God the Son
Posted By: Alpendave
God the Son - 12/17/05 02:36 AM
SDA Fundamental Belief #2:
2. The Trinity: There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)
SDA Fundamental Belief #4:
4.The Son: God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)
This thread is to discuss--from an Adventist perspective--the position of Jesus within the Godhead. What is meant by "Son" of God? Was there a time in the far reaches of eternity past when the Son did not exist as a person with an individuality distinct from the Father?
This topic is finding it's way into SDA dialogue more and more frequently and seems to be one which genders discord among brethren. What is the truth about the Divine Son of God?
[ December 16, 2005, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Dave Mullbock ]
Posted By: John H.
Re: God the Son - 12/19/05 03:09 AM
"In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived."
{DA 530.3}
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/19/05 05:01 AM
Sorry, this...
quote:
"In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived."
{DA 530.3}
...says nothing to the topic Dave has raised.
What about Jn 1:1b & Jn 1:14b regarding the Word of God as also begotten of God while being with God?
And Jn 5:19, and Phil 2:6 regarding submission to- and equality with God; with Col 2:9 Jesus as the (visible) bodily manifestation of divinity - the Godhead?
What does '"Son" of God' mean?
What if "begotten" has its plain meaning? Is this: quote:
Was there a time in the far reaches of eternity past when the Son did not exist as a person with an individuality distinct from the Father?
perhaps the wrong question? Since begotten is a Biblical word - validly disputed, now? - didn't the Word of God come from God and exist before proceeding from the Father's breast (Jn 8:42) - which verse expresses God's Fatherhood of Jesus & is more likely not limited to Bethlehem?
But, Dave, how do you want to clarify the Sonship of Jesus if our beliefs which you've quoted, don't accept Jesus Sonship as literal? How do we avoid a dead-end discussion here of literal or metaphorical, with no room for both?
Posted By: Alpendave
Re: God the Son - 12/19/05 07:41 AM
It seems that the quote that John provided implies -- from an Ellen White standpoint -- that Jesus did not derive His existence from the Father. Also, Micah 5:8 says that Jesus' goings forth have been "from everlasting" or "days of eternity". Also, referring to Himself as "I AM" in John 8:58 conveys the idea of self-existence.
If, however, we take the word "Son" in the absolute literal sense, we have no clear statement in the Bible of the Father bringing forth the Son outside of the context of the incarnation.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/19/05 05:42 PM
The DA 530 sentence makes Jesus' divinity unambiguous: it cannot be made to prove "underived life" means the Son is not begotten of the Father, since that is not the context - the context is his deity itself, and she never abandons Jesus as the begotten Son of God since before Bethlehem. In 8T 268 is a simple example of EGW placing the Son's begetting before Bethlehem: commenting on Heb 1:1-5 she writes
quote:
God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to his Son.
Jesus said to the Jews: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work....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...."
...That's Jn 5:19. She interprets Jesus as the literal, begotten Son of God before creation began, and Jesus, in Jn 5:19 was explaining his apprenticeship as Son of God - according to EGW. That she is placing the Son's begetting before creation is clear from her comments on Heb 1:1-5: "He has been made equal with the Father." Such did not happen after the incarnation.
His equality is 'first' stated in Patriarchs and Prophets in the story of Lucifer's fall, where the Father pronounced his Son's obvious equality in the presence of all the angels, for Lucifer's sake.
What of 'my' texts from earlier? And Jn 5:26 I didn't include, so it's coming in here. There is Scripture for Jesus' begottenness being before Bethelehem - we only teach post Bethlehem now because of interpreting it differently. Did EGW change her interpretation? - doesn't look like she did, does it...
[ December 19, 2005, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Colin ]
Posted By: Alpendave
Re: God the Son - 12/20/05 07:35 AM
I'd have to say, that is a very convincing quote. I'll have to take another look at the ones that refer to his self-existence.
Not that you are saying otherwise, but I don't think that such a begotten status would necessarily lessen His dignity as being God in the fullest and highest sense, which is what some in our denomination are saying.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/19/05 08:37 PM
Yes, Jesus' begotten Sonship doesn't lessen his divine dignity at all: shouldn't it be the basis of his equality with God? Alleging a lessened dignity is a modern phenomenon, isn't it, brought on by our scholars?
Jn 5:26 established self-existence for the Son of God by his own definition, doesn't it? If the Son's self-existence depends on not being begotten, then tritheism is unavoidable: tritheism is supposed to be avoided (acc. to the Handbook of SDA Theology) by the Godhead's Three Person's common purpose of creation and redemption making them 'unified' and so 'one God'. Sadly that's poor logic, as at least orthodox trinitarianism insists by accepting that the Son of God was only begotten before creation began....But that's adding to your topic, so we can come back to that unless you're already happy with my point.
I'll post later with some more EGW quotes, as I expect you will. What of those Bible texts?...
Posted By: Alpendave
Re: God the Son - 12/19/05 09:31 PM
Actually, what you have added is pertinent. The main issue I take with people is that most of the anti-trinitarian SDA's try to argue that Jesus' begotten status only makes Him divine and not God in the fullest sense. Still, I will have to look more into it.
One text I came upon last night on the full divinity of the Son was at the end of Acts Ch. 7 where it says that Stephen called upon God saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit".
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: God the Son - 12/19/05 09:32 PM
Well ... I don't know about all the egw quotes although I should!
What I do know is that God calls Jesus his Son and if the relationship is anything other than a literal relationship does it not bring into question everything else that he has told us?
Posted By: Alpendave
Re: God the Son - 12/19/05 09:38 PM
So how would you reconcile the previous quote on the Sonship of Jesus with these:
The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by him as his right. This was no robbery of God.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906, p. 8. {7ABC 440.3}
In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. {7ABC 440.4}
Here Christ shows them that, although 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.--The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899. {7ABC 440.5}
From all eternity Christ was united with the Father, and when He took upon Himself human nature, He was still one with God.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 2, 1905, p. 10.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/20/05 04:41 AM
quote:
The main issue I take with people is that most of the anti-trinitarian SDA's try to argue that Jesus' begotten status only makes Him divine and not God in the fullest sense.
Hopefully it's not as bad as you think. As the divine, begotten Son of God Jesus cannot be any less divine than his Father; to be less divine is obviously not to be divine at all.
There may be a subtle confusion caused by accurately labelling Jesus as God while the shorthand name of the Father is "God", too; with both of them in mind, Jesus can accurately be said 'not to be God' since his Father is [the] 'God' and Jesus is "God" (Jn 1:1) as descriptive of the genuine divinity the Son of God is: Jesus as God is liable to be misheard if understood as meaning the same person as his Father, God. It's obvious if one ponders John 1:1.
Stephens testimony mirrors Thomas' confession: "My Lord and my God."
To save space here I shan't quote the several quotes you supplied about Jesus' self-existence. There's no clash at all, surely, since what EGW enunciates is the self-existence of the "Son of God, from eternity". Indeed all the quotes describe the Son of God as existing from eternity - the title Son of God belongs only to the one mysteriously & literally begotten of the Father. This quote: "He...had been with God as one brought up with Him." (Signs, Aug. 29, 1900) is a cross reference to Christ as the wisdom of God of Prov 8:22, which is denied today.
What is really interesting about your quotes is that they all date after Desire of Ages was published in 1898. Our trinitarian position today is traced to that book, but her position on the Three Persons of the Godhead didn't change, with that book, to what we now teach as the trinity, as is clearly shown by these and many other quotes from her after her "switch" of DA 530. So, who's interpreting her correctly, or what other sources have our scholars used to establish our trinity doctrine? I thought that historical issue needed mentioning.
Which leaves the difference on Jesus' begotten Sonship between these Sister White's statements shared in this thread and the Handbook of SDA Theology, ie. the ABC vol.12: Vol.12 holds that Son and Father are not literal titles but merely to assist us in understanding a close relationship between them...That's no better than role playing titles??!...This abandonment of Jesus' begotten Sonship in favour of his "unique" Sonship is challenged by a thorough study of our church's literature and the Bible: Dave, you're already in favour of Jesus' Sonship being begotten?
Posted By: dedication
Re: God the Son - 12/23/05 06:31 AM
God's existance is "eternal presence" -- infinite.
To say there was a time when Christ was not, is essentially saying He is not God, for His would then not be that eternal presence, but an existence bestowed and limited in time.
If Christ is not God essentially and in the highest sense, if He is not self-existent and self-existing, then we have a savior who is not God IN HIMSELF, who owes his existence to another, who has had a beginning and may, therefore have an end.
What is Christ's CLAIM?
John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM".
The phrase "I AM" is an exclusive title of the Godhead and denotes eternal existence.
Jesus does not say I WAS, but I AM. Thereby He attributes to Himself, not a simple priority as related to Abraham, which would be compatible with the semi-Arian view of the Person of Christ, but He claims existence in the absolute, eternal, Divine order. .
Why did He not say, -- before Abraham was, I was, BUT I AM?
Because He uses this word, "I AM" as His Father uses it; for it signifies perpetual existence, independent of all time.
The Deity has no past or future, but a perpetual present, and therefore He uses the present tense, and says I AM. (The Faith of Jesus, by Andreasen page 21-23)
Ellen White writes concerning this:
[list]"With solemn dignity Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM." {DA 469.4}
Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as
His own by this Galilean Rabbi. 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." Micah 5:2, margin. {DA 469.5}
It was Christ who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses saying, [/b]"I AM THAT I AM.[/b] . . . Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Ex. 3:14.
This was the pledge of Israel's deliverance. So when He came "in the likeness of men," He declared Himself the I AM. The Child of Bethlehem, the meek and lowly Saviour, is God "manifest in the flesh." 1 Tim. 3:16..... I AM the assurance of every promise. I AM; be not afraid. "God with us" is the surety of our deliverance from sin, the assurance of our power to obey the law of heaven. {DA 24.3}
{14MR 21.2}
I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily. We know not what is before us, and if we did, it would not contribute to our eternal welfare. God gives us an opportunity to exercise faith and trust in the great I AM. {also in TMK 12.1}
{ST, October 10, 1900 par. 5}
Christ declared, "Before Abraham was, I am." By this declaration He laid open the resources of His infinite nature, imparting in His words assurance of peace and pardon for the guilty race.
Posted By: dedication
Re: God the Son - 12/23/05 07:03 AM
BEGOTTEN
We must remember that the word "monogenes" "ONLY BEGOTTEN" is used only nine times in scripture.
Five of those were written by John, and refer to Christ.
Hebrews uses the word ONCE -- Abraham's "only begotten" son. But Isaac was NOT Abraham's "only begotten" son. What about Ishmael -- his first born?
"The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of monogenes is this: it is a compound term, combining monos, meaning only, with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is gennasthai/gennao, to give birth, to beget. But note that this family of terms has two nu’s, νν, rather than a single nu, ν, found in monogenes. This indicates that the second term is not gennasthai/gennao but gignesthai/ginmai, and the noun form, genos. which means "type" "unique".
Therefore we see [b]monogenes as a strengthened form of monos, thereby translating it "alone," "unique," "incomparable."
Luke uses the word three times in the sense of an only child. (7:12; 8:42; 9:3
John uses it five times in reference to Christ as the only Son of God (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1John 4:9) John never uses it in any other way.
Hebrews uses it once in reference to Abraham offering Isaac. (Heb. 11:17)
Thus I would say the word's primary meaning seems to be "only or unique or very important" child it is never used for BIRTHING in scripture, there is another word for that as we see below.
The word "gennao" as found in Hebrews 1:7 "This day have I begotten thee" "Gennao" is the more common word. It is used 97 times and means to "give birth" "to convert" "make sons and daughters of God" .
In reference to Christ it is used --
Matt. 1:20 That which is "gennao" in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Matt. 2:1 Jesus was "gennao" in Bethlehem.
Luke 1:35 That which is "gennao" of thee shall be called the Son of God.
We need to be "gennao" again. John 3:3
"gennao" of the spirit, "gennao" of the flesh John 3:6
John 18:37 Jesus answered, for this "gennao" I was "gennao". (for this end I was born)
Acts 13:3 Promise fulfilled in our (Peter's) day... "Thou art my Son this day have I "gennao" thee. (See also Hebrews 1:5; 5:5)
1 Cor. 4:15 Paul says he has "gennao" his coverts.
1 John 3:9 He who is "gennao" of God does not continue in sin.
I did not list all the texts, but I do believe I covered every usuage of the word. There is nothing in any of the verses that even suggests that Christ was born in ages past. Everytime the word "gennao" was used concerning His birth it pointed to his literal birth as a human child.
Posted By: dedication
Re: God the Son - 12/23/05 07:31 AM
The plan of salvation was laid out before creation.
We know that Christ was "THE LAMB OF GOD" from the foundation of the earth. Yet, He didn't actually die upon the cross until a point in earth's time was reached.
God Himself is not limited to TIME -- the future and the present are all open to Him as "The present".
Now
Notice something:
A Messianic prophecy:
Psalms 2:7 "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
Peter tells us when it is fulfilled.
Acts 3:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
13:33 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.
See also Hebrews 1:5-6
So the prophecy is fulfilled in PETER'S DAY!
Yet, just like Christ is "THE LAMB OF GOD' from foundations of the earth --
So He is the SON OF GOD from the foundations of the earth.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/23/05 12:15 PM
Why, hello
dedication (bold to show your username
![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
), and welcome to this thread.
You've looked at this as much if not more than I have, but it's clearly you who have a problem with the plain words of Scripture and Ellen White; I don't have a problem with them.
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
See my SOP quote (below; but also) in my first post of the 19th, unless you've already read it. Ellen White was consistent in her understanding: there is no mention by her of "trinity" or Jesus not being the begotten Son of God before creation began. Just one of many examples:
quote:
it was the Son of God who came to the world in human form.
That was Review and Herald August 6th 1908, also 9T 67-68.
1908 is significant, because it's 10 years after her supposed declaration of trinitarianism - yet wording which we reject today: "the Son of God" didn't come to earth but was begotten of God in the incarnation since the doctrine today has "God the Son" before Bethlehem, and even then "Son" is not literal but a term of endearment, like "Father", for us to understand a close connection as we would imagine a family, but they're not a family. Such is the explanation in vol.12 ABC: Handbook of SDA Theology.
EGW also wrote in the Youth's Instructor in 1906 (I think; shall endeavour to find the reference) that with Bethlehem Jesus became Son of God "in a new sense". EGW definitely insisted on the Son being begotten of the Father before Bethlehem. ![[Cool]](images/icons/cool.gif)
Her view of Jesus' Sonship isn't what we believe today....
Your comments on Heb 1:1-5 are interesting, in that Sister White draws more from it than you allow....The reference to Ps 2:7 cannot be restricted to the resurrection, even by the Apostle Peter - or even for Bethlehem (by Adventists). Ellen White's comments on it, as quoted in my posts of the 19th, from 8T 268, take that Bible text, indeed Heb 1:1-5, back to "the beginning".... quote:
God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to his Son.
You read that as happening after the resurrection??...
The Son of God was begotten of God, born of the virgin Mary, and resurrected from the dead by his Father: that's at least two occasions for Ps 2:7 to be applied, as being God's actions alone. EGW didn't have a problem stating as much.
Patriarchs and Prophets reiterates this scenario in the chapter of Lucifer's fall, though the Father pronouncing his Son's divine equality before the heavenly host doesn't negate it already being true, as the context shows. Also the Son is portrayed as younger than the Father.
You point out Jn 18:37, and it clearly distinguishes Jesus' human birth - "born" - from the mysterious divine version before Bethlehem, which is a different Greek word, translated begotten, evidently.
"Begotten", in Scripture, is the nub of the matter, linguistically - well also theologically, eventually, for our beliefs, but you'll be aware that the Adventist preference for "unique" is up against 1900 years of Christian thought, including all our pioneers, and the Bible translations as well, when arguing on the basis of the 1 'n' of monogenes rather than 2 'nn's of gennao.
Primary meanings lose their clout or priority when a secondary meaning is known to be the correct one, from extra-canonical, Christian literature.
There are 2 schools of thought in Christiandom about monogenes, but the 'unique' camp can't resort to Strong's or Young's Concordances, since both render monogenes as begotten. An internet search brought up only two actual writers, Thayler, and Moulton, who give "unique" as the translation; there may be others, but they're a minority report. The most plausible compromise I've found is that monogenes may primarily mean "only, unique or very special" for humans, animals as well as inanimate objects, but a secondary meaning, for humans alone, is "begotten".
Why have the very latest translations of the Church Fathers' writings rendered monogenes as "begotten", and all the modern language translations before that have done the same. But there is proof of "begotten" in a contemporary translation of the Bible, before Nicaea, from Greek to Latin: a Celtic work...
Buchanen's "Sacred Latin Texts" (in the British Museum) includes the Irish Codex Harleianus, which, by its art, spelling and text is of Irish culure predating Patrick's days, dated to the 2nd century, thus earlier than mid-4th century (Jerome's Vulgate). It translates monogenes as unigenitus, not unicus: begotten, not unique.
The meaning of the Greek among the Greeks and Latin speakers was "begotten"! The traditional school of thought has a long track record, which doesn't bode well for current Adventist scholarship... ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif)
Fear not about the begotten Son of God suffering loss off equality with his Father. No Adventist ever suggested it, so your well-read & instinctive reaction is mis-informed. As much as is revealed is that the Word, also Wisdom, of God was begotten as the Son of God, having been in God's person all along. There was no beginning to the Word's actual existence, just physical individuality. No that is a mystery.
Jn 5:26 states it clearly enough that the Father's divine life is also inherent in his Son's divinity: it is not derived, since they share the same divinity, the life of which has never been taken from it and given to another.
The famous but misused Desire of Ages sentence on p.530 is taken from Sign of the Times about 2 years earlier where the contrast was between Jesus gifting us believers eternal life - which is his, original, unborrowed, underived,....as divinity, which life we do not have naturally! Her point has no relevance to nor does it detract from him being the begotten Son of God; she was dealing with the point that we are/have not a naturally immortal soul.
Phil 2:6 in the KJV states quote:
who, being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God
which clearly means that God's Son took his Father's divinity as his own and as his Father's rightful equal. (The NIV expressly excludes such a realisation - akin to Lucifer never tempting himself with equality...! - directly cancelling the second person of the Godhead.)
As for God being eternal and self-existent, a very significant point to ponder was raised by M L Andreason about God and eternity and time, in his book on prayer (I think). Since God created time, and he is transcendant to time - above it (of course), and thus nothing is equal to him, and everything was created by him - thus he is above everything and nothing is equal to him: what about eternity???.......
Is eternity part of the universe's creation, as a point of logical deduction, rather than trying to fit into the Bible story. ![[Reading]](graemlins/reading.gif)
Eternity cannot be equal to God, else God would not have created everything, and eternity would be equal to God; but, of course, nothing is equal to God.
What Andreason didn't go on to was how God is called eternal in the bible and yet is the Creator of eternity. Since God must be bigger than eternity, having created it along with "everything", God merely occupies eternity, but existed before it did. Hence, the "beginning" of Jn 1:1 is before eternity began.
Just a point of principle, not of human imagination, let alone comprehension.
Philippians 2 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/24/05 07:18 AM
Beg pardon?
Colin, if, as you seem to believe, there was a time when Jesus did not exist, how can you agree with inspiration that Jesus shares the title "everlasting father"?
Just provideing some context to the passage you quoted, a context which in my mind is saying exactly the opposite to what you was claiming. Jesus not taking divinity from the Father but surrendering it in order to become a human. God Father then giving Him back all the glory and majesty that was left.
(by the way, just wanting to point out that this difference cannot be blamed on the NIV as I quoted NKJV)
Could you also explain how what Dedication posted is in any conflict with the plain words of scripture?
I also found it facinating that you use suposedly trinitarian sources such as the church fathers to argue against the trinity. I for now suppose you know how this works out.
/Thomas
Posted By: Alpendave
Re: God the Son - 12/23/05 10:05 PM
Being begotten as the Son of Man did not negate His pre-existense. Perhaps being begotten as the Son of God does not negate His pre-existense to that event. Only so much is revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus has always existed and yet is somehow the eternal Son.
Jesus, as a man, stands at the head of the human race as alone the Son of God. Perhaps a similar situation as He is also Michael.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/24/05 01:01 AM
Wow, three responses at once, though only two questions
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Mullbock:
Being begotten as the Son of Man did not negate His pre-existense. Perhaps being begotten as the Son of God does not negate His pre-existense to that event. Only so much is revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus has always existed and yet is somehow the eternal Son.
Jesus, as a man, stands at the head of the human race as alone the Son of God. Perhaps a similar situation as He is also Michael.
That "eternal Son" you mean in a literal sense, then, given the rest of your first paragraph. Our doctrine uses the same wording, though rendering it non-literal with "God the eternal Son"....
Fascinating point you mention of Jesus as the true and only Son of God replacing the first Adam, a son of God. And, yes, "Michael" means "like God", doesn't it: but divine and therefore equal to God.
MM, you're inferring that I seem to think that the Son of God came into existent, but I never went that far. This isn't anywhere near it, from me...
quote:
As much as is revealed is that the Word, also Wisdom, of God was begotten as the Son of God, having been in God's person all along. There was no beginning to the Word's actual existence, just physical individuality. No that is a mystery
This concern we have with the Son's pre-existence and self-existence as God shouldn't burden us, since, as Dave has just posted, his divinity isn't at issue: it's his Sonship that's at issue.
"Everlasting Father" is a messianic title as new head of the human race, which is an everlasting title.
Thomas, Phil 2...your 'copy': quote:
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Verse 7 is the kenosis doctrine which you rightly drew out, but verse 6 is establishing Jesus attitude as deity, too, surely. "Being in the form of God" does refer to his divinity concealed by his humanity on earth, granted - "form" having that meaning as well, but this verse also refers to his heavenly experience of thus personally standing next to God while also appearing divine, but not holding it to be sin to be equal with God - which Lucifer did commit sin by wanting to do (it's in the chapter of Lucifer's fall in Pat.&Pr., where this equality was debated between Lucifer and God's Son). A mental realisation he had previously experienced and so knew by faith, on earth, was God's will.
Given the Bible's portrayal of Jesus' begotten, divine Sonship, this previous, heavenly experience is also covered by him "being in the form of God", since he is not God the Father and yet appears divine. Thus robbery is possible in both situations, but not applicable. Yet, Lucifer committed attempted robbery, and war broke out in heaven over equality.
Jesus' human mindset was modelled on his divine attitude - facilitated by God's Spirit, which recognised his divine equality with his Father, God, who himself knew it to be true. Check it out in that Pat.&Pr. chapter mentioned above.
The NIV text states "who didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped", which in the heavenly setting means he never had it, while Lucifer wouldn't have sinned had he taken God's counsel that equality wasn't within his grasp.
Such are the deeper insights of Scripture when one accepts that "God gave his only begotten Son".
I fear I shocked Dedication with that comment... ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif)
Apologies: I was paraphrasing the Adventist layman's challenge to Walter Veith over his problem with evolution, prior to Veith abandoning it. ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
Very simply she's not accepting the word "begotten" while it is printed in the Bible, nor is she accepting EGW's consistent teaching that Jesus is the eternal, literal Son of God.
The modern scholarship on "unique" for monogenes is flimsy if not mistaken, given "begotten"'s classical and consistent use in Bible translations into latin and modern languages. The traditional meaning has much more evidence for it, which is why it's in the Bible, today.
Posted By: dedication
Re: God the Son - 12/24/05 05:15 AM
Thank-you for the welcome! I've been a member here for some time, just haven’t posted that much.
Colin wrote:
-------------------------------------------------
"it was the Son of God who came to the world in human form." That was Review and Herald August 6th 1908, also 9T 67-68.
=========================
There's no question in the fact that Christ is called the Son of God.
The question is "what exactly does that mean"?
In the passage you referred to, EGW is talking about Kellogg's pantheistic concepts that renders the Godhead as permeating all nature. -- i.e. God is in the trees, in the air etc.
She wrote:
- Again and again we shall be called to meet the influence of men who are studying sciences of satanic origin, through which Satan is working to make a nonentity of God and of Christ. {9T 68.1}
The Father and the Son each have a personality. Christ declared: "I and My Father are one." Yet it was the Son of God who came to the world in human form. Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown, He clothed His divinity with humanity,
EGW never agreed with any doctrines on the Godhead that robbed the individual members (the three great powers, as she calls them) of their individuality. Yet, even here she includes the text "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE". Why did she include it here?
Could it be that she wanted to make it plain that while God and Christ each had their own personality, they were ONE God?
The passage is NOT asserting that Christ was "birthed" prior to being born in Bethlehem, (in fact you won't find an explicit statement like that anywhere in EGW's writings) rather it is asserting that Christ, and God were two distinct personages, yet ONE!
===================
Colin wrote:
"Son" is not literal but a term of endearment, like "Father", for us to understand a close connection as we would imagine a family, but they're not a family. Such is the explanation in vol.12 ABC: Handbook of SDA Theology.
====================
I'm really not here to defend any handbook.
I tried to address that point in my post #3 on this thread.
We know that Christ was "THE LAMB OF GOD" from the foundation of the earth. Yet, He didn't actually die upon the cross until a point in earth's time was reached.
God Himself is not limited to TIME -- the future and the present are all open to Him as "The present".
Thus, in the same way that Christ was the LAMB OF GOD, slain from the foundation of the world, (Rev. 13:8) so He is the Son of God from the foundation of the world.
Jesus became the "Son of God" at the head of the human race, just as Adam was "the son of God" (Luke 3:38) standing at the head of the human race. BUT Adam sold out his dominion over the earth, there in Eden. Christ, the Son of God and the Son of man, came to redeem that lost inheritance. And in Daniel 7:13-14 we see the Son of man being brought before the celestial court of heaven and given the dominion and the kingdom! And through Him the "saints" are given back the last dominion!
Yet, Christ is FAR GREATER than Adam --
John 1:1 tells us, not only was He with God, He was God!
====================
EGW also wrote in the Youth's Instructor in 1906 (I think; shall endeavor to find the reference) that with Bethlehem Jesus became Son of God "in a new sense".
====================
- In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. Said the angel to Mary, "The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense. Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race. {1SM 226.2}
What could that "new sense" be?
Could it be that now IT WAS A LITERAL BIRTH, and previously it was not.
=========================
Colin wrote:
EGW definitely insisted on the Son being begotten of the Father before Bethlehem. Her view of Jesus' Sonship isn't what we believe today....
=========================
Where?
Yes, she uses the phrase in the same way the Bible uses it --
"God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son."
But I haven’t read in her writings any specific comment that there was a time when Christ was not, --that there was a heavenly birth, and Christ was born prior to creation.
She does make several comments that Christ is infinite and eternal, with God the Father from all eternity.
- YI.1900-06-21.002
Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son.
RH April 5, 1906, p. 8
Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.
===========================
Colin writes:
Your comments on Heb 1:1-5 are interesting, in that Sister White draws more from it than you allow....The reference to Ps 2:7 cannot be restricted to the resurrection, even by the Apostle Peter - or even for Bethlehem (by Adventists). Ellen White's comments on it, as quoted in my posts of the 19th, from 8T 268, take that Bible text, indeed Heb 1:1-5, back to "the beginning"....
The quote:
- God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to his Son.
You read that as happening after the resurrection??...
=================================
Yes!
Hebrews chapter one shows Christ's re-entry into the heavenly realms after His life/sacrifice/resurrection on earth.
- Hebrews 1:3 "When he (Jesus) had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"
When did He do that? Yes, after the resurrection!
- Hebs 10.12
This man, (Jesus) after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
And yes when Christ returned to heaven, still bearing His glorified human form, HE WAS EXALTED!
- Heb. 2.9
Now, we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Phil. 2:6 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"
===================
Colin wrote:
Also the Son is portrayed as younger than the Father.
====================
But--
Infinity has no age.
We must go back to Christ's claim of being "I AM" in John 8:58
The grammatical structure of Christ's claim, sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, but the present tense of the "I AM" predicates absolute existence for the person of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all.
This is why Jesus does ot use the imperfect tense "I was" for this would say only that the existence of the person of Jesus antedates the time of Abraham and would leave open the question as to whether Christ Himself had a beginning at some point.
BUT WHAT JESUS declares is the "I AM" which is independent of any beginning or end. Thus with the simple words Jesus testifies to the divine, eternal pre-existence of his person.
It is the title God claimed as His back in Exodus 3 -- it is a name emphasizing "his infinite nature".
Infinity is not measured by “how old”.
==================
Colin gives an interesting history—here’s just a snippet of it:
Why have the very latest translations of the Church Fathers' writings rendered monogenes as "begotten", and all the modern language translations before that have done the same.
=======================
Actually the "church fathers" -- if I'm not mistaken, came up with the "eternal generating" theory. So they used a word to support their theory.
Yet the theory that Christ is eternally generated by the Father goes totally against what we believe and is refuted by EGW --
- "He is the eternal self-existing Son," (YI June 21, 1900). {5BC 1136.12}
"the life of Christ was unborrowed. ... In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.(ST Feb. 13, 1912). {5BC 1130.3}
So I'm not so sure we should count on them to come up with the right meaning.
Posted By: dedication
Re: God the Son - 12/24/05 06:05 AM
=============
Colin writes:
Fear not about the begotten Son of God suffering loss off equality with his Father. No Adventist ever suggested it, so your well-read & instinctive reaction is mis-informed.
=============
My first comment however is not satisfied by your “assurance” for:
The great attribute of God is His "eternal presence" – infinity.
A pro-created Being is restricted to time and is lacking the eternal essence of Godhood.
And to take away His individuality and place Christ as only an attribute of God within God's mind to justify His claim of infinity, is boardering on theories that come from Gnosticism.
To say there was a time when Christ was not, is essentially saying He is not God, for His would then not be that eternal self-existing presence, but an existence that was not self-existing at all, but finally bestowed and limited in time.
==============
Colin writes:
As much as is revealed is that the Word, also Wisdom, of God was begotten as the Son of God, having been in God's person all along. There was no beginning to the Word's actual existence, just physical individuality. No that is a mystery.
===============
I have a major problem with that theory.
Firstly – Solomon is using “Personification” and is depicting “wisdom” as a woman. Personification is the representation of an abstraction as a person or by human form, (examples: kindness reached out her gentle hands and melted his heart) OR personification can mean the embodiment of an abstraction (a man who personified kindness).” (See Webster’s dictionary)
The deduction that since Christ is the personification of WISDOM, (as well as all the other attributes of God) that this means Proverbs is defining Christ’s origin before the incarnation, is a faulty deduction.
Proverbs personifies the attribute of WISDOM as a woman.
It is correct to say that Christ is the personification of WISDOM, (as well as all the other attributes of God)
But to say WISDOM is literally CHRIST, is not correct.
For instance, was Christ NOT AN INDIVIDUAL at creation?
Proverbs 8 says that when God prepared the heavens, Wisdom was there.
“When God put the water systems in place, Wisdom was there.
The creation of all things shows the wonderful wisdom of God.
God delights in wisdom and understanding, truth and uprightness.”
We know from scripture that Christ was not just a spectator at Creation, for John tells us that:
The Word [Jesus] was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)
One of EGW’s BIGGEST concerns in understanding the Godhead, was that we NOT remove the individuality of the members of the Godhead. It appears this theory does remove Christ’s individuality and makes Him merely an attribute of God the Father.
Actually the above reasoning is very much in line with Greek thought. In Greek philosophy their term LOGOS, or “word” also meant “sense of reason” or “thought immanent in the supreme Godhead”. Platonic theorizing had developed quite a philosophy along these lines of the One transcended God, “Divine idea of all ideas”, the archetype of the universe, and the revelation or forthcoming, the clothing of thought, the manifestation of reason personified in the “bringing forth“ of “demiurges“. It was through these “demiurges” that the ideas from the mind of God were created into “matter” which of course the Gnostics considered as “evil” and the great God could not “soil himself” with this matter, so from His mind He projected agents, the Logos, etc. to do this work for Him.
This Greek philosophy was the “in” way of thinking back in the first centuries and we see their line of reasoning emanating from the schools of higher thought, especially from Alexandria were Gnosticism was strong.
John, however, begins his gospel with an emphatic declaration that Christ, The Word, is an absolute Eternal Being. In the beginning the Word was there. He does not say “in the beginning the Word was brought forth”. No, In the Beginning the Word WAS!
If being in someone’s thoughts means "we are in existence" would this not move us into the "spiritualistic" concepts that we are also eternal?
The Lord said to Jeremiah, “ Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you. Jer. 1.5
God knew all of us before Creation. The breath of Life which was breathed into Adam is the breath of life in us all. Therefore are we to conclude that we are all eternal?
No, this type of reasoning is simply seeking to justify the rejection of all the quotes that say Christ is eternal. But by doing so he throws into question not only the clear statements that Christ is eternal, but the whole concept of eternal existence.
If Christ is not eternal as a "self-existing" Being, and to live eternally is only a mythical existance without personality, which can mean we are only on someone's mind, how can we even be sure that there is actual everlasting life in the future---?
Posted By: dedication
Re: God the Son - 12/24/05 06:20 AM
In Hebrew, the word “son” in addition to the human “literal” sense, has the spiritual meaning of “moral kinship.”
So we see scripture asserting that all who believe God as Abraham did , are the true sons of Abraham. We have Paul calling Timothy his son, etc. We have Paul saying he has “begotten” fellow believers , who are now his sons, through the gospel . (1 Cor. 4:15)
The spiritual meaning was not dependant upon physical, literal reality. Thus, when Jesus announced He was the Son of God, they immediately recognized that as a claim to being God.
“John 10.33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. “
Greek thought, however, tended to give the word “son” the meaning of being “derived”. In what sense, then, they would ask, did Jesus derive His being from God? And this question did not relate primarily to His coming into the world as a man, but to His eternal being,
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 12/24/05 07:04 AM
quote:
MM, you're inferring that I seem to think that the Son of God came into existent, but I never went that far. This isn't anywhere near it, from me.
I think I'm with you, given this clarification. That Jesus is the Son of God is very clear in Scripture. This Sonship cannot be refering to only Christ's incarnation. That just doesn't make any sense.
The most beloved of verse tells us God so loved the world He gave His Son. This is telling us that God gave us a gift of inestimable value. That this Sonship would be referring only to the relationship God had with Jesus for thirty-three years would be selling far short what the gift encompasses.
As far as Jesus never having equality with God in a heavenly setting, I don't see how you can reason that from the kenosis, which is dealing with what Christ gave up in becoming human. The point seems to be that if Jesus did count equality with God a thing to be grasped, He would not have come to earth, implying that He gave up something to come here.
Colin, you seem to be implying that the expression "only begotten Son of God" means Jesus is somehow lesser than the Father. You also seem to be unwilling to say Jesus is God in the same sense the Father is God.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/25/05 12:02 AM
No
... Was your question from my comments on "did not count it robbery to be equal with God"? Equality isn't challenged here, but affirmed, also in my comments on it. As for Jesus being divine in the same sense as the Father, I was affirming this but pointing out that the Father is called 'God' while Jesus needs to be understood as a different individual when termed "God" as well. John 1:1 clearly distinguished the God and the Word, and "the Word was God" is equally translatable as "the Word was divine" - indicating same quality of divinity as God has, but being a different person. Same divinity, but not one person as 'God'.
Posted By: Alpendave
Re: God the Son - 12/25/05 11:20 PM
What is implied by translating John 1:1 as "and the Word was divine" does the text an injustice. By writing the clause "kai theos ein ho logos" John's intent was to emphasize that, while Jesus was a distinct person from the Father, He was God in the same sense that the Father was.
If it read "kai ho logos ein theos", then the mere "the Word was divine" would be appropriate.
If it read "kai ho logos ein ho theos", the it would mean that Jesus and the Father are one and the same person.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/26/05 05:43 AM
Dave, despite our increasing agreement on this topic, you do
me and injustice with
quote:
What is implied by translating John 1:1 as "and the Word was divine" does the text an injustice. By writing the clause "kai theos ein ho logos" John's intent was to emphasize that, while Jesus was a distinct person from the Father, He was God in the same sense that the Father was.
...since I wrote quote:
John 1:1 clearly distinguished the God and the Word, and "the Word was God" is equally translatable as "the Word was divine" - indicating same quality of divinity as God has, but being a different person. Same divinity, but not one person as 'God'.
We look like we're talking passed each other while agreeing; yet, you suggest I differ.
I understand the Greek clause variations you posted, but my suggestion was per the comment from a pastor I personally received about how the text shows the Word to be divine while not the same person as God but yet himself with the full identity and status as God. Whether putting "theos" at the end of the clause would make a difference in the English wording is another matter. Given the need to differentiate between God and Jesus, describing Jesus as divine makes no difference in England to the theological point.
So, we actually agree... ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 12/27/05 07:38 AM
I agree with Colin on the point of usage of "God". That is, we are used to speaking of "God the Father, God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit." But as far as I aware, these expressions are not found in either Scripture nor the Spirit of Prophecy. "God" is reserved to refer to the Father alone, again as far as I'm aware. If anyone has any texts that say otherwise, I would like to see that. Given the dozens times the New Testament uses the formulation "God" and "the Lord Jesus Christ", I don't think it's right to take one text and give it a different usage then what we see elsewhere.
Especially I'd be interested in seeing if there are any statements in the Spirit of Prophecy which refer to Jesus as "God".
At any rate, we mean exactly the same thing ("we" being those holding to the trinity-type view) whether we say Christ is "divine" or Christ is "God". We are saying He has all the attributes of God, not that He is God the Father. Among the attributes of God is being self-existent and without beginning.
Posted By: Alpendave
Re: God the Son - 12/26/05 08:35 PM
Oops. Look like I need to pay closure attention to what I read. Sorry Colin. It looks like I agree with you by what you mean by saying Jesus is divine. I was discussing this matter on the Amazing Discoveries message board where those holding anti-trinitarian positions used the "and the Word was divine" argument to show that Jesus is not in fact the Almighty God, equal to the Father.
The main point I was making with the Greek of John 1:1 is that it does not allow for either Arianism or Sabelianism.
Posted By: Alpendave
Re: God the Son - 12/26/05 08:41 PM
Tom, if you want a rock solid text that refers to Jesus as God, read the 25th chapter of Isaiah. You could also read the 50th Psalm. In fact, John the Baptist's ministry was to "make straight in the desert a highway for our God". There are many more OT references to Jesus as God. In the NT we have John 1:1, Thomas' confession. In fact, when it talks about the coming of "the great God and our Saviour..." the Greek allows for the reading "our great God and Saviour".
According to SDA Beliefs, Jesus is God is the same sense the Father is God. God is a word that includes the Father, Son, and Spirit. Godhead is probably a better word. God is a unity of three eternal, equal and divine Beings. The word God is plural or aggregate.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 12/27/05 08:39 PM
I was dealing with the New Testament. The Old Testament doesn't distinguish between the members of the Godhead so clearly as the New. Jesus is referred to as Jehovah in the Old, which is a good argument in and of itself IMO as to His divinity and eternal self-existance.
But back to the other point, the word "God" as it is used in the New Testament is by a huge majority of texts used to refer to the Father. There is the text in John 1:1, and also the text where Thomas says, "My Lord and my God" as exceptions which come to mind.
We use phrases such as "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit", but I'm not aware of these expressions being used in the Spirit of Prophecy.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 12/27/05 08:41 PM
quote:
According to SDA Beliefs, Jesus is God is the same sense the Father is God. God is a word that includes the Father, Son, and Spirit. Godhead is probably a better word. God is a unity of three eternal, equal and divine Beings. The word God is plural or aggregate.
It's true that what you have described is how we commonly use the word "God", but is this Scriptural? I don't think so. That is, "God" does not refer to multiple beings, but just One. If there are exceptions to this, I'd be interested in seeing them. Also in the Spirit of Prophecy, she doesn't use phrases like "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit."
I think these are largely semantical issues.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/27/05 09:59 PM
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 12/27/05 10:18 PM
I just don't find the argument that Jesus Christ did not exist from all eternity or that the Holy Spirit isn't a being because God the Father is called "God" to be very convincing (although I'm not sure what your take on Jesus being pre-existent is -- you seemed to indicate you weren't saying He wasn't, but I'm not clear on this point).
Also the basis of salvation comment eludes me. If Christ did or did not exist at some point in time which is so long ago that I can't conceive of it, how would that involve my salvation? Actually I can think of some implications to God's character if that were true (that there was a time when Christ did not exist), but they aren't positive ones.
How does viewing the Holy Spirit as a "person" but not a being contribute to my salvation?
The issues I see as crucial are ones having to do with God's character; specifically, is it really true that God is just like Jesus Christ? Does God resort to force if other means fail? Is He arbitrary? Does faith in Christ save us from sin, or from God? These are the types of questions I see as crucial.
So if things are as you see them, as opposed to how I seem them, how is that crucial to salvation? Please dot the i's and cross the t's for me.
To be clear what I believe:
1)Jesus Christ is the begotten Son of God from the days of eternity.
2)There was never a time when He did not exist.
3)The Holy Spirit is a person in the ordinary sense of the word, meaning an individual who is able to act independently.
Thanks Colin!
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 12/30/05 12:05 PM
quote:
I just don't find the argument that Jesus Christ did not exist from all eternity or that the Holy Spirit isn't a being because God the Father is called "God" to be very convincing (although I'm not sure what your take on Jesus being pre-existent is -- you seemed to indicate you weren't saying He wasn't, but I'm not clear on this point).
Ah, well, I don't recall what's gone before on that, but I agree with Jn 1:1 as well as Jn 3:16 and Jn 5:19,26: which add up to what you put as your understanding, of the only begotten Son of God from eternity.
The only issue I see as coming from the Father's nickname of "God" is that "Godhead" rightly and properly refers to the divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while the latter two have descriptive words - as in the Bible - as standard: "-of God", as in Spirit- and Son-....As was mentioned elsewhere here recently, EGW herself never spoke of 'God the Son' or of the Spirit in that fashion.
quote:
Also the basis of salvation comment eludes me. If Christ did or did not exist at some point in time which is so long ago that I can't conceive of it, how would that involve my salvation?
That was a deep point which I threw in - I'm sorry, but consider this. In our trinity doctrine, we now officially deny that the Son is literally Son of God before bethlehem, having formally abandoned "begotten" being attributed to his divinity. With no literal, divine Son, but one who is absolutely God alongside the Father - instead of his Father being "the only true God" and Jn 5:26 being true, how can he have power to lay down his life?? - he's irretrievably immortal, incarnated or not, isn't he.... He's not able to die, even by any mortal means, since his divine life isn't flexible like he himself said he would lay it down. But, while this just challenges the sacrifice of the Lamb of God....
The danger of the trinity doctrine (which, among us at least has produced these convoluted titles, like "God the Holy Spirit") is this doctrine's ability, also among us, to define God as constituted by Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus divinity isn't so much the nature which each possesses, but is the 3 persons themselves: God is rendered a divine trinity whose 3 persons are collectively God but not individually divine in their own right without the others. Our newest big book of beliefs (i.e. ABC vol.12) states that the so-called Father/Son relationship before Bethlehem is "an ongoing one between them as constitutive of the very nature of God" (p.125). This at least blurs the line between them sharing one divine naure, and divinity defined by their twosome, or threesome with the Spirit. The problem with the very nature of God consisting of three persons is that, with the death of the Son on Calvary's tree, the nature of God was summarily destroyed. Check last quarter's SS lesson's explanation of the death of Christ, where it followed this false understanding of divine nature: "The Godhead was sundered." EGW wrote "the great Powers of heaven were sundered", which isn't based on the same premise at all.
As for the Spirit's personality, our big book now excludes the Spirit literally proceeding from God to us as his representative, but has him merely finding 2nd gear with the beginning of the Christian era. While the Spirit constituting divinity with Father and Son rather than separately, is mentioned above, the Spirit's divine personality even in a non-trinitarian framework has to be as the presence of Father and Son and not his own presence. This is actually granted by our newest big book, but our book doesn't adequately base the Spirit in the divinity of Father or Son, but the Spirit on its own. This goes to the validity of the Spirit's divinity in God's creatorship and as the 3rd person, but it directly affects its facilitation of the incarnation, etc.
For the Godhead to include three persons and save us from sin the Son and Holy Spirit must be linked to the Father's divine nature, so that the Son may actually lay down his life once taking mortal flesh.
Does that help?
[ December 30, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Colin ]
I see God and divinity as two different aspects of the Trinity doctrine. Just like the word "man" includes the husband and wife, the word "God" includes the Father, Son, and Spirit. In the same way men and women are human, the Father, Son, and Spirit are divine. There is no compromise or contradiction.
If there was a time when Jesus did not exist there was a time, then, when our salvation did not exist. However, the fact our salvation is eternal is just one more proof that Jesus is also eternal. If there was a time when Jesus did not exist there was a time, then, when He did not qualify to be our Saviour.
The reason why Jesus is qualified to be our Saviour, and not an angel or some other non-eternal being, is due in part to the fact He is eternal. Only members of the Godhead are eternal, therefore, Jesus, who is eternal, is a member of the Godhead- by virtue of the fact He is eternal.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 12/31/05 07:58 AM
Yes, in answer to if this helps. The whole conversation is helpful.
I'm sure the theologians that put the statements together which we parse do not see things eye to eye, so I can't accept the premise that we have a view in the sense that the Catholics do. In the past we have been very careful not to go beyond what the Scriptures say, and pretty much just repeat that, which was prudent, I think. But just because some dude gets to right some thing about what he thinks and pass it off as "official" in no way implies that that's what Seventh-day Adventists believe. Well this is just a passing rant.
Ok, back to the issue at hand. I believe it was just as possible for the Father to have come to earth and done what the Son did, and believe there is a statement from the Spirit of Prophecy which implies this. She says something along the lines that had the Father come here and the Son stayed, nothing would have been different, which implies to my mind that this is something which could have happened. I believe it was just as possible for the Father to have been incarnate as the Son, and had the Father become flesh, then He could have laid down His life just like the Son did.
I believe Christ is the Son of God from eternity, but that we a mistake if we assume "Son" must mean to God what it means to us. That is, we only know sonship by means of procreation. So for us "begotten Son" means that Christ was somehow procreated. That's the only frame of reference that we have. I don't think God is trying to communicate to us that He somehow procreated Christ, but rather is communicating to us as best He can what sort of relationship He has with Jesus Christ. The purpose in doing this is to reveal His character. By better understanding Their relationship, we can better understand the quality of the gift that God gave us in giving us His Son, and by better understanding the quality of the gift (which is that God gave that which was best and dearest to Him, as our favorite or only child would be to us) we can better understand Him.
I understand that before space/time was created, there was no need for Christ to proceed from the Father (and I recognize the inherent paradox of speaking of "before time," but time is something which had to be created at some point, just like space). For Christ to proceed from the Father was a necessity in order for God to communicate with us. Someone had to assume that responsibility, and the Godhead decided it would be Christ to do that. So Christ proceeded from the Father to be His representative to creation.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: God the Son - 12/31/05 05:07 AM
Here is an EGW quote appropriate to this topic
quote:
Let People Know Our Position.--Our policy is, Do not make prominent the objectionable features of our faith, which strike most decidedly against the practices and customs of the people, until the Lord shall give the people a fair chance to know that we are believers in Christ, that we do believe in the divinity of Christ, and in His pre-existence.--Testimonies to Ministers, p. 253. (1895) {Ev 613.2}
EGW clearly believes in the divinity of Christ and in His pre-existence.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: God the Son - 12/31/05 05:13 AM
Here is another interesting EGW quote:
[quote]
With the Father at Sinai.--When they [Israel] came to Sinai, He took occasion to refresh their minds in regard to His requirements. Christ and the Father, standing side by side upon the mount, with solemn majesty proclaimed the Ten Commandments.--Historical Sketches, p. 231. (1866) {Ev 616.3} p/quote]
Christ and the Father standing together side by side at Sinai. Sounds like two divine beings to me.
Posted By: Dr.Glenn
Re: God the Son - 12/31/05 05:36 AM
Quote: "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life within himself". John 5:26.
If there were always two beings (Father and Son) and the Son was not literally born or begotten from the Father and each always had "life within himself", why did the Father give the Son "life within himself"?
Posted By: van
Re: God the Son - 12/31/05 06:20 PM
Is not the phrase "son of God" attributal to Adam and those from other worlds? (Job 1:6) In Job chapter 1 Satan comes representing the earth having wrested the lordship over it from Adam. Scroll down several centuries to the time of Christ. As "Son of God" He redeems that which Adam lost. Jesus became a Son like Adam in that he was made a human.
My point in all this is that Jesus voluntarily accepted to condescend to humanity through the "begotten" experience. Using the phrase "only begotten Son" or any thing similar is simply a way to express His condesension, the willingness to forsake the infinite for the finite, all the while not abandoning the divine. This is the mystery of God becoming man, something we marvel at now and see very dimly, but something we will study throurghout eternity.
Our use of "begotten Son of God" should be used in the same context as "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Jesus has always been the Son of God because the plan of redemption has always been. It is simply human language attempting to describe the most amazing miracle that has ever occurred in the universe.
Dr. Glen, if there was a time when Jesus did not exist there was a time, then, when our Saviour and salvation did not exist. Since our salvation is as eternal as the Godhead, since our salvation is in Jesus it stands to reason, therefore, that Jesus is eternal.
The insight that God gave Jesus life within Himself is a truth that must be understood in the context of Jesus' eternal pre-existence. Since it cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not eternal it must, consequently, mean something else.
As Van pointed out (welcome to MSDAOL, Van), the title Son of God applies to Jesus because He became a human being. Whatever will be, in the case of the Godhead, is true from all eternity. As such, Jesus is the eternal Son of God, not because there was a time when He did not exist, which doesn't even make sense - but because He was born of Mary.
He is the eternal Son of God, the eternal Son of Man. He is these things because He is a member of the eternal Godhead. Yes, Jesus is the eternal Son of Man. For the same reasons He is the eternal Son of God, Jesus is also the eternal Son of Man. Jesus has been the Son of man from all eternity. Why? Because whatever will be is true of Jesus from all eternity. That's the nature of eternal Beings.
During the time Jesus was a human on earth He lived His life with sinful flesh nature. He set aside His own personal divinity, except in a few cases, and lived life as a born again believer. Nevertheless, God gave Jesus permission to have life within Himself, which He used to resurrect others and Himself.
This insight cannot be forced to mean Jesus isn't eternal or that His life was borrowed or begotten. Jesus' eternal pre-existence is established, therefore, this insight must be understood in the context of the truth. God allowing Jesus to have life within Himself simply means He had the authority to use His life to heal and resurrect others and Himself.
That is, He wasn't required to set aside His life and to use the life of His Father to do those particular things. But when it came to overcoming temptation, Jesus was required to trust in His Father's power in the same way we are. However, this insight does not suggest that Jesus was, prior to His incarnation, unable to overcome in His own strength.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/01/06 06:24 AM
quote:
Dr. Glen, if there was a time when Jesus did not exist there was a time, then, when our Saviour and salvation did not exist.
This is wierd reasoning. Let's continue on with it. Given there was always a Savior and salvation, it must follow that there wasn't a time when we didn't exist, since how could we be saved without existing? Therefore we have always existed, and are as eternal as Christ.
Not a very convincing argument.
quote:
Since our salvation is as eternal as the Godhead, since our salvation is in Jesus it stands to reason, therefore, that Jesus is eternal.
And by the same reasoning (or lack of reasoning) we are eternal too.
quote:
The insight that God gave Jesus life within Himself is a truth that must be understood in the context of Jesus' eternal pre-existence.
Why? You're just assuming your conclusion. You are postulating that something you believe to be true must be true. That's not how logic works. You don't assume your conclusion. You assume some hypothesis that whoever you are addressing will accept as true, and reason from there.
quote:
Since it cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not eternal it must, consequently, mean something else.
Here again, you're just assuming your conclusion. "Since what I believe must be true, it must be true."
quote:
As Van pointed out (welcome to MSDAOL, Van), the title Son of God applies to Jesus because He became a human being.
How then does the Spirit of Prophecy refer to Him as the Son of God before He was incarnate? Also, I don't see how it makes any sense to think that Jesus became the Son of God when He was incarnate. If one becomes a son of God that way, then we are all sons of God (and indeed we are, but not the same way Jesus was).
quote:
Whatever will be, in the case of the Godhead, is true from all eternity. As such, Jesus is the eternal Son of God, not because there was a time when He did not exist, which doesn't even make sense - but because He was born of Mary.
This is self-contradictory it appears to me. You argue on the one hand that what is true for the Godhead must be true from all eternity, and then argue on the other that Jesus is the eternal Son of God because He was born of Mary. ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
Being born of Mary is a temporal event, not something that happened from eternity.
quote:
He is the eternal Son of God, the eternal Son of Man. He is these things because He is a member of the eternal Godhead. Yes, Jesus is the eternal Son of Man.
He's the eternal Son of Man going forward, but not backwards. He didn't become a man until around 2,000 years ago. He has not been a man from all eternity.
quote:
For the same reasons He is the eternal Son of God, Jesus is also the eternal Son of Man.
No, there are two different reasons involved. The reason He is the eternal Son of God is because that's what He is by nature. The reason He is the Son of Man is because He became a man by being born into the race. There is nothing Christ could have done to not be the Son of God, but He could have avoided being the Son of Man. He could have chosen not to come to save us, and in this case He would not have been the Son of Man, but He would have been the Son of God.
quote:
Jesus has been the Son of man from all eternity. Why? Because whatever will be is true of Jesus from all eternity. That's the nature of eternal Beings.
This sounds like Greek philosophy, of the type Catholics use. For example, they use the exact reasoning you are suggesting to argue that Christ is eternally dying, and so they have crucifixes with Christ still on the cross. We, as Protestants, do not believe this.
quote:
During the time Jesus was a human on earth He lived His life with sinful flesh nature. He set aside His own personal divinity, except in a few cases, and lived life as a born again believer. Nevertheless, God gave Jesus permission to have life within Himself, which He used to resurrect others and Himself.
This insight cannot be forced to mean Jesus isn't eternal or that His life was borrowed or begotten. Jesus' eternal pre-existence is established, therefore, this insight must be understood in the context of the truth.
This is just circular reasoning once again. You are simply assuming your conclusion. WHY can't this insight be used to reason to the conclusion you disagree with? You can't just state it can't be the case because you disagree with the conclusion and assume it's true. That's not the way to construct an argument. You need to pick a hyposthesis that the one you are addressing (in this case, Dr. Glen) aggrees with, and argue from that premis to the conclusion you are trying to prove. Either that or start with a premis he is starting with, and reason from that the conclusion he arrives at does not logically follow from that conclusion. You are not doing that, or even attempting to do that. You are simply stating as fact that what you believe is true without adducing any evidence as to why.
quote:
God allowing Jesus to have life within Himself simply means He had the authority to use His life to heal and resurrect others and Himself.
That is, He wasn't required to set aside His life and to use the life of His Father to do those particular things. But when it came to overcoming temptation, Jesus was required to trust in His Father's power in the same way we are. However, this insight does not suggest that Jesus was, prior to His incarnation, unable to overcome in His own strength.
This is an interesting interpretation of the passage in John 5. I like it.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/01/06 06:29 AM
quote:
My point in all this is that Jesus voluntarily accepted to condescend to humanity through the "begotten" experience. Using the phrase "only begotten Son" or any thing similar is simply a way to express His condesension, the willingness to forsake the infinite for the finite, all the while not abandoning the divine.
Where is there any evidence, either from Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, that this is the case? That is, where does inspiration state that Jesus became the Son of God, or was begotten, when He became incarnate?
Several passages from the Spirit of Prophecy have been cited showing that Jesus was the Son of God before He was incarnate. What of these?
Consider John 3:16. God so loved the world He gave His Son. If Jesus became a Son only when He was incarnate, then God could not have given Him until that point. The verse would have to read something like "God so loved the world, He gave what would become His only begotten Son ..." In order for God to give Christ as His only begotten Son, He would have to have been such before He was given, or else God would be giving His only begotten Son, but rather something else.
Posted By: D R
Re: God the Son - 01/01/06 09:29 AM
MM your reasoning is NOT contradictory to the beliefs of the SDA church (as far as my small brain understands) BUT Tom seams to be in contradiction to the word and the SDA teachings, so Tom are you saying that the SDA church is in error with its' understanding of the "Godhead"? Since we Baptize into Christ and the SDA Church in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
Posted By: Dr.Glenn
Re: God the Son - 01/01/06 11:11 AM
Dear Van and Mountain Man:
I never said that the only begotten Son of God is not eternal. I believe that he was begotten from the Father in ages past in time which is so far back that it cannot be calculated by man. The divine Son of God came out of the Father. The Father is eternal and what ever is begotten out of him is also eternal. To say that the only begotten Son is not eternal is to say that the Father is not eternal. The trinity doctrine says that He was not begotten until he was born of Mary and therefore not in the express image of the father's person until He was born in the manger here on earth.
Are you all confused about the different categories of the term "Son of God"?
E.G. White says: "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 are 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." ST May 30, 1895, par 3.
Posted By: van
Re: God the Son - 01/01/06 05:29 PM
Tom (and others),
Texts that I would draw upon are Psalm 2:7 (Acts 13:33), John 1:14, Hebrews 1:5, 6, Hebrews 5:5.
My reasoning goes like this:
1. Begotten means to bring into being. As divine, Christ's being is eternal having always been. On the other hand, Christ was begotten when He was brought into human being.
2. As Adam, and all the rest of us, were brought into human beings as God's sons and daughters so was Christ, as His only begotten, or first begotten.
3. As Micheal was the chief messenger to the angels of God's love, so Christ is the number one human to show God's love to humanity. Christ is the only begotten of the Father in that He is the "express image" of the Father's love.
Therefore, Christ's hmanity had a beginning. His divinity did not. It is eternal and equal to the member of the Godhead we indentify as Father. Through this great expression of the Father's love we can call Christ our brother.
Tom, there is nothing faulty about understanding difficult insights using plainly understood ones to guide us. For example, because the Bible is so clear about soul sleep we can, with all integrity, interpret the few difficult passages in light of the plain ones. Similarly, since the Bible and the SOP are so clear concerning the eternal pre-existence of Jesus it is wise and prudent to interpret difficult passages in light of established truth. In other words, we know that whatever an obscure text is saying it cannot contradict what we already know to be true. Somehow it harmonizes with the truth.
Tom, it looks as though we disagree on the nature of eternity and eternal Beings. I believe Jesus was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8) before He died on the cross in 27 AD. In the same way, I believe He was the Son of Man, the Son of Mary, and the Son of God before His incarnation in 4 BC.
Jesus, as a member of the Godhead, "inhabits eternity" (Isa 57:15). He simultaneously inhabits eternity past, present, and future. His life and death is an ongoing reality, and ever will be. The members of the Godhead are not bound by time and space as we perceive it, therefore, They can occupy the past and the future and, at the same time, dwell with us in our present temporal time frame. Such a thing is, of course, beyond our comprehension.
Snowman, I am glad you recognize the logic in the reasoning I posted above. Jesus is truly our eternal brother and Saviour.
Van, well said. Thank you.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 01/01/06 08:20 PM
I don't think I can improve on Tom's comments, MM, so I'll just agree with them
.If your reasoning is official church reasoning, as has been suggested, then the
church - if confirming this - must account to us for its total lack of logic
![[Mad]](images/icons/mad.gif)
....You're answering for yourself, here.
Your concept of eternity is based on metaphysics or whatever science it is that speculates on what eternity is and involves. The Bible is to be preserved from human reasoning, while satisfying human understanding all by itself.
![[Tasty]](graemlins/tasty.gif)
[ January 01, 2006, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Colin ]
Colin, just out of curiosity - how do you explain the part of Revelation 13:8 I have made bold?
"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 04:36 AM
Just the bolded bit?? The Lamb of God wasn't slain just before or during Adam's life time, but the effects of its future sacrifice were operative by the promise itself of the future Lamb of God. Belief in the coming Messiah started with the received promise from God of his solution to sin, but the sacrifice of the Lamb applied to the whole, historical sin problem by faith, not by occurring at the beginning of the sin problem on earth.
Does that satisfy your curiosity?
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 05:04 AM
quote:
MM your reasoning is NOT contradictory to the beliefs of the SDA church (as far as my small brain understands) BUT Tom seams to be in contradiction to the word and the SDA teachings, so Tom are you saying that the SDA church is in error with its' understanding of the "Godhead"? Since we Baptize into Christ and the SDA Church in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
I was taking issue with MM's reasoning, not so much with his position. I have my doubts about that what is being claimed to be the SDA official position really is. Surely what the Spirit of Prophecy states must carry more weight than interpretations of it.
Let's take a look at the official position:
quote:
4. The Son:
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)
I agree with every word of this.
quote:
5. The Holy Spirit:
God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)
I agree with every word of this too. So I would have to say that no, I'm not in disagreement with our official position.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 05:17 AM
quote:
Tom, there is nothing faulty about understanding difficult insights using plainly understood ones to guide us. For example, because the Bible is so clear about soul sleep we can, with all integrity, interpret the few difficult passages in light of the plain ones. Similarly, since the Bible and the SOP are so clear concerning the eternal pre-existence of Jesus it is wise and prudent to interpret difficult passages in light of established truth. In other words, we know that whatever an obscure text is saying it cannot contradict what we already know to be true. Somehow it harmonizes with the truth.
I agree with this. If you wanted to present a logical argument to someone who disagrees with this, you would have to prove that the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy actually is clear concerning the pre-existence of Jesus. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, just in the manner with which you are (or more accurately arnen't) making a case.
quote:
Tom, it looks as though we disagree on the nature of eternity and eternal Beings. I believe Jesus was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8) before He died on the cross in 27 AD. In the same way, I believe He was the Son of Man, the Son of Mary, and the Son of God before His incarnation.
There's no Biblical grounds, or Spirit of Prophecy grounds, to believe Jesus was the Son of Man, or the Son of Mary, before His incarnation. This is just a groundless supposition on your part. Jesus became the son of Mary in 4 B.C. when He was born.
quote:
Jesus, as a member of the Godhead, "inhabits eternity" (Isa 57:15). He simultaneously inhabits eternity past, present, and future. His life and death is an ongoing reality, and ever will be. The members of the Godhead are not bound by time and space as we perceive it, therefore, They can occupy the past and the future and, at the same time, dwell with us in our present temporal time frame. Such a thing is, of course, beyond our comprehension.
This is just Greek philosophy. This is not only contrary to reason, but is contrary to how God has presented Himself to us in Scripture. What you're presenting is the Catholic idea, where Jesus is even now hanging on the cross. We don't believe that. For us, the cross is empty and the tomb is bare. Jesus is risen, and is now ministering in the Most Holy Place. While God is not bound by time, He does exist in time, and He communicates to us in time.
For example, consider the following statement from the Desire of Ages:
quote:
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. (DA 49)
If things were as you are presenting them, it would make no sense to say that Jesus was sent at the risk of failure.
quote:
Snowman, I am glad you recognize the logic in the reasoning I posted above. Jesus is truly our eternal brother and Saviour.
There was no logic in what you posted. Snowman didn't recognize the logic, but agreed with your position (which I do too, for the most part).
My objections were specific in nature, having to do with the proper construction of an argument, which is founded on premises and then developed to show a conclusion. You didn't do this, or even attempt to. If you disagree with what I'm saying here, go to one of the specific objections I made and refute the objection.
Again, I was very specific in what I said, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to do that if I'm in error. If I'm in error, I'd like you to do that, because I would be happy to retract any mistakes.
Happy New Year,
Tom
Colin, if, as you affirm, Jesus is not the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, why, then, did Jesus say so? Upon what authority do we disregard what it plainly says in the Bible and make it mean something different? Why can't we take Jesus at His word?
There are people on MSDAOL who do not believe God was able to predict the outcome of Jesus' incarnation, that is, God did not know in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross. I happen to disagree with this insight, but for the sake of discussion - Could God offer salvation to OT believers before Jesus succeeded on the cross?
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 05:27 AM
My two cents on the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
quote:
God's healing power runs all through nature. If a tree is cut, if a human being is wounded or breaks a bone, nature begins at once to repair the injury. Even before the need exists, the healing agencies are in readiness; and as soon as a part is wounded, every energy is bent to the work of restoration. So it is in the spiritual realm. Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy. (Ed 113)
Should Adam and Eve sin, the redemy was ready. The plan was set from the foundation of the world, hence Christ was the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." The emphasizes God's character, and the fact the the plan was not an afterthought. However, it's very important to understand that it was not necessary for Adam and Eve to sin. THAT was NOT God's plan. God never intended that any of creatures should know the misery which sin brings.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 05:29 AM
Boy I hope my "Happy New Year" didn't come across as sarcastic. I didn't intend it that way (and apologize to MM if it came across that way).
Happy New Year to everybody!
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 05:35 AM
quote:
There are people on MSDAOL who do not believe God was able to predict the outcome of Jesus' incarnation.
Surely you must have me in mind here. This isn't what I believe. It's very frustrating to me that we have dialogued hundreds if not thousands of posts on this and you still get it wrong. I don't know if you're being obtuse or beliggernt. I've never said anything remotely like what you're writing here. I apologize if you have someone other than me in mind here, but given our lengthly conversations, I can't imagine you have someone else in mind.
It's not like I haven't said what I believe on this subject. I've probably explained it to you a hundred times, and that's not an exerageration. Is it to much for me to ask that you accurately represent my opinions?
Tom, we have already agreed to disagree on the nature of eternity and eternal Beings. I believe "inhabits eternity" means each member of the Godhead exists in a time and space continuum that is wholly unknown to us. I also believe Jesus is the Son of Man, the Son of God in the same sense He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The creation of FMAs (free moral agents) was based on Jesus' eternal sacrifice on the cross. In other words, God would not have even considered creating FMAs if the plan of salvation wasn't already a simultaneous eternal reality - not just a potential.
Tom, I think I understand your position clearly. You made it clear that God could not know in advance that Jesus would definitely succeed on the cross. You believe God was merely aware of the myriad of possible outcomes, but that He didn't know exactly how it would play out beforehand.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 05:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Colin, if, as you affirm, Jesus is not the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, why, then, did Jesus say so? Upon what authority do we disregard what it plainly says in the Bible and make it mean something different? Why can't we take Jesus at His word?
There are people on MSDAOL who do not believe God was able to predict the outcome of Jesus' incarnation, that is, God did not know in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross. I happen to disagree with this insight, but for the sake of discussion - Could God offer salvation to OT believers before Jesus succeeded on the cross?
On your first paragraph, you have misrepresented my position completely : reread my reply to your original question, for I affirmed that Jesus is lamb of God who was slain. To understand the context of his slaying, requires little more than common sense, since it took place in earth's time, while promised ever since the Fall, and God is tied down to earth's time while the sin problem is dealt with. Allowing the cross to be an eternal reality above time before it happens in time, is presumption by God about his own future, which is unsound theology.
I've quickly edited this, having seen your interim post to Tom about this; you clearly disagree with my position, though.
Tom, how it is supposed to be you MM is referring to I don't know , but the only uncertainty of foreknowledge about Jesus' redemptive actions was his own lack of divine foreknowledge during his life time, having emptied himself of that prerogative to become human: the promise was maintained by the Spirit through the prophets from Adam to Malachi, but, while the Father foresaw the success during Jesus' life, Jesus himself could not.
quote:
The Lamb of God wasn't slain just before or during Adam's life time, but the effects of its future sacrifice were operative by the promise itself of the future Lamb of God.
Colin, I assumed from these words that you do not believe Jesus' death on the cross happened before AD 31. Your response to my post seems to confirm this suspicion. And, your opinion of my belief indicates you disagree with the idea that Jesus “inhabits eternity” in a way not familiar to us.
I agree with you that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was efficacious when Adam sinned. However, I also happen to believe that it was efficacious before FMAs were even created. The plan of salvation was born before God created FMAs. The promise existed from eternity, as such, it is “operative” from eternity.
DA 22
The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}
quote:
Allowing the cross to be an eternal reality above time before it happens in time, is presumption by God about his own future, which is unsound theology.
This insight seems to contradict what you wrote to Tom regarding Gods foreknowledge.
Posted By: van
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 08:31 AM
Since the discussion seems to be evolving some, I would like to share the following quotation from Signs of the Times (Ellen White), March 25, 1897:
“God had a knowledge of the events of the future, even before the creation of the world. He did not make His purposes to fit circumstances, but He allowed matters to develop and work out. He did not work to bring out a certain condition of things, but He knew that such a condition would exist. The plan that should be carried out upon the defection of any of the high intelligences of heaven—this is the secret, the mystery which has been hid from ages. And an offering was prepared in the eternal purposes to do the very work which God has done for fallen humanity.”
The part that intrigues me is the last two sentences. God's work for humanity, centering on the incarnation, birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ was the eternal plan should any of the high intelligences of heaven (not earth) defect. What higher intelligence in heaven was there than Lucifer?
The plan for Christ to become the begotten Son of God seems to have always been present in the eternity of ages past.
Since the plan of salvation is eternal, so is Jesus. Thus, there was never a time when Jesus did not exist. He is eternal in the same sense the Father is eternal. Not eternal in the Father before He was "begotten", but eternal as an independent person in the same sense the Father is an independent person. Both have existed from eternity, working side-by-side as co-equal members of the heavenly trio.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/02/06 11:58 PM
quote:
Tom, I think I understand your position clearly. You made it clear that God could not know in advance that Jesus would definitely succeed on the cross. You believe God was merely aware of the myriad of possible outcomes, but that He didn't know exactly how it would play out beforehand.
This is closer than what you wrote before, but is still inaccurate as it gives the impression that I somehow view God's ability differently than you do, which I don't. If anything, I believe God is more intelligent than you do (because my view requires such). I do no limit God's ability in any way.
The Desire of Ages states:
quote:
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. (DA 49)
You're view is out of harmony with this statement, because according to it God knew 100% that Christ would be successful. Hence there was no risk in sending Christ, which contradicts the Spirit of Prophecy here, as well as in other places where she asserts the same thing.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/03/06 12:00 AM
quote:
Since the plan of salvation is eternal, so is Jesus.
This is totally backwards.
God is eternal. It is because God is eternal that the plan of salvation is eternal, not the other way around.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/03/06 12:12 AM
quote:
The plan that should be carried out upon the defection of any of the high intelligences of heaven—this is the secret, the mystery which has been hid from ages. And an offering was prepared in the eternal purposes to do the very work which God has done for fallen humanity.”
Note she says, "The plan that should be carried out upon the defection of any of the high intelligences of heaven—". This indicates the plan was conditional. The plan would be carried out if it was necessary; i.e. if the high intelligences in heaven should defect. But it was not necessary for this to happen. They could have just as easily (more easily, in fact) not defected.
Consider again this quote from Education:
quote:
God's healing power runs all through nature. If a tree is cut, if a human being is wounded or breaks a bone, nature begins at once to repair the injury. Even before the need exists, the healing agencies are in readiness; and as soon as a part is wounded, every energy is bent to the work of restoration. So it is in the spiritual realm. Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy. Every soul that yields to temptation is wounded, bruised, by the adversary; but whenever there is sin, there is the Saviour. It is Christ's work "to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, . . . to set at liberty them that are bruised." Luke 4:18.
The analogy is that before the need arises, the remedy is ready. Before we are cut, the ability to heal the cut is present within us. Similarly before the entrance of sin into the world, the ability to heal its results were present within God. Is it necessary for us to cut ourselves in order for us to have the ability to be healed? No. Similarly the fall did not introduce any new elements to God or to His character that weren't always there. He is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
However, the fact that the remedy was always present, and a plan was in place should it be necessary, does not indicate that need for the plan was certain, any more than the fact that our bodies are able to heal cuts necessitate that we but cut.
The plan was conditional. Had sin not entered into the world, the plan would not need to have been executed. But God would have been just as gracious, kind, loving, forgiving, merciful and compassionate as we know Him to be now that this hideous thing called sin has happened.
quote:
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency.
Tom, in light of these inspired insights it is difficult for me to accept your view of God's foreknowledge. If God's knowledge of the future is as imperfect as your view implies, why, then, did Sister White say - "From the beginning ... He foresaw its existence"?
In the context of this thread, however, the eternal nature of the plan of salvation leads me to believe Jesus is eternal, too.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/03/06 08:14 AM
quote:
Tom, in light of these inspired insights ...
MM, it appears to me you are cherry-picking "insights". When you see something which appears to agree with what you already think, you latch on to that. But you do consider what another writes, ignoring the quotes they set forth (at least, this is what you have done with me). I wrote a lengthy post, which you just ignored. I'll write an even lengthier one here, which hopefully you will consider.
First of all, in regards to the plan of salvation, please consider the following quote.
quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe....
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 126)
It is evident that a real time drama took place here. Note that:
1)Sorrow filled heaven.
2)This sorrow included Christ.
3)Three times Christ went into the Father, pleading for man.
4)It was a struggle for God to allow Christ to come on man's behalf.
5)God agreed that Christ should come. Christ's countenance changed.
This is not the impassible Greek idea you seem so fond of, but depicts a God who is impacted by events in real time. This is obvious, unless you think God and Christ were play acting.
Now when we read this, it may appear at first glance that Jesus loves us more than God the Father. Jesus is pleading to come, and God is reticent to allow this. It was a struggle for God, but evidently not for Christ. Why is this? Does God love us less than Christ?
The mystery is cleared up when we consider the following quotes:
quote:
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. (DA 49)
quote:
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. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131)
quote:
Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. (COL 196)
Note that:
1)God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
2)Christ took the risk of failure and eternal loss.
3)Christ risked all.
4)Heaven itself was imperiled(!).
Just think of the implications of this last one. No wonder it was a struggle for God!!
Now if things were as you suggest, none of the above makes any sense. How could there be any struggle or any risk? How could heaven itself have been imperiled? None of these ideas fit into your view of things.
Now as to your quote from DA 22, how should it be understood in the light of the above? The following quote sheds light on this question:
quote:
God's healing power runs all through nature. If a tree is cut, if a human being is wounded or breaks a bone, nature begins at once to repair the injury. Even before the need exists, the healing agencies are in readiness; and as soon as a part is wounded, every energy is bent to the work of restoration. So it is in the spiritual realm. Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy. Every soul that yields to temptation is wounded, bruised, by the adversary; but whenever there is sin, there is the Saviour. (Ed 113)
The ability within the Godhead to heal sin was present before the sin came about. But this does not mean that sin was inevitable, and neither was the plan of salvation, as the quote from EW 126 makes clear. Before sin came about, God knew what would be needed if that should happen. The plan of salvation was not an afterthought (this is the point of DA 22). When it actually did happen, God considered carefully whether to go ahead with the plan or not. It was a struggle. God finally did decide to go ahead and risked His own Son for us! What a wonderful God He is!
We cheapen the gift if we do not recognize the risk involved.
Tom, I am not ignoring your lengthy posts. It's just that I disagree with your conclusions. The quotes you shared do not contradict the fact God knew from the beginning that Lucifer would rebel, that mankind would fall, and that Jesus would succeed on the cross. He foresaw the existence of sin, and not, as you insist, the mere possibility of it. Her language is too plain to misunderstand. The Father also foresaw Jesus' success, which is also why He was willing and able to endure the pain and agony of it all. The reward was worth it. Knowing Jesus would succeed in no way diminished His sorrow and suffering. Not in the least!
Knowing in advance that something good or bad is going to happen does not diminish it when it does happen. On the contrary, it increases the joy or sorrow. How? Because anticipation, for weal or woe, adds to it. Which is why we read about the struggle all heaven experienced when the Father and Son implemented the eternal, inevitable plan of salvation.
God knew in advance that man would defect, but it did not deter Him carrying out His eternal purpose. He knows the end from the beginning of all His works. The fact God chose to creat us in spite of knowing from eternity that it would cost the life of His only begotten Son reveals a love stronger than we can fathom. He anticipated it for eternity before it ever happened, and yet - He did not change His mind. Why? Because His love for us, and all His works, is as strong as His love for Jesus.
TMK 18
The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. {TMK 18.2}
ST 4-25-1892
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter him from carrying out his eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish his throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning; "known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Therefore redemption was not an afterthought--a plan formulated after the fall of Adam--but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {ST, April 25, 1892 par. 1}
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/03/06 11:58 PM
quote:
Tom, I am not ignoring your lengthy posts. It's just that I disagree with your conclusions.
That's fine, but it would be nice if you would acknowledge the points I make, and then deal with them in some fashion, as I do with your posts. Consider the points I make, and present some argument as to why you think they are not valid; again, as I do with your posts.
quote:
The quotes you shared do not contradict the fact God knew from the beginning that Lucifer would rebel, that mankind would fall, and that Jesus would succeed on the cross.
Certainly they do, if you understand "would" as a foregone conclusion, something that's 100% certain. All you have to do is consider what the word "risk" means. Risk means "hazard: a source of danger; a possibility of incurring loss or misfortune." If Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss, then it was not 100% certain he would succeed. That should be clear to anyone.
quote:
He foresaw the existence of sin, and not, as you insist, the mere possibility of it.
This isn't possible, for a number of reasons. I'll just stick with two. First of all, there's the problem of the risk quotes I provided. These demonstrate that the future is not fixed, as opposed to your view, which does not allow for risk. Secondly the events portrayed in the Early Writings quote demonstrate that when sin happened, it was a real time emergency. It was not the simple working out of a plan like an actor reciting lines that had been learned for a play. Real time decisions were being made. A struggle was involved.
quote:
Her language is too plain to misunderstand.
You're right about that! Christ was sorrowful. He pled for the human race. God struggled with His decision. A decision was made. Christ's countenance changed. The risk was understaken. All heaven was imperiled. Her language is to plain to be misunderstood.
quote:
The Father also foresaw Jesus' success, which is also why He was willing and able to endure the pain and agony of it all. The reward was worth it. Knowing Jesus would succeed in no way diminished His sorrow and suffering. Not in the least!
This does not explain either why it was a struggle for God, nor how heaven itself was imperiled. If the future were fixed, and all that was happening was the playing out of an already decided event, then how could it be said that heaven was imperiled?
quote:
Knowing in advance that something good or bad is going to happen does not diminish it when it does happen. On the contrary, it increases the joy or sorrow. How? Because anticipation, for weal or woe, adds to it. Which is why we read about the struggle all heaven experienced when the Father and Son implemented the eternal, inevitable plan of salvation.
If God was waiting for all eternity for the moment when man would sin, and it happened just as ordained, then how could God have experienced any emotion at all? The Greeks would be correct, and God would be impassible. Much less does it explain why there would be a struggle for God. On the other hand, if what the Spirit of Prophecy wrote really is true, and God really did undertake the risk of the loss of His Son, and heaven itself really was imperiled, then the struggle does make sense.
quote:
God knew in advance that man would defect, but it did not deter Him carrying out His eternal purpose. He knows the end from the beginning of all His works. The fact God chose to create us in spite of knowing from eternity that it would cost the life of His only begotten Son reveals a love stronger than we can fathom.
This would reveal a very strange God, one who could hardly be considered good. A good God would simply have created a human pair that wouldn't sin. The problem with your view is that it makes God to blame for what happened. He could have created a human pair which wouldn't sin, but for reasons of supposedly demonstrating how good He is He subjected this world to the misery, suffering and death that has overtaken it. This is the logical end of what you are suggesting.
But this is false. There was no fault in God's creation. Adam and Eve were created perfectly, with the ability to either sin or not sin. If things were as you suggest, there is no possible way Adam and Eve could not have sinned. This would again put the onus of sin back on God. But this is wrong! God is innocent!
quote:
He anticipated it for eternity before it ever happened, and yet - He did not change His mind. Why? Because His love for us, and all His works, is as strong as His love for Jesus.
What you are suggesting isn't love, it's just a thinly veiled selfishness. If I set in motion a set of circumstances to make myself look good, this isn't love. This is just manipulation to make me apear to be in a way I'm not.
This isn't what happened. God created all beings with the ability to love, which involves the possibility of rejection. God never intended that any creature should suffer the consequences of rejecting God. Sin was never a part of God's plan! This was the invention of the enemy. There was no fault in God's creation to bring it about.
I made 9 specific points in my previous post (I think it's 9, I'm going from memory). You didn't address any of the 9 points (most of which I've repeated here, but without enumerating them).
Awaiting your response,
Tom
Tom, I have attempted to address your objections to my understanding of Sister White's insights. You are convinced that "risk" and "imperiled" mean God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus.
You are using your interpretation of these insights to make my quotes agree with your view of God’s foreknowledge. I am doing the exact opposite. I am interpreting your quote to agree with my interpretation of my quotes.
As I have explained on other threads, I believe “risk” and “imperiled” must be interpreted to agree with the plain language used in my quotes. God foresaw the fall of our first parents and chose to create them anyhow. He didn’t create them to sin. He made them perfect. But He knew they would choose to eat the forbidden fruit.
The assumption that God did not know in advance that Lucifer would rebel, that man would fall, or that Jesus would succeed implies that God’s knowledge of men and angels and His own Son is imperfect. If this were true it also implies God does not know the precise outcome of the future choices of men and angels and His own Son. If these things are true it should cause us to doubt the prophecies, in particular - Nahum 1:9.
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
If these things are true it should cause us to doubt the prophecies, in particular - Nahum 1:9.
This is only true if assuming that God does not act in history. A prophecy may come true either by God knowing exactly what will happen or by God making that which He told the prophets come to pass.
/Thomas
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/04/06 03:44 AM
quote:
This is only true if assuming that God does not act in history.
Right! This is what the issue comes down to.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/04/06 04:09 AM
quote:
Tom, I have attempted to address your objections to my understanding of Sister White's insights. You are convinced that "risk" and "imperiled" mean God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus.
MM, I wish you would stop doing this, but my protests probably won't do any good. I have never said that "God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus." I've repeatedly asked you to quit misreprenting my position on this.
As I have pointed out many, many, many, many times, I believe there is NOTHING which God does not foresee. Is this clear? I sure hope so.
quote:
You are using your interpretation of these insights to make my quotes agree with your view of God’s foreknowledge.I am doing the exact opposite. I am interpreting your quote to agree with my interpretation of my quotes. As I have explained on other threads, I believe “risk” and “imperiled” must be interpreted to agree with the plain language used in my quotes. God foresaw the fall of our first parents and chose to create them anyhow. He didn’t create them to sin. He made them perfect. But He knew they would choose to eat the forbidden fruit.
The assumption that God did not know in advance that Lucifer would rebel, that man would fall, or that Jesus would succeed implies that God’s knowledge of men and angels and His own Son is imperfect. If this were true it also implies God does not know the precise outcome of the future choices of men and angels and His own Son. If these things are true it should cause us to doubt the prophecies, in particular - Nahum 1:9.
Two points. Risk" means the possibility of loss. She makes that even more clear in saying "the risk of failure and eternal loss." How could there be any doubt as to what that means? It means Jesus could have failed, right? Is any other meaning than this possible? Similarly in saying that heaven itself was imperiled means that failure was possible. I don't see how she could have communicated these thoughts any more clearly, do you?
If the future were fixed so that there was no other possibility except for success, then this would be like me having a two-headed coin and flipping at the "risk" of getting a tail. Risk is only risk if there is more than one possible outcome. An event which has only one possible outcome can have no risk.
The second point is that your assertion that God did not know Lucifer would rebel, or that man would fall, or that Jesus would succeed implies that God's knowledge of any of the above is imperfect is completely wrong. Understanding this point is vital, as it comes down to understanding free will. Let's consider this carefully.
You are asserting that if man could sin without God knowing that he would do that would mean that God's knowledge of man was imperfect. So simply by knowing someone sufficiently well would mean that you would know exactly what they would do in a given circumstance. Free will makes this impossible. No matter how well you know someone, they can do something unexpected. In fact, as well as we know ourselves, we can, and do, do things which are unexpected to we ourselves.
There's another problem with your supposition that perfect knowledge of a person would enable one to perfectly predict what they would do. This is that if God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, because of His perfect knowledge of them, then God is alone responsible for their having sinned. Their sinning would have been inevitable, and God, as their creator, would have been responsible for having created them in such a way that sinning was inevitable.
Well I said two things, but I'll mention a third. The third thing is that whether or not the future is fixed has no bearing whatsoever on God's ability to see the future. God sees the future perfectly. God is in no way limited in intelligence or ability to foresee what will happen. The question under consideration does not have to do with God's abilities, but rather with the nature of things. Does God act in history? Are the emotions which God communicates real or feigned? Was it really a struggle for God to send His Son, or was this all play acting? Was there any point for Jesus to plead with His Father? Did it make any difference? Or was it just play acting?
According to your viewpoint, it must have been play acting. Think of the day before man sinned. You would have God thinking the following: "In exactly 24 hours, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 12 hours before man sinned. God would be thinking ""In exactly 12 hours, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 1 hour before man sinned. God would be thinking ""In exactly 1 hour, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 1 minute before man sinned. God would be thinking "In exactly 1 minute, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of the time when man was sinning. God would be thinking, "Now my Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of the third pleading of Christ. God would be thinking, "OK, He has pled twice. This is the important one. I'll give in on this one."
This doesn't make any sense.
quote:
I have never said that "God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus."
Tom, please help me out here. Do you believe God knew with absolute certainty, before the fact, that 1) Lucifer would rebel, that 2) man would fall, and that 3) Jesus would succeed on the cross? Or, were these only one of many possible outcomes that God was aware of, and that He had no idea which way it would play out before the fact?
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/05/06 07:35 AM
MM: Here's the problem. You wrote of my position:
quote:
God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus.
This is not the same thing as what you're asking in the follow up questions. We should get that straight I think before continuing to your questions. Do you see the difference?
quote:
You are convinced that "risk" and "imperiled" mean God absolutely did not foresee the fall of man and the success of Jesus.
Yes, Tom, the observation stated above is not as well worded as the following question:
quote:
Do you believe God knew with absolute certainty, before the fact, that 1) Lucifer would rebel, that 2) man would fall, and that 3) Jesus would succeed on the cross? Or, were these only one of many possible outcomes that God was aware of, and that He had no idea which way it would play out before the fact?
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/04/06 11:44 PM
God knows with absolute certainty the future as it actually is. The future has not yet been determined. It cannot be seen in a determined state by God any more than a square can be seen as a circle by God. God sees things as they are, not as Greek philosophy dictates.
In my last long post I explained the falacy of the point of view you are suggesting by imagining God's reactions as the time for man's sin grew near. I'll repeat the absurdity here:
quote:
Think of the day before man sinned. You would have God thinking the following: "In exactly 24 hours, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 12 hours before man sinned. God would be thinking ""In exactly 12 hours, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 1 hour before man sinned. God would be thinking ""In exactly 1 hour, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 1 minute before man sinned. God would be thinking "In exactly 1 minute, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of the time when man was sinning. God would be thinking, "Now my Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of the third pleading of Christ. God would be thinking, "OK, He has pled twice. This is the important one. I'll give in on this one."
How do you get around this absurdity? If man's sin was inevitable, and known with certainty by God to occur at a given point He knew was coming, how do you avoid the absurdity I've outlined above? What sense does the description given by Ellen White in EW 125-127 make?
Tom, before we switch gears and address the questions you asked at the end of your last post, I'm still not sure I understand your answer to the questions I asked in my last post.
quote:
God knows with absolute certainty the future as it actually is.
When? At what point in time does God know with absolute certainty what the future actually is?
Does He know exactly what is going to happen before it happens?
Does He know precisely our choices and the exact outcome before we chose and act?
Did He know Lucifer would rebel before he rebelled?
Did He know in advance with absolute certainty that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit before they ate it?
Did He know without a doubt that Jesus would succeed on the cross before it happened?
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/05/06 05:47 PM
quote:
Tom, before we switch gears and address the questions you asked at the end of your last post, I'm still not sure I understand your answer to the questions I asked in my last post.
Let's pause a moment here. I made two lenghtly posts, with nine points, none of which you have addressed. How are we "switching gears" here? The post I made of EW 125-127 was before your questions. I've dealt with all of your posts, addressing each question and each point.
You still haven't addressed the nine points I made in those two posts. You haven't explained how God could "risk" something when the event in question is 100% certain.
Here's an anology. Say someone is sentenced to the death penalty, and I offer to "risk" myself to die in his place. Here's the risk. I'll drop a bowling ball, and if the ball flies up to the moon instead of dropping to the earth, then I'll die in the other guy's place. To your way of thinking, the "risk" Christ took is no different than the "risk" I'm taking in the analogy.
You still haven't addressed the points I made in EW 125-127, which were before this last round of questions.
I'm confused by your "switching gears" comment. This gives the impression that I'm somehow not addressing your questions and points while you are addressing mine. But that's the opposite of what's happening here. I've written detailed posts with explicit points and questions. The one post where you did make some attempt to address some of the points I answered in great detail, treating every point you made step by step. You didn't reply to the points I made in that post, in addition to not replying to the points of the previous posts.
I'm not "switching gears" here. I've just been asking that you treat my posts as I've treated yours. Which is to say, to address the points and questions I'm making.
Regardless of what you do, I'll answer the questions you asked, because that's what I always do. However, I'll wait a little bit to see if you'd like to address the points I had made previously.
Tom, before I can address your points I need to understand your point. That's why I keep asking follow up questions. I'm not rudely ignoring your points, rather, I'm simply trying to understand them.
I hear you saying two contradicting things. But I know you well enough to know that cannot possibly be the case. You are too logical for that to happen. Obviously, then, I'm misunderstanding you somehow. And, I want to get to the bottom of it.
Here's what I hear you saying:
1. God knows with absolute certainty the future as it actually is.
2. God does not know in advance our choices or the precise outcome of our choices. He is aware of all the possibilities, but He does not know in advance exactly which way it will play out.
To say that God knows the future as it actually is, and then to insist He has no way of knowing exactly how things will play out before it happens, seems contradictory to me. Clearly I'm not getting it, right?
So, once I feel like I understand your view I will then be better prepared to answer your questions regarding risk and responsibility. I hope this makes sense to you. If not, please accept my apologizes. I am not trying to test your patience. I'm simply trying to understand your point. Thank you.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/05/06 11:02 PM
Ok, MM. Thank you for your explanation, a very fine one.
quote:
To say that God knows the future as it actually is, and then to insist He has no way of knowing exactly how things will play out before it happens, seems contradictory to me. Clearly I'm not getting it, right?
If the future is determined, then yes, this would be contradictory. But if the future is dynamic, open, full of possibilities rather than being a single certain thing, then no, it's not contradictory. It's only if our ability to choose is imaginary (that is perceived, not actual) that a contradiction comes into play.
The question comes down to if I can really determine my own future, or if I only think I can. If the future is determined, or fixed (i.e. certain; only one possible outcome) then it may appear to me that I can choose between options A and B, but I really can't. It only appears to me that I can.
How God reacted in EW 125-127 makes it clear that our choices are real, and the future is dyanamic. How else can one explain God's reaction? This is not the account of One who knew that man was destined to sin in a few hours or moments, but of One who is reacting to an emergency. Everything about the account supports this.
If one looks at Scripture, one can see many, many similar accounts. God presents Himself as acting in history, and as experiencing true emotion, including surprise (Jer. 32:35). Such emotion is either the result of legitamately reacting to events and participating in history, or it is feigned and fake.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/05/06 11:14 PM
quote:
When? At what point in time does God know with absolute certainty what the future actually is?
Always. That is, God always knows the future as it actually is. How the future actually is changes of course.
quote:
Does He know exactly what is going to happen before it happens?
This question appears to be equivalent to asking of there's only one possible result for the future. The answer is no. The future allows for multiple possibilities. For example, we are told that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal lost. This means it was possible for Christ to either succeed or fail. This is what God knew. That is, God knew it was possible for Christ to fail. So God's knoweldge of the possibility of an event does not mean that it must happen.
quote:
Does He know precisely our choices and the exact outcome before we chose and act?
We truly have free will. As such our choices are not determined. Even if you know someone perfectly, it is still possible for them to do something unexpected. For example, God knew Christ perfectly, yet there was still risk involved in His being sent.
quote:
Did He know Lucifer would rebel before he rebelled?
God knew of the possibility, but it was not God's plan that Lucifer should sin. Lucifer alone was the author of sin and death. God would not have created Lucifer if his rebellion was a foregone conclusion. That doesn't fit with God's character. God is not willing that any should perish. God created Lucifer with the full expectation and desire that he would spend etenity joyfully with Him in heaven.
quote:
Did He know in advance with absolute certainty that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit before they ate it?
Same answer as for Lucifer. Adam and Eve were created with the desire that they would spend eternity happily with God without ever knowing the misery of sin.
quote:
Did He know without a doubt that Jesus would succeed on the cross before it happened?
This question is addressed by the following statements I quoted previously:
quote:
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. (DA 49)
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. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131)
Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. (COL 196)
Is it possible for God to know something will happen and for that thing not to happen?
Okay, I think I've got it now. But I'm pretty sure I disagree. How can God be surprised at a given outcome when He is well aware of all the possible outcomes before they happen? As such, nothing could take Him by surprise. Thus, no matter what the outcome He would have to feign shock and surpise.
Here's what makes sense to me. Nothing surprises God. He knows the end from the beginning. But knowing it in advance does not lessen His joy or sorrow when things finally play out. Anticipation only serves to increase His happiness or sadness. He does not have to feign it.
Risk and responsibility? God doesn't take risks in the same way we do. So, we cannot force the concept of risk, in the context of God's omniscience, to contradict what we know to be true about His foreknowledge. And God is definitely not responsible for making anyone sin or rebel. Knowing the details of our future choices and outcomes in no way robs us of free will, and in no way makes God responsible.
I realize this makes no sense to you whatsoever, but, in my mind, it makes perfect sense.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/06/06 06:35 PM
quote:
Okay, I think I've got it now. But I'm pretty sure I disagree.
I know you disagree. You have the idea that the future is like a TV re-run. We've been through this before. There are some new people in the forum, who may be reading our dialog. I'm hopeful we can have a dialog which can present the issues in a clear way.
quote:
How can God be surprised at a given outcome when He is well aware of all the possible outcomes before they happen? As such, nothing could take Him by surprise. Thus, no matter what the outcome He would have to feign shock and surpise.
Well this is the problem. God doesn't feign shock and surprise. For example, He says is Jer. 32:35, "they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."
From the Spirit of Prophecy there's the scene from EW 125-127. The problem with your point of view is that God would have to be feigning the whole conference with Christ, if everything was just playing out as He knew it would. What sense is there for a conference where Jesus pleads three times, and God finally allows Him to come? This is just nonsense if there was no actual decision-making going on.
quote:
Here's what makes sense to me. Nothing surprises God. He knows the end from the beginning. But knowing it in advance does not lessen His joy or sorrow when things finally play out. Anticipation only serves to increase His happiness or sadness. He does not have to feign it.
This doesn't work. We have an in detail account of what happened in heaven when man sinned. There was a conference. Jesus had to lobby to convince the Father to go ahead with the plan. This is clear from the account. The angel asked Ellen White if she thought it wasn't a struggle for God to send His Son, and then affirmed that it was a struggle. Your point of view does not account for this struggle. I'll repost the paradox.
quote:
Risk and responsibility? God doesn't take risks in the same way we do. So, we cannot force the concept of risk, in the context of God's omniscience, to contradict what we know to be true about His foreknowledge.
There's no forcing going on. We need to allow inspiration to mold our thinking, not try to force inspiration to agree with us. "Risk" and "imperiled" are simple concepts that even a child understands. God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Christ risked all. All heaven was imperiled for our redemption. It was a struggle for God to allow His Son to come. All of these things point to the fact that Christ's coming here was fraught with danger.
quote:
And God is definitely not responsible for making anyone sin or rebel. Knowing the details of our future choices and outcomes in no way robs us of free will, and in no way makes God responsible.
No, you're not seeing the problem here. The problem is not that God's knowing what will happen causes the thing to happen. There's no causaility here. I've explained this many times before, but for some reason it's difficult to grasp (not just for you though, you have company).
The problem is not that God's knowing what will happen causes the thing to happen. This is no more the case than our knowing something to happen will make it happen. The problem is if the future is such that only one thing CAN happen. That's the issue. Is it REALLY possible for more than one thing to happen in the future? Inspiration argues that it is. In your point of view, only one future can play out, like a TV re-run. THAT'S the problem.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/06/06 06:37 PM
Here's a repost of the paradox:
quote:
According to your viewpoint, it must have been play acting. Think of the day before man sinned. You would have God thinking the following: "In exactly 24 hours, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 12 hours before man sinned. God would be thinking ""In exactly 12 hours, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 1 hour before man sinned. God would be thinking ""In exactly 1 hour, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of 1 minute before man sinned. God would be thinking "In exactly 1 minute, man will sin. My Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of the time when man was sinning. God would be thinking, "Now my Son will come and plead with me. I will have a difficult time deciding what I will do, but will acceed on the third request to His pleadings."
Think of the third pleading of Christ. God would be thinking, "OK, He has pled twice. This is the important one. I'll give in on this one."
This doesn't make any sense.
Hopefully the problem is apparent here. I'd be interested to see an attempted resolution.
quote:
DA 22
The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}
AG 129
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2}
Tom, according to these types of quotes it is clear to me that the plan of salvation was known to God from eternity. Not, as you insist, that it was a possibility, but that it was inevitable. Again, I suspect we are not going to agree on this point.
It is not difficult for me to envision the Father wrestling with a decision to go through with the plan the moment man sinned. I realize you cannot see it through my eyes. On this point we shall have to disagree.
Just because God foresees our future choices and outcomes does not mean He has robbed us of the freedom to choose our own destiny, or that He has fixed our future beyond our ability to choose otherwise. Again, I suspect we will never agree on this point.
Again, the fact the plan of salvation is an eternal reality is evidence that Jesus is eternal in the same way the Father is eternal.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/06/06 11:44 PM
Regarding the two quotes, they are both dealt with by this one:
quote:
God's healing power runs all through nature. If a tree is cut, if a human being is wounded or breaks a bone, nature begins at once to repair the injury. Even before the need exists, the healing agencies are in readiness; and as soon as a part is wounded, every energy is bent to the work of restoration. So it is in the spiritual realm. Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy. Every soul that yields to temptation is wounded, bruised, by the adversary; but whenever there is sin, there is the Saviour. (ED 113)
The key point she is making is that the Plan of Redemption was forumalated before sin arose. Just like our bodies have the ability to heal a cut before the cut is incurred. That's the point. She's not contradicting what she herself wrote elsewhere in saying that God took a risk in sending His Son or that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.
quote:
It is not difficult for me to envision the Father wrestling with a decision to go through with the plan the moment man sinned. I realize you cannot see it through my eyes. On this point we shall have to disagree.
The problem is that if God knew everything that was going to happen to the second, then the whole concept of wrestling with it doesn't make any sense. Why would it take Christ pleading THREE times? What could God have been thinking about in the first two times? He knew what He was going to do. Why make Christ go through the formality of asking a third time? What not just "OK" on the first time?
quote:
Just because God foresees our future choices and outcomes does not mean He has robbed us of the freedom to choose our own destiny, or that He has fixed our future beyond our ability to choose otherwise. Again, I suspect we will never agree on this point.
Unfortunately you seem unable to grasp the point. I'm sorry about that. It's not an issue of God's forseeing the future. Just because God, or we, or a squirrel or whatever knows what will happen doesn't impact free will in any way. The problem isn't with God's foreknowledge but with how many possible futures there are. To your way of thinking, there can only be one. God doesn't see A future; He sees THE future. You perceive the future as a TV rerun. THIS IS THE PROBLEM (pardon the shout, but I'm having trouble getting this point accross).
The future is NOT like a TV rerun. If it were, then there could be no risk in Christ's coming, it would make no sense to speak of God struggling, and our free will would be apparent only, not real.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/06/06 11:46 PM
quote:
Again, the fact the plan of salvation is an eternal reality is evidence that Jesus is eternal in the same way the Father is eternal.
This is still backwards. God is alone eternal. Any plans that God makes are only eternal because God is eternal.
To state that the plan of salvation is an eternal reality is to speak of God's character. It is not a statement that sin had to occur. To make this conclusion would be a grevious error.
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 01/11/06 01:51 PM
MM, Christ's saving merits are only given to Adam and his descendants, since only we have need of them: the plan of salvation is eternal beyond Adam's creation, not before it. Lucifer has never been a candidate...and the redeemed rely on the plan beyond earth's history, not before it, too.
The Son of God is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily and manifested, being begotten in the express image of the Father - both in appearance and in character, for the Father is invisible to mortal sight as the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The cross of Christ requires divine sacrifice, so Jesus was fit and able to provide it as the Son of God. The plan needed divine participation of the Son who helped plan it. [Took some thought, but "Godhead" is the divine nature of the Father given to the Son of which also the Spirit is naturally part: it is not the word for the three of them, but the word for the nature they all naturally have.]
Salvation is for eternity to come, because the Godhead's love is from eternity past and is the love to solve the sin problem of the present. Christ effecting the world's salvation confirms his divinity; no question of the Son's eternal divinity arises here, or at all.
Posted By: Tom
Re: God the Son - 01/11/06 08:06 PM
When MM refers to the plan of salvation being eternal going backwards, I'm sure it's having the phrase, "The lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in mind. Also the Spirit of Prophecy makes clear that the plan was forumulated before it was needed. However, even if the plan had turned out not to have been needed, it would still be true that God's character was such that He would have left no stone unturned for the good of His creatures, which is what the whole question of the Great Controversy was: Is God self-serving, like Lucifer claimed, or is He self-sacrificing?
Posted By: Colin
Re: God the Son - 01/12/06 12:08 PM
That that character trait of the Father he has in common with his Son is due to them both being the Godhead bodily...Had to think how to word that...! "Godhead" isn't their collective noun, but the one nature they share.
The Godhead is primarily glorious, divine character: holiness, justice, with love and mercy, active as grace - effecting Christ's righteousness. 'Righteous' is something straightened that was bent: God is holy by nature, so doesn't need to be righteous; Christ's human character is righeous due to his assumption of our sinful nature, whose bent to sin he straightened. That's how we recognise Jesus as the divine Son, since he is the image of his Father in character and conduct.
Their joint plan - yes, plotted before this world was created - to save this world from sin asks us to understand that character, not pin down how the eternal God begot his only Son before time began, indeed before eternity began.