|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,631
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
6 registered members (Kevin H, Karen Y, Daryl, dedication, TheophilusOne, 1 invisible),
3,637
guests, and 10
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17514
03/30/06 03:22 PM
03/30/06 03:22 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
Granted the Greek speaks of character, but SOP includes appearance in that express image. In fact she says that they are so alike as to be little short of identical.
Colin,
I would appreciate if you quoted the text when you make some reference to what Ellen White said. I don’t believe similarity of appearance is included here, since Jesus said when He was on earth, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”. However, even if it were included, this doesn’t mean there must be a physical derivation; twins are identical, however one is not derived from the other.
quote:
Divine life isn't sourced in the Father and Son's persons or bodies but in their nature: their individual possession of the original Godhead means that each has self-originated - "aseity" in theological speak - divine life, in their divine essence.
Colin, if Ellen White had used the term “divine life” you might still have a point, but she used the term “underived” life, and a being who is originated by another being cannot have underived life, no matter how you slice it.
quote:
co-equality was in their possession of diety and their holy attitude, as well as the authority and creatorship which came with it.
A literal begetting implies a difference in hierarchy and authority which prevents equality.
The Bible is clear that the Son of God, like Melchizedek, has “no beginning of days”. How could He have been literally begotten?
quote:
Heb 1:1-5&6 don't make sense as happening only after Jesus' ascension: the angels worshipped him before his death on the cross, while he was on earth. v.3b-5 do not follow as the same event after the Ascension: v.4&5 establish the Son's diety as P&P chapter 1 explains it happening before Lucifer rebelled. That Sonship was confirmed by his resurrection and reinvestiture in heaven with all power and authority, yes, but EGW is crystal clear that v.4 happened in the eons of the past, and not post-Calvary: the Son of God inherited God's name!!! In Hebrews it is stated poetically in contrast to the angels, but it was not 'historical', like after Christ's ascension.
PP chapter 1 and Hebrews 1 are two different contexts.
As to the verb “to inherit” and the word “inheritance”, they do not always carry a literal meaning, but are often figurative (see Ex. 34:9, Ps. 16:5, etc). The Greek verb is kleronomeo.
Thayer’s definition:
1) to receive a lot, receive by lot
1a) especially to receive a part of an inheritance, receive as an inheritance, obtain by right of inheritance
1b) to be an heir, to inherit
2) to receive the portion assigned to one, receive an allotted portion, receive as one’s own or as a possession
3) to become partaker of, to obtain.
That the context of Hebrews 1 refers to Christ’s enthronement after His work of redemption is clear:
“But of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom’” (v. 8).
“But to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet’?” (v. 13).
Verse 4 continues the thought of v.3: “When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” (RSV)
And since the context of Hebrews 1 is Christ’s enthronement, the name which Christ obtained is that one mentioned again in Phil. 2:8-11:
“And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
As to the text Tom quoted, Harner’s personal opinion as to how the verse should be translated is this: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos."
A good study, presenting a rather complete grammatical analysis can be found here:
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
Although most grammarians today agree that theos in John 1:1c is most likely qualitative, they also agree that the word “divine” wouldn’t express correctly what John means. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that theos is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance, that is, that John’s meaning is that Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is, and in every sense that the Father is.
|
 Reply
 Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17515
03/31/06 04:33 AM
03/31/06 04:33 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
John’s meaning is that Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is, and in every sense that the Father is.
Yes, this is the sense I get. But while Jesus is God in the same sense the Father is, and in every sense the Father is, Jesus is not the Father; that is, they are separate individuals. So John wrote the his sentence to make this clear (that while Jesus was God in a qualitative sense, He was not God, as in a different mode of God, for example).
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17516
03/30/06 07:27 PM
03/30/06 07:27 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Rosangela posted quote:
quote:
Divine life isn't sourced in the Father and Son's persons or bodies but in their nature: their individual possession of the original Godhead means that each has self-originated - "aseity" in theological speak - divine life, in their divine essence.
Colin, if Ellen White had used the term “divine life” you might still have a point, but she used the term “underived” life, and a being who is originated by another being cannot have underived life, no matter how you slice it.
You're enforcing a stalemate, here, which isn't surprising: even with a personal, family relationship (mine and our church pioneers' position), their nature is one and the same, and that nature, the Godhead, has its own, underived life. Divine life is underived life. You clearly appear not to agree that divine nature is distinguishable from the divine person's body for the Father and his Son? - the Spirit having personality but no body.
quote:
quote:
co-equality was in their possession of diety and their holy attitude, as well as the authority and creatorship which came with it.
A literal begetting implies a difference in hierarchy and authority which prevents equality.
The Bible is clear that the Son of God, like Melchizedek, has “no beginning of days”. How could He have been literally begotten?
That's what John's Gospel states to be the case, and an understanding passed on from John to his own disciples. Your premise which prevents equality is false, since Phil 2:6 combines also with P&P ch.1, in that that text can apply to Christ's incarnated life because it was true in his pre-existence.
You agree that Phil 2:6 expresses a total lack of contention over equality between Jesus and his Father? This is confirmed in P&P as the case before sin entered the universe and to have been the case before creation, while EGW wrote consistently of a family relationship.
The fact that those links to the GC BRI exist as documents indicates this is well nigh an unresolvable clash today, just like the debate on the human nature of Christ: revealing that the Devil has engineered uncertainty, that is contention, on all aspects of Christ's person & work - but no surprise.
The gospels are clear that the Messiah is actually divine on the basis of his Sonship with God: that cannot be an incarnated status without the Son's pre-existence establishing the relationship and position, so that he has authority on earth which he obtained in heaven from his Father. Still, our opposing views on Heb 1 - which you don't see any application for in eternity past - for example leave this discussion unresolved, except for wherever that winning argument is; sad because we used to be united as a church on this point, until between the wars.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17517
03/30/06 08:04 PM
03/30/06 08:04 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Dr Glenn posted quote:
Today's question is: "How did Jesus refer to the Spirit?" John 15:26; 16:13, 14.
I believe the answer is: as his agent or representative NOT as his God or as "God the Holy Spirit". Is there any scripture to show that Jesus worshiped the "Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father" as his God separate and distinct from his Father as a person as the only true God?
Yes, as his agent, etc. Likewise is there any scripture to show that we are to worship the Spirit of truth?? It is clear that for Jesus God is his Father as much as it's clear that the Spirit glorifies Father and Son, dealing with us with spiritual discretion. Even so, Jesus didn't worship his Father - but intimately identified himself with him as the divine Son. Of course we are to...worship both.
The Spirit's personality is spiritually representing Father and Son personally to us and in us, and is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead to start with. "Only true God"? The Father is called such by Jesus himself, but Jesus and their Spirit have the Godhead, too; yet, we are to worship Father and Son, but there's no command in Scripture to worship the Spirit, that I know of. Submission to the Spirit is submission to Jesus through his Spirit: we don't even pray to the Spirit but to the Father for his Spirit. The Spirit is the communication facilitator between Jesus and us as well as harmonising him with his Father, being the Spirit - between them - of the Godhead, which they have bodily.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17519
03/31/06 12:51 PM
03/31/06 12:51 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Colin, quote:
Divine life is underived life.
Life is life, either in God or in any of His creatures. There is no difference as to the principle of life itself. The difference is, exactly, in the fact that God derived His life from no one, while all the other beings derived and continue to derive their life from Him. So, in God life is underived; in all the other beings, it is derived.
quote:
That's what John's Gospel states to be the case
John really refers to Jesus as monogenes. Even if monogenes means “only begotten”, does this have to be taken literally? Hebrews says that Abraham "offered up his only begotten son" (Heb. 11: 17). Saying that Isaac was literally Abraham’s only-begotten son makes no sense because this is not true, but saying that Isaac was extremely dear and special to Abraham does make sense.
quote:
You agree that Phil 2:6 expresses a total lack of contention over equality between Jesus and his Father? This is confirmed in P&P as the case before sin entered the universe and to have been the case before creation, while EGW wrote consistently of a family relationship.
Of course no one in the Godhead would contend for equality, but equality is important for us, because worshiping a lesser god and a higher God would make of us pagan bitheists, not Christian monotheists.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17520
03/31/06 02:43 PM
03/31/06 02:43 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rosangela:
Colin,
quote:
That's what John's Gospel states to be the case
John really refers to Jesus as monogenes. Even if monogenes means “only begotten”, does this have to be taken literally? Hebrews says that Abraham "offered up his only begotten son" (Heb. 11: 17). Saying that Isaac was literally Abraham’s only-begotten son makes no sense because this is not true, but saying that Isaac was extremely dear and special to Abraham does make sense.
Oh, each usage of 'monogenes' has its meaning according to context: it has a variety of meanings, too, and Abraham had two sons... God has only one begotten Son, though, as revealed in Scripture, so until the 20th century, the understanding and interpretation has been a family relationship between God and his Son, Bethlehem providing a new sense of Sonship, as MM has just posted on the trinity thread.
What I was referring to is all the mentions in John's Gospel of Jesus' Sonship and his Sonship as his divine status. He is God because he is God's Son, is the basic point.
quote:
quote:
You agree that Phil 2:6 expresses a total lack of contention over equality between Jesus and his Father? This is confirmed in P&P as the case before sin entered the universe and to have been the case before creation, while EGW wrote consistently of a family relationship.
Of course no one in the Godhead would contend for equality, but equality is important for us, because worshiping a lesser god and a higher God would make of us pagan bitheists, not Christian monotheists.
There are indeed many people and even churches who believe Jesus to be a lesser God by being begotten, but both trinitarian and non-trinitarian Adventists that I'm aware of agree with this text that there is no question or doubt with God about Jesus and his Father both being God, nor among us.
Equally there is no general reservation about the Spirit's divine personality except among a select few Adventists. His personality is only as Jesus' Spirit, ie. agency and representative: as God's creative power it is God's spiritual omnipresence of power: with us he is the Spirit of Jesus dealing with us individually according to his discretion to lead us to the stature of the fulness of Christ, the mature Christian.
The only problem with this lesson study has been its support of the triune nature of God rather than three persons sharing the Godhead in different, natural ways.
[ March 31, 2006, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Colin ]
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
