? That’s what I understand you saying.
What is your response? Are you saying that the Father and the Son have a literal, exact human father/son relationship? Is the Godlike Father/Son relationship indistinguishable from human father/son relationships? That’s what I understand you saying.
Proverbs 8:22-30 shows that Christ was born, brought forth, from God. Jesus Himself said that He "came forth" and "came out from God". He is born of the Father. He is a true Son. Literally. Not figuratively. Christ, being God's Son inherits God's attributes and characteristics. Christ is literally God's Son. God, the Father is literally Christ's Father.
So Proverbs 8:22-30 really is the point of all the beating around the bush! Then all that stuff about a father/son relationship doesn’t work, does it?
A literal mother/son relationship implies birth but not a father/son comparison. You have the same gender confusion in Proverbs 8. In all of Proverbs chapter 8 and in chapter 9:1-6, wisdom is personified into a woman. Therefore, she (Wisdom) can’t be a Son.
A literal mother/son relationship implies birth but not a father/son comparison. You have the same gender confusion in Proverbs 8. In all of Proverbs chapter 8 and in chapter 9:1-6, wisdom is personified into a woman. Therefore, she (Wisdom) can’t be a Son.
So, I gather that you're saying that in order for Christ to have been born prior to His incarnation, it would have had to be by a "mother"? But says who? Where does the bible tell us that? Can we and should we limit God? Its God, the Father that "brought forth" a Son. He didn't need the help of a female or a "mother". The text simply states in Proverbs 8, that He was "brought forth". The text speaks of "wisdom". Christ is called the "wisdom of God". Because the word "wisdom" is of the female gender doesn't mean the subject of the conversation is female. In Matthew 16:18, when Jesus told Peter that upon this "rock" (petra), He will build His church, all Protestants know that the "rock" (petra) upon which the church is built upon refers to Christ. The Greek word for "rock" is "petra" which is a feminine word. This detracts not one iota from Christ's masculinity. Neither does the feminine word used for "wisdom" detract from the masculinity of the Son of God.
Jesus Himself stated that He "came forth from the Father" (John 16:28 ). He also stated that He "came out from God" (John 16:27 ) The meaning is to be "born" from the Father, to be born of God. It doesn't mean that Christ departed from an assembly of Gods or deities as the trinitarian doctrine teaches. So, these points are apparent from the scriptures:
1.)God "brought forth" His Son - He didn't need the aid of a "mother".
2.)"Wisdom" is a reference to the Son of God. In Proverbs 8, its a reference to the birth and origin of the Son of God and has no reference to feminity any more than the "rock" "petra" has.
3.)Jesus Himself plainly states that He was born of God, "came out from God", "came forth from the Father" - who is one singular being.
In Proverbs 8 and 9, I’m not talking about the gender of individual words. I’m talking about Wisdom being personified into a woman repeatedly referred to as ‘she’ and ‘her.’
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
