Non Trinitarianism in Adventism

[BobRyan]

So you admit you reject the Nicene Creed as a "tradition of men?" Hmm?

We don't reject the doctrines in it - we reject its as some sort of authority for doctrine. We would never quote the creed as proof of anything. We prefer the Word of God - while others prefer the "word of man" -- which is where you and I differ.

But that's ok with me -- we all have free will. you can choose that if you wish.

I have to confess that this is enough to make me regard the point I set out to make in the OP regarding Adventism and Nicea as having been made.

I have no doubt of that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Pickle]

Prepare to encounter some:

http://bkankuzi.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-i-am-non-trinitarian-seventh-day_5831.html

I think this gentleman is incorrect in his assessment of Mark 12:32 and Matthew 24:36. There is an unusual meaning for the Greek word that have these verses instead mean that no one makes known the day or hour except the Father. This would be why Great Controversy has the Father proclaiming the day and hour of Christ's return during the sequence of events that we would generally call the second coming. What I mean is that there are events we lump in with the second coming that are sort of part of the grand parade, that occur before He actually arrives. At any rate, if these verses can be translated in this way, then these verses do not have to mean that Christ does not know the day or hour of His coming.

Incidentally the idea that the Father will declare the hour and day of Christ's return, which implies that no one knows it before that time, and thus can't set dates, is found in Ellen White's very first published writing, in January 1846. You can see the implications for Trinitarianism in promoting in 1846 a view of these two texts that permits Christ to know the day and hour of His coming.

 

[Wgw]

I will withdraw for now--a car hit about 50 people outside the Planet Hollywood here in Las Vegas, car ran up a curb--30 people in hospital including a child dragged under a car and UNCONFIRMED reports of gunfire in the building itself, may have been just a part of the chaotic noises. No other info. I've been on here too long anyway, my neck is killing me and I have traction tomorrow--I'll check in later.

They will be in my prayers and I am sure those of @thecolorsblend.

 

[Pickle]

So you admit you reject the Nicene Creed as a "tradition of men?" Hmm?

Aren't you twisting something? Don't these words suggest that we reject what is contained in the Nicean creed, and wouldn't that be dishonest?

 

[Wgw]

Aren't you twisting something? Don't these words suggest that we reject what is contained in the Nicean creed, and wouldn't that be dishonest?

No, I simply meant what I said. Earlier this evening I was accused by an atheist member of "playing games" with him, when in fact I had no ulterior motive.

 

[Pickle]

No, I simply meant what I said. Earlier this evening I was accused by an atheist member of "playing games" with him, when in fact I had no ulterior motive.

But you said that BobRyan rejects the Nicene creed as a tradition of men, and that suggests that he rejects the doctrinal statements within that creed. And that would be dishonest.

 

[Wgw]

But you said that BobRyan rejects the Nicene creed as a tradition of men, and that suggests that he rejects the doctrinal statements within that creed. And that would be dishonest.

No, I asked him if he rejected it as such. There is an important distinction. I do not tell you chaps what to believe; I do not accuse you of anything. The purpose of this tread was to discuss the historic role of Nicea and the Trinity in Adventism and I believe we have done that.

However, I believe we have discussed everything of interest on this point, which is why I have requested it be locked.

 

[Pickle]

No, I asked him if he rejected it as such. There is an important distinction. I do not tell you chaps what to believe; I do not accuse you of anything. The purpose of this tread was to discuss the historic role of Nicea and the Trinity in Adventism and I believe we have done that.

However, I believe we have discussed everything of interest on this point, which is why I have requested it be locked.

You very clearly were saying that you understood him to be saying that he rejected the Nicean Creed as being a tradition of men, which leaves the impression that that he, and Adventists, reject the doctrinal statements within that creed. Stating it in the form of a question doesn't change that fact. It isn't honest.

You asked me about what I thought about the Council of Nicea, and I answered that. I haven't seen where you have replied at all. Did I miss something? And yet you say we've discussed everything of interest. The same goes for the discussion about Michael.

Thus, it comes across as if you aren't really interested in discovering what the Bible says on these various topics, but rather that you have an agenda to attack and criticize, using unfair tactics.

 

[Wgw]

Alas, I simply do not engage in the sort of rhetorical legerdemain some members seem to think I engage in; I prefer a direct discussion. Which I consider that we have had. Time to move on to greener pastures.

 

[Pickle]

ibl

Alas, I simply do not engage in the sort of rhetorical legerdemain some members seem to think I engage in; I prefer a direct discussion. Which I consider that we have had. Time to move on to greener pastures.

But you haven't replied to what I said about Nicea, and we certainly haven't looked at everything about Michael. What would be a greener pasture than discovering what the Bible says about Michael, or learning from history about the various steps in the attempted change of the Sabbath commandment? If you have no interest, why close the thread?

 

[Wgw]

ibl

But you haven't replied to what I said about Nicea, and we certainly haven't looked at everything about Michael. What would be a greener pasture than discovering what the Bible says about Michael, or learning from history about the various steps in the attempted change of the Sabbath commandment? If you have no interest, why close the thread?

Because those subjects are off-topic.

 

[Pickle]

Because those subjects are off-topic.

(a) Then why did you ask about what I thought about Nicea, if it was off topic? I think you did this sort of thing on that other thread too.

(b) Critics routinely, falsely accuse us of not believing in the deity of Christ because of our stance about Michael. This thread is entitled "Non Trinitarianism in Adventism." In that context, a poster raised the issue of Michael. There is no possible way that Michael is off topic.

 

[Wgw]

(a) Then why did you ask about what I thought about Nicea, if it was off topic? I think you did this sort of thing on that other thread too.

(b) Critics routinely, falsely accuse us of not believing in the deity of Christ because of our stance about Michael. This thread is entitled "Non Trinitarianism in Adventism." In that context, a poster raised the issue of Michael. There is no possible way that Michael is off topic.

(a) is topical
(b) was a tangent; I did not accuse you of such, although I do regard your beliefs on Michael to be erroneous and a misidentification; I will post another thread to address that, at a later time

 

[Pickle]

(a) is topical
(b) was a tangent; I did not accuse you of such, although I do regard your beliefs on Michael to be erroneous and a misidentification; I will post another thread to address that, at a later time

What do you mean by "is topical"?

I'm not really interested in spending lots of time discussing things with someone who dismisses indisputable biblical points by the mere assertion that those biblical points are erroneous. It shows you're not really serious.

Have you shown that I gave an erroneous definition for the word? No. Have you shown that Christ did not appear to Joshua? No. Have you shown that there is some difference in meaning between the term used in Joshua and Daniel, and in Jude? No. Have you showed that there is some other archangel mentioned in the Bible? No. You haven't even tried. And yet what I presented was erroneous anyway, you assert. It definitely comes across that you aren't really serious.

 

[Wgw]

What do you mean by "is topical"?

I'm not really interested in spending lots of time discussing things with someone who dismisses indisputable biblical points by the mere assertion that those biblical points are erroneous. It shows you're not really serious.

Have you shown that I gave an erroneous definition for the word? No. Have you shown that Christ did not appear to Joshua? No. Have you shown that there is some difference in meaning between the term used in Joshua and Daniel, and in Jude? No. Have you showed that there is some other archangel mentioned in the Bible? No. You haven't even tried. And yet what I presented was erroneous anyway, you assert. It definitely comes across that you aren't really serious.

There is in fact no "indisputable" evidence that St. Michael and our Lord are the same person, which is precisely why it is disputed. However, this is off-topic.

 

[Pickle]

There is in fact no "indisputable" evidence that St. Michael and our Lord are the same person, which is precisely why it is disputed. However, this is off-topic.

It is not off topic. And I said nothing about indisputable evidence. I very clearly said "indisputable biblical points," and not one of the biblical points I made is disputable.

Is it disputable that arche means first in time or place? No. Is it disputable that one of the possible meanings for "archangel" is "ruler of the angels"? If it is, I haven't heard about it. Is it disputable that the same term is found in Joshua and Daniel 8? No possible way.

I gave indisputable points, and you brushed them aside, with the mere assertion that my views are erroneous. You're coming across as not being serious.

 

[Wgw]

Alas I think we're done here.

 

[Pickle]

Alas I think we're done here.

I'm not quite done.

On that other thread you kept harping at me to say I agreed with the Nicean Creed, when I told you that I don't do creeds. The Bible is my only creed. Rather than respect that, you opened up this thread instead of continuing the discussion over there. Now you refuse to discuss two aspects of the discussion here, even though you brought up one of them, and you've said that you've asked that the thread be locked. I find this behaviour offensive.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

Thread is closed at OP's request.

MOD HAT OFF