Glenn,
Thanks for answering. It helps me understand something about your experience. Now I will share a few points from my own. I have no natural affinity for a pro-godhead position (one God manifest in three co-eternal persons). I have examined this teaching somewhat dispassionately. In some ways, if anything, it would be better if I could get rid of it since it is beyond complete explanation. Nevertheless, I am driven to it by Scripture. I can reconcile stack A and stack B of facts but God still requires me to accept where He has not given me the detail, by faith. I accept that in believing, He wants me to exercise faith and that this teaching is one place where He has worked as He has. He might have either given us more detail or less, and either way alleviated the apparent problem. HJe chose neither. So I am left to exercise faith or try to reason my way out of it independently of Him. I choose faith.

Another point, it is hard for me to see this issue as having a giant magnitude as an end-time "truth," as at least some seem to think it is. When I read Bible and read EGW, I can't see that this has the magnitude that some are adamant that it does. On the other hand, I see the Sabbath and its relationship to RBF and issues kindred to the cleansing of the sanctuary as dominant themes when I examine Daniel, Revelation, and EGW. I think the current stir on the three in one issue is much more fruit of the sharp meltdown in trust in church leaders that has been generated by their inaction and even radical embrace of pluralism. We are reaping the worldwind and this is just one more manifestation of it and the lost confidence some have in the church. I can only say this in the same breath as I acknowledge that in my understanding we actually have placed too much confidence in such leaders. However, there baby and bathwater and I think we should save the baby; we just need to learn to tell the babies apart from the bathwater. As long as leadership in the church is content to, through inaction, leave its influence in tatters, we will only see more of the same; more worlds made of atoms and atoms made of worlds.

Finally, I see no problem there in John 5:26. Father can raise the dead, Jesus can raise the dead. The Father appoints Jesus as Judge of men for that He took human flesh and became one of us. His mission, His coming in incarnation, are granted by the Father. That He has life in Himself is a given (life original, unborrowed, underived). Here, context shows that the main point is Jesus incarnation. The Jews were angry because they understodo that His claim made Him equal with God. Jesus did not just decide to come here on His own, but consulted with the Fatehr and the Holy Spirit before the mission was approved by the Father. I do not think that the passage is discussing ontology apart from the incarnational mission; the whole passage is littered with referneces to the incarnation specifically. I don't see the problem here, unless one is intent on removing 5:26 from its context and addressing it as an entirely independent ontological statement about God's being.

In any case, I was not stating my working beliefs as a proposition to defend them here. I have many other things at the moment that I am working on. I appreciate that you feel you have discovered significant problems in this teaching. However, I do not see these problems sustained by either the Bible or EGW. Perhaps as each of us continues to study, we will find increased clarity. But I think we can only expect that as we are willing to be led of God and to exercise faith on the way to a better understanding. If anyone would try to take the same journey on the basis of unaided human reason, it will be a lonely one without God's help. LK

Sorry, I don't have a problem with "underived" in the context of Sister White's position of Jesus begotten, divine & eternal Sonship - you have a problem...Otherwise, that non-Adventist scholar I referred to is a trinitarian defending orthodox trinitarianism.

The real mystery to me is that Adventism lays claim to the trinitarian label but rejects and refuses the very basis of trinitarian teaching: the Son of God is begotten of the Father, "God of God" etc.

All the while the Holy Spirit is Jesus' representative with us, since it is the spirit of the Godhead. Jesus' divinity is being debated instead, though....

The issue of issues in these last days is God's character. Every issue we study should be in the context of that issue. We should be able to explain all of our views in terms of how it fits into the Great Controversy.

That's something I find lamentably missing in virtually all threads.

One positive thing I'll mention that the minority position has brought up is that Jesus really was God's Son and that God's character is revealed in His giving of God's Son to us. I've stated this in my own words, so it's stated in a way all can agree with. That God so love the world that He gave His Son is essential truth, which everyone gives lip service to, but few dig deeper into the meaning.

While I disagree with the specific implementation of this truth that the minority position offers, I deeply appreciately the emphasis upon this truth. At least I can say that this conversation has led me to think about this truth more deeply and has caused a greater appreiation of it.

Tom, you baffle me in your first paragraph. I thought you were emphasizing the God's character then you ended up with the Great Controversy.

Is that not the focal point of the GC?

Rosangela, could you do me a favor please? You have cited some texts from the Spirit of Prophecy where she refers to Christ as "God" and to the Holy Spirit as "God." Could you repost these please. Just the references would be enough.

Thanks very much.