So let me get this straight: God is one person, but "more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead" is revealed? That's like saying you have one mouth and you have two mouths. You can't have it both ways. It's either one or the other. (You can't have your cake and eat it too. )

Then let's get the next point straight: You want to say that God the Father and God the Son can both be persons, but the Holy Spirit cannot? I recall Jesus saying that one could blaspheme Jesus and be forgiven, but won't be forgiven if he blasphemes the Holy Ghost. Does this not seem like you're treading on thin ice here?

It seems like you are saying something similar to the folk who accept that the Ten Commandments are enduring and unchanging, and are still binding today--that is, all but the fourth one!

Making exceptions against the Holy Spirit for a reason? Does the devil have an agenda to push with us against God's Spirit for a reason? Maybe he doesn't want us to be recipients of the Latter Rain--do you think?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh dear, how long is this post going to get.

Is it? The Bible names God the Father personally separate to our Lord Jesus Christ
That gives the Father personal priority and deference above Jesus, his Son: the divine family is personal and pragmaticly holy; for the will of God is sourced in the Father, primarily. Jesus himself wouldn't say that he himself is God, but defer to his Father to sort out that question - affirmatively, too, as the Bible shows, incidentally. He would accept praise, but not assertions. The Bible calls him God's one, begotten Son, and that's what we should humbly confess. In this Spirit, identifying the Father as God individually independent of his Son is even Biblical, not so.

We agree then: the Godhead resides in the Father bodily, and equally so in the person of his only begotten Son; the divine Word was with God from the beginning and begotten of God as his Son in eternity past. That's what the Bible says, too; I don't need to pull out the Special Testimonies, Series B, on that, do I. We may wonder a bit about Jesus' actual, divine Sonship in eternity past, but that's what it says and we believe it. At least we used to as a whole church, but many, young and old, still do.

And? That's ambiguous, since the infinite omnipresence of God and Christ isn't a usual sort of person - having personality yes, but the still small voice of God is the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead speaking to our minds, dwelling within us, not the Spirit standing next to us like an individual as Christ himself would; also, the Spirit speaks of Christ, not of itself, for he, the HS, is the Spirit of Christ.
The Holy Spirit is at least Christ himself abiding with us - the Father abides with us, too , for the Spirit of God and of Christ has the power to manifest their presence within us, as Jesus himself said: Amen.

The Spirit is the omnipresence of God and of Christ, as I said.

More about the Spirit that we cannot fathom.

We can know that Ellen White was clear all the time till she died that the persons of the Godhead are not trinitarian, all exactly the same in all personal ways in possessing the Godhead.

Of the same substance, yes, but being distinct persons, too: "consubstantial" means two centers of consciousness without form or limb within the mystic substance of the Nicene Creed. No, thank you!

That's what I said, btw.

Pardon?
Remember this?
Now, notice this?
Jesus was God's only begotten Son in his pre-existence, as the Bible suggests, and not just after Bethlehem. As I said in my post, the Father is God next to Christ, his one, begotten Son - two distinct individuals & persons as we think of persons.

Doesn't this confirm the Father and Son's individualities, in line with the first FLB quote, and where we should stop in extrapolating the Bible's teaching on God? Two individuals, not just two mouths, or whatever.


Thank you for your concern, GC. Been studying the Bible & SOP on this, so our Holy God appears more pragmatic than formulated and rigid, just as the Father has revealed himself, his Son and their Spirit, to us. See also, of course, my reply to Rosangela.

The nature of the Spirit is, first, a mystery: the omnipresence of God and of Christ, having personality, yes, but an independent individual like them, too? The Spirit is sent from them, by them, to speak of them: when we are indwelt by the Spirit, we have the presence of Christ in our life, not so. That's the mysterious nature of the Spirit, isn't it: we can't be so specific about the Spirit, can we?

It seems like you are saying something similar to the folk who accept that the Ten Commandments are enduring and unchanging, and are still binding today--that is, all but the fourth one!

Making exceptions against the Holy Spirit for a reason? Does the devil have an agenda to push with us against God's Spirit for a reason? Maybe he doesn't want us to be recipients of the Latter Rain--do you think?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa. [/quote]
The Spirit is God's regenerating agency, in us: that means we receive the former rain when we are justified and experience the rebirth of grace through faith.

Only as we fully experience the knowledge of grace in Christ of the former rain can we be ready for the latter rain - for which we have been praying and waiting. The quickening influence of Christ's presence in our lives leads us along that path. I'm not demeaning or minimising the Holy Spirit, just suggesting that the Bible says very little about the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead.

Another Comforter, sent by the Father in Jesus' name, to dwell within us and make real Christ's righteousness in our minds and the law of Christ in our life.

The spiritual reality, peace and fellowship with God, recreated in us by the Holy Spirit of God, is based on God dying for our sins. Yet, since divinity cannot die, who or what died on the cross for our sins? That's the hidden question at the heart of this thread - rejection of the doctrine of the trinity in our church's history: Given this and many, many statements like it saying that God's Son is active in salvation
Essentially, is the underlined sentence true - is Jesus the pre-existent Son of the infinite God who became man to die for us? Quite a question, since our SDA doctrine of the trinity excludes Jesus from being the only begotten Son of God in his pre-existence: that's a difference, for the Son of God himself is spoken of. Is our doctrine correct, or must we look again at the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy which is authoritative in emphasising truth?

You are twisting Ellen White's context to say something she never intended. She could just as easily have said "Jesus" instead of "Son of God." It would have been just as true, and yet, He was never called "Jesus" until He was born in Bethlehem. The word "Jesus" was never one of His titles prior to that. But as we know well who is being spoken of by the term "Jesus," she could legitimately have used the word. It would be like speaking of "Paul" on the road to Damascus, nevermind the fact that he was still "Saul" at that time. Once his identity is learned, we can correctly identify him by that identity--even at earlier points in time before that identity was taken.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's an example of Mrs. White speaking of "Jesus" in the Garden of Eden, before it was ever said of Him that "and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)



How can "Jesus" create the world when "Jesus" had not yet been given this name? It is the same with the "Son of God." Though He had not yet become the Son of God before Bethlehem, having once gained this identity, it is not incorrect to refer to His prior existence by it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, she could have said "Jesus", his incarnate name - revealed first to Joseph: that is indeed his most well known name. When, though, was the identity of Son of the infinite God" taken? Since eternity, as that is the clear implication of Sister White's statement, here and many, many more times?

Before we get truly sidetracked, on this thread.

This is about what is published in the Sabbath School lesson for the first week in January - yes, next weeks' lesson: hence we're not discussing this on that thread.

Lesson #1 1/2012: The Triune God

The title of the lesson may well not mean what we understand as the Godhead. The lesson, compared to the discussion on this thread, includes no SOP quotes except for a tiny quote filling up a fourth of the further reading section: Is the lesson correct that adventists who ever opposed the trinity doctrine denied the deity of Christ? Does the lesson's defence of Christ's deity sit perfectly with the EGW quote fitted in at the end - and her New Zealand quote in the 2nd post of this thread, on page one?

It appears to me not so, as she speaks of Christ as the actual Son of God since eternity past - being the self-existing Son of God in his pre-existence. The lesson allows the Creator to die on the cross - agreeing with SOP, but also completely avoids the issue of Christ's Sonship - which she spoke of 'incessantly': since divinity cannot die, the Creator needs a divine identity revealed in the Bible and mentioned by Ellen White, that can die without endangering the existence of the "Triune God".

Only as the Father is God himself can he give himself in the begotten person of his Son to die for man without endangering the Godhead which he fully possesses. Were the "Triune God" minimally consisting of three persons, then, while humanity died on the cross in the body of Christ, God himself could not die as God the Son - the Triune God would cease to exist as three. One nature, yes, but three or one person as God?...Who or what died at Calvary? I hope this is a little clearer.

I think I follow you. My concern is more along the lines that we preserve the scriptural roles of the Godhead and not become mystical or imbalanced by delving into things that are off limits because they're beyond our grasp. Ellen White's counsel is for the bible student to read and understand the scripture's statements on the character and nature of God for himself. Relying on a creed has inherent dangers because creeds, unlike scripture are human creations and not inspired. As Christ said to Satan, Man is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Yes, mystical and erroneous understandings we must avoid, and hold to what the Bible says. Creeds are of no interest to me, either.

I was not suggesting, with that line of mine that you quoted, any form of modalism but rather what our church held as our belief before the 1920s. God the Eternal Father, his only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead.

While avoiding errors about God, it's also important to see how God is able as God to save man, and that goes to the heart of the matter.