Hi again MM

That is an interesting question but we must remember that the Son is begotten of the Father (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18 and 1 John 4:9). He is the express image of the Father’s person. the personality of the Father shown(Hebrews 1:3).

Throughout the Scriptures, God and Christ are always spoken of as two separate personages and yet the Scriptures are clear that the Son is God essentially (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8). In personality, He is not the infinite God. He is the Son of the infinite God. For this reason He must be God.

Jesus Himself said

“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;” John 5:26

This text show that God and Christ share the one and the same divine life. God the Father gave His Son everthing He had, including His divine life.

As Ellen White said

"But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of our God to give. "I do nothing of Myself," said Christ; "the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father." "I seek not Mine own glory," but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. (Ellen G. White, 'The Desire of Ages, Page 21, 'God with us')

In 1897 Ellen White wrote

“God has sent his Son to communicate his own life to humanity.” (Ellen G. White, Home Missionary, 1st June 1897, ‘A call to the work’)

Note these words very well. Christ was communicating to humanity the “life” of God.

She continued

“Christ declares, "I live by the Father," my life and his being one.” (Ibid)

This divine “life” (divine nature) is the life of God. Ellen White said that Christ Himself said that He shared this life with the Father.

As she said next

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man." The head of every man is Christ, as the head of Christ is God. "And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." (Ibid)

Here we are told that the life of God and the life of Christ is one life, meaning that they share the same divine life (“my life and his being one”). In other words, it was the life of God the Father that was in Christ. No wonder Ellen White called this life “original, unborrowed, underived” (see ‘The Desire of Ages page 530). Christ’s life was the life of the Father. It was not something that Christ had independent and separate of the Father. In this sense they were one.

Notice here very importantly that this ‘one life’ shared by the Father and Son Ellen White associated with the words of Jesus Himself found in John 5:26-27 (as quoted above).

This ‘one life’ appears to have everything to do with the incomprehensible oneness that Ellen White said that the Son had with God the Father prior to the creation of this world. This was when she said

“There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible.” (Ellen G. White, Review & Herald 5th April 1906 ‘The Word made Flesh’)

Here we are told that prior to the creation of our world there was a certain ‘oneness’ between the Father and Christ. Notice very importantly that Ellen White does not include the Holy Spirit in this oneness. This is more than likely because during the time of her ministry, Seventh-day Adventists did not regard the Holy Spirit as a personal being like they regarded God and Christ as personal beings.

This oneness said Ellen White was incomprehensible (obviously to the human mind) but she did say that it did explain a lot of things that otherwise would remain unexplainable.

This means that the Son was participating in the divine life (divine nature) of His Father. He had no separate existence from His Father. His source of power was the Father.

Does this help?

Terry

This may be true in regards to a portion of EGW's ministry, but not towards the end. At the beginning, SDA's were not sure as to Christ's position. If Christ were not a separate person from the Father, and divine Himself, but rather a created being (or a being who was not eternal, without pre-existence) then the Holy Spirit could hardly be seen as a person. In this case you'd only have two persons of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit and God the Father. First Christ's position had to be established, which EGW's statements in 1898 did. (e.g. Christ was Jehovah, the self-existent one). After establishing Christ's position, it was easy to establish the Holy Spirit's.

In 1899 she said:



She spoke of "three living persons of the heavenly trio," and by the end of her ministry, SDA's were clear on this. For example, R. A. Underwood in 1898 indicated that his view of the Holy Spirit had changed. He wrote, "It seems strange to me now, that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an influence, in view of the work He does." (R. A. Underwood, "The Holy Spirit a Person," Review and Herald, LXXV (May 17, 1898), 310.)

Hi Tom

Your understanding of SDA history is somewhat different to my understanding of it. From what I can tell of it re your post, yours is also something that I could not confirm through our historical records.

From the beginning, it was the preponderant belief of Seventh-day Adventists that Christ was fully divine, also equal to God, but this was not as it is portrayed in the trinity doctrine. This was always the belief of the church as a whole. Certainly they did not begin to believe it because of EGW’s 1898 statements. Never was it the preponderant belief of Seventh-day Adventists that Christ was a created being.

I assume by 1898 that you are referring to the book ‘The Desire of Ages’. Historical records show that even up to the time of the death of EGW (17 years later in 1915) this book brought no change to the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. In fact it did not even bring about any controversy. It was just regarded as a beautiful book about Christ.

Theirs was a Bible based understanding of the Godhead without the trappings of the trinity. Admittedly (and very understandably) they did not at first regard the Holy Spirit as a personality and even up to the time of the death of Ellen White, they still did not understand Him to be a personal being like God and Christ were personal beings. This is what I said in my last post. I did not say that they did not regard Him as a personality (perhaps you misunderstood what I said). Even EGW said that the nature of the Holy Spirit could not be understood. She even said to leave any conjecturing about His nature aside because God had not revealed it. Leave it alone she said. That is what we should do today.

It was only after EGW died that attempts were made to change the thinking of SDA’s regarding the Holy Spirit. First there were attempts to bring in trinity concepts of Christ which was totally against all that they taught whilst EGW was alive, then our leadership moved to make the Holy Spirit a personal being like God and Christ. LeRoy Froom was one of the instigators of this move, perhaps the main one. This eventually led to the introduction of the trinity doctrine, which was obviously the intent after EGW had died. Our leadership made no move to do this whilst she was alive although some would probably have liked to have done so.

Throughout the entire time of EGW’s ministry the Seventh-day Adventist Church was strictly a non-trinitarian denomination. She consistently said that what they believed about God and Christ was what God Himself had revealed. She upheld the beliefs of the pioneers. She also said that these beliefs, albeit they were non-trinitarian, should never be changed. She did warn though that wrong views about God and Christ were coming into the SDA Church. Remember, she said this when we were still a non-trinitarian denomination.

The record of history will show that this is a correct understanding of things.

Terry

Hello Terry,

Moreover, on numerous occasions she wrote that "Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years." 1 Selected Messages 207. (1904)

Similar statements found in:

• 1 Selected Messages 204, 208.
• 9 Testimonies 70
• 8 Testimonies 297
• 2 Selected Messages 387

Rather than repent of error, or proclaim a change in doctrine, the Prophet affirms the true teachings of half a century.

Hello Gordonb1

It is nice to make your acquaintance. I assume your name is Gordon. If I am wrong let me know.

You are quite correct in what you say. There are too many people just quoting certain statements here and there - so by doing revising our history.

As Ellen White said – God gave us reason and we must use it.

In the Godhead crisis in the early 1900’s - this was when the trinity doctrine was raising its head - Ellen White did say that what they had been teaching was correct. This was a non-trinitarian faith. In fact at the 1905 General Conference (Takoma Park) where a lot of the delegates would not have been at the beginnings of SDA’ism (so they may not have had a clear understanding of how the truth had been established) she explained how God had led them and how this had been accomplished. In other words, at the conference she was trying to get the delegates to appreciate that God had given them (the pioneers) their then held beliefs.

She also said at that conference that Seventh-day Adventists had not changed their faith in 50 years. She said that certain truths had been well established and that they should not be changed. This was particularly she said regarding God and Christ who had always been believed to be two separate and distinct personalities.

Seventh-day Adventists had always maintained that the Holy Spirit was the Father and Son omnipresent. When EGW said that He was a personality they still remained the statu quo. In other words, they still regarded Him as the Father and Son omnipresent, not a personal being like the Father and Son. That is my understanding of our history.

Terry

TH: This means that the Son was participating in the divine life (divine nature) of His Father. He had no separate existence from His Father. His source of power was the Father. Does this help?

MM: Are you suggesting that Jesus' life and divine nature are one and the same? And, are you suggesting that Jesus is somehow in essence different than the Father, that the Father is more God than Jesus is? Do you believe the Father predated Jesus, that the Father existed before Jesus?

DA 530
In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life. {DA 530.3}

Hello Terry,

Much confusion arises from a small hill of EGW quotations, piled up over the last 10 years. These have also been modified, capitalized, misapplied. Even the word Trinity has been introduced, as if she had used it, but she never used this word.

Most notably, the prominent SDA pioneer authors wrote vigorously against the trinity, including James White. These views were published in the Church papers & books during that fifty year period which she endorses as a 'solid foundation'.

These antitrinitarians include Joseph Bates, James White, John Loughborough, J.H. Waggoner, Uriah Smith, A.T. Jones, E.J. Waggoner, J.N. Andrews and latterly J.S. Washburn and Charles Longacre.

They did not change their views nor repent. They held fast to their foundation as did Ellen White. They had no affinity for the central doctrine of Roman Catholicism, which is Spirtitualism at the core. But few have read the old pioneers, or the EGW writings in context. The body of her work is very clear; the Father and Son are separate and distinct beings. The Son is subject to God the Father.

Gordon

G: The body of her work is very clear; the Father and Son are separate and distinct beings. The Son is subject to God the Father.

MM: As is the Holy Spirit, right? That is, He is a separate and distinct being, subject to the Father, eternal same as the Father and Son.

6BC 1052
[Jesus] determined to give His representative [to us], the third person of the Godhead. {6BC 1052.5}

FLB 52
The Holy Spirit is a free, working, independent agency. {FLB 52.4}

EV 616
We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.--Manuscript 66, 1899. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.) {Ev 616.5}

The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. {Ev 616.6}

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. {Ev 617.1}

Terry, I'll just respond quickly, and will try to gather evidence later on, but I'm surprised you are not aware of the significance of 1898 if you have studied SDA history. This was a wathershed year, because of the DA statements regarding Jesus Christ as "Jehovah, the self-existent One" and His having life in Himself, original, unborrowed, underived.

Hi MM

Re your post 92135

What I am saying is that in His pre-existence, Christ is truly the Son of God. This is who He is rightfully and who Jesus Himself claimed to be (John 3:16, 9:35-38, 10:36). This is who John wrote his gospel to prove Him to be (John 1:18, 20:31) and who John the Baptist said that He was (John 1:34). This is who His disciples recognised Him to be (Matthew 16:16, John 6:69,) also who His enemies said He was claiming to be (Matthew 26:63, 27:40. 27:43, John 5:18, John 19:17). It is also who demonic supernatural beings said that He was (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7) and who His followers after the ascension said that He was (Acts 8:37). It was also who the Holy Spirit led the apostle Paul to teach Christ to be (Acts 9:20. Romans 1:4, 8:3). This is also who it was that the devil tempted Christ to believe that He was not (Matthew 4:3, 4:6). This was in contrast to the personal testimony of the Father who said that Jesus truly was His Son (Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, John 5:37).

The fact that Christ is the begotten Son of God is why He is God essentially (Psalm 110:1, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8). Whatever comes from God must be God. This is why He is fully and completely divine. He is the personality of the Father shown (John 1:18, 14:7-9, 15:24). He is the express image of His Father’s person (Hebrews 1:3). In Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). This was the pleasure of the Father (Colossians 1:19).

John 1:18 is an interesting verse. It is said that earlier manuscripts (some say the best) say ‘monogenes theos’. This is why the New American Bible translated this verse “No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him”. This is God begotten. Not a begotten god. Manuscripts certainly are divided between ‘God’ and ‘Son’.

John 1:18 shows the affiliation of monogenes with a true son. I would deny any understanding of ‘Son’ that does not reflect an ontological relationship between the two (Father and Son). In other words, I would personally reject a metaphorical (figurative) meaning of Son.

In personality, the Son is a separate personage from His Father (Zechariah 6:12-13, John 1:1, 1:14, John 3:5, 5:17, 5:23, 17:3, 20:17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 John 1:3). He is not the Father but in Him dwelt the presence of the Father (John 14:10-11). He is begotten of the Father (John 1:18, John 3:16), not created or adopted. His existence antedates all of creation (Proverbs 8:22-31). His divine life previous to the incarnation cannot be measured by any means known to humanity (John 8:58, Micah 5:2, KJV margin notes, ‘from the days of eternity’). I believe it is best to leave it there and go no further. This is the testimony of Scripture. There is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest that in His divinity that the Son was a lesser being than the Father although there is seen a subordination of the Son as a son to a father.

Prior to the incarnation, I believe it only reasonable to believe that because He was God and equal to God (His Father) there was a certain oneness between them, albeit what constituted this oneness has never been revealed. Having said this and because I could not prove it outright from Scripture, I would not stress this oneness at the expense of their two individualities.

What we do know is that whatever it was that constituted this oneness, if in His incarnation the Son had sinned, it would not have prohibited Him losing His eternal existence (Hebrews 2:17). As far as the existence of the Son is concerned, He does not have any outside of His Father. If He did then I cannot see that He would be God but someone created by God.

This type of oneness must not be confused with trinity doctrine oneness. That latter is indivisible, meaning that whatever the circumstances, it is impossible for the Son to lose His eternal existence. This is because the trinity oneness is God Himself (the one being of God).

This is why we must not confuse the word ‘Godhead’ with ‘trinity’. These are two entirely different concepts. The words translated as Godhead (KJV) have the meaning of pertaining to divinity but trinity as in the trinity doctrine means three-in-one (tri-unity). This is why these two words are not synonymous. It is incorrect to use the phrase ‘Godhead or trinity’. This is very confusing to say the least, also very ambiguous.

With regards to that much-used statement “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived”. I would say that this had to be as such else how could He have been God? As I understand it, this life is the life of the Father (John 5:26). It is divinity. Best to leave it there methinks else we may find ourselves running into speculation that cannot be established from Scripture.

I know that this may not satisfy every question we may have concerning Christ and God but when we speak of these things we are the finite attempting to define the infinite. To conjecture beyond the sacred page could be described as foolish.

Terry