Times of desperation can often tempt us to shift our values—make us consider things we’d never consider under any other circumstances. Shawn Boonstra talks about why you can trust Jesus to help you overcome Satan's temptation just like He did.

https://www.voiceofprophecy.com/authentic/episode/s6e04

The Temptation of Christ, Part 2

As I understand the position that Gustave have taken, he believes:

*  Due to the foreknowledge of God, Christ could not have sinned.

*  God can not die, and therefore, if Christ had sinned, God could not have died.

*  That EGW taught that if Christ had sinned, the God part of Christ would have died.

I plan to comment on the above in this  post. I am starting a new thread due to what I consider to be     the complicated development of some other threads.

God's foreknowledge:  SDAs, almost in totality, believe that God has foreknowledge.  [NOTE:  The position of Dr. Richard Rice is an exception to this.  But, he is in the minority on this issue.]    But, SDAs do not believe that God's foreknowledge  removes the freedom of choice that people have.  SDA belief is that God simply knows what choice people will make.  Therefore, SDAs generally believe that God knew that Christ would not sin, but, Christ was not prevented from sinning.   IOW  it was not impossible for Christ to have sinned.

God cannot die:  SDAs  would agree with this.  They would say that if Christ had sinned, that would have  resulted in the death of the human part of Christ.  But, it could not have resulted in the death of the God part of Christ.

EGW & the death of God:  SDAs generally believe that in the incarnation The God part of Christ existed in a quiescent state of being.  In that condition, the God part of Christ was not active, and Christ lived in that humanity that we live today.  In that  quiescent state of inactivity, the God nature of Christ  did not become active until, at the resurrection when God the Father gave the God part of Christ permission to become active again.

Yes,  this idea places Christ, in one sense, subordinate to God the Father, only during the incarnate life of Christ, and that subordination was voluntary.  It does not place Christ as subordinate as either a member of the Trinity, or as Christ's role in heaven.

What did Ellen White mean when she employed phrases like "third person of the Godhead", "three Living persons in the heavenly trio", "the three holiest beings in heaven", "the three great powers of heaven", "the three highest powers in the universe", and "the three great worthies in heaven"?

There are a number of statements in the Spirit of prophecy that could suggest that the Godhead is three separate beings. The purpose of this paper is to examine these statements in the light of all the evidence available Let me first present the historical background to the use of these statements which will facilitate a strong level of connection between us and then move forward from there. In searching these statements we find the following: 

Context and Usage of These Terms

We will first observe their sequencing as prioritized according to frequency of use.

“three great powers of heaven”  Search = 29 entries, 15 original sources

“three highest powers"  Search = 12 entries, 6 original sources

"third person of the godhead"  Search:= 21 entries, 4 original sources

“the threefold name”  Search = 7 entries, only 1 original source

“three living persons of the heavenly trio”  Search = 5 entries, only 1 original source

“three great worthies”   Search = 4 entries, only 1 original source

Next, observe the dates of first occurrence and number of times published for each expression:

"third person of the Godhead" 1896, 1897, 1898,____________________1904, 1905,_____1908

"the threefold name" ________________1900

"three great powers of heaven" ____________________1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1907,_________1910

"three highest powers" ___________________________________1904, 1905, 1907, 1908, 1909

"three great worthies, three holiest beings, three persons of the heavenly trio" ___________________________________________1906

It is under a hidden tab.  I will send the link to anyone who requests.  You can message me here on ClubAdventist, or you can message me through my website.  

The book is a compilation of almost every published statement from Ellen White, on the nature of God.  

Rachel Cory-Kuehl

Quote

James White said: "THE WAY SPIRITUALIZERS HAVE DISPOSED OF OR DENIED THE ONLY LORD GOD AND OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IS FIRST USING THE OLD UNSCRIPTURAL TRINITARIAN CREED, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God." (James White, January 24, 1846, The Day Star)

To view the above in context go to: WMC18460124-V09-07,08.pdf (adventistarchives.org) and look on page 1

Correct me if I'm wrong here but Ellen became directly associated with James White CIRCA January 1845 did she not? The point I'm making here is that Ellen had been assisting James White, in his "Ministry", for the better part of a year PRIOR TO James White affirming that Jesus Christ was NOT ETERNAL GOD in the Day Star article and 7 months after James White publicly affirms Christ ISN"T God Ellen White marries James and gets right to producing offspring. A theological belief that Christ isn't The Eternal God IS INCOMPATIBLE with the Doctrine of the Trinity,  Hanseng. Where did Ellen "CORRECT" the ministry of James White? 

6 years later James White again blows his theological trumpet. 

Quote

James White said: To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. Sabbath Herald, August 5, 1852

The above can be read in context by going to: RH18520805-V03-07.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

By this time Ellen White had been directly involved with James White's ministry for 7 years. Again, feel free to correct me here but was not James (and the other early SDA's) PRIMARY beef with the Nicene Creed and Trinitarianism was that they taught God was "WITHOUT BODY AND PARTS" and was not it explicitly stated that Trinity "spiritualized away" the flesh body of Father God? To refresh your memory, I refer you to the following: 

Quote

James White said: We cannot be mistaken here. We know then that the time for, this third message, is now. We know also that the time for keeping all the commandments right has been since 1844, since God called us out of. Babylon. If we had stayed there, bound down by ministers and creeds, the glorious light of the Holy. Sabbath never would have reached us ; but glory to 'God, the, second angel's message called us out frem the fallen churches where we are now free to think, and act for ourselves in the fear of God

The above can be read in context by going to: PT-AR-Part1-09.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

Here is where the "body and parts" of God affirmation comes from. 

Quote

Sabbath Herald says:  The first article of the Methodist Religion, p. 8. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness : the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this God-head, there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In this article like the Catholic doctrine, we are taught that there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity making in all one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts. But in all this we are not told what becameof the body of Jesus who had a body when he ascended,who went to God who " is everywhere" or nowhere.

The above can be read in context by going to: RH18540307-V05-07.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

These Sabbath Herald articles go on and on rebuking ANY Christian Creed that affirms that God is ONE SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE WITHOUT BODY AND PARTS claiming that any Creed that says so has spiritualized away The Personality of God (AKA Father's Flesh body). In fact was it not Ellen's initial vision that affirmed what James White and the other SDA Pioneers had been saying about the Personality of God? 

Quote

Ellen White said she visited Jesus and found out: I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist."

So, supposedly Ellen White was the last person to have an actual conversation with Jesus about the first question she asks is if "HIS FATHER HAD A FORM LIKE HIMSELF". It's for the above reasons and many, many more that James White could gloat in 1871 that: 

Quote

James White said: "We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them [ the testimonies of Mrs. White ]

The above can be read in context by going to: RH18710613-V37-26.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

So, as SDA Scholars have repeatedly said, 'Ellen didn't create ONE DOCTRINE of the SDA Church' - she confirmed as truth the doctrines other people suggested - Ellen did this by exercising the Spirit of Prophecy supposedly. The very public SDA understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy was that "THE TESTIMONIES" were INCOMPATIBLE with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

Since Hanseng has said I may have very poor scholarship I will now display the SDA understanding of what role Ellen had in the Church. 

Quote

SDA Fundamental Belief #18
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and WAS manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

Quote

Ellen White, Testimonies Vol 4, p 147
In ancient time God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His spirit. There never was a time when God instructed His people more earnestly the He instructs them now concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue. But will they profit by His teachings? Will they receive His reproofs and heed His warnings? God will accept no partial obedience; He will sanction no compromise with self."

Quote

Ellen White
If you seek to turn aside the counsel of God to suit yourselves, if you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 66

 

Quote

Ellen White
The Spirit fell upon me and I was taken off in vision. I saw the state of some who stood on present truth, but disregarded the visions, -the way God had chosen to teach in some cases, those who erred from Bible truth. I saw that in striking against the visions they did not strike against the worm - the feeble instrument that God spake through; but against the Holy Ghost. I saw it was a small thing to speak against the instrument, but it was dangerous to slight the words of God. I saw if they were in error and God chose to show them their errors through visions, and they disregarded the teachings of God in visions, they would be left to take their own way, and run in the way of error, and think they were right, until they would find it out too late. Then in the time of trouble I heard them cry to God in agony - 'Why didst thou not show us our wrong that we might have got right and been ready for this time'... He spoke through visions, and he gave you up to your own ways, to be filled with your own doings." 1849 Broadside Paper

 

Quote

General Conference statement on Ellen White
As Seventh-day Adventists we are uniquely fortunate in approaching this question. We are not left to find our way, drawing conclusions only from writings penned 19 centuries ago, which have come down to us through varied transcriptions and translations. Concerning inspiration, with us it is an almost contemporary matter, for we have a prophet in our midst... What is more, rather than having in our possession only relatively short documents or a handful of letters, as is the case with the extant records of the Bible prophets, we have the full range of Ellen G. White writings penned through a period of 70 years, embodying her published books, her 4,600 periodical articles, and her manuscripts, letters, and diaries. We have also the testimonies of her contemporaries - eyewitness accounts of those who lived and worked closely with her. Both she and they discussed many points touching on the visions and on the manner in which the light was imparted to her, and how she, in turn, conveyed the messages to those for whom they were intended. In other words, the eyewitnesses discussed the operation of inspiration... Further, she wrote in a modern language, so a large number of people today can study her writings in the original language, without needing to depend on a translation. Rarely, too, is it necessary to depend upon a transcription." - Inspiration and the Ellen G. White Writings, reprint, p. 3.

Now, to demonstrate how serious this "PERSONALITY OF GOD" Doctrine was to the SDA Church this is what we find nearly 60 years after Ellen White confirmed THE MORMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE "BODIES & PARTS" OF GOD.

Quote

RH October 8,  1903
OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality
of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualist's, -the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint of any other " ist" or " ism," it makes but little or no difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it makes all the difference in the world.

We can see that Spirit of Prophecy is NOT compatible with the Trinity Doctrine and given Ellen's role was to correct and guide the Church the argument can be made she very publicaly muscled the SDA Church into an anti-Trinitarian faith position as Ellen stated she had been ordained by God to be the reprover of His People. 

Quote

Ellen White
"God has set me as a reprover of His people; and just so surely as He has laid upon me the heavy burden, He will make those to whom this message is given responsible for the manner in which they treat it. God will not be trifled with, and those who despise His work will receive according to their deeds." (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 679)

Reprover - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com

If you have so much wisdom on this, then describe what is there after the end of the universe; it must have an end, right?

Is Michael also a part of the Godhead? Why or why not?

https://adventistreview.org/magazine-article/understanding-the-trinity-2/

'Jesus is not God,' says the billboard

Hanseng has asked me to produce statements of Ellen White that attack the Trinity Doctrine or advance Arian or Semi-Arian views. Here we go!

Quote

Ellen White
Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty.

To read the above in context see page 2 of:ST18990510-V25-19.pdf (adventistarchives.org) 

The Trinity Doctrine affirms that the Son is as fully God as is the Father & the Holy Spirit. The Trinity Doctrine affirms that Almighty God is ONE SPIRIT or Substance with an indwelling of 3 inseparable Person's. The Son could no more cease to exist than the Father or Holy Spirit cease to exist. It is therefore against the Trinity and VERY Arian to suggest that Christ's deity could be lost by any hypothetical situation. This is ABSOLUTELY ARIAN. 

We can be sure Ellen is above saying exactly what it sounds like because she also said:

Quote

Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4
He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will

This is absolutely Arian in that Christ's Deity was CONDITIONAL on His continued obedience. If Christ screwed up the real God would bring the hammer down on him. 

This isn't just LIKE what the SDA Pioneers said about Christ - IT IS WHAT THE PIONEERS SAID ABOUT CHRIST, exactly. If SDA Scholars have zero issues with admitting that the SDA Pioneers were Arian and Semi-Arian it defies logic to assert that Ellen didn't produce statements that affirmed what those Arians and Semi-Arians were preaching when that's exactly what Ellen describes she did. 

The historically documented Arian position was that Christ COULD HAVE sinned and fallen - The SDA Pioneers were Arian and Semi-Arian - Ellen White repeatedly affirmed that Christ could have sinned and fallen, ceased to exist, etc. 

10 years prior to Ellen's passing she said the following did she not? 

Quote

R&H Jan 26,1905
The word given me is, 'You are faithfully to reprove those who would mar the faith of the people of God. Write out the things which I shall give you, that they may stand as a witness to the truth till the end of time.' I said, 'If any of the citizens of Battle Creek wish to know what Mrs. White believes and teaches, let them read her published books. My labors would be naught should I preach another gospel. That which I have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been instructed to change that which I have sent out

If you know of ANYWHERE Ellen White retracted or "CHANGED" what she said below please, by all means, let me know so I can adjust my thinking in this area. 

Quote

Ellen White
Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen,

Quote

Ellen White
The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would never have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished

Quote

Ellen White 
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.”

The above is hardly all Ellen wrote about this - she was so militant and prolific others boldly parroted what she was preaching. 

Quote

Charles S Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)

Quote

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."   
 

There is the 1st proof. After we discuss this in the context of the Scriptures, we can move onto the 2nd proof. 

I hope to be able later today to post additional material in response to issues that Gustave has raised.  Until I am able to do that, I am locking this thread.  I will remove any comments that are placed in this thread by the few people who can post in a locked thread.  After I have placed additional material in this thread, I will allow for posts to be made in this thread.

In further study of the responses made to me, I believe that I have permission to post them in this forum.   So, I will do so, with some explanatory remarks.

I am still uncertain as to whether or not I have permission to publish either his name, or position in the SDA denomination.   At this time I will simply call him Dr. Paul, (not his real name) and state that he is an SDA Scholar.

We get glimpse of it thought out the Bible, and yet people get so hostile if others do not accept their findings.

 As Gustave understands SDA history, early Adventists believed in a God that had a digestive system, in the same manner that we have today. If Gustave is correct on this, who might have thought that such was true. In my thinking, John Harvey Kellogg might have thought such. SDA scholars are not in total agreement as to what JHK believed. But, it is generally accepted that JHK had beliefs about God that were wrong, and not generally accepted by other early Adventists.

 I am not aware of Ellen White making such direct statements.

 I suspect that Gustave has based his thinking on this on statements made probably by EGW, and other early Advent that did not directly say such. Rather he may have based them upon conjecture and inference derived from statements as to
God being a personal being.

 In the early days of my life–high school and earlier, my understanding about God involved a so-called “personal being.” I was clearly taught that such was not related to the type of being that I as a human was. Rather that personal being was an amorphous type that was unlike us humans and could not be understood as it was outside of our human experience. In other words, what I was taught totally ruled out any idea that God had a digestive tract in the same manner that we humans have.

 My understanding of the nature of God, at that time, was clearly was not orthodox. I do not imply that it was. Keep in mind my young age which limited my ability to understand the issue.

 I do not suggest that either EGW, or other early SDA leaders had a totally orthodox understanding of the Trinity. I do not believe that they did have an orthodox understanding. I agree with current SDA scholarship that, as I understand it, posit that the range of early SDA positions on the Trinity were more complex than has typically been understood.

 I agree that James White, and others, had a nonorthodox understanding that was related to the so-called Christian Connection.

 There is a sense in which I say: So, what? Those early Adventists, including Ellen white were wrong. in their understanding of the Trinity. They were wrong regardless of whether of not they believed that God had a digestive system.

 I was never taught such. The SDA position today does not teach that God has a digestive system. From this perspective, I do not think that this issue is as important as Gustave thinks it is. Let us move on beyond it to more important issues. I do think that Gustave has raised issues that are much more important to our understanding of God today. Those issues need to be addressed. I hope that we can get some help on those issues from the SDA scholar who will be working with me.

The Holy Spirit is central to God’s mission. Accordingly, we need a biblical understanding of the identity and nature of the Holy Spirit. This Bible study addresses the following key questions: Is the Holy Spirit a person or a mere force or power of God? Is the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father and Son (Christ)? Is the Holy Spirit truly divine?

https://www.adventistworld.org/the-personhood-and-divinity-of-the-holy-spirit/

Jesus humanity:

Romans 1:3 He was of the seed of David according to the flesh. 

Romans 8:3 He had sinful flesh just as we do which he overcame.

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. DA 48.6

The Sinless One must feel the shame of sin. The peace lover must dwell with strife, the truth must abide with falsehood, purity with vileness. Every sin, every discord, every defiling lust that transgression had brought, was torture to His spirit. DA 111.4

Some thoughts: 

Does the seed of David imply a direct genetic lineage to David? Did the genetic material from which he developed came from Mary's ovary? Didn't he developed in the womb just as you or I. Wasn't he delivered just as you or I. I used to believe that somehow God turned His Son into a human embryo and placed him in Mary's womb. But if that was true then his human flesh came from a different source than ours. And he would have no direct bloodline to David or Adam.

Man's need of God and God's Gift:

Genesis 3:15 and John 3:16 are promises that the Son of God would be given to us that we might over comb. The description of the fallen human nature in the Bible paints a very grim picture. Basically that we hate God, we cannot please God and that we are at war with God. That being the case how could our first parents find their way back to God with these effects upon their person? As soon as there was sin there was a Savior. I believe that these two promises in scripture will fulfilled in Eden. Otherwise it was impossible for Adam and Eve to have believed and trusted in God. They did not have the capacity any longer. Something truly died in Eden that day. It says that the Son of God was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. In the plan of redemption he covenanted to give up all that he was, all the prerogatives of God and become a helpless dependent suppliant upon the Father for knowledge wisdom and strength. Although He accepted the weakness of fallen humanity he did bring some gifts with him into the human agent. He brought a love for the Father and a willingness to obey the Father. He could hear the Father speaking and he could reach out to the Father in heartfelt longing. I am left with no other conclusion than to believe that the Son of God took up residence within Adam and Eve to replace that which they had lost. If they were quiet and listened they could hear what the Father was saying to them through the indwelling son. They could also vicariously participate in the Son's longing and reaching out to the Father in prayer. They could also participate in the love that the son had for the Father and he would give to them his obedience if they would consent to allow him to do so.

Looking down through the ages I believe that the Godhead singled out the son of Mary knowing that he would be faithful to lay down his life and allow the Son to have full control. By doing so he would give an example of what it was to have the redeeming Savior living and moving inside of humanity. He would demonstrate that the fallen nature must die, it could not be fixed. Every day of his life Jesus faced crosses until he was finally led to the literal physical cross which extinguished the life handed down from Adam. 

The incarnation:

Please correct me if I'm wrong. The Son of God came to life in the son of Mary. He was the promised seed and throughout the life of Jesus that seed grew into a mighty tree within Mary's son. 

I believe that the marriage union and the pro creative act are the premier examples of the plan of redemption and our union with God. The scriptures talk about the two becoming one. It also says that we are the bride of Christ and I believe that this is the marriage of the lamb. Humanity and divinity combined. Since we are living on borrowed time and we have no life of our own because it died in Eden we are promised to have the life of the Son which is eternal.

The believer is brought to a place where they see their wretchedness and yet they stand naked and unashamed before the Father and as He looks at the needy soul and says, "Thou art all fair my beloved, I see no spot in thee." In that intimate moment with the Father the Seed is awakened and begins to move and grow. Again and again because God is in the life the believer sees more and more of the depth of the depravity of the fallen nature, and again and again the Father puts life into the soul and the Son grows more and more until the believer comes to the full stature of the Son of God.

In the procreative at the mother supplies genetic material that is fully mommy. Then the father provides genetic material that is fully daddy. When the sperm and egg unite the genetic material blends together to create a totally new creature. The child is not fully mommy and fully daddy but mommy and daddy combined. The two have literally and actually become one in this new child. So it is with the incarnation. We, the bride, supply the human nature and the Father gives us His Son with his divine nature and the two are blended together into one new creature. Humanity and divinity combined.

And this is the record that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son he who has the Son has life..."1John 5:11,12

It appears to me that the plan of redemption requires our union with the Son with ties that are never to be broken. In other words the Son sacrificed His life to be our life forever. He will live within the body of the redeemed from the Earth. That is why we are called the body of Christ. We are literally and physically His human body and Jesus is the head of that body which the Son will dwell in and animate throughout eternity. In Him we live and move and find our being and I believe that in us He lives and moves and expresses His being. It was an eternal sacrifice and the Father sacrificed His Son in giving Him to humanity. That is why it was such a struggle to give Him up. The only place that He will ever see His Son again is when he looks into the eyes of the redeemed. Every soul can and will express something different about the son of God. Just like the many facets on a gemstone reflect the light in different ways. I believe that is why God does not want to lose a single soul because some aspect of the Son's nature and character will be lost forever. At least this is what I have come to believe. The thought of it expressed to me how huge of a sacrifice the Father and Son made to redeem humanity. It's much bigger than I had ever seen it before.

The Lord’s body—God is seeking to make His church the continued incarnation of Christ.PCL 23

Not just Jesus but every member is to be a part of the incarnation, humanity and divinity combined.

Was the human nature of the son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. (she writes that there were 2 individuals, Jesus and the Son of God) In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood. LHU 76. (You cannot kill God)

https://adventistreview.org/magazine-article/is-the-trinity-biblical/

While doing a study recently into Paul's phrase "under the law", I read the verse in Galatians where Paul wrote that God's Son was "born of a woman, born under the law".  

I had progressed in my study to the point where I now understand "under the law" to mean:  subject to "the law of sin and death".  Essentially that law said, "you sin - you die". 

This was the law for Adam/Eve.  "If you eat of that forbidden tree - you will die."

Paul says, "the law of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death".  If we are "set from from" that law, we are NOT "under" it.  That would be my conclusion.  

Anyway - if JESUS was "born under" that "law of sin and death" - that means IF He had sinned, He would have died eternally.   

Does it also mean that He could have sinned.   I believe so.   There's no point in saying that Jesus was "born under the law (of sin and death)", if He was really not capable of sinning or dying.   He did die.  He died BECAUSE He was "made"  "to be sin".    ALL of Him - not just the human part.   

2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."  (NIV)

I can agree with Gustave, that the nature of Jesus was not "drawn" to sin.   

I believe that such will be our nature, once we are fully indwelt by God's Spirit in the kingdom to come.  And by then we also have new "spiritual bodies".   Without the tired, hungry, sexually stimulated physical bodies we now occupy,  a whopping LOT of temptations would have no pulling power.  

Jesus was born with the spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall, and the physical nature of Abraham/Mary - 4000 years after the Fall.  

Adam was fully indwelt.  So was Christ.       Adam sinned.  Christ did not.  

Jesus was  "tempted in every way, just as we are" (Heb 4:15 NIV).   His temptations were not of a different KIND, they were of a different intensity, and they were suited to fit His identity,  nature, and situation.    

Jesus was tempted to prove Himself - to Satan.  A really dumb temptation - unless the human had gone without food for 40 days, and was starving. 

He was tempted to use His position/status as "commander" of angels, or perhaps also His divine power - to benefit only Himself, by turning stones to bread for His own consumption, something that His covenant with His Father had strictly forbidden.   

He was tempted to put Himself (His flesh) in harm's way,  presuming that His Father would rescue Him - again just to prove (to Satan and his angels) that He was indeed the Sonof God.  

He was tempted to avoid all the suffering - to take the easy way to power - by bowing down to Satan --  To give up His mission to save mankind.   Satan's implication was "they're not worth it."  

Although the word Trinity isn’t found in Scripture, it’s essential for Christians to believe in it, especially at Christmas. Dismissing the Trinity takes away the reason we celebrate the birth of Jesus because, without it, there is no Salvation for humankind.

https://www.crosswalk.com/special-coverage/christmas-and-advent/why-believing-in-the-trinity-makes-christmas-possible.html?

Romans 10:9 “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;” (NAS)

    1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,” (NAS)

    Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),” (NAS)

    Romans 6:4 “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4 NAS)

    Romans 8:11 “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.” (NAS)

    1 Thessalonians 1:10 “and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.” (NAS)
 

(this is a 5 part series)

The Trinity Controversy: Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

The Trinity Controversy: Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

The Trinity Controversy: Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

The Trinity Controversy: Part 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

The Trinity Controversy: Part 5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

“To meditate on the three Persons of the Godhead is to walk in thought through the garden eastward in Eden and to tread on holy ground. Our sincerest effort to grasp the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity must remain forever futile, and only by deepest reverence can it be saved from actual presumption.” –A.W. Tozer

https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/undeniable-truths-to-help-us-understand-the-trinity.html?

https://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story6292-adventist-anti-trinitarianism-and-alexandrian-theology

and

https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-jym9x-9426aa

To see what the SDA Church teaches on the Trinity, go to:

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/god/trinity/

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/god/trinity/article/go/-/god-in-three-persons/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

fast forward to about the 37 min mark

Part 2: Sabbath School with Steve Wohlberg - Nov 11, 2023, Morning Session

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

FF to the 9:20 min mark

Part 3: Alpha, Omega, 'Meet It!' - Nov 11, 2023 Morning, Unpacking Divinity with Steve Wohlberg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

FF to the 7:15 min mark

Part 4: Three United Angels Worldwide - Nov 11, 2023 Afternoon Session

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

FF to the 18:24 min mark

My intention in this thread is to post some more recent resources that one my review on Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Trinity in SDA history and in current SDA thought.  This will take some time and I will not be posting it all at once.  For that reason, I will close this thread from further comment until I have been able to post additional material..  Once I have done that, I will open this tread for comments.

*  One important recent book on this subject is:  Peterson, Paul & McIver, Rob Editors, Biblical & Theological Studies on The Trinity, Avondale academic Press, 2014, 251 pages.  This book has five chapters on Biblical Studies, five chapters on Historical & Theological Studies, and three chapters on SDA  History & Theology, plus additional material.  The various chapters are authored by twelve SDA scholars.

Amazon has a few copied on sale, but they are not cheap.

*  Attorney Philip Brantley wrote an article published in Spectrum in December 2017.  That article listed a number of SDA scholars and summarized his thoughts on their thoughts on this issue.  The URL that follows the citation will take you to Brantley's 7-page article.

The following citation is a partial quote from the first paragraph of his article:

Quote

In the last two decades, there has been a resurgence of Arianism and anti-Trinitarianism, not only in the Seventh-day Adventist Church but also in the wider Christian and Evangelical world. I opine that many Seventh-day Adventists do not possess a conscious realization of what they believe about the nature of God; they will articulate that they believe in the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, but if you engage them in dialogue, you can gradually discern that they incline toward one or more anti-Trinitarian heresies. Furthermore, most Seventh-day Adventists do not realize that anti-Trinitarianism is inextricably linked to opposition to women’s ordination. Although this stealthy linkage is not expressly set forth in the lectures, the scholars provide a thorough biblical, historical, and practical discussion of the Trinity.

https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/12/13/no-longer-neglected-biblical-doctrine-trinity

*   in the above article, Brantly cites a series of 16 video lectures produced by the Andrews Seminary on the subject of Adventism and the Trinity.  Those 16i videos may be viewed on the following Internet website.

https://www.andrews.edu/sem/sdlc/trinity/

*   NOTE:  I am not  yet ready to open this thread up for discussion.  I will do that later.

Gregory Matthews

This thread is now open--GM.

Today I mentioned this to a person who responded to the effect that John Harvey Kellogg had such a belief.

I am attempting to substantiate that statement.  But, I have not done so yet.

But, if it is true about J. H. Kellogg,  simply remind you that he left the SDA denomination due to a number of heretical beliefs about the nature of God.  Scholars today to debate some aspects of those beliefs, but no one challenges the fact that he held a number of beliefs about God that SDAs soundly rejected,  to the point where he and the SDA denomination separated and each went their respective separate ways.