Did Christ Die the Second Death

[John317]

I agree, Dr. Waite.:-)

[John317]

John:

CHRIST DID NOT SAY THAT WHAT HE SAID IN JOHN 5:26 ONLY APPLIED TO HIM AS THE SON OF MAN OR IN THE HUMAN SENSE. YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT. IN VERSE 25 HE REFERS TO HIMSELF AS THE "SON OF GOD" AND TAKES ABOUT THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD AND THE DEAD HEARING THAT VOICE. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE SOURCE OF THIS "LIFE WITHIN HIMSELF" IS HIS FATHER AND NOT CHRIST HIMSELF.

Is the eternal, infinite, omnipotent Word speaking in verse 30, where Jesus says, "I can of Myself do nothing"?

In John 5: 24, Jesus is speaking as the One whom God sent into the world. Therefore the context of 5: 26 is the Son as He was in the World, not the Son as He was in heaven.

Notice that in from John 5: 19 to the end of the chapter, Jesus is speaking as the Son who can do nothing of Himself. Certainly it would be wrong to say that the pre-incarnate Christ could not do anything of Himself.

[Robert]

I'm not saying he isn't both divine and human. He certainly is. But He was only divine before, and He hadn't developed a human pesonality. Today He is a human being. He wasn't a human before Bethlehem. He will forever be human from now on. I am simply saying, then, that He is different than He was in eternity past.

okay....

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

John:

CHRIST DID NOT SAY THAT WHAT HE SAID IN JOHN 5:26 ONLY APPLIED TO HIM AS THE SON OF MAN OR IN THE HUMAN SENSE. YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT. IN VERSE 25 HE REFERS TO HIMSELF AS THE "SON OF GOD" AND TAKES ABOUT THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD AND THE DEAD HEARING THAT VOICE. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE SOURCE OF THIS "LIFE WITHIN HIMSELF" IS HIS FATHER AND NOT CHRIST HIMSELF.

Is the eternal, infinite, omnipotent Word speaking in verse 30, where Jesus says, "I can of Myself do nothing"?

In John 5: 24, Jesus is speaking as the One whom God sent into the world. Therefore the context of 5: 26 is the Son as He was in the World, not the Son as He was in heaven.

Notice that in from John 5: 19 to the end of the chapter, Jesus is speaking as the Son who can do nothing of Himself. Certainly it would be wrong to say that the pre-incarnate Christ could not do anything of Himself.

IN JOHN 5:25, IS IT THE VOICE OF THE "SON OF MAN" OR THE VOICE OF THE "SON OF GOD" THAT THE DEAD HEAR? DOES JOHN 5:25 CONTAIN THE WORDS "SON OF MAN"?

[Guest]

Certainly it would be wrong to say that the pre-incarnate Christ could not do anything of Himself.

Exactly, which is why he couldn't have been speaking of himself as a man when he said "so has he given to the Son to have life in himself" because as a man he didn't have that life within himself, but depended on the Father for everything. Including his life.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Certainly it would be wrong to say that the pre-incarnate Christ could not do anything of Himself.

Exactly, which is why he couldn't have been speaking of himself as a man when he said "so has he given to the Son to have life in himself" because as a man he didn't have that life within himself, but depended on the Father for everything. Including his life.

As the God-Man, Jesus did have life in Himself. That is why Jesus Christ could raise his own human body from the grave.

John 2:19

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Verse 21 says Jesus was talking about His body.

All three Persons of the Godhead were involved in the resurrection of Jesus, just as all Three were involved in the creation of the world and in the salvation of mankind.

John 1: 4 is not talking about Jesus of Nazareth but of the eternal Word. It says, "In Him was life." The eternal Word, the pre-incarnate Christ, was self-existent. Evangelism, 615-617.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines "self-existence" in this way:

Quote:

SELF-EXISTENCE, n. [self and existence.] Inherent existence; the existence possossed by virtue of a being's own nature, and independent of any other being or cause; an attribute peculiar to God.

SELF-EXISTENT, a. Existing by its own nature or essense, independent of any other cause. God is the only self-existent being.

Prior to His coming to the world as a baby, Christ was God essentially and in the highest sense, equal with the Father. John 1: 1 says that what God was, the Word was. That means the pre-incarnate Christ was self-existent just as the Father was.

[Guest]

Ok John, I'll concede that point, that He had power within Himself. But He was still speaking in an overall sense. Remember that He was the Son before he ever came to this earth as a man, and even before He created the earth.

[John317]

Certainly it would be wrong to say that the pre-incarnate Christ could not do anything of Himself.

Originally Posted By: RLH

Exactly, which is why he couldn't have been speaking of himself as a man when he said "so has he given to the Son to have life in himself" because as a man he didn't have that life within himself, but depended on the Father for everything. Including his life.

Could the pre-incarnate Christ do anything of Himself? Of course He could. He was the eternal, self-existent, omnipotent Son of God.

But on earth, although He was God, He was here as the Son of man, a descendent of Adam, Abraham and David. As our example, Jesus of Nazareth depended on the Father just as all other humans do. Therefore he was speaking of Himself as a man when He said that God had given Him to have life within Himself. As God,according to John 1: 4, He did not need to rely on anyone outside of Himself for life. He already had it in Him to impart life to others, as He did to Adam and Eve.

[Dr. Waite]

JOHN:

THE DIFFERENCE AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS THAT CHRIST SAID THAT THE "LIFE WITHIN HIMSELF" WAS GIVEN TO HIM AND ORIGINATED FROM HIS FATHER AND NOT FROM HIMSELF AND YOU JOHN ARE SAYING THAT CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD HAD THIS "LIFE WITHIN HIMSELF" AND IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO HIM AND IT DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM HIS FATHER BUT RATHER ORIGINATED FROM HIMSELF AS "GOD THE SON".

AM I CORRECT?

[John317]

... he was the Son before he ever came to this earth as a man, and even before he created the earth.

That's true-- He was the eternal Son. But would you agree that His being the Son after His conception in Mary's womb caused Him to be the Son of God in a new sense?

He was not literally the Son of God prior to coming here as a man--- for the pre-incarnate Son was eternal, infinite, and self-existent-- but when He was conceived as God's Son, He became the literal Son of the Father. At that point, God was literally His daddy.

[Guest]

Quote:

He was not literally the Son of God prior to coming here as a man

That's where we disagree. You say it's not literal, and I say it is literal. According to the Bible it is literal. How can one be literal, but the other one not? The Bible certainly doesn't make that distinction.

You are deciding which parts to call literal, and which parts not to, based on your prior understanding. Which could be wrong.

If it is not literal then we have been given a false picture of who God really is. A facade. And I just don't believe that is the case.

[John317]

Was the pre-incarnate Christ self-existent?

[Guest]

Satan was warring against the government of God, because ambitious to exalt himself and unwilling to submit to the authority of God's Son, Heaven's great commander. While some of the angels joined Satan in his rebellion, others reasoned with him to dissuade him from his purposes, contending for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority to his Son. {3SG 37}

You see it was given to him there, not just here.

[John317]

..If it is not literal then we have been given a false picture of who God really is. A facade.

In what sense was the pre-incarnate Christ the Son of God?

Does the term, Son of God, become meaningless if Christ did not come out of the Father's Being in some way?

If the pre-incarnate Christ came into existence because of the Father, then Christ was not self-existent. It would mean Christ owes His existence to someone else. He would then have derived His life from the Father.

[Guest]

If the title of Son of God is not actualy who Jesus is but is a projected Identity - a spiritual Son that does not actually exist - then do we actually have a real relationship or a projected image of non-reality? Remember Satan has always wanted to destroy the Son of God. What an utterly brilliant plan to do it.

J.H Waggoner picked this point clearly when he stated:

'There were some very early that turned the doctrine of the Trinity into Tritheism, and, instead of three Divine Persons under the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, brought in three collateral, coordinate, and self-originated beings, making them three absolute and independent principles, without any relation of Father or Son, which is the most proper notion of three gods. J. H. Waggoner, Thoughts on Baptism, 1878

If God is indeed a Trinity of three identitcal beings that we have no direct identifiers to connect with then it is impossible to have a relationship with them. If Father and Son are no Father and Son, then we are doomed to the darkness of the mystery of wondering who are these powerful beings? There is no concept of a relation because there are no identification points to form a relationship upon.

“The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." J. N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855

“Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ." J. S. White, Review & Herald, December 11, 1855

There can be no relationship without a proper notion of personality. The pioneers clearly discerned this. Please consider the Words of Ellen White in the context of this article

"The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each…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

God is the Father of Christ - Christ is the Son of God, there is no other way to know them.

[John317]

[some loyal angels] reasoned with [Lucifer] to dissuade him from his purposes, contending for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority to his Son. {3SG 37}

You see it was given to him there, not just here.

Doesn't this say that Satan thought that God gave authority to His Son when in fact the Son had always held His position?

Satan misunderstood the identity of Christ. He was unaware that Christ was fully God. He thought Christ was just an exalted angel, a creature like Himself, but one who had been more highly regarded by God.

[Guest]

[some loyal angels] reasoned with [Lucifer] to dissuade him from his purposes, contending for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority to his Son. {3SG 37}

You see it was given to him there, not just here.

[John317]

The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." J. N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855

Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ." J. S. White, Review & Herald, December 11, 1855

James White and J.N.Andrews' were not talking about the view of the Trinity that Seventh-day Adventists hold, but the concept of the Trinity as taught in the creeds, etc.

You'll notice that Ellen White never condemned the Trinity doctrine per se, as James White did.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: RLH

..If it is not literal then we have been given a false picture of who God really is. A facade.

In what sense was the pre-incarnate Christ the Son of God?

Does the term, Son of God, become meaningless if Christ did not come out of the Father's Being in some way?

If the pre-incarnate Christ came into existence because of the Father, then Christ was not self-existent. It would mean Christ owes His existence to someone else. He would then have derived His life from the Father.

CHRIST 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 is the "doctrine of Christ".

It appears that you John are teaching that the "life within himself" was NOT given to the Son of God and DID NOT originate from the Father.

JOHN ARE YOU TEACHING SOMETHING CONTRARY TO WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT? JOHN ARE YOU TEACHING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST?

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John 9-11

[Guest]

Doesn't this say that Satan thought that God gave authority to His Son when in fact the Son had always held His position?

Satan misunderstood the identity of Christ. He was unaware that Christ was fully God. He thought Christ was just an exalted angel, a creature like Himself, but one who had been more highly regarded by God.

Show me from either the Bible or SoP where Satan misunderstood the identity of Christ, and only THOUGHT the authority was given by God. If you can do that I will change my view. If not, you should change yours.

Furthermore, if that were the case, then someone could say there was an excuse for sin. Because they withheld the truth from Lucifer about who God's Son is. No, Lucifer knew the real deal. He was not decieved in heaven.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: RLH

[some loyal angels] reasoned with [Lucifer] to dissuade him from his purposes, contending for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority to his Son. {3SG 37}

You see it was given to him there, not just here.

Originally Posted By: John317

Doesn't this say that Satan thought that God gave authority to His Son when in fact the Son had always held His position?

No, it doesn't state that at all. Show me where you think it says that. What it does say is that angels contended for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority to his Son. It doesn't say that Satan thought anything.

Notice that because of Lucifer's misunderstandings, the Father had to call all the heavenly hosts together in order to set things in their true light.

It says "there had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning."

Quote:

The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--"ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}

The angels joyfully acknowledged the supremacy of Christ, and prostrating themselves before Him, poured out their love and adoration. Lucifer bowed with them, but in his heart there was a strange, fierce conflict. Truth, justice, and loyalty were struggling against envy and jealousy. The influence of the holy angels seemed for a time to carry him with them. As songs of praise ascended in melodious strains, swelled by thousands of glad voices, the spirit of evil seemed vanquished; unutterable love thrilled his entire being; his soul went out, in harmony with the sinless worshippers, in love to the Father and the Son. But again he was filled with pride in his own glory. His desire for supremacy returned, and envy of Christ was once more indulged. The high honors conferred upon Lucifer were not appreciated as God's special gift, and therefore, called forth no gratitude to his Creator. He gloried in his brightness and exaltation and aspired to be equal with God. He was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host, angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wisdom and glory above them all. Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He shared the Father's counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. "Why," questioned this mighty angel, "should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?" {PP 36.3}

Leaving his place in the immediate presence of the Father, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. He worked with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealed his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God. He began to insinuate doubts concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that though laws might be necessary for the inhabitants of the worlds, angels, being more exalted, needed no such restraint, for their own wisdom was a sufficient guide. They were not beings that could bring dishonor to God; all their thoughts were holy; it was no more possible for them than for God Himself to err. The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could but attain to his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven; for it was his object to secure freedom for all. But now even the liberty which they had hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute Ruler had been appointed them, and to His authority all must pay homage. Such were the subtle deceptions that through the wiles of Lucifer were fast obtaining in the heavenly courts.

38

{PP 37.1}

There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer's deceptions. {PP 38.1}

[John317]

...Show me from either the Bible or SoP where Satan misunderstood the identity of Christ, and only THOUGHT the authority was given by God. If you can do that I will change my view. If not, you should change yours.

See post#482759. Ellen White says clearly that Lucifer was confused about Christ's true position, and that there had never been any change since the beginning. "The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both."

Why did it encircle both? Because both were/are eternal and self-existent.

[John317]

...Furthermore, if that were the case, then someone could say there was an excuse for sin. Because they withheld the truth from Lucifer about who God's Son is. No, Lucifer knew the real deal. He was not decieved in heaven.

He was self-deceived. He was deceived by his own jealousy and envy. I am not saying that Lucifer was deceived by anyone, and certainly not by God or Christ. I am saying he was deceived by his own sinful jealousy.

Put these passages together:

Quote:

Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He shared the Father's counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. "Why," questioned this mighty angel, "should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?" {PP 36.3}

..... There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer's deceptions. {PP 38.1}

[Guest]

See post#482759. Ellen White says clearly that Lucifer was confused about Christ's true position,

Where does it say Lucifer was confused? I've read it twice, and I don't see that part. The reason for the meeting was not because the real truth was unknown, but to clear up the confusion from Satan's lies to the angels. It's right here in what you posted:

There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer's deceptions. {PP 38.1}

[John317]

The angels did not realize the true identity of Michael the Archangel, similar to humans not realizing the true identity of Jesus the man. The pre-incarnate Christ was humble and unassuming just like Jesus of Nazareth.

On earth most people who saw Him thought He was a mere human.

That is why Ellen White says that Lucifer was jealous of Christ's position. He wanted it for himself. The other angels didn't want it, but Lucifer did.

Quote:

Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He shared the Father's counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. "Why," questioned this mighty angel, "should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?" {PP 36.3}

Lucifer wondered why Christ should have the supremacy and be honored above himself.