Please forgive if this comes off as a foolish question.

[RND]

Pythons,

Questions in the Traditional Seventh-day Adventists by non-members are allowed but anything which may lead to debate or beyond that by a non-member it is better to take to the Discussion and Debate Sub-forum which is for that specific purpose or the Main SDA Forum........

Thanks...
Red
Seventh-Day Adventist Forum Moderator

Red, I kinda helped it along...my bad. It's interesting seeing the reaction here as opposed to some other sections of CF. I've gotten several warnings and reports on the Catholic board for just even asking questions, let alone debating them!

But to be fair the same thing happened on another thread in a non-denomination debate regarding my discussions regarding Adventist doctrine (mark of the beast, etc.).

Here, everyone has been so polite and kind regarding a simple transgression of the rules.

 

[Mankin]

No he did not suggest in his scenario that mary was a god. Try not to assume everything RND. Mary was the mother of God the Son so by using that logic you could say that Mary was the Mother of God. Also let's not try to attack Catholicism. This was meant to dicuss the Trinity not to let anti Catholic sentiments come oozing out.

 

[RND]

No he did not suggest in his scenario that mary was a god. Try not to assume everything RND. Mary was the mother of God the Son so by using that logic you could say that Mary was the Mother of God. Also let's not try to attack Catholicism. This was meant to dicuss the Trinity not to let anti Catholic sentiments come oozing out.

Mankin, thanks so much for your input. It's nice to see that not only have you taken to speaking for yourself, but others as well. I would imagine, based on your ability to know what's on other people's minds that you might try to take your own advice.

In light of the fact that I'm posting in the "Traditional Adventist" forum I believe if I wish to "attack" Catholicism I'm allowed to. If you would like to be an abritor of what people post or speak Mankin, become a moderator or head on back to Progland.

 

[Mankin]

That was a simple request not an out and out attack. I refuse to swallow the bait.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Here's another woman highly blessed.

Jud 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.

 

[WaldensianFaith]

Ok, what is the difference between Godhead and Trinity? As for the Bible not using the actual term Trinity the same thing can be said about investigative judgement. Correct?

As a Catholic your church teaches the Trinity. The book "My Catholic Faith" teaches that Christ comes from the Father, and the Spirit from both of Them. We see the Godhead as three Self-existent individuals.

 

[Pythons]

Appears that my continued discussion in this thread would result in a negative outcome. If somone who can could move this into the DD section I'll keep going on it. I think if I say any more the SDA Mod will end things.

 

[reddogs]

Appears that my continued discussion in this thread would result in a negative outcome. If somone who can could move this into the DD section I'll keep going on it. I think if I say any more the SDA Mod will end things.

Moved to Discussion and Debate as per your request, this sub-forum allows for more open debate and discussion....

Red

 

[Pythons]

Thanks reddogs, I do appreciate it.

 

[Jon0388g]

An interesting passage for this discussion:

"There came then His brethren and His mother, and, standing without, sent unto Him, calling Him. And the multitude sat about Him, and they said unto Him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And He answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And He looked round about on them which sat about Him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mark 3:31-35



Jon

 

[reddogs]

An interesting passage for this discussion:

"There came then His brethren and His mother, and, standing without, sent unto Him, calling Him. And the multitude sat about Him, and they said unto Him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And He answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And He looked round about on them which sat about Him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mark 3:31-35



Jon

We are all the same before God, sinners, even Mary....

 

[sentipente]

We are all the same before God, sinners, even Mary....

I don't get the significance of that statement.

 

[Pythons]

You plainly suggested in your a=b scenario that Mary was a god.

I've already said that was not what I suggested but I understand why you would be desperate to push it that way.

But see, that's the point I'm trying to suggest in that it is Catholicism that treaches and believes that Mary is the mother of the second person of the trinity. That's part of the rosary. But plainly Mary isn't the mother of the second nature of the trinity because Jesus existed before Mary did. Mary was mother of Jesus' human nature. His Godhead nature and status preceeded Him and was immediately part of His nature as a human.

Catholicism denies this by saying Mary was the mother of this nature. She was not.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son"

"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all" Romans 8,32

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" Jn 1,14

"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"

Not only as God but also as man, Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God. In your rejection of Mary as the mother of God you are forced to say that as God, Jesus was the natural Son of God and as a man, Jesus was the adopted son of God. Do you understand now RND? This theory of yours, by default, logically demands Christ is two persons. That is what you're saying, right? Mary is the Mother of Christ's human nature and because Jesus existed for eternity then Mary, a child of Adam, could not be the Mother of God. Classic Nestorianism.

"The Gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh". Romans 1,3

"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might recieve adoption as sons". Galatians 4,4

The Divine and human natures are joined to each other in "one" person. The Catholic Church has never taught that Mary was the Mother of Divine nature. Where in the world do you come up with these bizarre ideas?

The Catholic Church teaches that the Divine and human nature of Christ are united into one person. I see you actually quoted a section of Catholic teaching. Good job, you should do that more often. Catholicism denies your assertion it teaches what you say it does. Read the paragraph you quoted from the council of Ephesus below, again.

I believe that there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three distinct and separate beings that are part of the singular family of God.

Ok, I do as well.

I was never on the "Catholic" bus fortunately. The Catholic view of Mary is directly associated with the ancient paganism of the Babylonians and blended with Zoroastrianism.

We can deal with your errors on this after we are done discussing the Trinity, in particular, Jesus the Christ.

"Since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh." (Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.)

Yeah, "the Word became flesh" just like the Bible states and Catholics call Mary the Mother of God because the Divine and human natures of Jesus are united into "one" person, according to the flesh just like the Bible states. You do realize that the last part of that quote says it's not because the Word had the beginning of it's existence from the flesh, right? Infallibility is amazing isn't it.

Keep using official Catholic teaching documents to make your points, please. It will make my answering you much easier.

"The cult of the Mother Goddess entered the Christian Church in typically Christian categories, such as the Ecclesia [church], represented as the spiritual mother of Christians, or as "the Second Eve," whose divine motherhood is responsible for mankind's rebirth. It was through such Christian concepts that the idea of the divine feminine took root in Christianity, and it was a long and often confusing process until Mary was declared to be the Mother of God. But it is the primordial mystery of generation and childbirth, the appearance of life, and the age-old belief that motherhood is part of a cosmic order upon which both the pagan and the Christian versions of the cult of the theotokos ["God bearer", i.e., "Mother of God", Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.] rest. This reverence for motherhood and childbirth is the basic principle of Mariology, a principle which Christianity inherited from its pagan forerunners." - Stephen Benko (1993) The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the pagan and Christian roots of Mariology. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 5

Romanism substitutes Mary for Christ

We can get to this after we are done with our current discussion.

 

[reddogs]

Well lets see what the Catholic church states on Mary:

"...that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]

MARY COMPARED WITH EVE​

Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God -- indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions...."

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

and to amplify on this....

"...Catholic theology maintains that, since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat....."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception


Now lets look at scripture.....

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[Pythons]

I will be happy to talk about Mary after this issue with the Unity of Christ's Person is completed. Once the Godhead issue is resolved everthing falls into place rather quickly.

 

[RND]

I've already said that was not what I suggested but I understand why you would be desperate to push it that way.

As with most discussions with Catholics this is typical. You suggested quite clearly that Mary is a god, whether you admit it or not.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son"

"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all" Romans 8,32

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" Jn 1,14

"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"

Not only as God but also as man, Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God. In your rejection of Mary as the mother of God you are forced to say that as God, Jesus was the natural Son of God and as a man, Jesus was the adopted son of God.

I'm sorry, but that's simply your POV. I've never suggested that Jesus was adopted. That is your statement, you own it. You are trying to put words into my mouth that I didn't say.

While Jesus was certainly God on earth, in purposely put His Godly "nature" away to live as a man.

Phl 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Phl 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Phl 2:9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Do you understand now RND? This theory of yours, by default, logically demands Christ is two persons.

Christ was one person with two natures, that of God and that of Man. This is simple, basic Christianity. You think I'm saying one thing but if you just followed simple logic and scripture you would see differently.

That is what you're saying, right?

Nope.

Mary is the Mother of Christ's human nature and because Jesus existed for eternity then Mary, a child of Adam, could not be the Mother of God. Classic Nestorianism.

Mary did not exist as a human prior to Christ.

"The Gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh". Romans 1,3

"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might recieve adoption as sons". Galatians 4,4

The Divine and human natures are joined to each other in "one" person. The Catholic Church has never taught that Mary was the Mother of Divine nature. Where in the world do you come up with these bizarre ideas?

"The Divine and human natures are joined to each other in "one" person." - Classic Nestorianism.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Divine and human nature of Christ are united into one person. I see you actually quoted a section of Catholic teaching. Good job, you should do that more often. Catholicism denies your assertion it teaches what you say it does. Read the paragraph you quoted from the council of Ephesus below, again.

This isn't Catholic teaching, this is scriptural teaching. The scriptures existed long before the Catholic church and the nature of Christ is clearly defined in those scriptures.

Ok, I do as well.

Then what's your beef with me?

We can deal with your errors on this after we are done discussing the Trinity, in particular, Jesus the Christ.

Cartholicism has entertained and accepted more pagan beliefs and rituals than any other reigion.

Yeah, "the Word became flesh" just like the Bible states and Catholics call Mary the Mother of God because the Divine and human natures of Jesus are united into "one" person, according to the flesh just like the Bible states. You do realize that the last part of that quote says it's not because the Word had the beginning of it's existence from the flesh, right? Infallibility is amazing isn't it.

Yes, the word became flesh, but Mary was not devine. Marianism teaches that Mary is devine, that is part of the Godhead. There is nothing "infallable" about the church, Catholicism or the Pope.

Keep using official Catholic teaching documents to make your points, please. It will make my answering you much easier.

The point should be taken that the church says one thing and yet believes another.

We can get to this after we are done with our current discussion.

That will give you time to find the appropriate answers.

 

[JohnT]

In discussing the Trinity, I offer this definition from a well-recognized, evangelical source. Therefore there can be no introduction of the bogeyman word "Catholic" into the discussion that follows.
All posters following this need to understand that the conclusions of the article are ALL supported by Scripture, and all should be hyperlinked here (if the formatting is correct) for easy reference.


Nor should anyone try to bring into the discussion, the rabbit trail of the alleged pagan origins of trinity. That is unimportant.

The first issue of importance is to aver that this is what the Bible says about the trinity.

And the second issue of importance is if the SDAs (both traditionals and progressives) believe the Biblical accounts here. Which do they fully support, and which do they do not support?

In Christian usage the term Trinity expresses the belief that there is only “one God” (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Timothy 2:5) who exists as three distinct divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), who are cosubstantial, coeternal, and coequal. While each divine person has particular roles and functions (e.g., Ephesians 1:3–14), all three work together in perfect accord (John 5:17, 19; John 10:28–30).

The doctrine of the Trinity is to be distinguished (1) from tritheism, which teaches the existence of three gods rather than only one God (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4), and (2) from modalism, which denies the coexistence of the three divine persons by teaching that God exists and manifests Himself as only one divine person at once (cf. Matthew 3:16–17).​

t in unity: Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; Isaiah 45:21; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; Jam 2:19 t OT implications of: Ge 1:1–2, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Psalms 2:7; 110:1; Proverbs 30:4; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Isaiah 48:16​

NT indications of​

distinction of the three persons: Matthew 3:16–17; Matthew 28:19; John 14:16–17; 15:26; Romans 5:5–6; Romans 8:11, 16–17; 1 Corinthians 12:4–6; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 4:4–6; Ephesians 2:18; 4:4–6; 5:18–20; 1 Thessolonians 1:2–5; 2 Thessolonians 2:13; Tittus 3:4–6; 1 Peter 1:2; 3:18; 1 John 4:2; Jude 20–21​

deity of each person t the Father (see also GOD): John 6:27; Galatians 1:1 t the Son (see also CHRIST): John 1:1; John 10:30; Tit 2:13; Hebrews 1:8 t the Spirit (see also SPIRIT, HOLY): John 14:16; Acts 5:3–4​

The NASB Topical Index. 1998 : The Lockman Foundation.

OK step up to the plate! Who's on first...?



What is on second... Yeah, I like that routine!
​

 

[RND]

2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

While historically true the statement:

The doctrine of the Trinity is to be distinguished ... (2) from modalism, which denies the coexistence of the three divine persons by teaching that God exists and manifests Himself as only one divine person at once (cf. Matthew 3:16–17).

Modalism at the time of the conferences in the 3-400 hundreds could not grasp the idea of more then one mode at a time. Modern modalism accepts that idea. So modern modalism is now more in line with Trinitarianism

who exists as three distinct divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), who are cosubstantial, coeternal, and coequal. While each divine person has particular roles and functions (e.g., Ephesians 1:3–14), all three work together in perfect accord (John 5:17, 19; John 10:28–30).

So I call myself a modalist or a modalist trinitarian. If not for the many different interpretations of the idea of trinity over the years I would have been happy with saying I believe in the Trinity since when it was formulated it was basically modalism without the limit of one mode of God at a time. Which is frankly puzzling that they would have put that restriction on an infinite all mighty God.

 

[JohnT]

So modern modalism is now more in line with Trinitarianism

So I call myself a modalist or a modalist trinitarian. If not for the many different interpretations of the idea of trinity over the years I would have been happy with saying I believe in the Trinity since when it was formulated it was basically modalism without the limit of one mode of God at a time. Which is frankly puzzling that they would have put that restriction on an infinite all mighty God.

Sorry, but you are mixing up two different things. It is almost as if you calling apples and oranges (different things) as both apples.

Perhaps the most accurate thing that you wrote is the following sentence, beginning with "So, I call myself..." OK, you ar a modalist, believing that God manifests Himself as only one divine person at once. However, that still does not get back to the OP: WHAT DO THE SDAs BELIEVE??

Please reply to that.