This says that the stone would not have been removed from the tomb. However, we know that divinity cannot die. The fate of Jesus Christ, the human being, is known. What would have happened to Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Also, what would have happened to God Himself? He swore by Himself, to Abraham, that Christ would succeed. What would have been the implication to God the Father had Satan succeeded?

In the "remember Christ risked all quote," it says, "Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption." What does this mean?

It appears to me that you misunderstood my point. I wasn't minimizing the risk that Christ, and indeed, the Father took in sending Christ. I was making the point that the full implications of this are hard to say, as, for example, what it means to say that all heaven was imperiled. I raised the questions regarding God's swearing against Himself in this regard.



These sorts of questions tend to close dialog rather than keep it open. A question like, "Have I correctly understood you?" is a better question in terms of keeping a dialog open. It's not good to impute ignorance or temerity to someone with whom someone is dialogging. Particularly off-putting is the question as to whether I believe Ellen White or not. You can assume I'm as anxious to believe her writings as you are, even though I may understand some things differently than you do.

Hi MMm

You said

“It Jesus were not as eternal as the Father it would, in my mind, disqualify Him to be our Savior for reasons similar to why angels are not qualified. Only God, not a begotten being, can redeem begotten beings.”

Did you realise that the early Christian faith was that the Son was begotten of the Father. We are talking pre-existence here not incarnation.

It was exactly the same for centuries. It seems that only in fairly recent centuries has this unbegotten idea come in (mainly with the evangelicals).

Did you realise that at the Council of Constantinople (AD 325) all who were involved in the controversy over Christ believed that Christ was a begotten Son? That was never an issue. It was just accepted as being the correct faith. That was the prepoderant view.

Even Alexander of Alexandria (the forerunners of the trinitarians) said

“We have learnt that the Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, lacking only His “unbegotten.” He is the exact and precisely similar image of His Father. For it is clear that the image fully contains everything by which the greater likeness exists, as the Lord taught us when He said, ‘My Father is greater than I.” (The ecclesiastical history of Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 3, ‘The Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople’)

What Alexander is saying is that the only difference between the Father and Son is that the Father is unbegotten and the Son begotten. They (the trinitarians) believed that this was an eternal begetting.

This is why Alexander said

“But let no one be led by the word ‘always’ to imagine that the Son is unbegotten, as is thought by some who have their intellects blinded: for to say that He was, that He has always been, and that before all ages, is not to say that He is unbegotten.” (Ibid)

Alexander says here that those who do not believe that Christ is a begotten Son “have their intellects blinded”. One translation quoted in A. T. Jones’ ‘Two Republics’ translates this as being “deficient in intellectual power”

We can see how much the early Christian church depended on the belief of Christ being begotten of God. That is what made Christ God. This is exactly the same as was said by all the early church fathers. Christ was God because He was begotten of God. Christ being begotten (as opposed to unbegotten) was never an issue in early Christianity. As I said, it was the norm.

Did you know that this ‘begotten faith’ was also the faith of Seventh-day Adventists all the time of Ellen White’s ministry? This was our faith at Minneapolis, the faith that Ellen White endorsed. As you probably know, she went all over America with Waggoner and Jones preaching it with them.

As Waggoner put it in his book ‘Christ and His righteousness’ that he said depicted his message at Minneapolis

“But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject. He has by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels. He is “a Son over His own house.” Heb. 1:4; 3:6. And since He is the only-begotten Son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God, and possesses by birth all the attributes of God; for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead. So He has “life in Himself;” He possesses immortality in His own right, and can confer immortality on others. Life inheres in Him, so that it cannot be taken from Him; but, having voluntarily laid it down, He can take it again.” (Waggoner, ‘Christ and His righteousness’ page 22)

Waggoner maintained throughout that the Son was begotten of God but also added

“Christ “is in the bosom of the Father;” being by nature the very substance of God and having life in Himself, He is properly called Jehovah, the self existing one and is thus styled in Jer. 23:56, where it is said that the righteous Branch, who shall execute judgment and justice in the earth, shall be known by the name of Jehovah-tsidekenu--THE LORD, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Ibid page 23)

He also said (note this well)

“It is true that there are many sons of God, but Christ is the "only begotten Son of God," and therefore the Son of God in a sense in which no other being ever was or ever can be. The angels are sons of God, as was Adam (Job 38:7; Luke 3:38), by creation; Christians are the sons of God by adoption (Rom. 8:14, 15), but Christ is the Son of God by birth. The writer to the Hebrews further shows that the position of the Son of God is not one to which Christ has been elevated but that it is one which He has by right.” (Ibid page 12)

The whole point of Waggoner’s message was that Christ was God because He was begotten of the Father. Waggoner says that Christ was not a Son because He was created as are human beings and angels, neither was He a Son because He was adopted like Christians.

Did Ellen White disagree or agree with Waggoner? She agreed. She endorsed his message as being sent by God. In fact she said herself 4 years later when in Australia finishing off ‘The Desire of Ages’

“A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 30th May 1895, ‘Christ our complete salvation’)

How much different was this from what Waggoner had said? Obviously hardly anything – the two statements in principle are identical. Where the difference was that Waggoner on this occasion had said “birth” instead of ‘begotten’ but Ellen White stayed with the word ‘begotten’.

Note that this was after 50 years of revelation from God - and remember - she was an inspired lady. This was not just her opinion.

So you see that Ellen White said that the origin of the Son was being begotten. Do you think she meant that literally? Take a look at what she said 6 weeks later.

In the Review and Herald she said

“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind." (Ellen G. White, Review & Herald 9th July 1895 ‘The Duty of the Minister and the People’)

This time, instead of using the word ‘begotten’, Ellen White says that the Son was “made in the express image of God’s person”. Note that this was in the Son’s pre-existence.

This was the faith of Seventh-day Adventists all the time of Ellen White’s ministry. It was also the faith from which in the early 1900’s she said that there would be a very serious departing. She was obviously correct in what she said.

Do you still think that Seventh-day Adventists are correct today in saying that Christ was not begotten and that a begotten being could not be our redeemer?

Terry

Just to let you know, since I've haven't commented on this to you, Terry, I believe Christ was begotten. I don't believe that implies a lack of pre-existence, however. I think it means something different than what we experience as humans.

Proverbs 8 talks about how wisdom proceeded forth from God. Now this isn't saying that before wisdom proceeded forth from God, it didn't exist. Similarly I think before God (I mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit here) decided to create, the Godhead existed in a form which did not necessitate Christ proceeding forth as the Father's representative, since there was no one for Him to represent God to. But from the beginning, when God decided to create, from the days of eternity, Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God.

Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that I agree that there is ample evidence that Jesus Christ as the begotten Son of God is not limited to Christ's incarnation (in fact, that's normally NOT what is being referred to).

Tom

Thank you for clarifying your position.

As I have said all along, the Bible does not specifically say that there never was a time when Christ was not, all that it says is that His goings forth have been from the days of eternity (not meaning forever). I have said over and over again, it is best just to leave it there. I did actually say (see post 92253) regarding EGW’s statements and mine

“I don’t think that EGW was uncertain, no more than I am uncertain. We are both saying what God has chosen to reveal - no more, no less. I admit that taken to their logical conclusions, her statements (and mine) do say that there was a time when the Son, as a separate personality from God, did not have an existence but having said that, it is only a logical conclusion.

I am not saying that it is a wrong conclusion. It may be 100% perfectly correct. I am just saying that God has not SPECIFICALLY SAID that there was a time when the Son did not exist. I do not know how to put this any clearer. Who knows what mysteries there are within the infinite that He has chosen not to reveal?” (post 92253)

It is interesting that the only other reference that ‘begotten’ is used of Christ (as far as I can see) is of the resurrection (not of the incarnation). This is when Paul said that it is the fulfilment of Psalms 2:7

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee”.

The word ‘begotten’ here is from the Hebrew ‘yalad’.

This Hebrew word means not to create but to bring forth, usually as in birth etc (bear, beget, birth, bring forth in birth etc). That is the way that it is used throughout the OT Scriptures.

Have a look at the way that Moses used the word – that is very interesting (see Gen 5:4, Numbers 11:12, Deut 23:8, Job 38:28)

Paul said

“And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” Acts 13:32-33

Interesting is that the word ‘begotten’ is from the Greek ‘gennao’ meaning the same as the Hebrew ‘yalad’ (bear, beget, birth, bring forth etc). Again interesting is how Paul used it (gennao) in 1 Cor 4:15, Philemon 1:9, Heb 1:5, 5:5 and how John used it in 1 John 5:1 and 5:18.

All very interesting I think.

The NT use of ‘monogenes’ – (begotten as in John 1:14, 3:16, 3:18, 1 John 4:19 with reference to Christ) is another story, suffice to say that John was the only one to use this word with reference to Christ. His gospel though (I believe) was not just an account of the life of Jesus as the other gospels (the synoptics) but was a divinely inspired theology to refute the heresies that were then (late 1st century)already coming into the church regarding the person of Christ.

Thanks again for your clarification.

Terry

Terry,

What the two statements are saying is different. Ellen White never used the word "birth" or "born" in relation to Christ, apart from His human birth.

"In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived." {DA 530.3}

"Underived" means its origin cannot be traced to any source. If Christ's life can be traced to the Father as its source, it cannot be called underived. In fact, Ellen White says:

"Children derive life and being from their parents." {ST, September 10, 1894 par. 5}

Hello Rosangela,

The 144,000 will have life, original, unborrowed, underived.

As will all believers. Given as a free gift. Here is the correct context as used by EG White:


‘Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. “ I lay it down of myself,” He said. In Him was life, original,unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour...This is the open fountain of life for the world.’ -Signs of the Times, Feb. 13, 1912. Also in 5 Bible Commentary 1130.

"For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself." John 5:26.

Gordon,

Eternal life, in creatures, is still derived; its origin can be traced to God. It will never be inherent in us.

"If we repent of our transgression, and receive Christ as the Life-giver, our personal Saviour, we become one with him, and our will is brought into harmony with the divine will. We become partakers of the life of Christ, which is eternal. We derive immortality from God by receiving the life of Christ for in Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. This life is the mystical union and cooperation of the divine with the human." {ST, June 17, 1897 par. 14}

I am not saying that it is a wrong conclusion. It may be 100% perfectly correct. I am just saying that God has not SPECIFICALLY SAID that there was a time when the Son did not exist.

Is there some place where God has specifically said that there was a time when *He* did not exist?

I do not know how to put this any clearer. Who knows what mysteries there are within the infinite that He has chosen not to reveal?” (post 92253)

It is interesting that the only other reference that ‘begotten’ is used of Christ (as far as I can see) is of the resurrection (not of the incarnation). This is when Paul said that it is the fulfilment of Psalms 2:7

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee”.

The word ‘begotten’ here is from the Hebrew ‘yalad’.

This Hebrew word means not to create but to bring forth, usually as in birth etc (bear, beget, birth, bring forth in birth etc). That is the way that it is used throughout the OT Scriptures.

Have a look at the way that Moses used the word – that is very interesting (see Gen 5:4, Numbers 11:12, Deut 23:8, Job 38:28)

Paul said

“And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” Acts 13:32-33

Interesting is that the word ‘begotten’ is from the Greek ‘gennao’ meaning the same as the Hebrew ‘yalad’ (bear, beget, birth, bring forth etc). Again interesting is how Paul used it (gennao) in 1 Cor 4:15, Philemon 1:9, Heb 1:5, 5:5 and how John used it in 1 John 5:1 and 5:18.

All very interesting I think.

This would support the idea that "begotten" does not imply a lack of pre-existence.

The NT use of ‘monogenes’ – (begotten as in John 1:14, 3:16, 3:18, 1 John 4:19 with reference to Christ) is another story, suffice to say that John was the only one to use this word with reference to Christ. His gospel though (I believe) was not just an account of the life of Jesus as the other gospels (the synoptics) but was a divinely inspired theology to refute the heresies that were then (late 1st century)already coming into the church regarding the person of Christ.

Thanks again for your clarification.

Sure. The question as to what John has in mind by "only begotten" has, of course, been debated for centuries. I think all could agree that, at a minimum, the closeness of the relationship between the Father and Son is being underscored by John.

I'd like to go back to the Jehovah quote again. We are told that Jesus identified Himself as Jehovah, the self-existent One. Being self-existent would imply that there was never a time when one did not exist, would it not? Otherwise you wouldn't be self-existent, but would derive your existence from another.

Also I have trouble seeing how there could be a time when Jehovah did not exist. It seems to me the very name implies one who has always existed, and if Jesus Christ rightly has that name, that would imply that He always existed. Otherwise He was poorly named.

Terry: Do you still think that Seventh-day Adventists are correct today in saying that Christ was not begotten and that a begotten being could not be our redeemer?

MM: Yes. Jesus is just as eternal as the Father. Jesus, like the Father, does not have a beginning. As such, Jesus is qualified to be Savior.