|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,614
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17502
03/29/06 01:55 AM
03/29/06 01:55 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Rosangela posted quote:
Ellen White is not addressing Christ’s earthly life, which was derived from Mary, so “underived” here refers to what, if not to His pre-existence? If He had been literally begotten by God, His life would obviously have been derived from God, no matter how you slice it.
Errr, she speaks directly to his divine life, doesn't she, which is gifted to believers? Pre-existence isn't her point, though it is implicit in his divinity.
As the begotten God, the Son of God shares the divine nature with his Father that his Father also has: that they both have the same nature means that the Son's divinity isn't derived but original - it is not another divinity than the Father's nature, but the very same essence of the Godhead communicated to the Son by the Father begetting him in God's undisclosed, mysterious way, as a one-off and not an ongoing generation. How can the Son be the express image of his Father's person if there wasn't a physical derivation of some sort? The divine nature is underivable, given there is only one true Godhead.
Whether or not the Son's begotten Sonship implies a beginning, his divinity in the Gospels isn't based on an eternal existence but on his Sonship - which is the entire theme of his identity in John's Gospel. Jesus' divinity doesn't rest in the Bible on his co-existence with God (I disbelieve the co-existence theory) but on his Sonship 'of God'.
1 Tim 6:15&16 has characteristics God shares with his Son, but God gave them to the Son, who manifests them to us: the Father dwells in unapproachable light, after all.
Heb 1:1-5 do indeed distinguish their divine personalities, but the SOP comments include a pre-Bethlehem mandate of authority for God's literal Son: the counsels of God are opened to his Son.
The fulfilment references to 2 Sam 7; Ps 2:7 in Heb 1 as well as your additional references Acts 13:33; in Rom 1:4 & Heb 5:5 have to combine with Jn 3:16 and Jn 1:14,18. His resurrection could only confirm his divine, begotten Sonship because it had been true before the incarnation. For example, in Jn 17:5 "Now glorify me, Father,in your presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." His pre-existent, divine, literal Sonship is the basis for him being declared the Son of God with power after he defeated death for us. The confirmation of Jesus' Sonship by his resurrection can surely only be because he was the only begotten God and Son of the Eternal God before he became human.
His resurrection declared him the only begotten Son of God only because it was true before Bethlehem.
My Greek is only informed enough to know that in Jn 1:1 "the Word was with God" has "the" attached to "God", while "the Word was God" doesn't have a "the": that's Greek grammar for an absolute meaning with "the" and a qualitative, descriptive meaning without "the". The Word's divinity is the Father's divinity (Jn 1 & Heb 1), but the Father is God above all.
Equality is a given, except for a very few of us, but Jesus' pre-existent Sonship - his divine identity in the Gospels (even for the demons!!) - is now formally denied by us: that's a bigger problem, wouldn't you say?
|
 Reply
 Quote
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17503
03/29/06 03:14 AM
03/29/06 03:14 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Wennell:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Christ.htm
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/trinitydoc%20among%20sda.pdf
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Doctrine%20of%20the%20Trinity.pdf
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/trinscript.pdf
Important studies, thank you, Bill, but research into more of our pioneers' published writings on the topic show that the second link above needs to be at least as tentative as it is. If brother Pfandl thinks P&P 'can only possibly' be anti-trinitarian, so her famous DA 530 statement 'can only possibly' be trinitarian: viewed as a whole she sides with her contemporaries, and they held a majority against trinitarianism until 1927 perhaps - Froom's "Coming of the Comforter"'s publication year(?). Prescott's change of view, listed in the above link as clashing with what sounded like most of the delegates at the 1919 Bible Conference, wasn't based on DA 530 but on reading non-Adventist literature before 1898 and taking on trinitarian principles which he then took DA 530 to be expressing.
As for the last two links, their presentation of three persons isn't the problem, but their reliance on non-Adventist literature raises questions when its content is compared with our literature, including this week's lesson! Basically the problem starts with the Zondervan published definition, quoted with approval: "God eternally exists as three persons." (4th link,p.1) Our SS lesson states: "God is who the Father is," and that is the correct beginning: God is not essentially three persons, but the Godhead, which doesn't have a number greater than 1 and is essential divinity, starts with the Father, and his Son and Spirit link to him, as our lesson's Sunday quote from SOP makes abundantly clear. That the link is ontological is disputed, but it's the link that fits best: it's the only way to avoid tritheism; mere unity of purpose never sufficed.
Both our lesson's teacher's comments and some lesson content is questionable after such a good start (see above), basically agreeing with Sunday church theology on the divine Being of three persons rather than three persons sharing divine nature.
The third link above has on p.6-7 "the operation of the divine Being in creation and upon the human life testified in revelation and experience" as the Biblical portrayal. That article can't discern between the divine nature shared by three persons and the divine Being of three persons, and includes both.
Vol.12 of the SDABC is nearly as bad, rejecting - in common with these articles - any ontological link between the divine persons, while holding back from the error of a divine being of three persons; yet, co-existence remains a point of contention. Its rejection of ontological links of the Son to the Father, and the Spirit to Father and Son leaves it relying on their unity of purpose to avoid tritheism. This leaves problems & questions.
[ March 29, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Colin ]
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17504
03/30/06 04:08 AM
03/30/06 04:08 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
Errr, she speaks directly to his divine life, doesn't she, which is gifted to believers? Pre-existence isn't her point, though it is implicit in his divinity.
Christ’s divine life is the life He had in His pre-existence, isn’t it?
quote:
How can the Son be the express image of his Father's person if there wasn't a physical derivation of some sort?
Christ’s being the express image of His Father is not related to physical similarity, but to similarity of character. What does this have to do with physical derivation?
quote:
The divine nature is underivable, given there is only one true Godhead.
I agree that the divine nature is underivable, but you have just contradicted this by saying that there was a physical derivation. “Underived” life means a life not derived from any other being.
quote:
Whether or not the Son's begotten Sonship implies a beginning, his divinity in the Gospels isn't based on an eternal existence but on his Sonship - which is the entire theme of his identity in John's Gospel. Jesus' divinity doesn't rest in the Bible on his co-existence with God (I disbelieve the co-existence theory) but on his Sonship 'of God'.
I think His divinity is based on His equality with God. He is co-equal with God. But if there is one aspect in which God and Christ aren’t equal – that is, in their eternity – then there is no equality.
quote:
Heb 1:1-5 do indeed distinguish their divine personalities, but the SOP comments include a pre-Bethlehem mandate of authority for God's literal Son: the counsels of God are opened to his Son.
A pre-Bethlehem mandate of authority for the Son? Ellen White says:
“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. {8T 268.3}
She is discussing Heb. 1:1-5. But what is Heb. 1:1-5 speaking about? When was Christ made equal with the Father?
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?" Hebrews 1:1-5. {8T 268.2}
Here we see that He was made equal with His Father at His exaltation. And why did He have to be made equal with His Father? Why is He being compared to angels?
“But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one” (Heb. 2:9).
Since He was made lower than the angels, when He ascended to heaven He was again exalted above the angels, being made equal to God by a decree. Of course all this is symbolic of His re-assuming the authority He has always had in heaven.
quote:
The confirmation of Jesus' Sonship by his resurrection can surely only be because he was the only begotten God and Son of the Eternal God before he became human.
He is the eternal Son because He is our Savior since all eternity – not because He was literally generated by God.
quote:
My Greek is only informed enough to know that in Jn 1:1 "the Word was with God" has "the" attached to "God", while "the Word was God" doesn't have a "the": that's Greek grammar for an absolute meaning with "the" and a qualitative, descriptive meaning without "the".
I don’t know which Greek grammar would say that, since the absence or presence of the article never determines a difference in the meaning of the word. All the important words of the Bible are sometimes presented with the article, sometimes without: God, faith, love, gospel, etc.
Just in the first chapter of John we have four examples of the word “God” without the article:
John 1:6 – "There was a man sent from God" – no article
John 1:12 – "he gave power to become children of God" – no article
John 1:13 – "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" – no article
John 1:18 – "No one has ever seen God" – no article
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17505
03/29/06 08:36 PM
03/29/06 08:36 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
I don’t know which Greek grammar would say that, since the absence or presence of the article never determines a difference in the meaning of the word. All the important words of the Bible are sometimes presented with the article, sometimes without: God, faith, love, gospel, etc.
Just in the first chapter of John we have four examples of the word “God” without the article:
John 1:6 – "There was a man sent from God" – no article
John 1:12 – "he gave power to become children of God" – no article
John 1:13 – "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" – no article
John 1:18 – "No one has ever seen God" – no article
I'm curious about this too, Colin. I've studied a fair amount of Greek, and don't recall the point you're making about absolulteness and articles. Just browsing around the net a bit I found this:
quote:
"The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning."
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17506
03/29/06 10:55 PM
03/29/06 10:55 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
"The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning."
Thank you, Tom: That's the explanation, for that's how Jn 1:1c is structured.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17510
03/30/06 06:56 AM
03/30/06 06:56 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr.Glenn:
Dear Rosangela:
You state "I agree that divine nature is underivable".
We de[p]rive "divine nature" or " the godhead" from the Father and the Son. See 2 Peter 1:4
Here the greek word for "godhead" is translated "divine nature".
I hope you know you're pulling someone's leg with this one! ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
We "partake" of divine nature by the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in us, not by being 'begotten children of God' - we are after all "adopted" children: we derive nothing of the divine nature, but the righteousness of God wrought in Jesus' human character (the Father's character is strictly holy) is imparted to us.
It should be generally agreed that "Godhead" is "divine nature", hopefully.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT
#17511
03/30/06 08:00 AM
03/30/06 08:00 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Rosangela wrote quote:
quote:
How can the Son be the express image of his Father's person if there wasn't a physical derivation of some sort?
Christ’s being the express image of His Father is not related to physical similarity, but to similarity of character. What does this have to do with physical derivation?
Granted the Greek speaks of character, but SOP includes appearance in that express image. In fact she says that they are so alike as to be little short of identical. quote:
quote:
The divine nature is underivable, given there is only one true Godhead.
I agree that the divine nature is underivable, but you have just contradicted this by saying that there was a physical derivation. “Underived” life means a life not derived from any other being.
Divine life isn't sourced in the Father and Son's persons or bodies but in their nature: their individual possession of the original Godhead means that each has self-originated - "aseity" in theological speak - divine life, in their divine essence. No contradiction, just letting them each have the Godhead in their bodies.
Rosangela wrote quote:
I think His divinity is based on His equality with God. He is co-equal with God. But if there is one aspect in which God and Christ aren’t equal – that is, in their eternity – then there is no equality.
Phil 2:6 as coupled with P&P ch.1 shows that equality was never an issue between them, though it is from our point of view, and was from Lucifer's standpoint! The Godhead they shared side by side made them both God in attitude first and in action as well: co-equality was in their possession of diety and their holy attitude, as well as the authority and creatorship which came with it. Co-equality isn't the linch-pin of Jesus' divinity: that he possesses all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (aside from manifesting it) is what makes the Son of God God alongside his Father.
Heb 1:1-5&6 don't make sense as happening only after Jesus' ascension: the angels worshipped him before his death on the cross, while he was on earth. v.3b-5 do not follow as the same event after the Ascension: v.4&5 establish the Son's diety as P&P chapter 1 explains it happening before Lucifer rebelled. That Sonship was confirmed by his resurrection and reinvestiture in heaven with all power and authority, yes, but EGW is crystal clear that v.4 happened in the eons of the past, and not post-Calvary: the Son of God inherited God's name!!! In Hebrews it is stated poetically in contrast to the angels, but it was not 'historical', like after Christ's ascension.
What can she mean in 8T 268 with "All the counsels of God are opened to His Son", except that Lucifer was excluded while God's Son was exclusively included. The amount of statements by Sister White that I have read supporting Christ's pre-existent begotten Sonship is convincing, not just persuasive, and those statements go beyond 1898 and the Desire of Ages.
Back to the topic, though: the few Adventists who don't believe the Holy Spirit has a divine personality aren't on this forum, I don't think.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
