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.
From what I have observed on Mickey,
and he may correct me if I'm mistaken, but what I have observed is this:
Mickey believes Christ is the "begotton" Son, in a literal sense, that is --before the worlds were created God the Father "gave birth" or begot, in some unexplained way, His Son. That is, he believes there was a time when Christ was not and God the Father was alone.
He believes that Christ is not God in Himself, but His godhood is something given Him by the Father. Inherited.
He believes there is only one true God, and that is not Christ.
he believes that the "self-existant, underived life" of Christ is not really self-existant, and underived" but something the Father gave Christ and that Christ is dependant upon the Father for life.
He does not believe in a separate persona for the Holy Spirit, but says that it is the "spirit" or "breath" of the Father, and the Son. He will try to explain EGW's statements about the "person" of the Holy Spirit as not being a separate person at all, but simply an extension of the person of the Father, or the Son.
He accuses Christians of worshipping a pagan idea of three gods.
When in reality we believe in ONE GOD, in perfect unity, yet three persons.
Not quite sure why my post was moved here as I was answering a question on another thread.
Hopefully the "administrator" didn't think the above post was a
"clever complaint" against basic truth............
Well, Mickey would probably say that I do not believe the truth on this matter............
However, I've shown what I believe about the Trinity quite extensively on my website. Here are some of the pages:
I moved a recent post of yours to the subtle misunderstanding forum. We try to reserve the Midheaven forums for positive discussions of the truths we hold. See this link for a discussion of that principle.
I would also like to mention that everyone has the right to openly challenge any administrative decision at this forum. We want to be fair and reasonable with everyone. We believe in being open because we believe in the rightness of our principles.
Blessings,
Eugene Shubert
dedication wrote:
Not quite sure why my post was moved here as I was answering a question on another thread.
Please forgive the interruption. What question were you answering?
I was reading through the thread called "trinity, non-trinty" in your "mid-heaven" section, where Mickey was playing with you on the trinity question--
The thing is, I've met with these people before, and I'm afraid I do NOT agree with their concept that Christ is a "lesser, derived" God, Who was "given" Godhood, through inheritance, but is not the true God. To me that is NOT MID-HEAVEN, AT ALL-- it is.........denying Christ as truly God.
Anyway----Here's the post I was addressing --
I was just sharing what I had run into with these folk before, as in that thread at least, you seemed very uncertain as to what Mickey was trying to say.
Quote:
Mickey wrote:
Is it possible that our understanding of the doctrine of God as is stated in the bible and the confusion regarding the word "trinity" could be just a simple matter of semantics or is there a difference in our understanding of biblical fact?
Eugene Shubert wrote:
How could I say anything definite unless I knew more about what you believe? You haven’t as yet disclosed what you have been hinting at but you do make me think that you’re some kind of Modalist.
I do not believe that our differences are purely a matter of semantics.
According to the lexicons theotees means the state of being God, Godhead. Strong’s Dictionary of the Greek Testament defines it as divinity (abstr.): —godhead.
It’s obvious to me that the state of being as God is held by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!
I've met with these people before, and I'm afraid I do NOT agree with their concept that Christ is a "lesser, derived" God, Who was "given" Godhood, through inheritance, but is not the true God. To me that is NOT MID-HEAVEN, AT ALL-- it is.........denying Christ as truly God.
Christ was not derived. In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” John 11:25. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12.
I don’t believe that you can find the idea of a derived God being taught in the Midheaven forums but we do allow anyone to ask questions there. I believe that you have stated Mickey’s belief with great alacrity and perfection.
The thing is, I've met with these people before, and I'm afraid I do NOT agree with their concept that Christ is a "lesser, derived" God, Who was "given" Godhood, through inheritance, but is not the true God. To me that is...denying Christ as truly God.
Ulrike, oops I mean dedication. The truth of the matter is that you have never "met" any of us. In fact all you ever did was make assumptions, put words in our mouths, and claim that we said such things. And then when you could not answer (because of absolute refusal) are questions you expelled us from your forum because you couldn't handle it, i.e. the truth coming to light. I completely understand-no one wants to believe themselves deceived. But you have yet to answer John 17:3--Is the Father the "only true God"? Also what do you do with Fundamental Belief 3? "The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father."
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.1 Corinthians 11:3. 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.1 Corinthians 8:6. God is the Father of Christ - EGW
I didn’t understand ‘dedication’ meaning that she “met” believers in the “derived God” theory personally.
If you believe that ‘dedication’ misrepresented Mickey in the first post of this thread, please identify the misrepresentations. If you want to present evidence that Ulrike misrepresented you elsewhere or that she expelled you from her forum to silence relevant debate, I will be happy to try the case in our Courtroom. This forum supports moderated disagreements. I am also very willing to answer your question about John 17:3. Yes; the Father is “the only true God.”
Mickey believes Christ is the "begotton" Son, in a literal sense, that is --before the worlds were created God the Father "gave birth" or begot, in some unexplained way, His Son. That is, he believes there was a time when Christ was not and God the Father was alone.
Right, Christ is God's literaly begotten Son. I believe that because the bible explicitly teaches it. Proverbs 8:22-30, John 8:42, John 16:27.
dedication wrote:
He believes that Christ is not God in Himself, but His godhood is something given Him by the Father. Inherited.
The bible teaches that Christ is God by reason of inheritance - so He is God in Himself - albeit not the "only true God". Hebrews 1:4. Christ specifically teaches that God the Father is the "only true God". John 17:3 - this is something that "dedication" has always refused to address. She teaches that Christ is the only true God along with the Father. She provides no scripture to back up her claim. This is purely the gospel according to "dedication"/Ulrike.
dedication wrote:
he believes that the "self-existant, underived life" of Christ is not really self-existant, and underived" but something the Father gave Christ and that Christ is dependant upon the Father for life.
Here, "dedication" misrepresents my belief totally. Christ most definetly possesses "self-existent" and "underived life". He inherited this quality of life from the Father - John 5:26, however, Christ is not dependent upon the Father for life - as is the case with created beings.
dedication wrote:
He does not believe in a separate persona for the Holy Spirit, but says that it is the "spirit" or "breath" of the Father, and the Son. He will try to explain EGW's statements about the "person" of the Holy Spirit as not being a separate person at all, but simply an extension of the person of the Father, or the Son.
The Holy Spirit is not a separate God or divine being, distinct and separate from the Father. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father. The Son shares the Father's spirit. The Father and the Son are omnipresent by virtue of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a personal being for it is the person of the Father as well as the Son who dwell with each believer. The distorted version of the trinity that the Seventh Day Adventist chruch and "dedication" subscribe to would tell us that God sent another god to dwell with His children to personify Christ. Where's the scriptures that back up this claim?
dedication wrote:
He accuses Christians of worshipping a pagan idea of three gods.
I make no such accusations against any christian. Most of us christians inherited our beliefs from either our parents or our religious upbringing often without independent study and thus we grow up believing error. This doesn't make a person less of a christian for unknowingly believing an error. There are many true christians that believe in the different flavors of the trinity who I believe are saved. Just like there are many true christians that sincerely believe in the sanctity of Sunday that are saved. This doesn't negate the error of sunday sacredness nor the error of the various flavors of the trinity doctrine.
It would seem that "dedication" is more interested in stirring up strife than having "principled" and "reasoned" discourse as Eugene's forum is supposedly designed for. This is quite evident in her dealings with others on her own forum in which she has unsubscribed folks who disagree with her. This is the spirit of the "dragon" that Adventists warn against. On her forum one only has the freedom to post that which she agrees with. Just ask HA! 8-)
Eugene, I agree with your above statement. But its confusing. Why? Because if the Father is the only true God, which He is, then how can you believe in the trinity which stipulates that the one true God is composed of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? This is why I asked you if the confusion in our beliefs is based on semantics or biblical fact. For judging by your original post in the Midheaven forum, it would seem that you do not subscribe to the trinity doctrine.
You certainly do not subscribe to "dedications" and the SDA's faulty view of God. So, perhaps it would do us all well if you fully explain your position. Thanks.
Stop right there! Where have I said or hinted at anything like that?
Well, you said the following in the original thread:
Quote:
Mickey,
I assume you believe in a Heavenly Trio based on Mt 28:19. Can we say that the Godhead is a trinity and triune?
So, do you believe in the trinity or not? Or do you define "trinity" differently from the various organized churches? It would seem to me that semantics is playing a fairly large role in this understanding.
From your own testimony it seems that ‘dedication’ described your beliefs accurately, except on one point. You say, “Christ is not dependent upon the Father for life.” Frankly, I appreciated her directness but didn’t appreciate your long and tortured roundabout way of saying what you believe.
I believe that I have explained my belief about God very directly in the thread Trinity or non-Trinity? I wish you would adopt that standard. If you truly have genuinely sincere questions about my view of the Trinity that I haven’t already answered with great diligence and care, then please go to that thread and post away.
Don’t be saying that ‘dedication’ is interested in stirring up strife. Her concern for truth seems genuine. It is you who seem disingenuous.
"Dedication" misrepresented my understanding of the doctrine of God on two points. The one that you acknowledged and where she makes the determination that my understanding denies the true divinity of Christ. That is a very far cry from accuracy or as you put it "perfection" - as the acceptance and belief in Christ's full divinity is essential. Evidently, you are not reading the posts very carefully and are evidently making baseless conclusions.
As for who is acting disingenuously, perhaps it is yourself, for instead of answering questions directly and remaining on topic, you pose diversionary questions that have no relevance to the topic under discussion. And you whine and complain about my "torturous" and "roundabout" way of explaining my position? At least I make an attepmt to explain it. You, on the other hand, play dodge ball.
As for "dedication", her concern for the truth to me is not an issue and not one that I make a judgement on. Its the way that she goes about it and how she treats others that disagree with her is the issue I'm addressing. Evidently, it is yourself that makes those judgements by judging me as disingenuous.
In any case, it doesn't seem that you really desire a discussion on the issue of the Godhead. I expected "principled" and "reasoned" discourse as you've advertised. Instead, you seem to be more interested in personal critiquing than bible study, thus again diverting the discussion of the Godhead to meaningless babble. Therefore, I shall not waste any more time trying to have a discussion on this forum.
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
