Lesson #1 (1st Quarter 2012): The Triune God

Here is the link to the study and discussion material for Lesson #1 (1st Quarter 2012): The Triune God

Here are some study helps: Study Helps, Lesson 1

I anticipate this one will be a hot topic here, more so than in our actual Adult Sabbath School classes this coming Sabbath.

Here is how this week's study begins:

Yes, three persons possessing divinity is rather important, as the Bible says. Is that the truth that makes a "doctrine"? Jn 3:16 says that God the Father so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to save from sin & death whosever believes in him. Hebrews joins Matthew & Luke to say that the Holy Spirit was very active in the events, preparing a human body for the Son of God's incarnation. That's the very least of it.

That's the Bible's teaching: a "Trinity" consisting of three that is not, for three persons possessing the Godhead and linked together naturally, Spirit of the Father and the Son, and Son to God the Father as his Son, isn't three-in-one at all. It's at best three of one nature.

Sorry about that. We all, though, have to test what the "trinity" actually means, but it's not everyone's cup of tea - which is quite alright. I hope the discussion helps those who are unfamiliar with the real ins & outs of the debate over the trinity doctrine.

Let us take a close look, constructive criticism or otherwise, in the material presented in this week's lesson study material and respond to the material given.

The next paragraph in the Sabbath Afternoon material states:

The next paragraph in the Sabbath Afternoon section says:

This one includes a quote and reference from Ellen White.

The final paragraph in the Sabbath Afternoon section says:

Discussion already began on this lesson topic on December 18, 2011, which can be used in relation to this one here.

Here is the link to the other one that I moved into the Adult Sabbath School forum area:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=138536&page=1

As that one is 6 pages long, there is a lot of information to gather from there as we look at the Lesson Study material here.

From Sunday's material:

Take note that husband and wife are referred to as being one flesh, but are still two distinct individuals. The same reasoning as oneness in three individuals as in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would also make sense.

John 17 "That THEY may be one even as WE are one"

The THEY is obviously referring to His followers ande the WE is obviously referring to the Godhead, that is also referred to as the Trinity.

The one point that is brushed aside as unimportant is the fact the Father, under the non-trinitarian model, spent eternity in a dark and void universe all by Himself. Not until Jesus came along and began creating things did the Father have others to love and enjoy. The idea that the Father spent eternity alone is too unimaginable to believe.

Yes, quite unimaginable!

Two things are a mystery about God, no, three things.

The begotten Sonship of Christ's eternal pre-existence, his incarnation as the Son of man, and the perfection of his human character of Godliness in our sinful flesh.

Thus, we accept that the Father is the God and Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God and equal to him, as announced to the heavenly host before Lucifer fell, and we receive the Holy Spirit from them now that Christ is ascended to heaven - not guarranteed when he was incarnated, for he took infinite risk of losing his divinity when becoming a man should he sin - that we may live for God through Christ Jesus our Lord.

There is, of course, much good in this lesson: it speaks of God saving us from sin, in the person of his Son.

This bit, though: "...God is One and composed of three "Persons"", is a problem. "They" is allowed for the persons of the trinity, under further reading; yet, they are parts of a divine Being, the Trinity.
This says it well: personal distinctions are "the way God is in himself". That isn't just difficult to grasp, it's not a personal God, is it, God and Christ, both present within by their Spirit? "God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit" are "God...in himself"? Please help me differentiate that from modalism?? It may be meant to be miles from modalism - as is said at the end of the lesson, but it's the language of modalism, or? How the Nicene Creed, with its formless substance of orthodox teaching, avoids modalism is a technicality, in their thinking, perhaps: the "personae" are "centres of consciousness" in that substance, rendering them distinct.

As the Bible reveals the living God, the members of the Godhead have identities much more personal and real than that. God and his Son are spoken of as is the Spirit of God: how significant is the identity of Christ as the Son of God, in the Bible? Is it just his incarnated relationship to his Father or also the very basis of his deity in his pre-existence, as the Pharisees recognised, too, making him equal with God?

The first sentence, here, is not in the printed quarterly, btw. check here, http://absg.adventist.org

It is similar to the first question at the end of the lesson, but is rather more strident.

It's historical reference is simply wrong: our early church's teaching was firmly and decidedly against the doctrine. Our beliefs, on the other hand, shouldn't really be "unrelenting", for the Bible is our rule of faith.

Indeed, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate persons each possessing one Godhead, but "echad" isn't exclusively about a complex unity: ask any Jewish Rabbi, it means numerically one, too. There's no linguistic significance at all in "echad" denoting plurality, sorry. Even in the Bible itself, this Hebrew word is used in a mathematical "singular" meaning many times.

I personally think that a lot of confusion comes from our use of "Father & Son". God is not the Father of Jesus Christ.

What do you mean? - remember this?

Having accepted human form, and having been made a "little lower than the angels," Christ has been re-elevated to equality with God the Father.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting observation about the first sentence being added in the online version that I have, but not in the printed version that I also have. I wonder why?

Yes, precisely how Jesus became a human is an unexplainable mystery. Also, how He avoided sinning during the ages of non-accountability is equally as mysterious. However, I don't understand why you think Jesus' "eternal pre-existence" is a mystery. Do you believe Jesus is eternal in the same sense the Father is eternal? For example, do you believe Jesus has always existed in the same sense the Father has always existed? Or, do you believe Jesus had a beginning, a time when He proceeded from the Father?

So the Catholic church is right? Who or what made Christ equal? When?

Mountainman, your latest question to me reiterates that it's a mystery: not only did the Word of God proceed from the Father "in the days of eternity" - as our church publications stated consistently throughout the lifetime of Ellen White and after, but the Father was equally never alone in eternity.

In fact the 1936 Sabbath School lesson for Oct 7
That leaves a mystery of infinite proportions we shouldn't delve into for we cannot understand it. What matters is the revealed natural link between God and Christ in the latter's pre-existence: he is God because he is the only begotten of God.

Co-existent? That's not what the Bible says, is it. As our church published throughout and a good bit after Ellen White's lifetime - such as above, in her and other's books, and he is also the Word of God, in the Father, from "the beginning". Co-eternity is established, co-existence - that they are co-eval, ie. the same age, is a new concept in our teaching. Where is it in the Bible or SOP, please?

Does God have a Son who is not created or adopted?...

I can't speak for the RC church...

From all Ellen White's writings and from the written Word of God we understand and believe that God the Father made his only begotten Son equal with himself, if only in the hearing of the entire, assembled host of heaven. Read PP 34 at www.egwwritings.org

Just to orientate the discussion a little, here, does everyone agree that when God gave his Son to this world out of love, his Son took a risk, an infinite risk, to his deity by becoming a man?

I didn't read that correctly. It was Oct 17, 1936, in Sabbath School: typically fully authorised by the GC SS Dept as our beliefs in the 30s...

Also, I missed this bit, from that lesson.
"Very God himself": he is the Father? - no, he is truly divine with the Father - just before you ask.

For MM mainly, perhaps, but of course for all of us, too.


The Father is the infinite God, but Jesus is the true Son of the infinite God, having in himself the fulness of infinite divinity.

What more is there to say? ...well


Christ in his pre-existence was infinite as his Father but not God himself, who is the Father, so when the Son of God was personally on earth the Father, the Lord God Almighty, is emphatically, personally in heaven. (Orthodox trinity teaching is that the substance of the Son of God didn't leave the Father in heaven when he became a man: now, that's weird, to us!)



Now, here's proof that I don't read enough SOP.


Not forgetting

I appreciate the quotes and comments you posted. Thank you. However, I hate to say, I still do not understand your view. Do you believe Jesus had a beginning, a time when He proceeded from the Father?

Also, why do you think it's too deep and mysterious for us to comprehend the Father existing alone before Jesus proceeded from Him? My father existed before I was born. And I existed before my son was born. It's not difficult for me to grasp. Do you see what I mean?

In theory, yes. However, Jesus knew without doubt He would succeed. He said so many times. "I will come again, and receive you unto myself." This question is similar to saying "He could have sinned; He could have fallen". So, yes, He could have failed, He could have fallen, but He knew He wouldn't.

His incarnation wasn't an exact human analogy; his eternal, begotten Sonship isn't a perfect human analogy: that's why it's a mystery.

Yes, God's Son was begotten, proceeded from the Father, literally "has come out of the Father" (from John's Gospel), "in the days of eternity", so far back that we can't know when, and Ellen White said as much herself, in that the length of lifetime in his pre-existence could not be calculated by mortals. That he is the Word of God from the beginning sets up the mystery of how and when he was begotten. We don't know, nor should we agonise over it: he is the only begotten of God, of one nature with him, and he and God are two separate individuals, co-eternal, co-equal..., but labels we don't need, for he is very God, infinite God but not the person of the Father, the infinite God himself.

I hope everyone else agrees, too.

The point being, that, theoretically - fundamentally & hypothetically, had he sinned he would have lost his deity. What would have happened to the doctrine of the Trinity, then, theoretically? It's not "unimaginable", it's just that the Father himself is the infinite, living God in person, in whom is the fulness of the Godhead hidden from mortal eyes. Had Jesus sinned, the trinity would have ceased to exist - that 'one God composed of three persons', indispensible, divine persons; yet, the Father is the Godhead personally, and literally, and he would not have ceased to exist had Jesus sinned and ceased to be the self-existing Son of God, hypothetically speaking, rather than a necessary part of the trinity.

Can God save us from sin by dying on the cross in the person of his Son and himself actually survive the ordeal as the Godhead, or the trinity?

I don't have a problem with anti-trinitarians saying since Jesus proceeded from the Father He is as much God as is the Father. That makes perfect sense to me. My problem is with the fact our heavenly Father existed for eternity all alone in a dark, empty universe before Jesus proceeded from Him. The idea that it was so long ago it doesn't matter ignores the essence of eternity. Eternity is a long time to be alone in the dark, especially for someone as loving and companionable as the Father.

Also, saying Jesus is "begotten" and "co-eternal" messes with the meaning of eternal.

Yes, for the simple reason Jesus' deity cannot die or cease to exist. Ellen wrote:

If EGW was right, then Jesus has always existed, because I can calculate anything short of infinity.

Thanks, asygo, for that split second of humour.

Really, is either the Father or the son dependent on eternal existence for his divinity? Thanks to M L Andreasen, whose speciality, of course, was salvation teaching, I read a very non-trinitarian utterance in the his "Book of Hebrews": God is above eternity, too, since all things were made by him. God made eternity, too: that's how big he is: all things were made by the Word of God, as God created all things by his Son.

No, God isn't dependent on eternal existence to be God: that's what the Bible says.

Moreover, we learn from the Desire of Ages:

Therefore, the Father wasn't alone for eternity before his Son was begotten of God himself, for the Word of God was at least always with God our Father.

Altogether, we are not to think about God's nature to the uttermost logical extreme, but accept what the written Word of God says: beyond that, silence is eloquence. The nature of God isn't dependent on eternity, but on the nature of God itself, of the infinite God himself and of his Son, not forgetting of course the infinite Spirit of their deity.

Ellen wrote:


Do you think the Father and the Word shared the same form before the Son proceeded from the Father?


What state of things existed before Jesus created eternity? Is eternity an expression of time? If not, how do you define eternity? The dictionary defines it as infinite time. How can it be infinite if it had a beginning?

Subsequent to the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ we can read a direct witness of the status of Christ.


Sister White, EW page 77
I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, 'I am the express image of My Father's person I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had but I could not behold it, for said He, 'If you should once behold the glory of His person you would cease to exist.

So the "GLORY" of the Father was so far past that of the glory of Christ...
...That Sister White could often times look directly the actual person of Christ.
...Yet was informed BY CHRIST that if she looked at the glory of "God" that she would cease to exist.

The above simply is saying the same thing the Pioneers had always been saying about Christ...
...The initiation of creature christ was so far back in time.
...It literally cannot be understood - it's clear God and Christ do not possess the same glory.

Go to the following link to a pdf file and then go to page 26 to the article by Kevin Paulson titled "In Defence of the Trinity":

http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF1312w.pdf

If I may ask you Daryl...
...What specifically is IT that makes the three members of the Godhead equal such as the article maintains?

Here is an interesting quote from that article:

And then there is this:

In direct relation to the Trinity is the following:

Then there is this:

I hope you will read the rest there about what EGW says about the Holy Spirit, etc.

Sister White
"Living Temple contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little while; and I trembled for our people. I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence AND PERSONALITY OF GOD." (SM1 - 203)

From prior to it's inception to after the death of God's Sock Puppet ( Sister White )...
...The Personality of God meant ONLY one thing.
...And that was God was a literal Person with a literal body in a literal dwelling place.

This was promulgated with great velocity for over 50 years.

Sister White
The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of re­organisation.”

The Personality of God just wasn't a Pillar...
...It was THE Pillar everything distinctive to Seventh-day Adventists rested upon.

Do you believe that one can be Trinitarian AND Anthropomorphite at the same time?


As for the article claiming we shouldn't listen to the Pioneers...
...Because Sister White was the one inspired ( which I agree ).
...We will simply allow Sock Puppet to educate us on the truth spoken via the Pioneers.

Sister White
God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it?--He said that the dead are to speak. How?--Their works shall follow them. We ARE to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God. One by one these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced. . . .

Let the truths that ARE the foundation of our faith be kept before the people. Some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. They talk science, and the enemy comes in and gives them an abundance of science; but it is not the science of salvation. It is not the science of humility, of consecration, or of the sanctification of the spirit. We are now to understand what the pillars of our faith are,-- the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step.-- Review and Herald, May 25, 1905

That's "inspired instruction" that what I've been posting of the Pioneers...
...Which explicitly state that God is a literal Person with a body that has member, part & ALL the organs of a perfect man.
...IS THE TRUTH.

Again, Sock Puppet assures us through the very power of God...
...That what the Pioneers were saying was 'truth'.

Sister White.
I am instructed that the Lord, by His infinite power, has preserved the right hand of His messenger for more than half a century, in order that the truth may be written out as He bids me write it for publication, in periodicals and books, Why?-- Because if it were not thus written out, when the pioneers in the faith shall die, there would be many, new in the faith, who would sometimes accept as messages of truth teachings that contain erroneous sentiments and dangerous fallacies. Sometimes that which men teach as "special light" is in reality specious error, which, as tares sown among the wheat, will spring up and produce a baleful harvest. And errors of this sort will be entertained by some until the close of this earth's history. {TDG
126.1}

I did read it and I can tell you what Ellen said about the Holy Spirit wasn't in contrast to what the Pioneers said about "IT" either.


Signs of the Times, 1912, Vol 39 # 32

3829 — The Holy Spirit n Personality?

Question:
Can't we say that the Holy Spirit is a
personality, as long as the personal pronoun
is attributed to it? T. A. Z.

Answer:
The use of the personal pronoun is not of itself proof that the Holy Spirit is a personality, and yet the work of the Spirit is the work of a personality. By the Spirit both the Father and the Son come personally to every soul that receives the Spirit. In that wonderful sense which no human being can comprehend, the Spirit comes to each soul as a personality. And yet it does not have what we would call human personality of being in one place only at one time, that is, such personality as has our Lord Himself — in one place as He is in no other place. The Holy Spirit may be in any number of places at one and the same time, bringing the special presence of God in each of those places. In the office of the "Signs of the Times" there are fourteen different telephones all connecting with the manager. The manager may connect all these with him at one and the same time. He could issue a general order so that the foreman of each department could hear his voice at the same time. In a way he is personally present in every department. Every department hears his voice. The marvelous invention of the telephone makes him present in fifteen different places at the same time. So it is that God's Spirit makes the Father and the Son present in as many different places as God may direct, at one and the same time. We know somewhat of the working. We understand how it is to some extent of the Lord's ways and methods. We see the effects, but we know almost nothing of the nature and the power that Infinity uses to communicate with man. Let us be willing to leave it there. In some instances the Spirit is represented as the great life of God. In some it is spoken of as a power that is poured out and shed forth. To the individual it comes as the representative of the personal God. Therefore it may be spoken of as a personality, and looking at it from another view-point, as not a personality.


Revew and Herald, Sept 6, 1892

Is God a Spirit?

Question:
If God is a spirit (John 4:24) and at the same time a person (Dan 7:9) would not the same reasoning prove that the Holy Spirit is a PERSON as referred to in John 4: 26?

Answer:
NO - For God is elsewhere described and represented as a Person; but the Holy Spirit is not. The fact that the Holy Spirit is personified John 14 and thus spoken of as acting in a personal and individual manner does NOT prove it to be a person any more than the fact that love is spoken of in 1 Cor 13 as performing certain acts and exercising certain emotions, prove that charity or love is a person.


That's the theme of the Pioneers....
...Who by the way had ZERO problem calling Jesus "God".
...Yet theologically were explicit he wan't God in the same way the Father was.

I'm not telling you a lie here...
...This issue is ALL about; "The Personality of God".

As you said, God = The Father who is a literal 'being'...
...And the Son = another literal being.
...Opp's, the H.S. does NOT get to attend ALL the councils of God & know His purposes.

Not that obvious, in the end, though, but God's Son personally is Saviour of the world, because he is God himself in the person of his Son.

No, Sister White was explicit that it would be impossible for Deity to sink and die...
...While at the same time was explict that it was VERY POSSIBLE.
...For creature christ to sink and die AND to eternally cease to exist.
...And for the record she said it was the pre-Incarnate Son that would have ceased to exist.

So yes, it's true that Adventists can absolutely call Jesus God...
...It is for a VASTLY different reason than Father God is called God.
...And that's the Pioneer Faith confirmed by Sister White.

Had creature christ 'screwed up' and not remained loyal...
...The true only wise God would have annihilated him.
...Excactly as Sister White codified.

Yes imagine how boring it would be to spend eternity alone. God created us to be social beings we were created in the image of God