Did Christ have power?

When Christ became a human being, did He retain the power He had as God, in the sense that He could have used it if He wanted to? Or was He as powerless as any other human being, with access to power only from God by faith?

For example, let's say that hypothetically Christ wanted to create stones to bread. Could He have done so by using His own power? Or is the only way He could have done so by asking God to do it for Him, just like us?

Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself

Ellen White describes it this way:

"His [Stan's] first temptation to Christ was upon appetite. He had, upon this point, almost entire control of the world, and his temptations were so adapted to the circumstances and surroundings of Christ, that his temptations upon appetite were almost overpowering.

"Christ could have worked a miracle in his own behalf; but this would not have been in accordance with the plan of salvation. The many miracles in the life of Christ show his power to work miracles for the benefit of suffering humanity. By a miracle of mercy, he fed five thousand at once with five loaves and two small fishes. Therefore he had the power to work a miracle, and satisfy his own hunger. Satan flattered himself that he could lead Christ to doubt the words spoken from Heaven at his baptism. If he could tempt him to question his sonship, and doubt the truth of the word spoken by his Father, he would gain a great victory.

"He found Christ in the desolate wilderness without companions, without food, and in actual suffering. His surroundings were most melancholy and repulsive. Satan suggested to Christ that God would not leave his Son in this condition of want and suffering. He hoped to shake the confidence of Christ in his Father, who had permitted him to be brought into this condition of extreme suffering in the desert, where the feet of man had never trod. Satan hoped that he could insinuate doubts as to his Father's love, which would find a lodgment in the mind of Christ, and that, under the force of despondency and extreme hunger, he would exert his miraculous power in his own behalf, and take himself out of the hands of his Heavenly Father. This was indeed a temptation to Christ. But he cherished it not for a moment." {2Red 38.3-39.2}

If we don't believe that Christ had power to work miracles, we will have to believe that God would have answered a selfish prayer, that is, that God would work a selfish miracle. Besides, the idea that, by having the Father work a miracle in His behalf Christ would be taking himself out of the hands of the Father, does not make sense.

It's interesting that you would mention that quote, as the following one came to my mind:



This is of the same event. It brings out that Christ was being tempted to demonstrate He was divine, which seems to me implying that Christ would have had to use His own power to make the stone into bread, else how could He have been demonstrating His divinity?

We have discussed something about this in the past, and Mark said something with which I agreed, and it was that Christ's power was the power of the Godhead, and He could have used it whenever He wished. Below is another passage speaking about this subject:

"There are many who fail to distinguish between the rashness of presumption and the intelligent confidence of faith. Satan thought that by his temptations he could delude the world's Redeemer, to make one bold move in manifesting his divine power, to create a sensation, and to surprise all by the wonderful display of the power of his Father in preserving him from injury. He suggested that Christ should appear in his real character, and by this masterpiece of power, establish his right to the confidence and faith of the people, that he was indeed the Saviour of the world. If Christ had been deceived by Satan's temptations, and had exercised his miraculous power to relieve himself from difficulty, he would have broken the contract made with his Father, to be a probationer in behalf of the race. {RH, April 1, 1875 par. 1}

"It was a difficult task for the Prince of Life to carry out the plan which he had undertaken for the salvation of man, in clothing his divinity with humanity. He had received honor in the heavenly courts, and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures, and be partakers of the divine nature. {RH, April 1, 1875 par. 2}

"Christ was put to the closest test, requiring the strength of all his faculties to resist the inclination when in danger, to use his power to deliver himself from peril, and triumph over the power of the prince of darkness. Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human heart, and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness of the humanity which Christ had assumed in order to overcome his temptations on man's account." {RH, April 1, 1875 par. 3}

I think the fact that Christ was a member of the Godhead makes some statements seem ambiguous. That is, when speaking of divine power, one can ask, was it Christ's divine power, or God's? From the perspective that Christ lived as a man must live, dependent upon the Father, it was God's power. However, given that Christ had that same power intrinsically, and there is no essential different to the power Christ had and the Father's power, some statements (I can't think of any right now) which speak of Christ's power may seem in contradiction with others which say that He laid aside this power. The way I resolved this possibly apparent contradiction was along the lines of what you say Mark wrote.

That's a good quote.

I don't remember this discussion. To me, that Christ had divine power was something I took for granted.

Something Waggoner wrote came to mind:

What about John 5:19?

He is speaking about His unity with the Father, so what He is saying is that He can do nothing independently or separate from the Father. In all things He must, from the necessity of his nature, act in accordance with the nature and will of God.

I interpret it not in terms of ability, but in terms of choice. That is, in His role as Savior, and Example, He could of Himself do nothing, as that would not be in harmony with His mission, which was to show what God is like, as well as showing what a man could do, if he acted in accordance with the principles of God's law, which is to say, lived by faith. Neither of these goals would have been served by His "doing things on His own."

The following insights indicate that Jesus, on occasions, exercised His divinity.

Luke
6:19 And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed [them] all.
8:46 And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

8T 202
While upon this earth, the Son of God was the Son of man; yet there were times when His divinity flashed forth. Thus it was when He said to the paralytic: "Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee." Matthew 9:2. {8T 202.1}

"But there were certain of the scribes sitting there," who "began to reason," not openly, "but in their hearts, "saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" Mark 2:6; Luke 5:21. {8T 202.2}

UL 313
While upon this earth, the Son of God was the Son of man; yet there are times when His divinity flashed forth in the manifestation of superior power. {UL 313.2}

Thanks, MM. The one from Luke is interesting. The one from 202 is dealing with a slight different subject, I think, as "power" isn't really related to forgiveness, I don't think.

The last one is quite good. I hadn't seen that one.

Thanx. The fact He forgave sins indicates He was God. At times, His divinity flashed through His humanity. "Virtue" flowed through Him to heal others. These things mean He had powers not available to us. Did He possess the power to change stone to bread? Yes, of course. Did He ever use His own unique divine powers to resist temptation or to develop a perfect character? No, of course not. He abode in the Father like a born again believer.

Are there people who believe Jesus did not possess the power to change stone to bread? that He had to rely on the Father like we do to perform miracles?

Yes, there are people who believe that (which is what motivated my question). The idea is that He gave up this power when He became a human being.

In becoming incarnate, the Son of God never gave up any of His powers of deity. He was still fully divine. He still retained His divinity. He still possessed all the powers of deity. What He relinquished to become the Saviour of this world was His prerogative (right), as the pre-existent Son of God, to the independent use of these powers.

In other words, to become the last Adam and to save mankind from sin, Christ needed to keep the level of his humanity. This is what put Him under pressure. This was His temptation. He had to walk this earth as we walk it. By that I do not mean just have a body of flesh, bones and blood etc but that He needed to fully function like a human being and not as God. It would have achieved nothing if He had walked this earth exercising these powers in His own right as God.

Christ had no powers available to Him that is not available to you and me. He overcame in human flesh in exactly the same way as we do.

The powers of divinity that He used were no different than those of the Father. What was different was the way that He accessed them. When on earth, just like we do, He did so via the Holy Spirit. The divine Son of God took our place in all things. This is what made Him vulnerable (susceptible) to sin. In the form of God He could not be tempted to sin.

I hope some of this helps.

Regards

Terry

Welcome, Terry. It's good to have you on board. I look forward to studying with you. I appreciated what you posted above about the divinity and humanity of Christ Jesus, a title that encompasses both:

Christ = Divinity
Jesus = Humanity

Do you have any references to back up what you posted? Bible or SOP?

Hi Mountain man

It’s nice to make your acquaintance. Thank you for the welcome. Sorry it took me so long to reply.

The whole premise of my previous post is based on Hebrews 2:17 and 4:15. These Scriptures say

“For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:16-17

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15

It is the “like unto his brethren” and the “like as we are” bit that is very important. I would suggest too that Ellen White’s comments regarding Christ’s stilling the storm on the Sea of Galilee say everything.

If you remember too that Jesus said

" ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." John 5:19

Also

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30

I am almost at the end of putting together a history of the trinity doctrine, particularly as it pertains to Seventh-day Adventism. Three of the sections (chapters)I have written concern kenosis (Philippians 2:5-8). I hope that you do not mind but to save time I have cut and pasted portions of them to this post. It will save me a lot of time typing. In the main, these are some EGW quotes from those sections with my remarks in between.

<CUT

"Christ had not exchanged his divinity for humanity; but he had clothed his divinity in humanity, and he gave Satan the evidence for which he had asked, -- showed him that he was the Son of God. Divinity flashed through humanity, and the evil one could not resist the authority of the divine voice, as Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 29th October 1895, ‘Satan’s malignity against Christ and His people’)

After saying that in the incarnation that Christ had clothed His divinity with humanity Ellen White said in 1905

“He veiled his divinity with the garb of humanity, but he did not part with his divinity. A divine-human Saviour, he came to stand at the head of the fallen race, to share in their experience from childhood to manhood. That human beings might be partakers of the divine nature, he came to this earth, and lived a life of perfect obedience.” (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 15th June 1905, ‘Lessons from the second chapter of Philippians’)

< CUT

<CUT

Ellen White said in 1887, the year prior to the Minneapolis Conference (this was with reference to Philippians 2:5-8)

“The apostle would call our attention from ourselves to the Author of our salvation. He presents before us his two natures, divine and human. Here is the description of the divine: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." He was "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 5th July 1887, ‘Christ man’s example, see also Review and Herald 4th September 1900)

She then said

“Now, of the human: "He was made in the likeness of man: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death." He voluntarily assumed human nature. It was his own act, and by his own consent. He clothed his divinity with humanity.” (Ibid)

She explained

“He was all the while as God, but he did not appear as God. He veiled the demonstrations of Deity which had commanded the homage, and called forth the admiration, of the universe of God. He was God while upon earth, but he divested himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the earth as a man. For our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich. He laid aside his glory and his majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God he for a while relinquished.” (Ibid)

<CUT

< CUT

“When Christ bowed his head and died, he bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory.” (Ellen G. White, Youth’s Instructor, 25th April 1901, ‘After the crucifixion’)

She then said by way of explanation

“The enemy was overcome by Christ in his human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory.” (Ibid)

Ellen White said in respect of the incarnate Son of God

“As one of us He was to give an example of obedience. For this He took upon Himself our nature, and passed through our experiences. "In all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Heb. 2:17. If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are." Heb. 4:15.” (Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, page 24, ‘God with us’)

She then added

“He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God.” (Ibid)

As Ellen White pointed out with regards to the storm on the Sea of Galilee (see Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:37-41 and Luke 8:22-25)

“When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was in His heart.” (Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages’, page 336, ‘Peace, be still’)

Some may say here that Jesus was at peace because He was omnipotent, meaning He knew that as the creator of this world, He possessed the power to control the storm (also perhaps that because He was omniscient that He knew He would control it). Whilst as creator He could have easily calmed the storm, note very carefully the next words of Ellen White.

She wrote

“But He rested not in the possession of almighty power. It was not as the "Master of earth and sea and sky" that He reposed in quiet.” (Ibid)

Ellen White then explains

“That power He had laid down, and He says, "I can of Mine own self do nothing." John 5:30.”

Here we can see kenosis, meaning what Christ gave up by becoming human. He relinquished His prerogatives, as the Son of God, to the independent use of the powers of divinity. In other words, Christ did not calm the storm as the Son of God (or as God and creator) but as a human being would calm it.

Note very importantly that Ellen White did not say that Christ did not possess these powers. She said that he “rested not” in the possession of them, meaning that He did possess them but did not rely upon or put His trust in this possession.

As Ellen White further explained

“He trusted in the Father's might.” (Ibid)

By way of more explanation she added

“It was in faith -- faith in God's love and care -- that Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm was the power of God.” (Ibid)

In the same book Ellen White wrote

"The Saviour was deeply anxious for His disciples to understand for what purpose His divinity was united to humanity.” (Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages’, page 664, ‘Let not your heart be troubled’)

She explains

“He came to the world to display the glory of God, that man might be uplifted by its restoring power. God was manifested in Him that He might be manifested in them.” (Ibid)

She then added

“Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was.” (Ibid)

In 1874 she wrote

“The Saviour of the world became sin for the race. In becoming man's substitute, Christ did not manifest his power as the Son of God. (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald 18th August 1874)

From beginning to end, Ellen White did not change her belief that in becoming incarnate, Christ had set aside His prerogative of the independent use of the powers of deity. Perhaps we could even say that Christ considered His divine nature dead like we are to consider our fallen human nature dead, thus He walked this earth as you and I are compelled to walk it – by faith.

In 1895 she wrote

“He came as a helpless babe, bearing the humanity we bear.” (Ellen G. White, Manuscript 21, 1895, see Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Vol. 7 page 925, 1966 edition)

She then said

"As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." He could not come in the form of an angel; for unless He met man as man, and testified by His connection with God that divine power was not given to Him in a different way to what it will be given to us, He could not be a perfect example for us.” (Ibid)

< CUT

< CUT

Again with reference to the temptation Ellen White wrote

“This specious reasoning was a temptation to Christ. His humanity made it a temptation to Him, and it was only by trusting his Father's word that He could resist the power of the enemy.” (Ellen G. White ‘The Bible Echo’ 15th November 1892 ‘Tempted in All Points Like as Were Are’)

From where was the temptation coming? It was coming to Him through His human nature. Christ was living through that nature, not through His divinity. He was living through His humanity, a humanity that had been weakened by 4000 years of sin.

Ellen White then said

“He walked by faith, as we must walk by faith, and turned from the artful deceiver, who feigned to doubt his divinity.” (Ibid)

In 1894 Ellen White wrote

“Let children bear in mind that the child Jesus had taken upon himself human nature, and was in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was tempted of Satan as all children are tempted. He was able to resist the temptations of Satan through his dependence upon the divine power of his heavenly Father, as he was subject to his will, and obedient to all his commands.”(Ellen G. White, Youth’s Instructor, August 23rd 1894, ‘Privileges of Childhood’)

Five years later she said to the youth

“When we are tempted to question whether Christ resisted temptation as a man, we must search the Scriptures for the truth. As the substitute and surety of the human race, Christ was placed in the same position toward the Father as is the sinner. Christ had the privilege of depending on the Father for strength, and so have we. Because he laid hold of the hand of infinite power, and held it fast, he overcame; and we are taught to do the same.” (Ellen G. White, Youth’s Instructor 28th December 1899, ‘Tempted in all points like as we are, part II)

She added

“The language of Christ on many occasions shows that he was placed in the same position that we are. He had to walk by faith, as we walk by faith; and when temptations came to him with overwhelming power, he used the language that every child of earth must use. "The Son can do nothing of himself," Christ declared, "but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (Ibid)

<CUT

<CUT

Ellen White said when writing from Australia to her niece

“The Son of God lived a perfect life of obedience in this world. We need always to keep in view the truthfulness of the humanity of Christ Jesus.” (Ellen G. White, Letter to Mary Watson, July 9, 1896, from "Sunnyside," Cooranbong, N.S.W, Manuscript Volume 14, MR No. 1130)

She then added

“When Christ became our substitute and surety, it was as a human being. He came as a man, and rendered the obedience of human nature to the only true God. He came not to show us what God could do, but what God did do, and what man, a partaker of the divine nature, can do.” (Ibid)

She then said

“It was the human nature of Christ that endured the temptations in the wilderness, not His divine nature. In His human nature He endured the contradiction of sinners against Himself. He lived a perfect human life. Jesus is everything to us, and He says to us, "Without Me ye can do nothing." (Ibid)

<CUT

<CUT

“He had infinite power only because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will.” (Ellen G. White, Manuscript 99, 1903, pp. 3, 4. "Christian Education in Our Schools", September 1, 1903, see also Selected Messages book 3, page 141, chapter 19, ‘The incarnation’)

<CUT

<CUT

With reference to the sin of presumption, Ellen White wrote in 1877

“There are many who fail to distinguish between the rashness of presumption and the intelligent confidence of faith. Satan thought that by his temptations he could delude the world's Redeemer, to make one bold move in manifesting his divine power, to create a sensation, and to surprise all by the wonderful display of the power of his Father in preserving him from injury.” (Ellen G. White, Review & Herald. 1st April 1875, ‘The temptation of Christ’)

She then wrote

“If Christ had been deceived by Satan's temptations, and had exercised his miraculous power to relieve himself from difficulty, he would have broken the contract made with his Father, to be a probationer in behalf of the race.” (Ibid)

Here we come to the crux of the matter. Christ was under contact to God. To save fallen humanity He had accepted the limitations of fallen humanity. This was His lot as our beloved Saviour.

Now note very importantly the next words of Ellen White. She said

“It was a difficult task for the Prince of Life to carry out the plan which he had undertaken for the salvation of man, in clothing his divinity with humanity.” (Ibid)

So why was it so difficult? She explains

“He had received honor in the heavenly courts, and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures, and be partakers of the divine nature.” (Ibid)

<CUT

It’s a long post I know but I hope some of this helps.

Regards

Terry

Terry, thank you. Excellent. The following research has also helped me understand the human nature of Jesus.


Some say Jesus only took our form and not our fallen nature. But Sister White wrote above that He took both. He not only was made flesh, He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. "Christ the sinless became sin for man." (GC 540)


Jesus was tempted from within. He felt and realized the strength of the sin that dwells in fallen flesh. The "sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." (Rom 7:17, 18)


Jesus' fallen flesh was perfectly identical with our own. The only difference is, He never acted out its unholy clamorings, therefore, He never sinned. His character was sinless. “Human nature is ever struggling for expression, ready for contest ....” (MB 15) “The voice and passions [of sinful flesh] must be crucified.” (TSB 98)

Thanks Mountain Man

I was not aware of a couple of those quotes. Very helpful.

Terry

I'd put the emphasis on different words:

As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. [How was He identical to man?] A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. He breathed the very air man must breathe. He trod our earth as man. He had reason, conscience, memory, will, and affections of the human soul which was united with His divine nature.--16MR 181, 182. {TA 157.1}

Welcome, Terry!

Thank you Rosangela. It's nice to be here!

Hi all

As a matter of interest, seeing that we have said here that Jesus laid aside His prerogative to use in His own right His powers of Deity (at least this is what I believe), what is the consensus of opinion regarding whether He could have sinned or not? There is also the question of if this was possible and He had sinned, what would have happened to Him?

I am just wondering what the overall opinion of SDA’s is on this one. It would be very interesting to know. I hope a lot of people contribute.

I am also hoping it was ok to continue this thread with this question and not start another thread. It just seemed a natural follow on from what has been said already.

Regards

Terry

What Ellen White says:

He could have sinned:

"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden." {13MR 18.1}

What would have happened if He had sinned:

He would have lost His deity:

"Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost while He stood faithful and true to His loyalty." {ST, May 10, 1899 par. 11}

The wrath of God would have come upon Him and He would have been without hope:

"He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He knew no sin. He was the Lamb 'without blemish and without spot' (1 Peter 1:19). Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope." {1SM 256.1}

From Scripture we are told that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. If Christ could not have sinned, He could not have been tempted. There is no temptation without the possibility of giving in.

Regarding the results of such (had Christ sinned), not only would Christ and the church have been without hope, the results would have been even more far reaching than that. Since God had no greater to swear by, He swore by Himself to Abraham in His promises to him, which were contingent upon Christ's success.

"I am the resurrection, and the life." He who had said, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again," came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Humanity died: divinity did not die. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He has life in Himself to quicken whom He will. {5BC 1113.6}

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood. {5BC 1113.2}

Good quotes, MM.

I agree that divinity cannot die or cease to be but that is a nature not a person. It was the PERSON of the Son of God who died at Calvary. He died in His humanity. It was also the PERSON of the Son of God who would have gone out of existence if He had sinned. He would have been lost in His humanity. Divinity as a nature would have remained.


“Who can estimate the value of a soul? Go to Gethsemane, and there watch with Jesus through those long hours of anguish when he sweat as it were great drops of blood; look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross; hear that despairing cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Look upon that wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict.”(Ellen G. White, General Conference Bulletin 1st December 1895 ‘Seeking the Lost’)

“He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, His divine attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation.” (Ellen G. White, Letter 5, 1900, as quoted in the Seventh-day Adventists Bible Commentary Volume 7 page 926)

“To the honor and glory of God, His beloved Son -- the Surety, the Substitute -- was delivered up and descended into the prisonhouse of the grave. The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would never have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished.” (Ellen G. White, Ms. 81, 1893, p. 11, Diary entry for Sunday, July 2, 1893, Wellington, New Zealand)

Terry

Terry, interesting quotes. How did you come up with the idea that Jesus' "person" would have died but not His "nature"?

Hi again Mountain Man

May I first correct what you say in your question.

I did not say that the nature of Jesus did not die. I said that at Calvary the divine nature did not die, also if He had sinned and in consequence gone out of existence, His divine nature would have remained. Ok so a few words of explanation are needed.

“Jesus person” was the incarnate pre-existent divine Son of God. He was the same “person” as He was in His pre-existence but whereas in His pre-existence He had one nature (divinity) because of the incarnation He was the same person but was now a man of two natures (divinity and humanity). The incarnation did not change who He was – He was still the same divine Son of God as He had been in His pre-existence.

Christ (the Son of God) and God (the Father) must share the same divine life (divinity) else we must come up with two types of divinity. If in His pre-existence Christ was God then His nature must have been divine. If in His pre-existence His nature was divine He must have been God. At least that it is the way that I see it. Perhaps I am wrong.

We must be careful not to confuse nature with person. Divinity (a nature) cannot die. A divine person can die. At Calvary, it was the person of the Son of God that died in His humanity. It was human nature that died at Calvary not divine nature. Divine nature cannot die.

If Christ had sinned, then as a person He would have lost His existence. Not though His divine nature. That is the life of God.

Unnecessary to say is that the incarnation is beyond our understanding. We can barely scratch the surface of its mystery.

Hope some of this helps.

Terry

TerryH: If Christ had sinned, then as a person He would have lost His existence. Not though His divine nature. That is the life of God.

MM: Nature is life? If Jesus had sinned and died what would have happened to His nature? Can nature exist independently?

Hi again MM

That is an interesting question but we must remember that the Son is begotten of the Father (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18 and 1 John 4:9). He is the express image of the Father’s person. the personality of the Father shown(Hebrews 1:3).

Throughout the Scriptures, God and Christ are always spoken of as two separate personages and yet the Scriptures are clear that the Son is God essentially (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8). In personality, He is not the infinite God. He is the Son of the infinite God. For this reason He must be God.

Jesus Himself said

“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;” John 5:26

This text show that God and Christ share the one and the same divine life. God the Father gave His Son everthing He had, including His divine life.

As Ellen White said

"But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of our God to give. "I do nothing of Myself," said Christ; "the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father." "I seek not Mine own glory," but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. (Ellen G. White, 'The Desire of Ages, Page 21, 'God with us')

In 1897 Ellen White wrote

“God has sent his Son to communicate his own life to humanity.” (Ellen G. White, Home Missionary, 1st June 1897, ‘A call to the work’)

Note these words very well. Christ was communicating to humanity the “life” of God.

She continued

“Christ declares, "I live by the Father," my life and his being one.” (Ibid)

This divine “life” (divine nature) is the life of God. Ellen White said that Christ Himself said that He shared this life with the Father.

As she said next

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man." The head of every man is Christ, as the head of Christ is God. "And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." (Ibid)

Here we are told that the life of God and the life of Christ is one life, meaning that they share the same divine life (“my life and his being one”). In other words, it was the life of God the Father that was in Christ. No wonder Ellen White called this life “original, unborrowed, underived” (see ‘The Desire of Ages page 530). Christ’s life was the life of the Father. It was not something that Christ had independent and separate of the Father. In this sense they were one.

Notice here very importantly that this ‘one life’ shared by the Father and Son Ellen White associated with the words of Jesus Himself found in John 5:26-27 (as quoted above).

This ‘one life’ appears to have everything to do with the incomprehensible oneness that Ellen White said that the Son had with God the Father prior to the creation of this world. This was when she said

“There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible.” (Ellen G. White, Review & Herald 5th April 1906 ‘The Word made Flesh’)

Here we are told that prior to the creation of our world there was a certain ‘oneness’ between the Father and Christ. Notice very importantly that Ellen White does not include the Holy Spirit in this oneness. This is more than likely because during the time of her ministry, Seventh-day Adventists did not regard the Holy Spirit as a personal being like they regarded God and Christ as personal beings.

This oneness said Ellen White was incomprehensible (obviously to the human mind) but she did say that it did explain a lot of things that otherwise would remain unexplainable.

This means that the Son was participating in the divine life (divine nature) of His Father. He had no separate existence from His Father. His source of power was the Father.

Does this help?

Terry

This may be true in regards to a portion of EGW's ministry, but not towards the end. At the beginning, SDA's were not sure as to Christ's position. If Christ were not a separate person from the Father, and divine Himself, but rather a created being (or a being who was not eternal, without pre-existence) then the Holy Spirit could hardly be seen as a person. In this case you'd only have two persons of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit and God the Father. First Christ's position had to be established, which EGW's statements in 1898 did. (e.g. Christ was Jehovah, the self-existent one). After establishing Christ's position, it was easy to establish the Holy Spirit's.

In 1899 she said:



She spoke of "three living persons of the heavenly trio," and by the end of her ministry, SDA's were clear on this. For example, R. A. Underwood in 1898 indicated that his view of the Holy Spirit had changed. He wrote, "It seems strange to me now, that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an influence, in view of the work He does." (R. A. Underwood, "The Holy Spirit a Person," Review and Herald, LXXV (May 17, 1898), 310.)

Hi Tom

Your understanding of SDA history is somewhat different to my understanding of it. From what I can tell of it re your post, yours is also something that I could not confirm through our historical records.

From the beginning, it was the preponderant belief of Seventh-day Adventists that Christ was fully divine, also equal to God, but this was not as it is portrayed in the trinity doctrine. This was always the belief of the church as a whole. Certainly they did not begin to believe it because of EGW’s 1898 statements. Never was it the preponderant belief of Seventh-day Adventists that Christ was a created being.

I assume by 1898 that you are referring to the book ‘The Desire of Ages’. Historical records show that even up to the time of the death of EGW (17 years later in 1915) this book brought no change to the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. In fact it did not even bring about any controversy. It was just regarded as a beautiful book about Christ.

Theirs was a Bible based understanding of the Godhead without the trappings of the trinity. Admittedly (and very understandably) they did not at first regard the Holy Spirit as a personality and even up to the time of the death of Ellen White, they still did not understand Him to be a personal being like God and Christ were personal beings. This is what I said in my last post. I did not say that they did not regard Him as a personality (perhaps you misunderstood what I said). Even EGW said that the nature of the Holy Spirit could not be understood. She even said to leave any conjecturing about His nature aside because God had not revealed it. Leave it alone she said. That is what we should do today.

It was only after EGW died that attempts were made to change the thinking of SDA’s regarding the Holy Spirit. First there were attempts to bring in trinity concepts of Christ which was totally against all that they taught whilst EGW was alive, then our leadership moved to make the Holy Spirit a personal being like God and Christ. LeRoy Froom was one of the instigators of this move, perhaps the main one. This eventually led to the introduction of the trinity doctrine, which was obviously the intent after EGW had died. Our leadership made no move to do this whilst she was alive although some would probably have liked to have done so.

Throughout the entire time of EGW’s ministry the Seventh-day Adventist Church was strictly a non-trinitarian denomination. She consistently said that what they believed about God and Christ was what God Himself had revealed. She upheld the beliefs of the pioneers. She also said that these beliefs, albeit they were non-trinitarian, should never be changed. She did warn though that wrong views about God and Christ were coming into the SDA Church. Remember, she said this when we were still a non-trinitarian denomination.

The record of history will show that this is a correct understanding of things.

Terry

Hello Terry,

Moreover, on numerous occasions she wrote that "Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years." 1 Selected Messages 207. (1904)

Similar statements found in:

• 1 Selected Messages 204, 208.
• 9 Testimonies 70
• 8 Testimonies 297
• 2 Selected Messages 387

Rather than repent of error, or proclaim a change in doctrine, the Prophet affirms the true teachings of half a century.

Hello Gordonb1

It is nice to make your acquaintance. I assume your name is Gordon. If I am wrong let me know.

You are quite correct in what you say. There are too many people just quoting certain statements here and there - so by doing revising our history.

As Ellen White said – God gave us reason and we must use it.

In the Godhead crisis in the early 1900’s - this was when the trinity doctrine was raising its head - Ellen White did say that what they had been teaching was correct. This was a non-trinitarian faith. In fact at the 1905 General Conference (Takoma Park) where a lot of the delegates would not have been at the beginnings of SDA’ism (so they may not have had a clear understanding of how the truth had been established) she explained how God had led them and how this had been accomplished. In other words, at the conference she was trying to get the delegates to appreciate that God had given them (the pioneers) their then held beliefs.

She also said at that conference that Seventh-day Adventists had not changed their faith in 50 years. She said that certain truths had been well established and that they should not be changed. This was particularly she said regarding God and Christ who had always been believed to be two separate and distinct personalities.

Seventh-day Adventists had always maintained that the Holy Spirit was the Father and Son omnipresent. When EGW said that He was a personality they still remained the statu quo. In other words, they still regarded Him as the Father and Son omnipresent, not a personal being like the Father and Son. That is my understanding of our history.

Terry

TH: This means that the Son was participating in the divine life (divine nature) of His Father. He had no separate existence from His Father. His source of power was the Father. Does this help?

MM: Are you suggesting that Jesus' life and divine nature are one and the same? And, are you suggesting that Jesus is somehow in essence different than the Father, that the Father is more God than Jesus is? Do you believe the Father predated Jesus, that the Father existed before Jesus?

DA 530
In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life. {DA 530.3}

Hello Terry,

Much confusion arises from a small hill of EGW quotations, piled up over the last 10 years. These have also been modified, capitalized, misapplied. Even the word Trinity has been introduced, as if she had used it, but she never used this word.

Most notably, the prominent SDA pioneer authors wrote vigorously against the trinity, including James White. These views were published in the Church papers & books during that fifty year period which she endorses as a 'solid foundation'.

These antitrinitarians include Joseph Bates, James White, John Loughborough, J.H. Waggoner, Uriah Smith, A.T. Jones, E.J. Waggoner, J.N. Andrews and latterly J.S. Washburn and Charles Longacre.

They did not change their views nor repent. They held fast to their foundation as did Ellen White. They had no affinity for the central doctrine of Roman Catholicism, which is Spirtitualism at the core. But few have read the old pioneers, or the EGW writings in context. The body of her work is very clear; the Father and Son are separate and distinct beings. The Son is subject to God the Father.

Gordon

G: The body of her work is very clear; the Father and Son are separate and distinct beings. The Son is subject to God the Father.

MM: As is the Holy Spirit, right? That is, He is a separate and distinct being, subject to the Father, eternal same as the Father and Son.

6BC 1052
[Jesus] determined to give His representative [to us], the third person of the Godhead. {6BC 1052.5}

FLB 52
The Holy Spirit is a free, working, independent agency. {FLB 52.4}

EV 616
We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.--Manuscript 66, 1899. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.) {Ev 616.5}

The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. {Ev 616.6}

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. {Ev 617.1}

Terry, I'll just respond quickly, and will try to gather evidence later on, but I'm surprised you are not aware of the significance of 1898 if you have studied SDA history. This was a wathershed year, because of the DA statements regarding Jesus Christ as "Jehovah, the self-existent One" and His having life in Himself, original, unborrowed, underived.

Hi MM

Re your post 92135

What I am saying is that in His pre-existence, Christ is truly the Son of God. This is who He is rightfully and who Jesus Himself claimed to be (John 3:16, 9:35-38, 10:36). This is who John wrote his gospel to prove Him to be (John 1:18, 20:31) and who John the Baptist said that He was (John 1:34). This is who His disciples recognised Him to be (Matthew 16:16, John 6:69,) also who His enemies said He was claiming to be (Matthew 26:63, 27:40. 27:43, John 5:18, John 19:17). It is also who demonic supernatural beings said that He was (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7) and who His followers after the ascension said that He was (Acts 8:37). It was also who the Holy Spirit led the apostle Paul to teach Christ to be (Acts 9:20. Romans 1:4, 8:3). This is also who it was that the devil tempted Christ to believe that He was not (Matthew 4:3, 4:6). This was in contrast to the personal testimony of the Father who said that Jesus truly was His Son (Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, John 5:37).

The fact that Christ is the begotten Son of God is why He is God essentially (Psalm 110:1, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8). Whatever comes from God must be God. This is why He is fully and completely divine. He is the personality of the Father shown (John 1:18, 14:7-9, 15:24). He is the express image of His Father’s person (Hebrews 1:3). In Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). This was the pleasure of the Father (Colossians 1:19).

John 1:18 is an interesting verse. It is said that earlier manuscripts (some say the best) say ‘monogenes theos’. This is why the New American Bible translated this verse “No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him”. This is God begotten. Not a begotten god. Manuscripts certainly are divided between ‘God’ and ‘Son’.

John 1:18 shows the affiliation of monogenes with a true son. I would deny any understanding of ‘Son’ that does not reflect an ontological relationship between the two (Father and Son). In other words, I would personally reject a metaphorical (figurative) meaning of Son.

In personality, the Son is a separate personage from His Father (Zechariah 6:12-13, John 1:1, 1:14, John 3:5, 5:17, 5:23, 17:3, 20:17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 John 1:3). He is not the Father but in Him dwelt the presence of the Father (John 14:10-11). He is begotten of the Father (John 1:18, John 3:16), not created or adopted. His existence antedates all of creation (Proverbs 8:22-31). His divine life previous to the incarnation cannot be measured by any means known to humanity (John 8:58, Micah 5:2, KJV margin notes, ‘from the days of eternity’). I believe it is best to leave it there and go no further. This is the testimony of Scripture. There is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest that in His divinity that the Son was a lesser being than the Father although there is seen a subordination of the Son as a son to a father.

Prior to the incarnation, I believe it only reasonable to believe that because He was God and equal to God (His Father) there was a certain oneness between them, albeit what constituted this oneness has never been revealed. Having said this and because I could not prove it outright from Scripture, I would not stress this oneness at the expense of their two individualities.

What we do know is that whatever it was that constituted this oneness, if in His incarnation the Son had sinned, it would not have prohibited Him losing His eternal existence (Hebrews 2:17). As far as the existence of the Son is concerned, He does not have any outside of His Father. If He did then I cannot see that He would be God but someone created by God.

This type of oneness must not be confused with trinity doctrine oneness. That latter is indivisible, meaning that whatever the circumstances, it is impossible for the Son to lose His eternal existence. This is because the trinity oneness is God Himself (the one being of God).

This is why we must not confuse the word ‘Godhead’ with ‘trinity’. These are two entirely different concepts. The words translated as Godhead (KJV) have the meaning of pertaining to divinity but trinity as in the trinity doctrine means three-in-one (tri-unity). This is why these two words are not synonymous. It is incorrect to use the phrase ‘Godhead or trinity’. This is very confusing to say the least, also very ambiguous.

With regards to that much-used statement “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived”. I would say that this had to be as such else how could He have been God? As I understand it, this life is the life of the Father (John 5:26). It is divinity. Best to leave it there methinks else we may find ourselves running into speculation that cannot be established from Scripture.

I know that this may not satisfy every question we may have concerning Christ and God but when we speak of these things we are the finite attempting to define the infinite. To conjecture beyond the sacred page could be described as foolish.

Terry

Gordon

You are perfectly correct. I would add that Ellen White supported the pioneers in their beliefs, also that never once did she say that they were wrong in what they believed. As I said previously, through her, God did lead our pioneers to the belief that the Holy Spirit was a personality but that did not change their view that He was the Father and Son omnipresent. Ellen White did maintain that God and Christ were separate personalities but said in 1905 that wrong views of this were making their way into Seventh-day Adventism.

Terry

Hi Tom

I shall be very interested in the evidence that you are going to supply. I have studied this for 7 years and have found none. I have seen plenty of claims like yours but not the evidence to support it. I shall look forward to reading what you say.

Terry

Hello MM,

There are a few statements which make it appear that EGW was Trinitarian, but the body of her work, the weight of evidence, shows that she taught Christ was the Son of God before creation. Christ came forth from the Father as she asserts in Patriarchs & Prophets p. 34. Here she quotes Proverbs 8:22-30 and Micah 5:2 as applying to Christ's beginning. These are examples where she is laying down the facts at the very beginning of the 5-volume Conflict series. These do not deny the Divinity of Christ, yea, they assert it! Christ was made in the express image of His Father.

Who are we to deny that the Ancient of Days can bring forth One in His express image? When we have seen Christ we have seen the Father, though the Father is seated on the Throne in Heaven. No man has seen God the Father at any time. But looking unto Christ we behold the fullness of the Godhead bodily, the express image of the Father.

Please see the following note to Tom regarding 1898.

Gordon

Hello Tom,

Numerous SDA writers claim 1898 was a change of direction. This is poor
research or outright apostasy. Here's why. The Desire of Ages 530
quotation has been selectively edited, but here is the original sense:

‘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.

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

As will all believers.

Given as a free gift.


If Ellen White, or the SDA leadership had been teaching false doctrine
for the first forty-five years of the movement, there would have been a
major call to repentance & forsaking of sin by God's prophet. The
specific sin would have been outlined, broadcast, acknowledged and
documented. There is no record of this. Instead she repeatedly writes
that they were building upon truth for fifty years. There was no change
in 1898. This is a modern myth, created by modern SDA writers to fool
the laity.

The DA 530 quotation has been dishonestly manipulated to claim an
entire change of doctrinal direction in 1898. This bears false witness
to the prophet's intended meaning. And it defies God's established
pattern of dealing with error.

Regards,

Gordon

Post successfully edited as requested.

Thank you Daryl :)!

Tom, I experienced some difficulty posting this selection. Some formatting was lost in the translation, but the content seems intact.

Gordon

Terry, your response to my questions indicate to me that you believe, as did some of our pioneers, that Jesus has not always existed in the same way the Father has always existed. Is that right?

Gordon, it sounds like you believe there was a time long, long ago when the Father was alone, when Jesus did not exist. Is that right?

Also, what about the Holy Spirit?

Hi MM

I answered you in the only way that I considered possible. This is in keeping with what the Scriptures say (Micah 5:2) which is that the divine life of Christ prior to His existence cannot be measured by any means known to human reckoning. In other words, it is indeterminable (concealed). Besides this I have no answer for you.

In my years of study, I have never found anywhere where Ellen White says any differently, at least not when her writings are considered as a whole. I admit that when certain statements are singled out and the rest of what she says is ignored it can look as though she is saying that the Son is co-eternal (coeval) with the Father but this is not the way that I use her writings.

As far as I am concerned, she wrote under the unction of the Holy Spirit so I must take into consideration everything that she wrote on whatever topic.

Sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for but I cannot go any further.

Have a good Sabbath.

Regards

Terry

Sorry MM

I meant to say of course in the first paragraph(incarnation not existence)

I answered you in the only way that I considered possible. This is in keeping with what the Scriptures say (Micah 5:2) which is that the divine life of Christ prior to His incarnation cannot be measured by any means known to human reckoning. In other words, it is indeterminable (concealed). Besides this I have no answer for you.

Terry

Hello MM,

Micah states it better than I:

"...whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." margin ~ the days of eternity. Micah 5:2.

Solomon states it better than I:

"The LORD possessed me...I was set up from everlasting (same Heb. word as above), from the beginning, or ever the earth was...I was brought forth...before the hills was I brought forth...Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight..." Proverbs 8:22-30.

Ellen White states it better than I:

"The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate - a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings." Patriarchs & Prophets 34.

E.J. Waggoner echoes the same:

"The Word was "in the beginning." The mind cannot grasp the ages that are spanned in this phrase. It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten; but we know that He was the Divine Word, not simply before He came to this earth to die, but even before the world was created...We know that Christ "proceeded forth and came from God" (John 8:42), but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of man." Christ and His Righteousness, p. 9, 1892.

For these reasons I believe Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, brought forth in the days of eternity.

Gordon

The above is an excerpt from the referenced article.

Has this turned into a topic of the Godhead, or is the power of Christ included in this aspect of the topic?

Anyway, we studied Psalms 23 in Sabbath School last Sabbath.

Do you get the connection between the Shepherd of Psalms 23:1 and John 10:11?
Jesus Christ, a separate entity in the Godhead, is none other than Jehovah Himself.

John says it better than I:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:1)

Paul says it better than I:

"But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8).

Ellen White says it better than I:

"He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." (DA 469)

E. J. Waggoner echoes the same:

"In many places in the Bible Christ is called God" (Christ and His Righteousness 9)

Hello Tom,

EGW says: first fifty years built upon Rock-solid foundation. (1904)

Moon says: complete doctrinal reversal in 1898.

Moon vs. the Prophet and all leading SDA Pioneers. ?

This is the modern writing to which I earlier referred. It requires a covering-up of her works, or alterations as noted in DA 530. But few today read her work, so Moon's logic will prevail over many. This she also prophesied in 1904:

"Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work." 1 Selected Messages 204

Perhaps Micah, Solomon & EGW should bow before Mr. Moon's reasoning? If there truly had been a reversal of our most fundamental doctrine, there would have been a cry for repentance from the Prophet. She herself would require repentance, as would all the SDA writers alive in 1898. In essence, she would have been a false prophet from 1844-1898. But she was not. There was no call to repentance on this issue. None. Instead, she boldly affirms in 1904 that the past fifty years are true, fully established by the Lord.

"Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established." Evangelism 224. (R&H May 25, 1905)

Mr. Moon may claim a continental divide, but that does not make it so. Only God can make such changes. Moon's testimony bears false witness to the ministry of EG White, seeking to make of none effect her life's work. With what authority does he procede?

Gordon

TH: I admit that when certain statements are singled out and the rest of what she says is ignored it can look as though she is saying that the Son is co-eternal (coeval) with the Father but this is not the way that I use her writings.

MM: "... the Son is co-eternal (coeval) with the Father ..." In other words, you do not believe the Son is eternal like the Father? I'm not asking you to put a date on when Jesus was "begotten", but I am asking if you believe there was a time when Jesus did not exist. If Jesus is not co-eternal with the Father, then it stands to reason there was a time, an eternity, when He did not exist. Do you see what I mean?

G: For these reasons I believe Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, brought forth in the days of eternity.

MM: Thank you for stating your position plainly. Most people who believe there was an eternity when the Father was alone, when Jesus did not exist, are hesitant to admit it publicly.

What about the Holy Spirit? Is He an independent person the same as the Father?

MM

I do know what you mean (honest)but I am not prepared to say what I cannot prove from Scriptures. You can reason from what I say that I am saying that there was a time when AS A PERSONALITY CHRIST did not exist (not His divinity) but I am still not saying it. You may think that this is just a cop out but I cannot go any further than what I say. If I do then I shall go beyond the sacred page. I think we must admit that there is much about the being of God that has not been revealed and perhaps we could not understand even if God did reveal it. I think we should just leave it there.

Regards

Terry

Hi again Tom

Re your post 92182

With all due respect (and please do not think that I am just being argumentative), I did say to you that I had seen many claims that Ellen White’s ‘Desire of Ages’ brought about a shift in theology when it was published in 1898 but in our history records I cannot find evidence of such a thing ever happening. I have researched this for years and have found nothing. What Moon says here (as quoted by you) is one of the claims that I have come across but where is the evidence of it actually happening?

Anyone can make this type of claim but without the evidence to back it up it is impotent. Can you provide the evidence please? I say this to establish what is the truth. If there is evidence of it I would like to see it. I would then write it into the history I am compiling.

I hope that you will understand. I just do not want people to be led astray by false claims. I think that is very important as I am sure that you do as well.

Let me share this with you (a little bit long I know but it may help. In the main I have cut it from the history I spoke of)

At the 1905 General Conference session during a talk in the afternoon of Tuesday May 16th before the conference began, Ellen White said (this was when our denomination was still decidedly non-trinitarian, also when the Godhead crisis was taking place)

“God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it? -- He has said that the dead are to speak. How? -- Their works shall follow them. We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God. One by one these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced.” (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 25th May 1905, ‘The work for this time’, a pre-conference address at the 1905 General Conference, May 16th 1905)

She said later

“Let the truths that are the foundation of our faith be kept before the people. Some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.” (Ibid)

She also said

“We are now to understand what the pillars of our faith are, -- the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step.” (Ibid)

She then related to the delegates the early experiences of Seventh-day Adventists.

She said that at times when she and the other pioneers could not understand the passages of Scripture that they had been studying (and this is an important part of the ‘how’ our faith had been established and confirmed)

“I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood.” (Ibid)

Notice what the light concerned. She then added

“A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.” (Ibid)

This was not temporary light but permanent light.

At this conference, Ellen White stressed that because of what she regarded as his false theories concerning the sanctuary, Albion Ballenger was leading God’s people to deny what she claimed was the truth that God had revealed to His remnant people.

In this address and after warning of Ballenger’s teachings she said

“Let not any man enter upon the work of tearing down the foundations of the truth that have made us what we are.” (Ellen G. White to the delegates at the 1905 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Takoma Park, Washington D. C., May 24th 1905, "A Warning against False Theories," MR 760)

She then added

“God has led His people forward step by step, though there are pitfalls of error on every side. Under the wonderful guidance of a plain "Thus saith the Lord," a truth has been established that has stood the test of trial. When men arise and attempt to draw away disciples after them, meet them with the truths that have been tried as by fire.” (Ibid)

Here at the 1905 General Conference, whilst the Seventh-day Adventist Church was still a non-trinitarian denomination, Ellen White was telling Seventh-day Adventists that their faith (beliefs) as they held it then was the truth that “step by step” God Himself had given to them. She also said that it had “stood the test of trial” and had “been tried as by fire”.

Many may try to say that Ellen White was only making reference here to what was believed by Seventh-day Adventists concerning the sanctuary but this is far from being the truth. We shall see this now.

After appropriately quoting from God’s message to the church at Sardis with respect to ‘holding fast’ to the faith that they then had, Ellen White said

“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard.” (Ibid)

In principle, this is exactly what God said to the believers at Sardis (see Revelation 3:1-6). Just as they were told to ‘hold on’ to their faith, so too were Seventh-day Adventists being told to ‘hold on’ to what they then believed, which then of course was non-trinitarianism.

She then added

“Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.” (Ibid)

Here can be seen that what Ellen White included in the pillars of our faith is what we then believed regarding not only the sanctuary but also what we believed about God and Christ. Note the differentiating between the two divine personalities.

Later that same year (remember this was 7 years after the ‘The Desire of Ages’ was published in 1898) she said

“The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as we received the great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to us in 1844, after the passing of the time.” Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies series ‘B’ No. 7. ‘Standing in the way of God’s Messages’, page 58, December 4th 1905)

She also said in the same paragraph

“Not a word is changed or denied. That which the Holy Spirit testified to as truth after the passing of the time, in our great disappointment, is the solid foundation of truth. Pillars of truth were revealed, and we accepted the foundation principles that have made us what we are--Seventh-day Adventists, keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus” (Ibid)

As can be seen, Ellen White would not agree with the claim that her book ‘The Desire of Ages’ (1898) had brought about any theological change within Seventh-day Adventism, at least not whilst she was alive.

I think Merlin Burt got the closest when he said with reference to such statements in ‘The Desire of Ages’ as “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” etc (this was in a paper he completed for Andrews University in 1996)

“Curiously, for years after the publication of Desire of Ages, the church generally ignored these statements” (Merlin D. Burt, ‘Demise of Semi-Arianism and anti-trinitarianism in Adventist theology, 1888-1957 page 1, Chapter 1, ‘Background: Adventist views on the deity of Christ and the trinity until about 1888’, 1996)

In reality, there is nothing curious here at all. Seventh-day Adventists did not ignore these statements. They just accepted them as being in keeping with what many people call today their ‘semi-Arian’ faith. Burt is claiming they were ignored because no one regarded them as promoting God as a trinity.

All that Burt is really saying is that there is no evidence for the claim that when it was published in 1898, Ellen White’s Desire of Ages’ brought about a theological change. This is also what I am saying. There is an abundance of claims but no actual proof of it.

It must be admitted that there is evidence that some wanted this change and did actively seek it but here Ellen White is denying that her book was intended to bring about any such happening. As she said herself in 1905 regarding the past 50 years of faith of Seventh-day Adventists, “Not a word is changed or denied”. Does this sound like a major theological change had recently taken place or was taking place from non-trinitarianism to trinitarianism? Ellen White obviously did not think so. Do you see my point? In the light of the evidence of our history, regardless of the claims, I cannot reason any differently. Can you?

Regards and have a good Sabbath.

Terry

Hello MM,

Thank you for your reply. True, it is not a popular position, but I can only repeat what I understand from inspiration. Somewhat ironic that the SDA Church is so eager for new members. But when one joins and starts studying the Bible, SOP, SDA history and the Protestant Reformation, suddenly one is fanatic, even heretical. Less and less SDAs are familiar with EGW's books. Some may have compilations or CDs to make a search and prove a point, but they are unable to detect God's voice in the warp and the woof of her work, to establish the tone and context of her message.

Even then, EGW has not the final word. If we are Christians, the Bible alone will be our source to establish Truth.

Hello Terry,

Thank you for the dissertation. Very clearly expressed. I cannot reason any differently.

Gordon

Hello Daryl,

Perhaps the discussion has wandered a little, but the matter at hand still seems relevant. As Terry earlier quoted EGW from 1897:

“Christ declares, "I live by the Father," my life and his being one.”

In other words, it was the life of God the Father that was in Christ.

To me this infers that Christ's power was that of the Father.

I believe that the name of the Father was in the Son, just as all sons inherit their father's names.

Gordon

Hello MM,

I am convinced that the authors of both Old & New Testaments had a correct understanding of this subject, for they used the term throughout their works. Their correct view was not dependent upon a 19th century scholar or church movement. (I think you would agree)

I searched the Bible to find the context & meaning of spirit. (A reasonable endeavour ?) Before my reply, consider this question, if it seems relevant to you:

Is the spirit of Mike an independent person? What about the spirit of Daryl, or Tom, or Gordon? When your spirit is troubled within you in the night season, and your sleep brakes from you, how many people are found upon awakening?

Gordon

Hello Tom,

EGW says: first fifty years built upon Rock-solid foundation. (1904)

She also said that we still had things to learn, that our positions needed to be investigated, and so forth.

Moon says: complete doctrinal reversal in 1898.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please provide a quote.

Moon vs. the Prophet and all leading SDA Pioneers. ?

I expressed surprise that the person I responded to was unaware of the significance of 1898. That was the reason I cited Moon. It had nothing to do with a doctrinal argument, but a question of history. There are lots of quotes one can find regarding 1898 on the internet. I just cited one thing I found.

If one wants to discuss whether Moon is correct or not, the thing to look at, would be his references.

This is the modern writing to which I earlier referred. It requires a covering-up of her works, or alterations as noted in DA 530.

Her works are unimportant in regards to the historical question under consideration, as to whether 1898 was an important year. The thing that needs to be looked at are Moon's references. He has cites for the points he makes.

By the way, the clearest quote to me is not the DA 530 one, but this one:




Especially when you consider along ones like this:





You're missing the point of why I mentioned him, which is as pointed out above.



This quote isn't useful unless you can establish that our religion changed in regards to whatever point it is you have in mind. You're citing a quote with no context, also. Was she talking about the divinity of Christ or the personhood of the Holy Spirit (or whatever it is you have in mind where you think our religion changed) when she wrote this?



Perhaps Micah, John, Paul and EGW should bow before your logic? These types of gratuitous assertions, or questions, are pointless. You can make them about anything, as I showed in my response to you so-and-so says it better than I post. (which was a poetic post, btw. Even though I think the methodology you used in not sound, what you posted was nicely done.)

If there truly had been a reversal of our most fundamental doctrine, there would have been a cry for repentance from the Prophet.

Which could simply be evidence that this wasn't our most fundamental doctrine. We weren't named "Seventh-day Arians" (or semi-Arians) but "Seventh-day Adventists".

She herself would require repentance, as would all the SDA writers alive in 1898. In essence, she would have been a false prophet from 1844-1898.

Your position seems to be that she, and we, could learn nothing new from the time she first started prophesying. These same arguments were made in regards to Jones and Waggoner's preaching. But she steadfastly denied what you are suggesting. For example:



But she was not. There was no call to repentance on this issue. None. Instead, she boldly affirms in 1904 that the past fifty years are true, fully established by the Lord.

"Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established." Evangelism 224. (R&H May 25, 1905)

What is it that the Lord "has established"? Whatever you think this is has to mesh with her CWE quote.

Mr. Moon may claim a continental divide, but that does not make it so.

True, you'd have to consider his cites. If his cites are accurate, *that* would make it so.

Only God can make such changes.

Well, of course. Moon is just an historian. If you find some fault in his history, make an historical argument based on the sources he cited.

Moon's testimony bears false witness to the ministry of EG White, seeking to make of none effect her life's work. With what authority does he procede?

You're just making one gratuitous assertion after another. What authority do you have? No more than Moon has. If you want to make an argument against Moon, consider the historical sources, and present some evidence.

<snip>

Anyone can make this type of claim but without the evidence to back it up it is impotent. Can you provide the evidence please?

He provided the evidence. He provided cites for the things he wrote.

<snip>

Regards and have a good Sabbath.

Thank you for you good wishes. Hope you had a nice Sabbath too.

Regarding your statements, there is also the statement from CWE that I quoted in my previous post responding to Gordon. I'm curious as to what your response to the Jehovah statement of hers is from DA 469, 470. Do you think this is a legitimate statement, or was it altered?

I respect the historical argument you are trying to make. I think that's a valid approach.

Regards,

Tom

Hi again Tom

I have read and re-read what Jerry Moon said about this 1898 “continental divided” but nowhere does he quote any evidence for his claim. If he does provide the evidence, do you think you could paste it to this forum so that I can see it please? All that I can see is claims.

As I have said, I have researched our history and cannot find any evidence of The Desire of Ages changing our faith, at least not whilst EGW was alive.

I know that the following is circumstantial evidence but when Kellogg said in 1903 that he had come to believe in the trinity, it not only took the brethren by surprise but in one testimony to him in 1904, EGW condemned all three-in-one beliefs of God. If what you and Moon says is true - meaning that her Desire of Ages (1898) revealed God as a trinity - then why should this have happened?

There is also of course the testimony of EGW when in 1905 she said

“The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as we received the great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to us in 1844, after the passing of the time …Not a word is changed or denied.” Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies series ‘B’ No. 7. ‘Standing in the way of God’s Messages’, page 58, December 4th 1905)

Again she wrote in 1905

“This large work and its sure results are plainly presented to me. I am so sorry that sensible men do not discern the trail of the serpent. I call it thus; for thus the Lord pronounces it. Wherein are those who are designated as departing from the faith and giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, departing from the faith which they have held sacred for the past fifty years? I leave that for the ones to answer who sustain those who develop such acuteness in their plans for spoiling and hindering the work of God.” (Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies, Series B No. 7, page 61, ‘Come out and be separate)

Ellen White obviously never regarded any change happening to the Seventh-day Adventist faith, not even in 1905. So who should I believe here --- Jerry Moon or Ellen White? Seeing that I cannot find any evidence of a change in our faith, it would need to be Ellen White.

Re the Desire of Ages statement (page 469-470) – I believe that it is legitimate and I quite agree with it. Why should I think that it has been altered? I do not understand???

There is also something else here to be considered. It seems to me that you are attempting to say (along with Jerry Moon) that EGW advocated through what she wrote that we change our faith from non-trinitarian to trinitarian.

Do you realise that in trinitarian theology, as held by our denomination and by orthodoxy, it is impossible for the pre-existent Son of God to lose His eternal existence? So what do we do with all the EGW statements as quoted in previous posts that say He could have lost it?

Something here seems to be amiss.

Terry

Hello Tom,

Thank you for your detailed reply. I was almost sure you had posted the link to Jerry Moon's article earlier in the thread, along with some of your own comments. I have searched the thread to find these, but without success. Please direct me to the page, or correct me if the link was not posted.

Thank you,

Gordon

I appreciate your nice comment. I thought I posted the link as well. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm There's a Part 2 as well. I'm not sure which one I quoted from without looking, but it will be obvious.


Tom

Terry, in answer to your question for me, here's the link: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm. The footnotes 38 through 45 are dealing with the 1898 period an shortly thereafter.

Thank you. I understand you are unwilling to state the obvious conclusion of your beliefs. But it doesn't detract from the fact it is obvious. If Jesus is not, as you say, as eternal as the Father, then it stands to reason there was a time when Jesus did not exist as a conscious, separate being. This conclusion is loud and clear whether it is stated or not.

However, if we believe Jesus is as eternal as the Father, then we can confidently state the obvious.

If I am with you "in spirit", am I in two places at the same time? Not technically, right? My "spirit" isn't a separate person. Neither is the spirit (lower case) of God a separate person. But the Spirit (upper case) of God is the third person of the Godhead. As such, He is a person.

Hi MM

You said

“I understand you are unwilling to state the obvious conclusion of your beliefs. But it doesn't detract from the fact it is obvious. If Jesus is not, as you say, as eternal as the Father, then it stands to reason there was a time when Jesus did not exist as a conscious, separate being. This conclusion is loud and clear whether it is stated or not.”

Please let me correct you. I did not actually say Jesus is not as eternal as the Father but I did say (see my post 92179 12th Oct)

“I answered you in the only way that I considered possible. This is in keeping with what the Scriptures say (Micah 5:2) which is that the divine life of Christ prior to His existence cannot be measured by any means known to human reckoning. In other words, it is indeterminable (concealed). Besides this I have no answer for you.”

You say that the conclusion regarding my remarks “is loud and clear whether it is stated or not.”?

Ok. Let me share with you something that was said by Ellen White in 1899. This was the year following the publication of ‘The Desire of Ages. First though the context. Context is always very important. In this case it is absolutely imperative. This is because recently there have been certain views expressed on this forum regarding the understanding of Ellen White’s remarks concerning the “I AM” statement of Jesus.

Here is the context

“The scribes and Pharisees accused Christ of blasphemy because He made Himself equal with God. But He promptly met and denied their accusations. "Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?" they asked Him; "whom makest Thou Thyself?" Jesus answered: "If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing; it is My Father that honoreth Me; of whom ye say, that He is your God; yet ye have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you; but I know Him, and keep His saying. Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 3rd May 1899, ‘The Word made flesh)

Ok - now for what she said next. She wrote

“Here Christ shows them that, altho they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.” (Ibid)

Here is my question for you. How much different is that to what I said?

I would also ask what you would say is the “loud and clear” conclusion of what Ellen White said here “whether it is stated or not”? Is it that Christ is not coeternal with the Father?

Would you also say (as you said to me) that Ellen White was “unwilling to state the obvious conclusion”? Note again that she made this statement the year AFTER the publication of ‘The Desire of Ages’. What is that saying to us about Jerry Moon’s ‘1898 continental divide’?

When I made my statement saying that Christ’s pre-existence could not be measured by any means known to humanity (see posts 92175 and 92179) I did not appeal to the writings of Ellen White but to Scripture alone (see Micah 5:2). It is very important that we can ‘prove’ our beliefs without quoting Ellen White. That is not undermining God’s purposes in this lady. Without her writings and regarding things of a spiritual nature, I would not know anything near what I know today (probably I would know nothing at all). I thank God for what He has done for His people through her. Through her He has given us an abundance of knowledge and wisdom. To be able to share our views with others though not of our faith, we need to be able to substantiate them from Scripture alone.

If you remember, I did say to you previously (post 92179, 12th Oct)

“In my years of study, I have never found anywhere where Ellen White says any differently, at least not when her writings are considered as a whole. I admit that when certain statements are singled out and the rest of what she says is ignored it can look as though she is saying that the Son is co-eternal (coeval) with the Father but this is not the way that I use her writings.”

It appears to me that this is as far as God has gone with His revelation concerning the pre-existence of His Son. As I said before, I think it best if we leave it there. I could not ‘prove’ from Scripture alone any different than what I now believe.

Regards
Terry

I was in a hurry yesterday, so could not give your post the attention it deserved. I'll try to address the other points you made here.

I know that the following is circumstantial evidence but when Kellogg said in 1903 that he had come to believe in the trinity, it not only took the brethren by surprise but in one testimony to him in 1904, EGW condemned all three-in-one beliefs of God. If what you and Moon says is true - meaning that her Desire of Ages (1898) revealed God as a trinity - then why should this have happened?

I'm not sure what you're referring to her, in regards to EGW condemning all three-in-one beliefs of God. What statement of hers do you have in mind?

Re the Desire of Ages statement (page 469-470) – I believe that it is legitimate and I quite agree with it. Why should I think that it has been altered? I do not understand???

Perhaps I misread you. If so, I apologize, but it was my understanding that you felt the life original etc. statement had been altered. If so, then other statements could be altered as well.

I read a little of your response to MM regarding this statement, and it did not seem to address the point that makes it a strong statement for me, which is that she identifies Jesus Christ as Jehovah. In regards to the views of contemporaries of EGW, here are some statements from Waggoner:

"In many places in the Bible Christ is called God." and he cites a number of these places. (Christ and His Righteousness 8). On page 15 he writes, "If He had been what they regarded Him, a mere man, His words would indeed have been blasphemy, but He was God." On page 23, "He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One." So here is a contemporary who is declaring that Jesus Christ is God, and that He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One, similar to what EGW wrote.

There is also something else here to be considered. It seems to me that you are attempting to say (along with Jerry Moon) that EGW advocated through what she wrote that we change our faith from non-trinitarian to trinitarian.

No, I didn't say that. I just cited Moon for one reason, which was to establish that 1898 was an important year.

Do you realise that in trinitarian theology, as held by our denomination and by orthodoxy, it is impossible for the pre-existent Son of God to lose His eternal existence? So what do we do with all the EGW statements as quoted in previous posts that say He could have lost it?

Something here seems to be amiss.

There are things, in general, our denomination has wrong (or, at least, elements of it), so it wouldn't surprise me if there are mistakes in this area, or in any other area. If there are contradictions with EGW statements and something the denomination teaches (or some element of the denomination), what we need to do is correct the denominational statements.

Was the Godhead or the nature of the Holy Spirit or Christ's pre-existence part of "the pillars of our faith" -- "the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step"? Did EGW count these as part of the "fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years"?

Hi Tom

Thanks for your kindly reply

The one thing I like about this forum is that there is a Christian spirit here rather than aggro. I was on a forum recently that was nothing short of abusive at times (rather immature really). It seems here that people are looking for the truth.

None of us have a monopoly on the truth. We are all the finite trying to get to grips with the infinite. Having said that none of us can go any further than what God has revealed – and maybe that’s not very far.

I can always remember many years ago that I was really surprised by something that EGW said in a General Conference Bulletin (you will see why). Perhaps to a degree it is relevant to our studies. She said

“Men of the greatest intellect cannot understand the mysteries of Jehovah as revealed in nature. Divine inspiration asks many questions which the most profound scholar cannot answer. These questions were not asked, supposing that we could answer them, but to call our attention to the deep mysteries of God, and to make men know that their wisdom is limited, that in the common things of daily life there are mysteries past the comprehension of finite minds; that the judgment and purposes of God are past finding out, is wisdom unsearchable. If he reveals himself to man, it is by shrouding himself in the thick cloud of mystery.” (Ellen G. White, General Conference Bulletin, 18th February 1897, ‘God in nature’)

She then said (it was the next two sentences that surprised me)

“God's purpose is to conceal more of himself than he makes known to man. Could men fully understand the ways and works of God, they would not then believe him to be the infinite One. He is not to be comprehended by man in his wisdom, and reasons, and purposes. "His ways are past finding out." His love can never be explained upon natural principles. If this could be done, we would not feel that we could trust him with the interests of our souls. Skeptics refuse to believe, because with their finite minds they cannot comprehend the infinite power by which God reveals himself to men.” (Ibid)

Anyway, back to the issues.

Sorry if I was not clear about the Desire of Ages statement but I have no argument with it.

I do believe that Christ is properly called Jehovah. That is not a problem to me unless the two personalities of God and Christ become confused. They must always be kept separate.

Re 1898 – I still cannot accept Jerry Moon’s statement. Never in Ellen White’s time did that book have any affect on the theology of the SDA Church.

I really do love your attitude here when you say

“There are things, in general, our denomination has wrong (or, at least, elements of it), so it wouldn't surprise me if there are mistakes in this area, or in any other area. If there are contradictions with EGW statements and something the denomination teaches (or some element of the denomination), what we need to do is correct the denominational statements.”

This is the voice of true hope and optimism. It is also the voice of someone wanting to get it right. Unfortunately Tom I am afraid it is not the voice of our church leadership. I have proven that for myself.

To try and get them to even think they are wrong is (I have found) an almost impossible task. I am not being pessimistic here but realistic and practical based on my own past personal experience. I will tell you about it sometime. It is too much for this post.

Have you listened to the keynote address given by Jan Paulsen at the 2007 AC? It is worth listening to. I don’t want to bring it into this thread as such but it is very relevant to what you have said and the trinity debate within our church today.

The article is here in the latest Review.

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1427

Click on the watch the sermon link to hear the entire message.

You also said

“I'm not sure what you're referring to her, in regards to EGW condemning all three-in-one beliefs of God. What statement of hers do you have in mind?”

I am going to assume that you know that in an attempt to justify what he had written in his book ‘The Living Temple’ Kellogg said that he had come to believe in the trinity. What he was actually saying was that he had come to believe that the Holy Spirit was a person like God and Christ, which is something that was not believed by SDA’s then (1903). They believed that the Holy Spirit was God and Christ omnipresent when the latter two were not bodily present. SDA’s still maintained that same belief after EGW said that He was a personality. In other words, they still did not see Him as a person like God and Christ. Kellogg (at least in his thinking) by saying that he believed that the Holy Spirit was a person like God and Christ managed to separate Him from the Father and Son. In this way he was not saying that God the Father was in nature but the Holy Spirit. That is the way that I see it anyway. Like in everything else, I am open to correction and modifying my views.

Where EGW condemned three-in-one illustrations of God was in a testimony she wrote condemning Kellogg and the way that he was treating the Testimonies. She said

“I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted.” (Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, page 62 ‘Come out and be separate’)

She then said (these are the three-in-one illustrations

“Such representations as the following are made: "The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad." "The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life." Another representation: "The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power." (Ibid)

Here is the condemnation

“All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God can not be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. “The Father can not be described by the things of earth.” (Ibid)

There then followed what I term the most comprehensive statement on the Godhead in all her writings. She said

“The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight.

The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person." "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father.

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.” (Ibid)

She then said

"There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-- those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. . . . "

Terry

Hi Arnold

That is a very good question. The short answer is that yes she did.

In the past there have been those (mainly trinitarians) who have tried to say that what we believed about the Godhead was not part of our landmark beliefs but when this is given some thought it does not really make sense. We are God’s remnant people. All of our beliefs are based on what we believe about God and Christ. In early SDA’ism, it was not a debated matter. The belief was that Christ is God essentially. The belief concerning the Holy Spirit was not so sure. It was still not a major issue though as far as I can tell.

Ellen White upheld the pioneer’s beliefs about Christ. Never did she say that they were wrong in what they believed. This was even though some were strongly anti-trinitarian.

Some people give these beliefs a label (I do not really like doing it). They call it semi-Arianism. It was the belief that some time in eternity (for want of a better turn of phrase), the Son was begotten of the Father. This was also Ellen White’s belief. As far as I know she maintained it until she died. I have never seen any evidence to the contrary.

When our beliefs were under attack in the early 1900’s she made this statement to the delegates at the 1905 GC session

“Let not any man enter upon the work of tearing down the foundations of the truth that have made us what we are. God has led His people forward step by step though there were pitfalls of error on every side. Under the wonderful guidance of a plain, "Thus saith the Lord," a truth has been established that has stood the test of trial. When men arise and attempt to draw away disciples after them, meet them with the truths that have been tried as by fire.” (Ellen G. White to the delegates at the 1905 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Takoma Park, Washington D. C., May 24th 1905, "A Warning against False Theories," MR 760)

Then, after quoting Revelation 3:1-3 (which was God’s message to Sardis telling them to hold fast to their beliefs) she said

“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.” (Ibid)

Here it can be seen that in 1905, Ellen White included in our foundational truths the beliefs we then held regarding God and Christ. She was obviously appealing to remember how our faith had been established and 'hold fast' to them. Notice there was no mention of the personality of the Holy Spirit. Note also the differentiating between God and Christ as two separate beings.

Up to the late 1890’s, the belief was that the Holy Spirit was not a person like God and Christ were persons. In fact for very understandable reasons (the way that the Scriptures speak of the activities of the Holy Spirit) He was not even considered a person at all by some although the pioneers regarded both Him and His work in the redemption of mankind with the highest of esteem. In fact they said that He was ‘everything’ in the salvation of man.

The Holy Spirit was considered to be the presence of both the Father and the Son when the latter two were not bodily present. In other words, the Holy Spirit was God and Christ omnipresent. Even when EGW said that He was a personality they still went on believing the same. This did not change their theology so it was not a big deal as such. Ellen White insisted that the nature of the Holy Spirit was a mystery that God had not revealed. This is probably one of the reasons why they still did not regard Him as a person like God and Christ. As far as I know she never went beyond that statement. It was not until Froom started pushing a trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit (1920’s/1930’s) after Ellen White had died that the main body of members began to change their thinking. Even then it was a very slow process. A denomination’s beliefs cannot be changed overnight, even if some would like to have done it.

Hope this helps

Terry

Terry, I've appreciated your tone as well. Regarding Kellogg, you run into Kellogg vs. EGW on a number of issues, having to choose between the two, and I just don't find Kellogg's testimony to be trustworthy.

Regarding the three-in-one condemnations, I think she was arguing against making a representation and saying this represents God. Those illustrations are rather close to idolatry, it seems to me. It's human nature, I guess, to try to come up with ways to better comprehend God, but whatever illustration we come up with just winds up lessening Him.

Regarding Waggoner's statements, am I understanding you correctly that you have no problem with the statements that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus Christ is Jehovah? I understand you accept these statements, provided the personalities of the Father and the Son are not confused, which I don't think is an issue (I've only heard of one heresy involving this, which asserts that Jesus Christ and the Father are the same person, and simply different manifestations of God, but this is pretty rare).

Given it to be the case that these statements are accepted (i.e., Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ is Jehovah) then if we are to make the statement, "There was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist" this is tantamount to saying "There was a time when Jehovah did not exist," isn't it?

Terry: If you remember, I did say to you previously (post 92179, 12th Oct)

“In my years of study, I have never found anywhere where Ellen White says any differently, at least not when her writings are considered as a whole. I admit that when certain statements are singled out and the rest of what she says is ignored it can look as though she is saying that the Son is co-eternal (coeval) with the Father but this is not the way that I use her writings.”

It appears to me that this is as far as God has gone with His revelation concerning the pre-existence of His Son. As I said before, I think it best if we leave it there. I could not ‘prove’ from Scripture alone any different than what I now believe.

MM: Terry, sorry for the confusion. What I should have said is - Your unwillingness to say Jesus is as eternal as the Father is "loud and clear". To me, this implies Jesus may not be as eternal as the Father. I realize you believe Sister White was as uncertain about it as you are. What is my point? I don't have one. I'm just trying to understand what you believe. That's all. Have I understood you correctly?

G: Was the Godhead or the nature of the Holy Spirit or Christ's pre-existence part of "the pillars of our faith" -- "the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step"? Did EGW count these as part of the "fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years"?

MM: Gordon, did you overlook my post quoted above?

Hi again Tom

1. Kellogg said he had come to believe in the trinity.
2. The illustrations that EGW condemns in a testimony about him are the types that the trinitarians use to describe how God is three-in-one.

These are such as root, branch, fruit, also ice, water, steam, also stream, river, sea etc. They are all meant to show how one thing is in relation to the other two and how one comes from the other, meaning three individual things but one in essence. In other words, you cannot have the fruit without the branch and you cannot have the branch without the root etc etc. All of them are three-in-one. Do you see what I mean? This is supposed to represent how God's being is a trinity (a tri-unity or three-in-one)

Let me give you an SDA example. I cannot go into detail here (too much to type) but you see that comprehensive EGW Godhead statement in my last post to you, also the condemnation for 3 in 1 illustrations – well last year in our SS lesson book (March 26th 2006), and in attempting to ‘prove’ that God is a trinity, that comprehensive statement was quoted. Unfortunately it was quoted minus the condemnation of the 3 in 1 illustrations; also certain sentences were removed in the second paragraph that suggested a begotten Christ. This said the authors of the lesson showed that the EGW statement revealed God is 3 in 1 (sneaky?). They then asked

“What analogies—such as a triangle or a three-pronged fork — can help someone understand the idea of how one God can be composed of three equal Persons? What other examples might help us better understand this deep truth?” (The Seventh-day Adventist Lesson quarterly, 2nd quarter 2006 Sunday March 26th page 7)

Apart from the fact that we should never liken God’s being to a three pronged fork (you can see why God does not approve of 3 in 1 illustrations), what I am trying to say here is that if the 3 in 1 condemnations from EGW had been quoted, then obviously the author(s) of the lesson could not have said here that God is like a triangle or a three-pronged fork, neither could they have asked the SS students to think up even more 3 in 1 illustrations which they probably spent half the lesson study time in doing. Quite obviously, this is why the condemnation of 3 in 1 illustrations was omitted. I see this as a total abuse of the testimonies that God, through His Holy Spirit, has deemed fit to put in His church to save us from believing error. What I wonder at is God’s patience in all of this.

Here is what was quoted of EGW in the lesson study

“The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be ‘the express image of His person.’ . . . The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.”—Ellen G. White, Evangelism, pp. 614, 615.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Lesson quarterly, 2nd quarter 2006 Sunday March 26th page 7)

Check it out and you will see that this is made up of 3 separate paragraphs. The 1st sentence is from a paragraph that has six sentences before it that are omitted. The next 2 sentences are from a paragraph with the last 2 sentences omitted. The 3rd paragraph is whole. This is a terrible way to treat the testimonies of God’s Spirit. No wonder EGW said

Why will not men see and live the truth? Many study the Scriptures for the purpose of proving their own ideas to be correct. They change the meaning of God's word to suit their own opinions. And they do also with the testimonies that He sends. They quote half a sentence, leaving out the other half, which, if quoted, would show their reasoning to be false” (Ellen G. White, Diary, January 10th 1890, MS 22 1890)

She then said

“God has a controversy with those who wrest the Scriptures, making them conform to their preconceived ideas” (Ibid)

I believe that is only reasonable to assume that God also has a controversy with those who do the same with the testimonies of His Spirit.

You said

“Given it to be the case that these statements are accepted (i.e., Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ is Jehovah) then if we are to make the statement, "There was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist" this is tantamount to saying "There was a time when Jehovah did not exist," isn't it?”

No it isn’t because the Father is Jehovah (God). This is not the same personality as the Son even though the Son is God (John 1:1). The Father and Son are two separate personalities. It was the Son of God (the Word) that became flesh (John 1:14) not God the Father. The Son was begotten of the Father (Jehovah) therefore He (the Son) is also Jehovah. It also follows that if the Son had gone out of existence (getting almost back to the beginning of this thread) then the Father (Jehovah) would have remained.

Regards

Terry

MM

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?

If I had come right out with it and said that there was a time when the Son did not exist, then I am sure that someone would have said to me, “where does it say that in the Scriptures?” – and because it is not there I could not have shown them. I would then have had to appeal to logic based on Micah 5:2 and the writings of EGW. If I had done this then I am sure that someone would have criticised me for reading too much into what the Scriptures and EGW says. Do you see what I mean?

I am not trying to be awkward - honest. I am just stating what the Scriptures and EGW says without stressing what may seem the obvious.

In answer to your question, yes, I am unwilling to say that the Son is coeternal with the Father because I cannot prove it, either from the Scriptures or EGW’s writings. In fact if I said He was coeternal, I am sure that someone would come along and quoted Micah 5:2 and the appropriate EGW statements.

It seems like a no win situation but as I said, I think it is best to go as far as what God has said and go no further. I am still saying it.

Regards

Terry

Hi again Tom

1. Kellogg said he had come to believe in the trinity.
2. The illustrations that EGW condemns in a testimony about him are the types that the trinitarians use to describe how God is three-in-one.

You seem well enough versed in logic to know that the fact that some trinitarians use the illustrations, and the illustrations are condemned, does not mean that trinitarians are wrong. Even if *all* trinitarians used the illustrations, it would mean they were wrong. It would just mean the illustrations were wrong.

Btw, I don't call myself a trinitarian. EGW never used the word "trinity," as I'm sure you know, so I don't feel comfortable with that designation, as it carries unwanted baggage (which is why I think she avoided the term).

These are such as root, branch, fruit, also ice, water, steam, also stream, river, sea etc. They are all meant to show how one thing is in relation to the other two and how one comes from the other, meaning three individual things but one in essence. In other words, you cannot have the fruit without the branch and you cannot have the branch without the root etc etc. All of them are three-in-one. Do you see what I mean? This is supposed to represent how God's being is a trinity (a tri-unity or three-in-one)

Let me give you an SDA example. I cannot go into detail here (too much to type) but you see that comprehensive EGW Godhead statement in my last post to you, also the condemnation for 3 in 1 illustrations – well last year in our SS lesson book (March 26th 2006), and in attempting to ‘prove’ that God is a trinity, that comprehensive statement was quoted. Unfortunately it was quoted minus the condemnation of the 3 in 1 illustrations; also certain sentences were removed in the second paragraph that suggested a begotten Christ. This said the authors of the lesson showed that the EGW statement revealed God is 3 in 1 (sneaky?). They then asked

“What analogies—such as a triangle or a three-pronged fork — can help someone understand the idea of how one God can be composed of three equal Persons? What other examples might help us better understand this deep truth?” (The Seventh-day Adventist Lesson quarterly, 2nd quarter 2006 Sunday March 26th page 7)

Apart from the fact that we should never liken God’s being to a three pronged fork (you can see why God does not approve of 3 in 1 illustrations), what I am trying to say here is that if the 3 in 1 condemnations from EGW had been quoted, then obviously the author(s) of the lesson could not have said here that God is like a triangle or a three-pronged fork, neither could they have asked the SS students to think up even more 3 in 1 illustrations which they probably spent half the lesson study time in doing. Quite obviously, this is why the condemnation of 3 in 1 illustrations was omitted. I see this as a total abuse of the testimonies that God, through His Holy Spirit, has deemed fit to put in His church to save us from believing error. What I wonder at is God’s patience in all of this.

I agree that her testimonies are often misused. Unfortunately we see these, and other mistakes, in the SS lessons. However, that's beside the point, as far as our discussion is concerned, isn't it? The fact that some people misuse her testimonies, or make unwarranted illustrations, does not affect one way or another the truth about whether there was a time when Christ did not exist, or whether the Holy Spirit is a person as opposed to merely a presence or power.

Here is what was quoted of EGW in the lesson study

“The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be ‘the express image of His person.’ . . . The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.”—Ellen G. White, Evangelism, pp. 614, 615.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Lesson quarterly, 2nd quarter 2006 Sunday March 26th page 7)

Check it out and you will see that this is made up of 3 separate paragraphs. The 1st sentence is from a paragraph that has six sentences before it that are omitted. The next 2 sentences are from a paragraph with the last 2 sentences omitted. The 3rd paragraph is whole. This is a terrible way to treat the testimonies of God’s Spirit. No wonder EGW said

Why will not men see and live the truth? Many study the Scriptures for the purpose of proving their own ideas to be correct. They change the meaning of God's word to suit their own opinions. And they do also with the testimonies that He sends. They quote half a sentence, leaving out the other half, which, if quoted, would show their reasoning to be false” (Ellen G. White, Diary, January 10th 1890, MS 22 1890)

She then said

“God has a controversy with those who wrest the Scriptures, making them conform to their preconceived ideas” (Ibid)

I believe that is only reasonable to assume that God also has a controversy with those who do the same with the testimonies of His Spirit.

I half agree with what you are saying and half not. The half I agree with is that leaving out the part where she is condemning examples and then using an example that was condemned is unwarranted. However, the half I don't agree with, is that if one is seeking to show that Ellen White conceived of God as three persons, then certainly a quote that says, "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio..." makes that point. This is, after all, very clear, and the SS people have space limitations. If what they quoted were giving a wrong impression, such as EGW really believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were *not* three persons, then I think you would have a point that she was being poorly quoted.

You said

“Given it to be the case that these statements are accepted (i.e., Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ is Jehovah) then if we are to make the statement, "There was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist" this is tantamount to saying "There was a time when Jehovah did not exist," isn't it?”

No it isn’t because the Father is Jehovah (God). This is not the same personality as the Son even though the Son is God (John 1:1). The Father and Son are two separate personalities. It was the Son of God (the Word) that became flesh (John 1:14) not God the Father. The Son was begotten of the Father (Jehovah) therefore He (the Son) is also Jehovah. It also follows that if the Son had gone out of existence (getting almost back to the beginning of this thread) then the Father (Jehovah) would have remained.

It sounds like you are using "Jehovah" as a title, as opposed to a reference, or name, of an actual being. Is that what you are trying to say? Both the Father and the Son had the same title?

The EGW quote says that Jesus identified Himself as Jehovah, the self-existent one. This is an identification with a title, but with a being. IOW, Jesus Christ is Jehovah. Now if Jesus Christ is Jehovah, then to say something using one name is to say the same thing using the other name. So what I asserted is 100% correct; to say that there was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist is to assert there was a time when Jehovah did not exist. The non-existence has to do with the being. If the being named Jesus Christ, who also has the name Jehovah, did not exist, then that non-existence can be designated correctly by either name.

Now if some other being has that same name, then you simply need to clarify which being you have in mind. For example, my name is Tom Ewall. My father's name was also Tom Ewall. I could say that Tom Ewall participates in the Maritime SDA forum. Now if someone objected by saying that Tom Ewall died many years ago, I could say that that was Tom Ewall Sr., not Tom Ewall Jr.

So back to Jehovah. If one asserts there was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist, then one is asserting there was a time when Jehovah did not exist. One could clarify this further, should one feel so constrained, that it was not Jehovah God the Father who did not exist, but Jehovah God the Son.

This felt a bit awkward. I hope it was clear.

Hi Tom

My sincere apologies but I must admit I cannot see what you are saying. It seems very confusing to me. I also do not understand the analogies. I am certainly not saying that there was a time when Jehovah did not exist.

Can I make some statements then you tell me if you agree or not. If not perhaps you can explain why. That way we shall know where we both stand. I must admit that I am confused as to what is being said.

1. God is a person. By that I mean He is an individual being. He is the one we know as the Father. He is Jehovah. Would you agree with that one?

2 God the Father has a Son. This Son is a separate personage to God the Father. He is begotten of God therefore He is God in the person of His Son. He therefore is also Jehovah. Would you agree with that one?

3. It was the Son that became flesh and not God the Father. Would you agree with that one?

4. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God could have sinned and in consequence have lost His eternal existence. Would you agree with that one?

5. If the Son did become lost, the Father would have continued to exist. Would you agree with that one?

Re the Testimonies and the SS lesson etc. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. The Spirit of God led Ellen White to tell Seventh-day Adventists that they should not use 3 in 1 illustrations to describe God. The SS lesson authors deliberately omitted that counsel and then proceeded to attempt to show that God was a trinity by using 3 in 1 illustrations. They also led SDA’s to do the same. That has nothing to do with shortage of space. That is downright deceitful. It is deliberately leading God’s people to go contrary to the testimonies. That is a sin. Let’s call it by its rightful name. The intent was not to show that there were three persons of the Godhead. It was to show that the one God is a trinity. That is two entirely different things. That is why they used the illustration of God being like a three pronged fork. If it was only to show three persons, there would have been no need for the fork illustration.

Let’s talk trinity for the moment. This is to define what we mean by that terminology.

Any trinity doctrine must have threeness and an indivisible oneness (like the three pronged fork). If it doesn’t then it does not have a tri-unity (3 in 1). If you have a trinity then none of the three can go out of existence. If one can go out of existence then you do not have a trinity. Would you agree or not?

I am just trying to establish what you are saying.

Regards

Terry

My sincere apologies but I must admit I cannot see what you are saying. It seems very confusing to me.

That's all right. I found what you wrote to be very confusing as well.

I also do not understand the analogies. I am certainly not saying that there was a time when Jehovah did not exist.

If Jesus is Jehovah, and there was a time when Jesus did not exist, then there was a time when Jehovah did not exist. Simple.

Can I make some statements then you tell me if you agree or not. If not perhaps you can explain why. That way we shall know where we both stand. I must admit that I am confused as to what is being said.

1. God is a person. By that I mean He is an individual being. He is the one we know as the Father. He is Jehovah. Would you agree with that one?

I agree that God is an individual being. Generally speaking, my understanding is that Jesus Christ is Jehovah.

2 God the Father has a Son. This Son is a separate personage to God the Father. He is begotten of God therefore He is God in the person of His Son. He therefore is also Jehovah. Would you agree with that one?

If I am begotten of my father, does that mean I am my father in the person of his son? I'm not sure about this one. I would say something like God is revealed in the person of His Son.

3. It was the Son that became flesh and not God the Father. Would you agree with that one?

Of course.

4. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God could have sinned and in consequence have lost His eternal existence. Would you agree with that one?

No. There's a quote early in this thread that deals with this. I'll find it an post it.

5. If the Son did become lost, the Father would have continued to exist. Would you agree with that one?

It's hard to say what would have happened had Christ sinned. There's an SOP statement from COL that says that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. To Abraham, God could swear by no great than Himself, so He swore by Himself. God swore by Himself that Christ would succeed, so if He didn't, what would have happened? We're not really told specifically, but it would have been bad.

Re the Testimonies and the SS lesson etc. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. The Spirit of God led Ellen White to tell Seventh-day Adventists that they should not use 3 in 1 illustrations to describe God. The SS lesson authors deliberately omitted that counsel and then proceeded to attempt to show that God was a trinity by using 3 in 1 illustrations. They also led SDA’s to do the same. That has nothing to do with shortage of space. That is downright deceitful. It is deliberately leading God’s people to go contrary to the testimonies. That is a sin. Let’s call it by its rightful name. The intent was not to show that there were three persons of the Godhead. It was to show that the one God is a trinity. That is two entirely different things. That is why they used the illustration of God being like a three pronged fork. If it was only to show three persons, there would have been no need for the fork illustration.

I'm not sure if you carefully read what I said regarding this. What exactly are we disagreeing about?

Let’s talk trinity for the moment. This is to define what we mean by that terminology.

Any trinity doctrine must have threeness and an indivisible oneness (like the three pronged fork).

You're using a condemned illustration. Shame on you.

If it doesn’t then it does not have a tri-unity (3 in 1). If you have a trinity then none of the three can go out of existence. If one can go out of existence then you do not have a trinity. Would you agree or not?

I am just trying to establish what you are saying.

EGW never used the word "trinity." I don't feel any need to discuss it.

I think the two issues where we may differ on are whether there was a time when Christ did not exist, and if the Holy Spirit is a person (e.g., can the Holy Spirit carry on a conversation with the Father and with the Son). Probably we agree on most other things.

Oh, something I thought of in regards to a response to MM regarding logical deduction and if there was a time when Christ did not exist. Given that Christ created all things, He created time (or more accurately, space-time). Logically if Christ created time, there could not have been a time when He did not exist.

This is the statement I was thinking of. I thought it was on this thread, but I couldn't find it.

“He who said, 'I lay down my life, that I might take it again,’ came forth from the grave to life that was in himself. Humanity died: divinity did not die. In his divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death” (The Youth’s Instructor, August 4, 1898 pr.1)

Tom

Like a lot of people in this trinity debate you are getting confused between “nature” and “person”

In the above quote, Ellen White was talking in terms of natures not persons. At Calvary, human nature died not divine nature. Divine nature cannot die. The person of the pre-existent Son of God acquiesced to His human nature. That is the whole point of Him becoming human. The divine Son of God died in His human nature.

In His pre-incarnate state (in the form of God) He could not sin and He could not die. By becoming human He could do both.

As EGW said

“Jesus Christ laid off His royal robe, His kingly crown, and clothed His divinity with humanity, in order to become a substitute and surety for humanity, that dying in humanity He might by His death destroy him who had the power of death.” (Ellen G. White, Letter 97, 1898, p. 5. To "My Brethren in North Fitzroy," November 18, 1898)

This is how a divine person can die. It is by surrendering His divine personage to His human state.

As Ellen White went on to say

“He could not have done this as God, but by coming as man, Christ could die. By death He overcame death. The death of Christ bore to the death him who had the power of death, and opened the gates of the tomb for all who receive Him as their personal Saviour.” (Ibid)


You say

"It's hard to say what would have happened had Christ sinned. There's an SOP statement from COL that says that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. To Abraham, God could swear by no great than Himself, so He swore by Himself. God swore by Himself that Christ would succeed, so if He didn't, what would have happened? We're not really told specifically, but it would have been bad."

What do you mean we are not told specifically? What do you think EGW meant by the following statements?

“Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.” (Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages. Page 49 ‘Unto you a Saviour’)

“Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss.” (Ibid page 131, ’The victory’)


“Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, June 9th 1898, see also Selected Messages Book 1 page 256)

“Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Jesus would have yielded up his life, we may estimate the value of a soul.” .” (Ellen G. White, General Conference Bulletin 1st December 1895 ‘Seeking the Lost’)

“Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost while He stood faithful and true to His loyalty. Surrounded with sorrow, suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the people to whom had been intrusted the oracles of heaven, Jesus could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven. He was ready to take once more His divine glory when His work on earth was done.” (Ellen G. White, The Signs of the Times, 10th May 1899, ‘Christ glorified’)

“He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, His divine attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation.” (Ellen G. White, Letter 5, 1900, as quoted in the Seventh-day Adventists Bible Commentary Volume 7 page 926)

“There was only one entrance to the tomb, and neither human fraud nor force could tamper with the stone that guarded the entrance. Here Jesus rested during the Sabbath. A strong guard of angels kept watch over the tomb, and had a hand been raised to remove the body, the flashing forth of their glory would have laid him who ventured powerless on the earth. He who died for the sins of the world was to remain in the tomb for the allotted time. He was in that stony prison house as a prisoner of divine justice, and he was responsible to the Judge of the universe. He was bearing the sins of the world, and his Father only could release him.

Christ had declared that he would be raised from the dead on the third day; and at the appointed time a mighty angel descended from heaven, parting the darkness from his track, and resting before the Saviour's tomb. "His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men." Brave soldiers, who had never been afraid of human power, were now as captives taken without sword or spear. The face they looked upon was not the face of mortal warrior; it was the face of a heavenly messenger, sent to relieve the Son of God from the debt for which he had become responsible, and for which he had now made a full atonement. This heavenly visitant was the angel that on the plains of Bethlehem had proclaimed Christ's birth. The earth trembled at his approach, and as he rolled away the stone from Christ's grave, heaven seemed to come down to earth. The soldiers saw him removing the stone as he would a pebble, and heard him call, Son of God, thy Father saith, Come forth. They saw Jesus come from the grave as a mighty conqueror, and heard him proclaim, "I am the resurrection, and the life." The angel guards bowed low in adoration before the Redeemer as he came forth in majesty and glory, and welcomed him with songs of praise.” (Ellen G. White, Youth’s Instructor. 2nd May 1901)

“To the honor and glory of God, His beloved Son -- the Surety, the Substitute -- was delivered up and descended into the prisonhouse of the grave. The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would never have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished.” (Ellen G. White, Ms. 81, 1893, p. 11, Diary entry for Sunday, July 2, 1893, Wellington, New Zealand)

How much more specific can anyone be told anything? Do you believe what EGW said here or not?

Terry

Terry: In answer to your question, yes, I am unwilling to say that the Son is coeternal with the Father because I cannot prove it, either from the Scriptures or EGW’s writings.

MM: Thank you. Not knowing would be unsettling for me. I realize you have no problem with it. I read the inspired statements and conclude Jesus and the Holy Spirit (as a person) are as eternal as the Father. 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.

"Christ was invested with the right to give immortality." 1 Selected Messages 302.

MM - Have not forgotten your Holy Spirit question. Will respond as time is organized.

Yes, but He died as man, not as God. He didn't cease being God when He became man. Since being God implies having eternal existence, then Christ could not have ceased having an eternal existence without ceasing to be God. That how it seems to me, and seems to me to be what EGW is implying in the other quote (the divinity cannot die quote).

She says that the life with which He arose was in Himself, and that divinity could not die. It is the life that was in Himself, divine life (which she refers to as "divinity," in saying that divinity could not die) that could not die. The human life, which He obtained by conception, could expire just as with any other human being.

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.