Ellen White makes a statement that if the Father had come to earth rather than the Son, the gospel story would be exactly the same, so there is some support for what you say Mike. But in saying that, she stops short of also saying that the roles of the Father and Son are interchangeable. The reason the gospel story would be the same is that the character of all members of the deity are identical - they are all the Holy God. But because God has disclosed to us that each member has separate roles, I think it is going too far to say that any of their roles could be exchanged unless we have something from inspiration to support this. You do have identical titles conferred on Christ in Isaiah, but I‘m not sure that is enough. Names and titles in the bible often denote character traits. I don’t know if we can apply these names to roles given the other scriptures that describe the roles. So when Christ is call the everlasting Father, I think it refers to his character, and that the other scriptures define their different roles. What do you think?

Whether or not titles and roles can be so easily separated I don't know. But when Isa 9:6 calls Jesus "the" everlasting Father, I am tempted to wonder if (at some point long ago) their roles were interchangeable. But ever since they assigned themselves roles, however long ago that was, I do not doubt that they maintain those roles for our benefit.

Another thing I am very sure about is the idea that there is nothing innately superior about the Father that makes Him more qualified than the Son or the Spirit to serve in the capacity of Father. Whatever else can be inferred from that point is probably beyond our human scope to say with certainty. I don't know.

Your last point is an important one. Often we will teach our children to pray to Jesus rather than the Father because we ourselves may have the misconception that the character of the one is somehow different from the other. On the other hand we may think that because the Son was/is in subjection to the Father that he is a subordinate in an earthly sense. Both are wrong. The paradox of the heavenly society is that 'he that would be greatest, let him be your servant.' And so the Father recognizes this principle and directs all created beings to worship Christ. And yet we worship the Father for sending Him to save us. And yet He was not sent, He asked to come here, and was given permission to do so, but only after the most intense struggle on the part of the Father to allow His son to humiliate himself and finally die for us. These things are too deep for us!

Here it the thread. This is a good topic to study.

Here is another thread Dennis on the topic.

This topic has come to mind from the humanity of Christ threads, so I've finally made time to revive it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Shipowick:
Your last point is an important one. Often we will teach our children to pray to Jesus rather than the Father because we ourselves may have the misconception that the character of the one is somehow different from the other. On the other hand we may think that because the Son was/is in subjection to the Father that he is a subordinate in an earthly sense. Both are wrong. The paradox of the heavenly society is that 'he that would be greatest, let him be your servant.' And so the Father recognizes this principle and directs all created beings to worship Christ.

---

Yes, both those points are wrong, as you note, but it's got nothing to do with the exaltation of humility after the divine order. Jesus said, no man cometh unto the Father but by me. Jesus is primary target of prayer, because he's our intercessor with the Father.

quote:

---

And yet we worship the Father for sending Him to save us. And yet He was not sent, He asked to come here, and was given permission to do so, but only after the most intense struggle on the part of the Father to allow His son to humiliate himself and finally die for us. These things are too deep for us!

---

Well, only while we don't 'sink our shafts deep into the mine of truth', or words to that effect by Sister White. This subordination point, and the identity of the Holy Spirit, can be adequately sorted out from the Bible and the SOP.

I don't know what's happened to Ed Sutton, as he put in some good posts - a while back, though, of course! His line, and that of Adventbeliever, didn't really draw much at all on the SOP line of thinking, but suggested more of the thinking today, modelled as it is now on trinitarian structures. MM is strongly on today's thinking!

The understanding that the Father is literally such, and the Son is literally such, and the Holy Spirit is the divine, intelligent Spirit of the divine nature they share, has definitely fallen on unpopular times since between the world wars(!!!). Yet, Ellen White is clear in Patriarchs and Prophets, in its first chapter and its first two pages, that Prov 8:22-30 complement John 1:1,2. This matches John 5:26.

The unity of the Godhead is firstly the family structure, while purpose, attitude and character flow from that. Their one nature is because they are linked as Father and Son. That is a mystery, but that's what the Bible says. Sister White is clear that the Son of God was invested by the Father with divine authority outside the Father's presence, and such in the presence of the entire heavenly host, as part of the answer to Lucifer's dispute.

This the Son's position in relation to the Father is repeated in 8T 268, in relation to Heb 1.

The trinity teaching has problems with its co-existence point clashing with these Biblical texts & SOP statements, especially as the new Handbook of SDA Theolody (the fullest study of the topic) totally disowns the Son's "begotten" Sonship, arguing for "uniqueness", totally against SOP, while modern Greek scholarship differing with that is a weak minority. Is the trinity teaching Biblical, after all?

one of the issues with our pioneers was the fact that the Father was also a literal physical Being. early writings stressed that the Father had a form. for some reason this was extremely important and must also be for these last days in some way we may not understand yet.

the papal trinity doctrine, as well as the reformation churches, all believe God is a literal "spirit" of some kind. ive been wondering if this will have something to do with the increasing spiritualism that is pervading everything including protestant churches. nor is it not only not a stumblingblock, it gives most other, if not all, religions a common bond with christianity.

i so appreciated the points that were being made on the biblical unity of the Father, Son and HolySpirit made as opposed to the papal doctrine which takes away from that very important lesson we need to learn.

our attention needs to be on that biblical unity of the three as a lesson/example for us to emulate with each other, somehow, instead of trying to teach a 3-in-1 which has no edification for anyone, anywhere, at any time ever.

the only one i can see gaining by this doctrine is satan. if he can get us to buy into this "mysterious" impossiblity, what other mumbo-jumbo does he have up his sleeves that we also need to "take on faith".

my apologies to all the devout trinitarians in the crowd for my wording. but i so hope and pray that serious consideration might be given to this issue.

The problem of course is that if you insist on unity of three while rejecting 3-in-1, you will have to explain how what you have is not polytheism.

The problem to which the trinity has been the answer can be stated thus: God Father, Jesus Son of God, Holy Spirit, are all God.
Yet, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

How can the Father, the Son and the Spirit be One?
You have three options, either you reject that Jesus and the Spirit are God. That would preserve one God.
Or you reject the truth of Deuteronomy 6:4, saying that it is a lie. That would also remove the problem.
Your third option is some form of trninty where Father, Son and Spirit make up one God.

Rejecting Jesus being God creates considerable problems, (for instance, you would have one human dying for the sins of all other humans, and you would have a God accepting human sacrafice or even commanding human sacrafice for His appeacement.)
Rejecting Deuteronomy 6:4 creates another set of problems which I am sure you are well aware of.
Affirming the trinity appears to create problems such as you mentioned in your post above, percieved similarities with other religions and other gods even though we read in 1 Cor 8 that for the christian there is only one God, and problems with accepting John 4:24 where Jesus says that God is Spirit.

I guess my post isn't so neutral...

we could always start another thread on the original words and meanings of this phrase:

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one".

yes, "Jesus says that God is Spirit". but in what context? what is the point He is making?