11-8-13 Approaching the Godhead

Transcripts of Sabbath Studies for review and discussion
Adriel
Posts: 463
Joined: May 29th, 2012, 8:41 pm

11-8-13 Approaching the Godhead

Postby Adriel » November 9th, 2013, 4:12 pm

Topic is: Approaching The Godhead
Happy Sabbath! Please see our room information at http://www.csda-adventistchurch.to/chat.html

Zahakiel : Ok, let's go ahead and begin. Bro. Luke, will you offer an opening prayer?

Lucan : Dear heavenly Father. We thank you for the rest that we have in you moment by moment. We are ever blessed as we see your hand guiding our lives and providing our needs. We thank you for this sacred time to come together in fellowship, and rejoice in that rest. We ask that your presence be with us, lifting our conversation in preparation for conversing with angels. In Yahshua's name we pray, amen.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Amen.
Guest_Adriel : Amen
Elyna : Amen.
Zahakiel : Amen.
Guest_Peter_Jr_1516 : Amen.
Guest_Daphna : Amen
Guest_Naraiel : Amen.
Guest_gadriel : Amen & Amen
Barbli : Amen
Barbli : Phenehas: Amen

Zahakiel : Happy Sabbath to everyone. For the past few weeks, we have been taking something of a “back to basics” approach to our studies. Of course, there is always room for new insights, for further light, but it is also true that even the most fundamental doctrines will always reveal new light to those who are seeking the face of Yahweh. I have heard the example given that what man makes becomes coarser, more unrefined, upon closer inspection. What Yahweh makes, on the other hand, becomes more complex, more beautiful, when seen under a microscope. Much of our joy in Heaven will be the examination of things that, while here on earth, seemed perfectly “ordinary,” when seen from the perspective of eternity will be revealed as an intricate and beautiful pattern. We may experience a small portion of that by finding delight in things already understood, but always ready to be understood more fully.

This week, I would like to briefly go over the CSDA understanding of the Godhead. Although this is only one subject, it may also be considered a part of a larger discussion of what a “test of fellowship” is. For Creation Seventh Day Adventists, an individual’s understanding of Yahweh’s nature is not – on its own – what determines whether or not that individual is a genuine Christian, or suitable to be a Church member. We believe that a person’s experience of Yah’s presence is, to a certain extent, personal. This does not mean that we are without standards when it comes to understanding our Father’s character. Our goal, after all, is perfect spiritual unity, the character of Christ reproduced in His people, and so naturally we must have a shared vision of this goal. Our guideline comes in part from this verse:

“The secret things belong unto Yahweh our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deu 29:29)

Much of the nature of our Creator has not been revealed to us. In an attempt to “control” his environment, mankind has often resorted to inventing details in order to pad out a partially filled pattern. T his is something of a natural inclination, but it tends to be less than productive when it comes to spiritual matters. This is one of the reasons, for example, that our Father has forbidden idols – images crafted from human intellect that are intended to represent the divine.

In our commitment to obeying this element of the Law, CSDAs have come to consider the traditional view of the Godhead, the “Trinity,” to be an inadequate concept to describe the Father, Son and their Holy Spirit. To be clear, as I have mentioned, it is not considered “sinful” to accept this model, however we believe that to do so may actually result in greater challenges in maintaining the victorious life, for reasons that I will outline shortly. Even in matters that are not tests of fellowship, our members are encouraged to share their common understanding of matters. The Godhead issue is an excellent example, but we have had other recent ones as well.

We recently attended the Feast of Tabernacles. It was mostly held online, so there was little actual, physical gathering – nevertheless, from the testimonies that were shared, this time of refreshing proved to be a blessing to many, and perhaps they received some light, some insight, that will assist them in overcoming some temptation, or understanding some vital concept for their sanctification.

It is wise, after all, to accept all the gifts that our Father has to offer, and in determining what the “right” thing to do is, what the “correct” doctrine to accept is, we need only look at the principles we have learned, and ask questions such as, “Does this correspond with what the Bible teaches?” “Will this help with sanctification, and the putting away of sin and improper habits?” When seen in this simple light, many matters that are considered complicated by even the worldly educated actually become very clear.

Consider the feast days again... in Christianity, and in Adventism in particular, there is something of a debate going on with regard to whether or not the New Testament believers are required to keep the annual Feast days. As it turns out, they are asking the wrong question. Rather than asking whether or not the feasts are “required,” the question should be, “Are they spiritually beneficial?” If we ask this, and discover that the answer is, “Yes,” then we may well say, as Paul did, “I must by all means keep [the] feast,” and determine that, if at all possible, we will hold those days in regard. In doing so, we bypass all the back-and-forth about legalism, or the accusations to which some feast-keepers are subjected, that by obeying these instructions we are somehow rejecting Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

True doctrine is about building character, about lining our actions up with the law that is written on our spiritual hearts. It should be no surprise that proper Biblical doctrine and common sense are close companions.

Now, the Trinity is an even more sensitive area in some company, because it has been considered Biblical truth for a VERY long time, to the point that some Christians would (and do) defend this with a much higher degree of zeal than some doctrines that ARE actually spelled-out in the Bible, such as the difference between clean and unclean meats, or the observance of the 10 Commandments.

Originally, Seventh-day Adventists were not Trinitarian. This often comes as quite a surprise to most of the General Conference organization’s members, who have been steadily becoming more like the world in their teachings and practices over the past century. Our pioneers utterly rejected this belief, so uniformly held by Catholics and Protestants alike, because they did not find such a doctrine taught in the Bible. Furthermore, they found significant evidence that there was something decidedly incorrect about it, and we as Christians, as Protestants, may find an example in this – regardless of how popular a belief is, or how long it has been considered true, it is the Bible that must guide our faith.

All Adventists understand this to a degree, for most who consider themselves Christians are not Sabbath-keepers, but because they stopped there, the practice of keeping the Sabbath has simply become another tradition in many groups. Although held by fewer people, Sabbath keeping has simply become, “Something that Adventists and a few other people do,” and not a living, breathing Word from Yahweh, carrying with it blessings and the authority of Heaven.

The Trinity is perhaps the best example of a human idea that has become confused with, and then integrated into, and then used to replace, Biblical doctrine.

The traditional story is that at the Council of Nicaea, the great thinkers of the Church (and at that time this meant the Roman Catholic Church) got together to consider a number of matters, among them the nature of the Godhead. The idea was to solidify the Church’s teachings on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the relationship that They had One to Another. After some discussion, it was determined by these scholars that the Father, Son and Spirit were co-equal, each having the same degree of authority. They were co-eternal, meaning that they have each always existed, with none preceding the other. They were Three Persons in a complete sense, each with His own will, individuality and independent existence, and yet they were also somehow “One” in the sense of being One God and not Three Gods. From that time, Christians all over the world have accepted this, calling it the Trinity Doctrine, indicating elements of three (Tri) and one (Unity). The actual history is a bit more complicated than that.

Many of the bishops of the Church at that time rejected the doctrine as being contrary to Scripture and offensive to sensible reasoning – resulting in the inevitable threats, excommunications, property seizures, etc. As with most matters handled by the Roman Catholic Church, the ultimate resolution came about (at a later date) due to the decidedly un-Christian application of force. Of course, even this shameful history is not sufficient to render the theory incorrect. Unfortunately, there have been many times when the right thing was taught for the wrong reasons, or in the wrong way, and so again we must fall back on the Scriptures for our ultimate answers.

It is certainly true that, as our Pioneers have said, and as many of those early Catholic bishops have said, the Trinity is not found in the Bible. The word itself is not there, although that is perhaps the weakest evidence that may be advanced, since the Bible contains NO English words at all, or Spanish words, but our current beliefs are expressed and understood in these more recent languages. What we need to do is examine the concepts, which may be expressed in any language, to see if they are present.

As defined in tradition and history, the Trinity advances the idea that the Three Persons of the Godhead are co-equal. This is not an idea found in the Bible. The word we use for God in Hebrew, Elohim, is certainly plural. We accept that there is a Father and a Son, for these are Persons named in the Bible as being “Elohim.” The Father, Yahweh, is called Elohim in verses such as the one I quoted above: “The secret things belong unto Yahweh our Elohim...” (Deu 29:29

There are quite a lot of other verses that use similar language. The Son, Yahshua, is called Elohim – or the Greek New Testament equivalent – in such verses as: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) and “Thomas answered and said unto [Yahshua], ‘My Lord and my God.’” (John 20:28)

But what about the Holy Spirit? Creation Seventh Day Adventists believe, of course, that there is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, while the Bible is very clear about the individuality, personality and separate will of the Father and Son, the Holy Spirit appears to be precisely what the words themselves actually mean. That is, a Holy “Spirit,” a divine presence, a sacred character that becomes personality IN a living being, but that is not, itself, separate or possessing its own personality and will.

Interestingly enough, the Bible actually does call the Spirit an “it,” a term never once used for the Father and Son, except (I believe) once for Christ when He was being insulted by the Pharisees.

Now, pointing out that the Bible does not ascribe these characteristics of Person-hood to the Holy Spirit is sometimes taken very hard by the traditional Christians, to the point where those who doubt the originally Roman Catholic paradigm are considered to be less than Protestants (ironically enough), and perhaps members of some dangerous cult. The fact that Christians got along for decades without such councils and doctrines is never considered.

It might be pointed out that the Holy Spirit is never called God, and never acts without the vessel of a living agent (either a human being or an angel). When it does appear in some visible form, it is as a symbol, such as a dove or a tongue of flame, and never with the qualities of a human being that the Father and Son are always eager to utilize in order to emphasize the closeness that exists between the Creator and the created.

So far, these are mostly “passive” reasons; in that, we do not accept the doctrine because there is a lack of evidence in the Bible to support it. But, without going into the details too deeply, there are some active reasons why we reject the Trinity as well.

For example, it can be demonstrated that the Spirit is neither co-eternal with nor independent of the Father and Son.

Of the Son it is written, “Yahshua said unto them, ‘If God were your Father, ye would love me; for I proceeded forth and came from Elohim; neither came I of myself, but He sent me.’” (John 8:42) The Son, while equal with the Father in Glory, (John 17:5) subjected Himself in role to the Father for the sake of His work on behalf of humanity. (Phil 2:8) It might cause some concern for a moment because Christ said He “proceeded forth and came from Elohim,” which some have taken to mean that there was a point in time at which the Father called Him into existence, and before which He did not exist. However, the Bible also specifies that this took place “in eternity.” As it is written regarding the birthplace of the Son, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Mic 5:2)

Now, if we look at the statement regarding the origins of the Holy Spirit, we instead find this: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me.” (John 15:26) The word “he” there is one of the many places where this pronoun (which is a general one that means he, she or it) is used of the Spirit. But the key point is that the Spirit “proceedeth” from the Father. It did not proceed forth, resulting in a separate individual. One human being may “proceed forth” from another through the process of birth, and the result is two human beings.

In eternity, the Son and the Father expressed themselves as Two, as Elohim (plural) because one “proceeded forth” from the other. The Spirit, however, is described as a continuous coming-forth from the Father, with no individual existence outside of this Source. This alone is sufficient to render the Trinity paradigm inaccurate.

One of the most visually significant reasons, at least for me, is found in verses that explain that, “Elohim created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” (Gen 1:27) The fullness of the Godhead was expressed in human form through the creation of Adam and Eve, two individual beings who both represent “humanity,” and who were originally one, for after all other works of creation were completed, we know that Eve “proceeded forth and came from” Adam.

In addition, Adam and Eve both originally shared a single name, as it is written, “Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” (Gen 5:2) In the day that Elohim (plural) created them (humanity, plural) He called them Adam. It was only later that Eve came forth and was given an individual name, because she was a separate person, but in the duality of the human being we see the perfection of the Godhead.

There is no third gender, no third principle to express Yahweh’s fullness in human creation – but this does not mean that the Spirit is excluded. On the contrary, the Spirit is the thing that ties humanity and divinity together. The Spirit is what Yahweh shares with us to create and maintain within us His image, and that indeed gives us life, for we are told that, “Yahweh Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:7)

This “breath of life” is one of the expressions of the Holy Spirit, that “rain” that falls (for now) on both the good and the wicked. What it is not, however, is a third aspect of the Godhead that is the same as, or similar to, or of the same nature, as the Father and Son. Human beings, formed in the image of Elohim, have no third aspect that is of equal moral or intellectual stature under the Creator – but we each have a spirit, and we all share that common “breath of life” from Yahweh who created us.

A proper understanding of the Godhead also explains a number of other doctrines that Christians hold as a matter of mere “tradition,” but that Creation Seventh Day Adventists hold because they are living truths about our Father.

For example, conservative Christianity (and CSDAs are no exception) consider homosexuality to be contrary to our Father’s desires and will for His creation. A common criticism of conservative Christians is that they are nosy – because what happens in the privacy of one home does not affect anyone else, or that they are superstitious – fearing the “wrath of God” falling on any country that endorses these practices. While it is certainly true that the judgment of Yahweh has fallen on places where homosexuality was famously practiced in the past, as we have been speaking about last week and a few before, any action, belief, and characteristic found in a Christian must be based upon pure, divine love, or it is not properly held, and not properly understood.

So, what does the Biblical position on homosexuality have to do with love? It is simply this – the union between a man and a woman is the only proper representation in all of creation of the union between the Father and Son. Those who reject this representation, through their desires and practices actually make it impossible to clearly “see” in their spiritual eyes the character of the Creator, which they MUST see, and MUST attain, if they are to inherit everlasting life.

Although less obviously destructive, and less politically correct, than (for example) drug addiction, homosexuality actively cuts an individual off from receiving the blessings intended by Yahweh for His children.

Essentially, then, the Christian has a duty to promote a biologically normal approach to human sexuality for exactly the same reasons it promotes the keeping of the Sabbath. Rejecting these things does not cause instantaneous judgment, but it does remove individuals from necessary blessings for salvation. There is nothing arbitrary about Yah’s instructions. Even in matters such as this, we seek always the best good of those around us, even if it is not the popular choice, and we are willing to be vocal about our convictions.

Finally, on a more individual level, accepting the Trinity causes a host of “little problems” with other accepted doctrines that must be consistently overlooked, leading to Yahweh appearing more distant, more inhuman, than is necessary, or healthy, for our spiritual growth.

For example, Christ – being conceived “of the Holy Ghost” (Mat 1:20) makes Him actually the Son of the Spirit rather than the Son of the Father, if the Spirit is seen as a third, independent being. Similarly, if we, being converted, are “born of the Spirit,” (John 3:6) then how shall we call the Father our adoptive “Father?” The only way to justify these contradictory beliefs is to accept the idea that the Godhead is fundamentally different from humanity in the very ways that Yah has attempted to reveal Himself to us in human terms.

It causes a problem directly for the Victory message, in that one who is “filled with the Spirit” lives a victorious life; however, if the Spirit is a spiritual “being” like an angel or demon, then being filled with the Spirit would be a kind of possession that leaves us without true will or intent. (Mark 9:17-27)

While it is true that the Father and Son “abide” within us, this is a spiritual truth, indicating that we have come to accept Their heart, their purpose, their characteristics, as our own.

The Father in His fullness is in Heaven upon a Throne, and the Son – “cumbered with humanity” – is in the Most Holy Place, preparing to bring His people home. The Spirit, However, which is Their shared power, presence and essential nature, dwells within each individual who accepts Them, and binds us together in an everlasting tie.

This is an overview of the CSDA understanding of the Godhead. It is not the traditional view, but it is the Biblical view, and one that, we testify, has the greatest potential for blessing, and for the understanding of Gospel truth.
Are there any questions or comments on tonight’s study?

Guest_Adriel : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Adriel : I appreciated learning about the subtle difference between "proceeded forth" and "proceeds". It took me a minute to see the difference...thank-you :) End.

Zahakiel : Right, one is a completed action, and the other is ongoing... still taking place. As long as the Spirit exists, it needs a Source.

Barbli : Phenehas: C

Zahakiel : Whereas for Christ... well, Adventists have a little additional help with the Spirit of Prophecy writings... we know that Christ has life "unborrowed." Go ahead.

Barbli : Jesus promised the Spirit to come to the disciples on Pentecost Day, so He used the word Spirit, not Spirits, to mean power, not individual spirits. End

Lucan : Q

Zahakiel : Well, it may be significant, certainly, that the Spirit can appear as one symbol (a dove) or several (tongues of flame) indicating that while the power is one (of Yahweh) it may be in multiple places at once. Go ahead.

Lucan : I notice the study took a brief aside to talk about our reasoning for opposing homosexuality. It reminded me of something I heard an SDA speaker say not too long ago, and I'm curious about what the church members would say to it. Based on what we read above, would you support a law criminalizing homosexuality? <End.>

Zahakiel : Well, I've read that in the days when prohibition (of alcohol) was under consideration. Adventists were encouraged to support that law. So, it seems that we should be in favor of any law that supports a Biblical perspective. Not very long ago... adultery was actually illegal.

lazyoldawg : Jesus drank wine........that was prohibited

Zahakiel : It probably still is in some countries... so, while that was dropped no doubt due to popular support,

Guest_Adriel : c

Zahakiel : that doesn't mean it should be accepted. Go ahead.

lazyoldawg : adultery still is illegal in some states.......it is illegal under the UCMJ for military folk. How does your answers relate to Lucan's question?

Guest_Adriel : Sorry, I was going to say what Lazy said, about adultery still being illegal in the military. End

Lucan : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

lazyoldawg : Z...........we still waiting on your answer to Lucan's question

Lucan : Okay, thanks. :) Does anyone else have a thought to share on the question? I'd like to get some input from the church as a whole if possible. <End.>

Zahakiel : (Hi Lazy, I answered his question, if you have one yourself, you can indicate that and we'll go in order)

Guest_Pastor_Chick : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

lazyoldawg : Z.....you did not answer the question.....you dodged it

Zahakiel : (He seems to believe that I did)

Guest_Pastor_Chick : I think we must separate the civil nature and the criminal nature of laws...

Lucan : (His answer was "yes," lazy.)

lazyoldawg : Z........do you support a law banning homosexuality? ok

Guest_Pastor_Chick : I believe laws against sexual deviations in America have been in the CIVIL class...However, in many (if not most) African nations, homosexuality can be considered a crime...
lazyoldawg : Pastor......in the past and still in some states are criminal offenses. sodomy is a criminal offense in many states.

Zahakiel : (This will go a bit more smoothly, lazy, if we follow an order to our comments.. not everyone here is the fastest reader, or typist)

Guest_Pastor_Chick : While Africans are to a degree considered by the "civilized countries" barbaric, they tend to see the barbarism of homosexuality more clearly than the so-called "civilized" nations...

lazyoldawg : Z........tell me when I can chime in

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Because our government is SECULAR in its existence, I cannot see that homosexuality could be considered a crime...

Zahakiel : (Just say C for comment or Q for question, and after the current speaker ends, I can call on you)

Lucan : (There's information on the chatroom at www.csda-adventistchurch.to/chat.html lists the procedures for comments / questions / etc.)

lazyoldawg : ya all got too many rules........

Guest_Pastor_Chick : though, for the well-being of society (which the secular government is to protect), I could perhaps support some civil law on par with what adultery used to be. END.

lazyoldawg : government is not supposed to be secular

Zahakiel : While we await others' responses, what was the context of that speaker's statement, Luke?

lazyoldawg : Q
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

lazyoldawg : what business does the government have in anybody’s bedroom?

Lucan : It was a religious liberty rally headed by Lincoln Steed; among other things, he was asked about homosexual marriage, and replied that he felt the beginning of the problem was ceasing to treat homosexuality as a crime. <End.>

lazyoldawg : or kitchen

Zahakiel : Ah, ok. And for your question, Lazy, we spoke about that earlier in the study. The government is intended to be a reflection of the will of the people...and if the people are in harmony with God's laws, the nation's values will reflect that.

lazyoldawg : Z..........than what about Obama care...........nobody wants it. how is that a reflection of the people?

Zahakiel : That's not really what we have been discussing tonight. And I said it was "intended" to be that way.

lazyoldawg : it is addressing your point
Zahakiel : What point is that?
lazyoldawg : intention and what is reality do not mesh. there will be gay folk and if that their life........whatever..........
Zahakiel : Whereas that is often true, that wasn't the point I was making.

lazyoldawg : the nations values are changing..............for better or worse..........it a different country

Zahakiel : Are there any others with a response to Luke's question?

Guest_Pastor_Chick : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.
lazyoldawg : what C mean?
Zahakiel : Comment

Guest_Pastor_Chick : I think I erred in my wording...

lazyoldawg : head on hon. well say what ya meant........ aint gonna hold an error again ya........not like ya play for the Cardinals

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Perhaps what complicates the "criminal" aspect is "felony" vs. "misdemeanor"...

lazyoldawg : a felony involves "aggravating" circumstances
Zahakiel : (Lazy, please wait until he is finished to respond)

lazyoldawg : Pastor Chick..........I don't think is a he

Guest_Pastor_Chick : While about 23 states held adultery as criminal in 2012, only a hand-full considered it a felony, and, for the most part, no one enforcing what is on the books. END.

Guest_Naraiel : David,
lazyoldawg : adultery is different than homosexuality
Guest_Naraiel : C.

Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Naraiel : Could you repeat your position regarding Luke's question, it wasn't clear for Jaime.

lazyoldawg : gonna get me another beer..........anybody want one?..........I have three boxes

Zahakiel : My position was that we should support laws that are in harmony with the Biblical perspective. As pastor pointed out, where the well-being of society is in question, we should feel that this is a duty. End.

lazyoldawg : who brought Africans into the fray?

Guest_Pastor_Chick : A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

lazyoldawg : we aint got all night

Guest_Pastor_Chick : IMO the African countries have a more accurate perspective on the deviance of homosexuality than the west (or so-called "civilized nations). END.

Guest_Adriel : Q
Guest_Adriel : IMO?

Zahakiel : Lazy, as I mentioned, we are committed to having an orderly conversation in this room, and that includes having courtesy for the typists.

lazyoldawg : well they need to practice and get faster

Guest_Pastor_Chick : IMO=in my opinion

Zahakiel : Please do not disrupt the conversation any further. If you have a question or comment, you may indicate it and I will call on you.

Guest_Adriel : (thanks)

Zahakiel : Did you have a question, Jody?
› lazyoldawg went away. Reason: have to get another beer and marlboro
lazyoldawg has been kicked out by Zahakiel.

Elyna : C
Guest_Adriel : I asked it. Sorry
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Elyna : I believe that it (homosexuality) could be seen as a violation of any divine instructions. And based on the biblical perspective it is under penal laws as Paul indicates. So I would support the bible view on that and naturally support a human law as well. End.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : C
Lucan : Q
Zahakiel : Go ahead.
Guest_Naraiel : Q.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : I have gone back and forth on this subject, trying to look through the secular eyes of government and the Eye of YAH (considering "liberty and justice for all")...IF the topic of homosexual behavior was ever brought to a vote of the people, I would vote to make it illegal (not sure what category, whether civil, misdemeanor crime, or felony crime). END.

Zahakiel : Go ahead, Luke.

Lucan : What part of Paul's writings are you referring to, Guerline? <End.>

Zahakiel : Go ahead, Giselle (and you can reply when you have it, Guerline)

Guest_Naraiel : Maria's Question for Pastor: Why homosexualism is been supported by the states and governments when adultery is being considered as a crime in others? End

Elyna :"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . . For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature (lesbianism). Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burning in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful (homosexuality) . . . that those who practice these things are worthy of death (Hell), and not only those who do the same but also those who approve of those who practice them!" (Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32)

Lucan : A (to Guerline)
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : What did you mean by "under penal laws?" That is the part that confused me. <End.>
Elyna : A. criminal.
Lucan : What part of that text implies criminal laws?
Guest_Adriel : A./Q
Elyna : I actually was going to ask a question about that passage.

Zahakiel : Go ahead, Jody.
Guest_Adriel : If what they practice is worthy of death, wouldn't that be considered criminal? End

Elyna : C/Q
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : A (After the current discussion clears up, to Jody. I see a few threads going at once currently. :) )

Elyna : My question was: Was Paul being general here talking about humanity in general?

Zahakiel : To answer Guerline... I'm not sure who else Paul would be talking about... he is talking about human beings. End.

Elyna : Yes, it seems as indicated in the passage by a comment beside the word death, he is referring to Yah's judgment as opposed to society's. Every and anyone who violates Yah's laws, any of them will be deemed worthy of eternal death.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : A (to Maria when the appropriate time comes)

Elyna : so if society would uphold any of these laws, it might save some out of the fire. Though that sounds like force it is not.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : (when we fail to use the "..." and the "end" tags, it makes for confusion.)

Elyna : Of course everyone is free to choose their lifestyle, but if it endangers the liberty and safety of others it cannot be termed legal. End. (Sorry)

Zahakiel : Go ahead.
Guest_Pastor_Chick : (Luke ? )
Zahakiel : I think he had an answer for Jody.
Lucan : (Ah, wasn't sure if you meant me or Pastor to Maria)
Zahakiel : Well, you go ahead first, since you have been waiting.

Lucan : Re: Jody; Paul was saying that Yahweh judges people who (committing a long list of sins, including murder) are "worthy of death" While some of those certainly should be considered criminal, he also lists, for example, "disrespectful to parents, pride, backbiting..." Yah considers all sin to be worthy of death. <End.>

Zahakiel : Go ahead, pastor.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Concerning the government's inconsistencies...

Guest_Adriel : (thanks)

Guest_Pastor_Chick : in America, we have states and we have federal government. I am not sure things are working according to the design of the "founding fathers" these days, but the states are to be somewhat independent, though it does seem that states tend to copy the laws of other states. So, it seems absurd that Americans would uphold homosexuality, but because of secularism, marriage itself is degenerating, and while states can have laws against adultery on the books, they do not enforce them because of the secular nature of the country at large. Also, we have to realize that "it is all about money" Whether religious or political, today, everything seems to depend on where the money is and how it can be gained, along with power, of course. I do not know if this answer satisfies, but it is my best conclusion. END.

Zahakiel : Any other comments or questions?
Guest_Adriel : A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.
Guest_Adriel : To Luke's question.

Guest_Naraiel : Thank you.
Guest_Naraiel : C. To Luke's question:

Guest_Adriel : Given everything that's been said, while I don't think there ever will be a law passed against homosexuality. I would vote for it. End

Barbli : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead, Giselle.

Guest_Naraiel : I guess I would wait to see what kind of punishment would be enforced for the crime of homosexuality before I vote in favor of it. I would prefer to see under what criminal subcategory it would fall, but in general I would be in favor of the criminal category, especially for those who adopt children.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : (we need the "..." or "end" tags to let us know what is coming or what is finished.)

Guest_Naraiel : end.

Zahakiel : Go ahead, Sis. Barb.

Barbli : In answer to Luke's question, at first I was contemplating how religious liberty fits with this. After reading the discussion here, I would support a law against homosexuality. Although if the penalty is part of the law, I would have to consider that also. I do not think that death sentence would be right. End.

Lucan : A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : Thanks for the participation. My own thoughts seem to be on the liberal end of the spectrum, which may be a first in Church history... :) From what I understand of our position against homosexuality; it is strictly rooted in our religious view - that is, that Yahweh created man and intended marriage (and sexuality) to be reflective of the relationship of the Father and Son. It's similar in that to our position on Sabbath-keeping. I'm not aware of any aspect of homosexuality that violates the safety of others in society. I have a hard time with the idea, as a result, that criminalizing homosexuality would be any more appropriate than criminalizing Sabbath breaking.

Actually, many of the statements I saw used tonight were the same ones used to advocate the Sunday law in Mrs. White's day. I think that we need to be very careful with the idea of aligning with any law that furthers our understanding of Yahweh's will. Every example of religious persecution in history stemmed from that. My understanding is that the government's place is never to enforce morality for the sake of morality. While we would never baptize a homosexual or claim that it has Yahweh's approval, I don't think we can safely support putting people in jail for something which is solely based on a religious understanding. <End.>

Guest_Pastor_Chick : C
Elyna : C/A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Luke has summarized what caused me to go "back and forth" for a time. What I have done is to divide the Decalogue into the two great commandments. Civil laws are enacted to protect society from harm and corruption. I certainly would not be in favor of "civil" or "criminal" laws that enforced WORSHIP in any way, and I think that is the dividing line. IF the behavior has potential for corrupting society at large, Christians have the obligation and duty to vote for righteous principles. EGW said we are to vote (even on the Sabbath) to support righteous principle (not necessarily in those exact words). END.

Zahakiel : Go ahead, Guerline.

Elyna : First I saw the magnitude of this subject that could be discussed all night. And to answer Bro. Luke regarding «safety», I was thinking in a spiritual terms of those ... especially children who might end up having a distorted view of love and of our heavenly Father. End

Lucan : A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Daphna3262 : C.

Lucan : My understanding of the Sunday law in Mrs. White's day was that it did not compel any form of worship. It was a law that forbade actions on Sunday that would be deemed distracting and detrimental to spiritual focus. The argument was that if the Sabbath was not protected, society at large would be corrupted. Ellen White even indicates they were right; she says that if the Sabbath had been kept dutifully, there never would have been a murderer, thief, etc. The arguments against it were not that it forced worship; they were that the law had no basis except a religious one. That there was no duty in the government to protect its people from spiritual corruption, because it then must rule what spiritual incorruption is. I may be mistaken - and correct me if I've missed something - but arguments for prohibition were never founded on Bible verses. They were founded on the clear physical detrimental and damaging effects of alcohol on society, the same as any other narcotic. To me, the distinction is whether we would enforce this because Yahweh said it, or whether Yahweh said it because society cannot function without it. Originally, the Supreme Court held a test called "compelling interest..." It basically meant that if they were to potentially infringe on the First Amendment, they had to demonstrate a compelling interest to protect its citizens from danger. I'm not seeing how homosexuality would qualify for enforcement, but any of our other beliefs would not necessarily do the same. <End.>

Guest_Pastor_Chick : A
Zahakiel : I have a comment after Daphna's. Go ahead, Sis. Daphna.

Guest_Daphna3262 : Homosexuality; I have new understanding that homosexuality may stem from how the opposite sex treats the other. Like every man that comes into girly life. Father may cheat on mother and beat her up. Then the girl marries a man that does the same and that situation can be seen in other. That may cause or help cause homosexuality. End

Zahakiel : Go ahead, pastor.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : From Wiki: " Prohibition supporters presented it as a victory for public morals and health. Anti-prohibitionists, known as wets, criticized the alcohol ban as an intrusion of mainly rural Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant, and Catholic life." I believe EGW's position was in the realm of corrupting society -- a grave danger to both morals and health. We find that homosexuality is a grave danger, and the whole AIDS thing originated among the gay population. I am glad that YAH gives us freedom of choice in our "political" stands (and to a degree, in our moral stands) I would deplore that day that the CSDA Church as a body took the liberal stand on homosexuality. END.

Zahakiel : My comment is this. There are a couple different terms that should be well defined if we are going to look at it from a legal perspective. First, morals deals with how we individually judge things, how we decide what is right and wrong. It is true that laws cannot enforce this. But ethics is how morality is expressed in how we relate to other people. Laws ARE intended to enforce a system of ethics on society's citizens. Also, from our perspective as Protestants, we need to make a subtle but important distinction between "fairness" and "justice." It may be "fair" that everyone can do as they like, practice what they want, and as long as they are not immediately, actively harming someone, we let them do it. But that is not justice that does not line up with Yah's will for that society, or the individuals who live in it. The difference between a Sunday Law and a law that is in harmony with Yah's will is that (although it may not seem fair to say one is right and the other is wrong) the law that harmonizes with Biblical principles is a "just" law.

It is one that we should feel it is our duty to support, because if the ungodly knew what we know, they would support it also. Ignorance of Yah's law does not make violating it any less hurtful... and this gets into what pastor was saying.

The liberal media would never report it, but... even aside from AIDS, the homosexual lifestyle is quite unhealthy even biologically, not to mention (obviously) morally. And while I said that the claim was used against conservatives that they were "superstitious" to fear Yahweh's wrath also qualified it by pointing out that Yahweh DOES visit nations with disaster for sexual crimes. End.

Lucan : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : I think my current position here can be best summarized as "that's true of everything Yahweh has instructed us." Any violation of His commands will corrupt society, be harmful to health, and lead to negative consequences at some point. If I follow this to its logical conclusion, it appears to me that "religious liberty" becomes a matter of "majority rule" on what Yahweh has and has not instructed in a society. I see no reason why every instruction of Yahweh's would not be enforced by law. What are your thoughts on the distinction? Is it solely things that regard days of worship? <End.>

Zahakiel : No, not majority rule, but rather, as Paul says, "Let no man judge you on these matters but... the Body of Christ." We are, of course, talking about a theoretical nation where the Spirit of Yah was actually :) But if that were the case, then the "least" of converted Christians would be suitable to judge these matters. End.

Lucan : A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : If I'm understanding you correctly, I think that is my point... if the Body of Christ is to judge these things, and the state is to enforce those judgments, then the Catholics were justified to control the civil power. <End.>

Zahakiel : The Catholics were not the Body of Christ, so I disagree.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : The law was given because of sin. Where there is no transgression, there is no law. The law is to control an evil society. All laws need to reflect the principles of Heaven. So, I see what Br. David is saying, and I can agree. I believe "religious liberty" needs to be kept in its correct sphere, and that is, in matters of religious observance to YAH. END.

Zahakiel : To expand a bit on my answer to Luke just now. I would have no problem submitting to a Church-run state IF I could objectively know that that Church WAS the Body of Christ in truth, and thus did not abuse its power, would not seek to crush individuality, etc. In fact, Israel flourished under just such a Priest/King as David and early in Solomon's reign. The current political systems are temporary... democracy and republicanism are both place-holders until the Everlasting system arrives, and that will be a theocratic monarchy. Of course, Christ as King will fulfill what David's kingdom was intended to be... a society perfect for the worshipper of Yahweh, and impossible for any lover of sin. So until that time, we have to put up with human approximations :) End.

Lucan : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : What are your thoughts on this quote from Mrs. White: "But today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority. Since Christ is not now here in person, they themselves will undertake to act in His stead, to execute the laws of His kingdom. The establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ. They would have received Jesus, had He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His will and the agents of His authority. But He said, "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36. He would not accept the earthly throne. [DA 509] <End.>

Zahakiel : Right, of course. I do not "expect" that any such thing will happen. That is why I said we have to deal with the placeholders. I am not working to establish Christ's Kingdom on earth. I am helping people to get ready for when it arrives at His timing. Do you see the difference? Until that time, I can certainly say how it "should" be. End.

Lucan : A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : I think I am taking something different from that quote. What I understand her to be saying is that, by using legal enactments and human authority to execute the laws of His kingdom, they are erring. Though, perhaps it is getting late enough at night that further processing will be challenged at best. :) <End.>

Zahakiel : Well, I got that also, but the key point there, for me, was "They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority." I am sort of glad that Yah's commandments against murder and stealing are so enforced. And, IF a society becomes sensitive to Yah's laws they would realize that even the "subtler" crimes are still violating the same principles. But again, the error there was that they were trying to make Yahshua's kingdom be here now, and they would become dictators to do it, which has the danger of putting corruptible man at the head of things. Whereas what I am saying is that if the collective Body of Christ could make laws for the good of society, under the influence of His Spirit,

Guest_Pastor_Chick : C
Zahakiel : that would be a better society. Go ahead.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : I see a parallel in our church history…if any one of us is labeled a "prophet," the idea becomes, "he is leading the show." Defective characters cannot look to a visible man, not even Christ, for they will pervert it to their own destruction and those in the church who put me, David, or anyone else up on a throne or pedestal, will surely plunge themselves into the ditch of destruction. END. (That part about Christ is in the form of man on the earth)

Lucan : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.
Lucan : I'm not sure I see the parallel you're making? <End.>

Guest_Pastor_Chick : A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Your EGW quote spoke to Christ's being on the earth and posing as a "king" (He knew what the perversions would be). END.

Barbli : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Barbli : I am enjoying the discussion, but I need to go because our Sabbath worship starts in 15 minutes. Yah's blessings to all :)

Guest_Adriel : Yah Bless :)
Zahakiel : Ok :)

Guest_Pastor_Chick : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Paul teaches that the civil authorities are "ministers of YAH," and those ministers must support Heavenly principles or be failing in their ministry. END.

Lucan : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : I'm still not seeing how that differs from a theocracy... it sounds like the position is essentially "we are to encourage the government to enforce Yah's will on its populace... except for the Sabbath?" <End.>

Guest_Pastor_Chick : A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : The WAY you worship is religious, not civil. YAH does not require the civil authorities to control the way people worship. Personally, I believe some, if not most of the SDA argument(s) against Sunday laws may be flawed. The Supreme Court has ruled that Sunday laws are purely civil in nature. I can see that, and in seeing that, a Sunday law for civil rest that does not require any influence on worship does not bother me particularly. I think SDAs are a bit paranoid about Sunday laws, based on their eschatology. AND, I can see how it IS possible that once you get the Sunday law passed, it can eventually turn into some religious requirement, which I think is the larger issue for SDAs. END.

Zahakiel : I agree. The danger of the Sunday Laws, when rightly understood, was that they could be extended to make Sunday the ONLY proper day for public worship... at such a point, the Sunday aspect is not the issue, it would be an Anti-Sabbath Law. That would be a danger.

Lucan : C
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Lucan : So essentially, the problem with a Sunday law isn't that it's violating religious liberty or an example of the state being controlled by the church... it's that they had the wrong day? <End.>

Guest_Pastor_Chick : (it must be too late) :) A
Zahakiel : Go ahead.

Guest_Pastor_Chick : If the state wants to legislate A DAY (any day) or rest for its society, that is CIVIL, not religious. YAH allows the state to dictate that which is beneficial to the society. As SDA/CSDA, this DAY issue is blown out of proportion in my view. But, I really DO think we are too late to reason effectively. END.

Lucan : A

Zahakiel : Perhaps that is the case :) Go ahead.

Lucan : I'm inclined to agree. I do have some other thoughts and questions, but I’m doubting I could relay them effectively at this point. <End.>

Guest_Adriel : (and the ladies have to get up early :) )

Zahakiel : Well, this could make for a good forum conversation :)
Guest_Pastor_Chick : Right. :)

Zahakiel : If you can give a summary up till this point on a thread, Luke, I can post what I was going to say next and we can pick it up from there.

Lucan : <nods.> Sure; I may just take snippets from the transcript when Jody sends it out.
Zahakiel : Ok :)

Guest_Pastor_Chick : (if you use any of mine, please fix the typos)

Zahakiel : Let's close the meeting with a prayer, then. Pastor, will you offer a closing?

Guest_Adriel : (they’re fixed :) )

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Dear Father in Heaven. Thank You for spiritual, mental, physical, political, and civil rest in Your provisions of life. Thank You for helping us to understand just a little of your Being in unity with Your Son. Thank you for the gift of Your Holy Spirit. In the blessed and holy name of YAHSHUA, our LORD, AMEN.

Zahakiel : Amen.
Lucan : Amen
Guest_Adriel : Amen

Guest_Pastor_Chick : Good night to all. :)
› Guest_Pastor_Chick has left the conversation.
Guest_gadriel : Good night and thank you for all :) Amen.
Guest_Adriel : Goodnight All too :)
Guest_Naraiel : Good night,
› Guest_gadriel has left the conversation.
Guest_Naraiel : I enjoyed the discussion, yah bless.
› Guest_Naraiel has left the conversation.
Guest_Adriel : Me too :) Yah Bless

yahuseph
Posts: 1
Joined: January 15th, 2014, 6:57 am

Re: 11-8-13 Approaching the Godhead

Postby yahuseph » January 15th, 2014, 2:37 pm

Interesting study, thanks; but the Spirit even when described as the Father's Divine Presence still carries the concept of Personality, though not distinct from the Father,

Given that the Son is acknowledged to be a seperate person from the Father means that he also expresses His Spirit in muich the same way as the Father does.

and understanding that the Son is the Father's proxy, we can see that the Spirit of the Father works and Permeates the universe through the Spirit of the Son. Acting as one Echad Spirit, both function as a third distinct aspect of the Godhead. Comprising of the Divine Presence manifested by the Father and Son. Its in this respect that I believe the Father Son and Ruach can be understood. Or what do you think

David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Re: 11-8-13 Approaching the Godhead

Postby David Aguilar » January 18th, 2014, 10:40 am

Hello, Yahuseph,

Welcome to the board, and thank you for your feedback :)

I would agree with your statements considering the specific definition of "personality" that you are using, especially since you include the phrase "not distinct from the Father," and later on that they function as a third distinct "aspect" of the Godhead, rather than a third, co-equal Person. The Spirit is never described as an independent agency with its own thoughts and intentions. The Father and Son receive worship, respond to prayers, forgive sins, and act according to their own consciously united will. The Holy Spirit is the means by which they perform these things - but is not said to perform these things itself - and it is the way in which the Father and Son manifest themselves in the hearts and minds of the believers.

Of course, it is not my intention to draw a diagram of what the Godhead is; that is far beyond an human capability. What I point out is that the Trinity model proposed by human minds, and held for so long as a Biblical doctrine (even a test of "true" Christianity), is hopelessly flawed, and insufficient to promote proper, reverent worship of our Creator. It sounds as if you appreciate that approach.


Return to “Online Study Transcripts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests