The Godhead Is Not Three Persons

gillespie9669 · Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:05 am Post subject:

Steve,
WRONG AGAIN!! See Ez. 8:1-5 about the "body parts" of the manifested Holy Spirit, "lifting" Ezekiel up in vision and taking him to another location to see the Father on His glorious throne as was earlier seen in CHAPTER 1(the Wheel within a wheel). Why present the Spirit with body parts if he is impersonal, and why move Ezekiel to another location to see the Father's glory (in vision) if the Spirit was already just the Father Himself in actual and not Representative Personage. Get it?
See also Rev. 1:4 about the Holy Spirit's location BEFORE the throne as the 'Ever ready' Representative to be dispatched as it were. The Holy Spirit's role is to be the Representative "Presence" of the Father and the Son at all times (EVEN DURING ETERNITY); hence Him not being on the Throne, or seen on the throne. His office is not one of Kingship, but Omni-Presence ON BEHALF OF THE FATHER AND SON!! So while we are in Paradise beholding the Father and Son face to face, the Spirit is all over the universe as their Representative; NOT ON THE THRONE. I have never missed the "obvious", as you put it, but is seeking to pass the missed truth on to the misguided and deluded. It is just that the "obvious' is sometimes so "plain as the nose on our face", that we forget it's there, UNTIL WILL LOOK IN THE MIRROR!! The Bible is the best "MIRROR" I know to show us what we are not seeing.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Steve · pseudo 7th-day Adventist Joined: 09 Jun 2002 Posts: 146

To be lifted by the Spirit does not mean the Spirit is a person.

The description of the person in Ezekiel 8:2 is the same as that given in Ezekiel 1:26 and 27. In chapter 1 we see the person sitting on a throne (Verse 26) and as you have already pointed out the Holy Spirit does not sit on a throne. This person then spoke to Ezekiel and when he did “the spirit entered” into Ezekiel. Then the following words were spoken,

“And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me…and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God.” Ezekiel 2:3,4.

If I had to guess who the person was that was sitting on the throne, which had the appearance of fire, I would say that it was the Lord God. This is the same person that in chapter 8 says,

“Son of man, seest thou what they do? Even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from my sanctuary?” Ezekiel 8:6

I agree with what you were saying about the Spirit being the "Representative 'Presence' of the Father and the Son at all times" But this does not necesitate "personhood"

gillespie9669 · Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:24 pm Post subject:

FINAL WORDS-
God is a Person, and only a person can personally Represent Him (one that is either human, angelic, or divine). God is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17), THUS THE SPIRIT CANNOT BE ANYTHING ELSE BUT A PERSON, and the Spirit by which He Represents Himself (as Jesus who also represents Him) is not a thing, or force, or a split personality (as a mad man has) but is Someone who, in the words of 'SOP', "IS ALSO A DIVINE PERSON... WHO HAS A PERSONALITY" (call that contradictions in her writings if you want to). That Someone Representing the Father and the Son is the "third person of the Godhead" (meaning, as we would count, "one, two, three; He is third), or of a "Heavenly Trio" (Matt. 28:19), and is Someone who has A "SELF" because Jesus Himself said so: "He shall not speak of Himself"! ONLY A PERSON HAS A "SELF". I will die ever declaring so because I have the Bible, and 'SOP' in my support, and thus we can agree to disagree, and agree that we will never probably agree on this issue of the personhood of the Holy Spirit (IF YOUR ARGUMENTATION REMAINS THE SAME). Present your closing/summative arguments, and lets leave it at that. Our readers will decide for themselves. God bless.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Steve · pseudo 7th-day Adventist Joined: 09 Jun 2002 Posts: 146

The Bible says that there are two we have to know to have eternal life,

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

We do need to understand what the Holy Spirit does for us and in us.We do not know what the Holy Spirit is. Therefore, whether it is a person or not we do know. We cannot say “who” until we know what. To ask the question “who” we have to know that the thing we are speaking of is a person. There is no clear Scriptural reference that the Holy Spirit is a person. Therefore we cannot say otherwise. Human reasoning and circumstantial evidence is not enough.

The Scripture is full of descriptions of the work and office of the Holy Spirit. We know that it is the “Spirit of God” but the full scope of what that means is beyond our understanding.

I will continue to pray and study. May God bless you.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:41 pm Post subject:

Steve,
Now that we have both said our piece on the matter, let's leave it there for the readers to decide for themselves (since we are both already decided). May "God, the Eternal Spirt" (as expressed by the 'SOP') bless and keep you and me always as we continue to study His words. Ciao!
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

WillieH · Universalist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 108

WillieH · Universalist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 108

WillieH · Universalist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 108

Michael · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 19

[quote="WillieH"]

WillieH · Universalist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 108

WillieH: Hi Michael..

I too respect your right to believe as GOD leads you. However.. In each of us there is ONE PERSON... There are 6 Billion of those on Earth at present, each is ONE PERSON... Not 3!

God made us individuals just as HE is an INDIVIDUAL... (not 3 individuals)

As far as the term "bible", you stoop to make your point. The bible is not a doctrine, it is a term referring to the WORD of GOD.. Whereas the term "Trinity" is DEFINITELY a DOCTRINE...

If God were as you believe, THEY would've said, Thou shalt have no other GODS before US... and Before Abraham was WE WERE... and Thou shalt Love the LORDS thy GODS with all your heart... etc. etc. etc... whats the point of continuing, there is much more evidence to support one god, then 3 and you know it!

The JEWS were given the oracles of GOD.. THEY are MONOTHEISTIC... this is the main reason they, in their view, saw blasphemy in Christ.. I shall not go into it a 2nd time, but the TRINITY is a mystery.. whereas, THE FATHER, who IS the SON, who IS the HOLY SPIRIT, is not.. He is ALL 3.. Beside ME there NO GOD!

Read your SCRIPTURES (does that suit you better?) instead of EGW and her often fleshly writings.. You will find the truth if it is in the WORD ALONE, that you seek..

In JESUS ~~WillieH~~

[quote="Michael"]

Michael · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 19

Dear WillieH,
It is obvious you are a modalist who believes that that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ALL IN ONE ( a doctrine the early Christians spoke and wrote volumes against and denounced it as heresy; and also a doctrine the Jews see, even, today as pagan as much as they perceive the trinity). That is NOT the monotheism that the Jews espouse my friend; the Jews who missed the truth about the divinity of Jesus as the Son of the Father (worthy of divine worship), and as a SEPARATE divine being from the Father (Proverbs 30:4, and 1 Cor. 15:28)!!

Appealing to the Jewish limited understanding of Godhead matters, when in fact they failed to move on to understand further light about Jesus being God's divine Son, as a seperate being, is as much a weak stance as anyone appealing to their false understanding of the soul. The Jews today FALSELY teach that the soul is immortal, by the way, quite contrary to what the entire Bible teaches. So the Jews are not ALWAYS the standard of how the words of the Bible should be interpreted and understood. Remembeer they were rejected for failing to move on to deeper understanding about salvation, and the Godhood of Jesus.

Finally I see where my reference to the meanings of the word "man", and "God" had you missing that 'curve ball'. You totally missed the point (in the same way you conveniently sidestepped the Scriptures I quoted, e.g. Gen. 5:1-2 and Gen. 3:22-24), and you seem also are misguided to think that I meant that each person has three persons inside them. Please know that that is NOT the primary meaning of "trinity" or "trio" (despite the Roman Catholic misuse of this word in it's pagan brand of the Trinity doctrine). A basic trinity or trio is a group of seperate beings who are closely related; and NOT a single being split three ways, or (like your modalistic, "Jesus-only" doctrine) one person parading as three (Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time, or at different times).

Also, God, primarily and ultimately, refers to the Father, but who is revealed to us in His SEPERATE Son, and He is present everywhere by His Spirit. None (of those three personalities) can be known without the other (that's why they are an inseperable trio). Yet I don't pretend to have all the answers about them either. What I do know is that Jesus is NOT His Father in person, and vice versa. That is simply an early second century perversion passed down to certain Christian groups today, who are as much misguided as the Catholics who teach the pagan brand of the Trinity.

Be blessed.
_________________
THE WORD IS MY SWORD AND SHIELD

WillieH · Universalist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 108

WillieH: Hello Michael..

Your "brand" of Trinity as opposed to the "Catholic" brand? You sound like someone speaking of Corn or Cars.. To go round and round about this is futility... "Brands" of TRINITY stand on Sand.. they have no foundation in the Word, but have to be agonizingly gleaned to be proven or, observed, whist remaining "mysterious"... Confused

God is defined as ONE in Scripture... MAN makes Him 3 with his limited perception, even at the vehement disdain of the Creators words in several places..

So keep your multilplicity if you will.. Even though it is a false pursuit and keeps much of "Christianity" in bonds, proper perception and understanding of GOD's person, is not PIVITOL in our destiny..

Thankfully Our Salvation is not dependent on our knowledge, or ANYTHING WE DO, rather.. it is dependent on the SAVING GRACE and Work of ACCOMPLISHMENT of CHRIST at the CROSS... Within that WORK is something greater and more majestic than either of us can comprehend in the state we now exist... but one day He (not they) shall be percieved and revealed in Glory...

Within that, I rest... And hope that you do as well... Cool

In JESUS ~~WillieH~~

Michael · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 19

Hello again WillieH,
Circumlocuting, sidetepping, and resorting to the colorful use of adjectives to describe my stated belief, is not the same as answering/refuting clearly the Biblical points I raised, and disproving my stated historical facts about your modalism as it concerns your "Jesus-only" theology. You ignore the Scriptures I raised, and instead of answering them continue to express opinion, without proper appeal to definitions, semantics, and clear reference to the Scriptures which cast your theology in much doubt. You cannot disprove the points I raised (or so it appears), so you go off on a tangent of descriptive adjectives regarding my belief. Yes, there are "brands" of Trinitarianism, as there are "brands" of "Christianity"; SOME TRUE, WHILE OTHERS ARE FALSE, AND SOME IN BETWEEN. Your modalistic view of the Godhead certainly falls within the latter, which is even more deceptive than you might think.

Before closing, see below how early Christians, LONG BEFORE THERE WAS EVER EVEN A PAPACY, denounced your modal view of the Godhead, and expressed the common view among most "orthodox" Christians. I WILL HASTILY ADMIT THAT WHILE THE FOLLOWING HISTORICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT BEAR WEIGHT AS THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, BUT IS HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE EARLY CHRISTIANS HELD IN COMMON AS THE DOCTRINAL HERITAGE GOTTEN FROM THE EARLY BIBLE APOSTLES!! WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT YOUR "JESUS-ONLY" BELIEF IS CLEARLY EVIDENCED AS HERESY THE EARLY CHRISTIANS VEHEMENTLY REJECTED.

200 A.D.
“See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they [Sabellian ‘modalists’] have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born… But this is not so. The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus [a ‘modalist’ heretic] is of a different mind from them [the Scriptures]… For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e. the number and disposition of [three] persons in the *TRINITY [‘triavdo’]”
- Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus

NOTE- Clearly, Hippolytus was defending “orthodox” Christianity, in using not just the word “Trinity” in Greek, but also pointing out how ‘orthodox’ Christians are supposed to use the word. This defence of ‘orthodoxy’ is seen in his account regarding the banishing of Sabellius from the Church by Callistus, before 200 A.D. Hippolytus clearly said:

“ Thus after the death of Zephyrinus… he [Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius, as NOT ENTERTAINING *ORTHODOX OPINIONS”. –Hippolytus, Refutation of all Hersies, 9:7

What were the "orthodox" teachings of Christians everywhere at that time? The following demonstrates it quite vividly:

Athenagoras, for instance, as early as in 177 A.D. (in his "A Plea for the Christians" to the Roman emperor said, under the very interesting chapter 10, labelled "Cristians worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost":

Chapter X.-*The Christians Worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

... we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being-I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son...Who, then, would not be astonished to hear [Christian] men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points

Now was this just a later view developed by the Papacy in the fourth century? WillieH, THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR TO THE CONTRARY-

100 A.D.
“Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to ‘baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ not unto one [one person, as in Sabellian ‘modalism’] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three [persons] possessed of *EQUAL HONOR”.
- Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 2

150 A.D.
“Both Him [the Father], and the Son… AND the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore”- Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 17

150 A.D.
“I praise you [the Father] for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you AND the Holy Spirit be glory both now, and to all coming ages. Amen!” –Polycarp of Smyrna, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 14

COMMENTS:
What is very evident, despite there might have been differing views on some points, is that the early Christians equally honored, worshipped, and praised the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

AND NOTE THAT THE EARLIEST USE OF THE WORD "TRINITY" (LONG BEFORE THE PAPACY WAS EVEN CONCEIVED) WAS IN THE SENSE OF THREE NUMERICALLY DISTINCT BEINGS:

150 A.D
“[the Father in Creation] conversed with Someone [the pre-incarnate Jesus] *numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational being…”
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 62

180 A.D.
“The THREE days [separate entities], which were before the luminaries [the fourth day Creation of sun, moon, etc.], are types [symbols] of the *Trinity [‘triavdo’- Greek], of God [the Father], and His Word [Jesus], and His Wisdom [Spirit]. And the fourth [day] is the type [symbol] of man, who needs light…”
- Theophilus of Antioch, Chapter 15,Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus, 2:15

NOTE- Clearly the word “Trinity” was not new in 180 A.D., since Theophilus just mentions it in passing, without even stopping to define it, THUS HIS READER MUST HAVE BEEN ACQUAINTED WITH IT. Also, it is clear the word means three separate entities that are related, because “three days” are three separate things, but having the same properties of 24 hours. His use of this symbol is very clear, as he applied it to the Persons in the “Eternal Godhead”. The following quote, from other second century Christian writer, show clearly how the word was understood, and proves again its evidently common use in Greek.

190 A.D.
“I understand nothing else than the Holy *TRINITY [‘triavdo’] to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father [the first Person]”.
-Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 14

COMMENTS:

Thus it is clear that the earliest use of the word “Trinity” by Christian writers was in the sense of a Trio, or THREE numerically distinct Personalities in the Godhead, and any ‘modalistic’ interpretation, of one individual substance of the Godhead being indivisible, was seen as heresy,

Be blessed.
_________________
THE WORD IS MY SWORD AND SHIELD

Michael · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 19

Eugene,
Solid explanation made EARLIER under this thread as it concerns, "trio", "trinity", and the Godhead. Right on! I also agree with you that the SDA Statement of Belief as it concerns "one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit...etc" can be seen as misleading, but interestingly it is NOT officially EXPLAINED the way many in Christendom explain the Godhead. You do know that Adventists (most, that is) explain the Godhead the way E.G. White does (the same way you RIGHTLY do). Shouldn't EXPLANATION take precendence over one statement? I do think so. That is why I don't become all bent out of shape over that clause of that SDA Statement of Belief (of 1980), though sometimes I would have preferred that the earlier Statement was kept intact. Be blessed.
_________________
THE WORD IS MY SWORD AND SHIELD