...I'm surprised you are not aware of the significance
of 1898 if you have studied SDA history. This was a watershed year...

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

Hello MM,

There are a few statements which make it appear that EGW was Trinitarian, but the body of her work, the weight of evidence, shows that she taught Christ was the Son of God before creation. Christ came forth from the Father as she asserts in Patriarchs & Prophets p. 34. Here she quotes Proverbs 8:22-30 and Micah 5:2 as applying to Christ's beginning. These are examples where she is laying down the facts at the very beginning of the 5-volume Conflict series. These do not deny the Divinity of Christ, yea, they assert it! Christ was made in the express image of His Father.

Who are we to deny that the Ancient of Days can bring forth One in His express image? When we have seen Christ we have seen the Father, though the Father is seated on the Throne in Heaven. No man has seen God the Father at any time. But looking unto Christ we behold the fullness of the Godhead bodily, the express image of the Father.

Please see the following note to Tom regarding 1898.

Gordon

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. {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}