At the crucifixion, did Christ's divine nature die as well?

[Robert]

This text is in regard to the "death" of Lazarus only and Jesus Christ makes a general statement about such death in regard to all who "believe in Him".

Noticed that Lazarus died. Then later he died again. He died the first death twice. At the first resurrection he will escape the 2nd death. The 2nd death is where God abandons you to the grave with no hope of a resurrection. Why would God do such a thing? Because of unbelief. Those who reject Christ are rejecting life. They are rejecting the resurrection.

[Lysimachus]

Miz3,

You disgust me how you are always throwing out your "you're having this problem because of your SDA theology" garbage. Taking your read-head off the broken record would be more than welcome.

You have not offered a solution to the problem, so don't keep pretending. SDA's do not claim to have solved all Biblical problems. But your problems amount to a million times more than the ones we're facing. You can't even make heads or tails out of the 70 weeks, much less understand the Deity of Christ.

Nobody is doubting that Christ had the power to raise Himself, as the Bible clearly sets forth. I have always believed this. The only seeming dilemma we were discussing is that if His Divinity did not die, how is this consistent with the fact that Christ's soul died and was asleep with Him in the grave?

We believe the resolution to this matter is relatively simple. Christ's Divinity was in the hands of His Father. Christ's conscious being ceased, as He stripped Himself from His Divinity. Yet that Divinity still belonged to Him. And since Jesus is truly the Son of God as the Bible and Sister White say, that makes the Son 100% God. But nowhere does it say that His Divinity was a separate conscious entity floating outside His body.

Therefore, we see that SDA theology does not necessarily pose a problem. They may seem to, they may puzzle us temporarily, but once all the edges are rounded off, it becomes easier to understand.

Since that Divinity is from the Father, it cannot die! As all life proceeds from the Father. Therefore, it is easy to comprehend how Christ can make the claim that He can raise Himself. Because that Divinity that is His is also His Father's. They are both God, and Jesus is truly the Son of God. Yet both are from all eternity, and equal. Ascertaining this is more than some of our feeble minds can fully comprehend, yet we are to believe it by faith. I believe Jesus is truly His Son, yet I believe both come from all eternity. Sadly, many think you can either have one or the other. I believe we can have both, because we are told both things. Trying to blend them is only difficult with our limited minds, yet it's still true. Somehow.

You want to try and solve that which mortal minds cannot fully comprehend, and then have the insidious nerve and audacity to say that SDA theology is the cause of our inability to fully comprehend these matters.

With all due respect Miz3, knock it out.

Spare your energies by getting off the gerbil wheel.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

In regards to this post of yours your analysis is extremely flawed. You are injecting things into the text that are not there. These are your words not the Word of God.

You need to read your Bible. Then you would know that what I said concerning the first and 2nd death is fact.

I know what you said. I also saw that you "injected" terms that were not part of that text.

You stole terms used elsewhere in the Bible but do not fit into this text.

If Jesus Christ wanted us to make such a differentiation Jesus Christ, Himself, would have used the terms "first death" and "second death". Jesus Christ did not thus when you "inject" those terms you are "adding to the Word of God" what God does not want added. That is a sin.

Maybe it is you who needs to study the Bible in order to read what it really says without "injecting your preconceived human theories" into the Word of God so they fit your human doctrine and human theories.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

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

The "I" refers to His Deity, which was handed over to the Father until the resurrection. The Father called forth Christ's Deity and it's possible that Christ as God gave life to our glorified humanity that is now in Him in the heaven places.

You keep interpreting the Bible based on your human theories not on what the Word actually says.

Why do you feel the need to add to the Word of God? Is it because then your theories and failed doctrines would not hold up? Thus, you must inject your own human interpretations?

Robert that is sad.

[miz3]

Miz3,

You disgust me how you are always throwing out your "you're having this problem because of your SDA theology" garbage. Taking your read-head off the broken record would be more than welcome.

You have not offered a solution to the problem, so don't keep pretending. SDA's do not claim to have solved all Biblical problems. But your problems amount to a million times more than the ones we're facing. You can't even make heads or tails out of the 70 weeks, much less understand the Deity of Christ.

Nobody is doubting that Christ had the power to raise Himself, as the Bible clearly sets forth. I have always believed this. The only seeming dilemma we were discussing is that if His Divinity did not die, how is this consistent with the fact that Christ's soul died and was asleep with Him in the grave?

We believe the resolution to this matter is relatively simple. Christ's Divinity was in the hands of His Father. Christ's conscious being ceased, as He stripped Himself from His Divinity. Yet that Divinity still belonged to Him. And since Jesus is truly the Son of God as the Bible and Sister White say, that makes the Son 100% God. But nowhere does it say that His Divinity was a separate conscious entity floating outside His body.

Therefore, we see that SDA theology does not necessarily pose a problem. They may seem to, they may puzzle us temporarily, but once all the edges are rounded off, it becomes easier to understand.

Since that Divinity is from the Father, it cannot die! As all life proceeds from the Father. Therefore, it is easy to comprehend how Christ can make the claim that He can raise Himself. Because that Divinity that is His is also His Father's. They are both God, and Jesus is truly the Son of God. Yet both are from all eternity, and equal. Ascertaining this is more than some of our feeble minds can fully comprehend, yet we are to believe it by faith. I believe Jesus is truly His Son, yet I believe both come from all eternity. Sadly, many think you can either have one or the other. I believe we can have both, because we are told both things. Trying to blend them is only difficult with our limited minds, yet it's still true. Somehow.

You want to try and solve that which mortal minds cannot fully comprehend, and then have the insidious nerve and audacity to say that SDA theology is the cause of our inability to fully comprehend these matters.

With all due respect Miz3, knock it out.

Spare your energies by getting off the gerbil wheel.

My dear Lysimachus you are filled with a most loquacious emptiness.

Let us look at some of the highlighted things you said above.

1. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ laid aside or stripped Himself of His Divinity while on this earth?

2. Where does it say that while Jesus Christ was in the "grave" that His Divinity was not in His hands but in the hands of His Father?

3. I am not the one trying to separate Jesus Christ's Divinity from Jesus Christ. You are by merely asserting that Christ's Divinity was not with Him but with the Father. Was Christ's Divinity just lying there "dormant" and inactive?

4. Such things demonstrate that you have such a little understanding God and how God Works. You also have so little understanding of what the "Godhead" actually is. You keep treating their "moves" and "state of being" as if they were three "super humans" with exactly the "same purpose and desire". It is in this light that you tackle such questions as posed here and then flounder.

Yes, this is SDA Theology because SDA are fully Trinitarian which they got from the RCC/Pope. In this vein they continue the concepts based on "human logic" of what the Trinity means when in actuality no human knows exactly what the Trinity means, how it functions, or what its make actually is.

Yet you like most SDA go on and on as if you have intimate knowledge that others do not have.

5. You are indeed confusing. First you say that "all life proceeds from the Father" then you claim that Jesus Christ (not the Father but is the Son) is also "self existent". Which is it? Please clear up this discrepancy which I believe is not intentional on your part but is rather just simple misunderstanding of what you really meant. Does not "all life" proceed from all the Trinity?

[John317]

5. You are indeed confusing. First you say that "all life proceeds from the Father" then you claim that Jesus Christ (not the Father but is the Son) is also "self existent". Which is it? Please clear up this discrepancy which I believe is not intentional on your part but is rather just simple misunderstanding of what you really meant. Does not "all life" proceed from all the Trinity?

The pre-incarnate Christ did not derive His life from the Father. Christ's life was original, unborrowed, underived. DA 530. He is the eternal, self-existent, infinite, omnipotent Son. Yet as the God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth was totally dependent upon the Father, the Holy Spirit, and even the angels. So while Jesus the man did derive His life from the Father, the pre-existent, self-existent Son did not.

[John317]

... this is SDA Theology because SDA are fully Trinitarian which they got from the RCC/Pope.

That is false.

The SDA view of the Godhead, or Trinity, is based on the Bible, and is supported also by Ellen G. White, particularly the statements found in Evangelism 614-617.

The SDA understanding of the Godhead does not agree with Catholic or mainline protestant teachings. The Trinitarian teachings of Catholics and many of the major churches, such as Lutherans, Methodists, and Reformed, are heavily influenced by tradition, creeds, and Greek philosophy. Ours is not.

[John317]

[Lysimachus]

Let us look at some of the highlighted things you said above.

1. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ laid aside or stripped Himself of His Divinity while on this earth?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Let us look at some of the highlighted things you said above.

1. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ laid aside or stripped Himself of His Divinity while on this earth?

What I meant is that He refused to use it. He never once gave into the temptation of the Devil to utilize this power. He could with one look, if He wanted, obliterate all His enemies into smoke. He stripped Himself of using this power.

Quote:

2. Where does it say that while Jesus Christ was in the "grave" that His Divinity was not in His hands but in the hands of His Father?

The Bible does not necessarily give us all those details. It is silent on that matter. This is why it is so wonderful to have the Spirit of Prophecy, to fill in those details with us. We accept Ellen White as a prophet. You do not! You have chosen to reject the prophetic inspiration given to us by God through His prophet. Had Christ's Divinity been a separate, floating, conscious entity, as you are proposing, then Christ truly would not have "died". Scriptures tell us He "died".

Quote:

3. I am not the one trying to separate Jesus Christ's Divinity from Jesus Christ. You are by merely asserting that Christ's Divinity was not with Him but with the Father. Was Christ's Divinity just lying there "dormant" and inactive?

We do not know. Yet we know He was truly dead, and that His Divinity was not some floating, separate conscious entity. These are mysteries that we may not fully understand until we get to heaven. Nonetheless, Scripture is clear, Christ was dead in the tomb.

Quote:

4. Such things demonstrate that you have such a little understanding God and how God Works. You also have so little understanding of what the "Godhead" actually is. You keep treating their "moves" and "state of being" as if they were three "super humans" with exactly the "same purpose and desire". It is in this light that you tackle such questions as posed here and then flounder.

I have never once treated any of this like anything you are saying above.

Quote:

Yes, this is SDA Theology because SDA are fully Trinitarian which they got from the RCC/Pope. In this vein they continue the concepts based on "human logic" of what the Trinity means when in actuality no human knows exactly what the Trinity means, how it functions, or what its make actually is.

Yet you like most SDA go on and on as if you have intimate knowledge that others do not have.

5. You are indeed confusing. First you say that "all life proceeds from the Father" then you claim that Jesus Christ (not the Father but is the Son) is also "self existent". Which is it? Please clear up this discrepancy which I believe is not intentional on your part but is rather just simple misunderstanding of what you really meant. Does not "all life" proceed from all the Trinity?

You are assuming a lot of things about what I believe. A matter of fact, this is an area where I am still studying and growing, and I do not claim to have all the answers.

One thing I know for sure: Scriptures are clear that there are "three". There are three Powers of the Heavenly Trio. But I am still trying to fully understand the nature of those three. Remember that there are several versions of the "Trinity". The word "Trinity" just means three. We have no doubt that there are three mentioned in Scripture, so that should be out of the question. While in my mind there is no doubt that the Catholic Church definitely has a warped concept of the Trinity, this does not mean that there isn't correct version of a trinity.

Sadly, you are trying to turn this argument into a debate about the Trinity, and this is a subject I have chosen to refrain from entering upon at this time of my life. The issue in discussion here has nothing to do with the Trinity, but rather understanding how Christ's Divinity works.

You ask me questions such as: "Where does it say that Christ's Divinity was in the Hands of the Father?" I could turn the question back on you: "Where does it say that Christ's Divinity was NOT in the Hands of the Father?"

You see, you are failing to realize that I am offering a "possible solution" to what appears to be a dilemma that might cause one to think Christ was not really dead, but alive, in His grave. Is it wrong to offer solutions to apparent dilemmas?

Thank you Lysimachus. I like your answers for the most part.

1. You freely admit that the Bible does not say that Jesus Christ "laid aside His Divinity" and/or never used His Divinity while on earth. You admit that such concepts come from Ellen White only. That is a courageous stand and admission to make for a SDA that they got something from Ellen White that is not in the Bible.

2. Scripture is indeed clear that there are three, the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. No dispute there.

The dispute comes in regard to how the Three are configured and function. SDA Theology states that it has figured this concept out.

I on the other hand believe that humanity has NOT FIGURED THIS OUT. The Bible is SILENT in regard to makeup and function. What we do know God is God regardless how the Three are. I refuse to go further because the Bible is SILENT.

SDA believe they have the Trinity figured out but in fact they do not. Like soooo many of SDA views there Theology is "colored" by the views of Ellen White even though the Bible is SILENT.

The main problem I have is that SDA do not freely admit that their views on the Trinity, the Sanctuary, etc. are a mixture of the Bible and Ellen White. SDA cling to the fable that all their Theology and Doctrines are Bible and Bible only.

This is not being honest and the rest of the world notices and our credibility is destroyed. It also shows how embarrassed SDA are to admit that Ellen White has soooo much influence on their Doctrine and Theology. They are afraid to be viewed as a cult or like the "Mormans". Thus, SDA are always "tap dancin'".

[Lysimachus]

Remember Miz3, there is nothing wrong with a prophet shedding additional light on a subject not revealed in the Bible. For example, Ellen White tells you that it was Lazarus that lead Jesus riding the colt in His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Nowhere does the Bible state this. Yet, God revealed to her these extra details through Divine inspiration.

The test of a prophet is not whether what the prophet says is in the Bible or not. There would be no need for prophets then if all the prophet were to do was repeat 100% exact that which was written before. The role of a prophet always sheds additional light upon a subject, yet does not contradict that which has been written before.

So it is wrong for you to disqualify Ellen White simply because she mentions something not in the Bible. What should be of concern to you is not whether the information she is providing is mentioned in the Bible or not, but whether or not that information clearly, and irrefutably contradicts what has been written in God's Word.

[miz3]

Remember Miz3, there is nothing wrong with a prophet shedding additional light on a subject not revealed in the Bible. For example, Ellen White tells you that it was Lazarus that lead Jesus riding the colt in His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Nowhere does the Bible state this. Yet, God revealed to her these extra details through Divine inspiration.

The test of a prophet is not whether what the prophet says is in the Bible or not. There would be no need for prophets then if all the prophet were to do was repeat 100% exact that which was written before. The role of a prophet always sheds additional light upon a subject, yet does not contradict that which has been written before.

So it is wrong for you to disqualify Ellen White simply because she mentions something not in the Bible. What should be of concern to you is not whether the information she is providing is mentioned in the Bible or not, but whether or not that information clearly, and irrefutably contradicts what has been written in God's Word.

I have. I find some of her writings definitely "prophetically inspired" but most of her writings are just repeats of "opinions" others have already had.

You see it differently and that you are entitled to do. However, for your arguments to have any weight with me they must be able to be proved from the Bible and the Bible only.

Whether "Lazarus led the colt" or not is not of vital importance. Thus, I don't care about that. If that was all she said that was "extra Biblical" we would not have any disagreement.

However, Ellen White makes "extra Biblical" comments that are vital to understanding the Bible on the Nature of Christ, the Sanctuary, Investigative Judgment, etc. and I find not just adding things that are not in the Bible but actually going counter to what the Bible actually says. In these matters she cannot possibly be "inspired". In those matters Ellen White is merely expressing her honest but erroneous opinion.

I have seen on this forum two Ellen White believers quoting Ellen White and say that she is saying two diametrically opposed things and the two quotes actually contradict each other. This shows that Ellen White like the rest of us had opinions of theological importance and over time and situations changed or altered to varying degrees her views on them. This is not what happens to the Words that are "inspired". "Inspired" words last forever because they are the Words of God. God does not grow and change with time. Thus, I cannot have confidence in everything Ellen White wrote or spoke.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: miz3

5. You are indeed confusing. First you say that "all life proceeds from the Father" then you claim that Jesus Christ (not the Father but is the Son) is also "self existent". Which is it? Please clear up this discrepancy which I believe is not intentional on your part but is rather just simple misunderstanding of what you really meant. Does not "all life" proceed from all the Trinity?

The pre-incarnate Christ did not derive His life from the Father. Christ's life was original, unborrowed, underived. DA 530. He is the eternal, self-existent, infinite, omnipotent Son. Yet as the God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth was totally dependent upon the Father, the Holy Spirit, and even the angels. So while Jesus the man did derive His life from the Father, the pre-existent, self-existent Son did not.

JOHN:

WHY DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE THE QUOTES FROM THE BIBLE AND WRITINGS OF ELLEN WHITE THAT SUIT YOUR BRAND OF THEOLOGY AND DISREGARD THE OTHER QUOTES?

Jesus Christ himself plainly states that the "life within himself" was given to him from his Father. See John 5:26 If the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ had this "life within himself" from all eternity why was it necessary for the Father to give him this "life within himself"?

Ellen White clearly states that Jesus Christ laid down this "unborrowed life" at the cross and then took it up again. See the following quote:

"In him was life; and the life was the light of men." It is not physical life that is here specified, but eternal life, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual received. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Lifegiver, takes it again. . . . But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. "I lay it down of myself," He said. . . . This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). This is the open fountain of life for the world (The SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, vol. 5, p. 1130)."

IF THE PRE-INCARNATE JESUS CHRIST WAS GIVEN THIS "UNBORROWED LIFE", THEN HE COULD HAVE LAID IT DOWN OF HIMSELF.

We are all sinners and when we come to Jesus Christ and are "born again" we are given this "unborrowed life" as a free gift. If this "unborrowed life" was NOT derived from the Father and given to the pre- incarnate Jesus Christ, how can the born again sinner receive as a free gift this "unborrowed life" if it cannot be derived from another being?

[John317]

I have seen on this forum two Ellen White believers quoting Ellen White and say that she is saying two diametrically opposed things and the two quotes actually contradict each other. This shows that Ellen White like the rest of us had opinions of theological importance and over time and situations changed or altered to varying degrees her views on them. This is not what happens to the Words that are "inspired". "Inspired" words last forever because they are the Words of God. God does not grow and change with time. Thus, I cannot have confidence in everything Ellen White wrote or spoke.

Would you please give some examples?

[John317]

JOHN:

WHY DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE THE QUOTES FROM THE BIBLE AND WRITINGS OF ELLEN WHITE THAT SUIT YOUR BRAND OF THEOLOGY AND DISREGARD THE OTHER QUOTES?

I don't. However, I can't quote all of her-- if I did, it would fill up too many posts. :-)

[John317]

Ellen White clearly states that Jesus Christ laid down this "unborrowed life" at the cross and then took it up again. See the following quote:

"In him was life; and the life was the light of men." It is not physical life that is here specified, but eternal life, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual received. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Lifegiver, takes it again. . . . But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. "I lay it down of myself," He said. . . . This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). This is the open fountain of life for the world (The SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, vol. 5, p. 1130)."

The life that is not inherent in man is eternal or immortal life. Immortal life is the life we receive as a gift from God. We can never derive original, unborrowed, and underived life from God. That would be like saying we receive unreceived life from God. It's a contradiction in terms.

Life is original with God the Father and with Christ. Humans never originated life, and therefore it is impossible for humans to have original life. Humans will always have derived life, which will be immortal life that originated with God and with Christ.

You're apparently missing the significance of "original life." Only God and Christ and the Holy Spirit can give life to anyone, because they have original life. Humans will never be able to create life. Why? Because we don't have it to give. Christ does.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

I have seen on this forum two Ellen White believers quoting Ellen White and say that she is saying two diametrically opposed things and the two quotes actually contradict each other. This shows that Ellen White like the rest of us had opinions of theological importance and over time and situations changed or altered to varying degrees her views on them. This is not what happens to the Words that are "inspired". "Inspired" words last forever because they are the Words of God. God does not grow and change with time. Thus, I cannot have confidence in everything Ellen White wrote or spoke.

Would you please give some examples?

You and Sky on the thread that dealt with the "Living Temple" and John Harvey Kellogg.

That should be sufficient proof for you.

[John317]

....We are all sinners and when we come to Jesus Christ and are "born again" we are given this "unborrowed life" as a free gift. If this "unborrowed life" was NOT derived from the Father and given to the pre- incarnate Jesus Christ, how can the born again sinner receive as a free gift this "unborrowed life" if it cannot be derived from another being?

We don't receive "unborrowed," "original," "underived" life. We receive immortality.

How can anyone derive underive life?

When Ellen White wrote that "in Christ is life original, unborrowed, underived," she was saying that Christ was self-existent. She was saying that Christ didn't derive life from the Father or from anyone else.

Check out the meaning of "self-existence." Only God is self-existent. Jesus is God. He is Jehovah, and Jehovah means "the self-existent One."

You're ignoring or forgetting the very basic fact that John 1: 1, last part, says "the Word was God." By this, it means that "what God was, the Word was." The Word was everything that God was. Everything the Bibe says God was, the Word was. Is God self-existent? Yes. Then so is the Word. Did God have a beginning? No. Then neither did the Word have a beginning. Is God love? Yes. Then the Word is love. And so on and so forth.

The Word was God's perfect expression-- everything God wants to say to us-- because God and the Word have the same character and essence.

The Word is not a derived Being. He is the eternal, self-existent Son-- infinite and omnipotent. As Ellen White said, Christ is God essentially and in the highest sense. This can only be true if God the Father is not God in any higher sense than Christ Himself.

[John317]

...You and Sky on the thread that dealt with the "Living Temple" and John Harvey Kellogg.

That should be sufficient proof for you.

But your argument here would also signify that if two people disagree over Bible verses, and use them in diametrically opposite ways, the verses cannot be inspired by God.

I'm asking you to quote statements of Ellen White in which she plainly contradicts herself.

[Dr. Waite]

John:

Obviously you cannot read plain english. Look at the Ellen White quote again:

"In him was life; and the life was the light of men." It is not physical life that is here specified, but eternal life, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual received. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Lifegiver, takes it again. . . . But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. "I lay it down of myself," He said. . . . This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). This is the open fountain of life for the world (The SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, vol. 5, p. 1130).

Ellen White is talking about the "unborrowed life" that Christ has. Look at the quote:

"But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. "I lay it down of myself," He said. . . . This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour."

IT IS VERY CLEAR IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT SHE DESCRIBED THE "LIFE OF CHRIST" AS "UNBORROWED". SHE THEN TALKS ABOUT THIS "UNBORROWED" LIFE AS "THIS LIFE". IN REFERENCE TO "THIS LIFE" SHE STATES: "I lay it down of myself," AND IN REFERENCE TO "THIS LIFE" SHE STATES: "This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour."

[Gordon1]

"In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived."

"This life is not inherent in man."

"He can possess it only through Christ."

"He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour."

This is plainly speaking of salvation.

[John317]

IT IS VERY CLEAR IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT SHE DESCRIBED THE "LIFE OF CHRIST" AS "UNBORROWED". SHE THEN TALKS ABOUT THIS "UNBORROWED" LIFE AS "THIS LIFE". IN REFERENCE TO "THIS LIFE" SHE STATES: "I lay it down of myself," AND IN REFERENCE TO "THIS LIFE" SHE STATES: "This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour."

Was the pre-incarnate Christ self-existent?

What does "self-existent" mean?

[John317]

...

"He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour."

This is plainly speaking of salvation.

Yes, indeed. It is speaking of salvation, eternal life, and the gift of immortality. That is different from "life original, unborrowed, underived."

You cannot derive underived life.

Life originated the Christ, and even God can't give you underived life. That would be like giving you life that has no beginning. It can't be done.

God's life has no beginning. Yours does and always will have a beginning. Your life will always be a derived life that originated with God.

[Gordon1]

Thus, salvation is "life, original, unborrowed, underived."

[John317]

IT IS VERY CLEAR IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT SHE DESCRIBED THE "LIFE OF CHRIST" AS "UNBORROWED". SHE THEN TALKS ABOUT THIS "UNBORROWED" LIFE AS "THIS LIFE". IN REFERENCE TO "THIS LIFE" SHE STATES: "I lay it down of myself," AND IN REFERENCE TO "THIS LIFE" SHE STATES: "This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour."

Ellen White wrote:

Quote:

Christ's Life Was Unborrowed.--"In Him was life; and the life was the light of men." It is not physical life that is here specified, but eternal life, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual received. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Lifegiver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. "I lay it down of myself," He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3. This is the open fountain of life for the world (ST Feb. 13, 1912). {5BC 1130.3}

Quote:

Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." 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. "He that believeth in Me," said Jesus, "though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?" Christ here looks forward to the time of His second coming. Then the righteous dead shall be raised incorruptible, and the living righteous shall be translated to heaven without seeing death. The miracle which Christ was about to perform, in raising Lazarus from the dead, would represent the resurrection of all the righteous dead. By His word and His works He declared Himself the Author of the resurrection. He who Himself was soon to die upon the cross stood with the keys of death, a conqueror of the grave, and asserted His right and power to give eternal life. {DA 530.3}

Why is Christ the resurrection, and the life?

Because "in Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived."

You and I will never be the resurrection, and the life.

You and I will never have life in us that is "original, unborrowed, underived."

Why not? Because you and I never originated life. Christ did. So did God the Father.

Only the One who originated life can have original life.

We can have eternal life and immortal life, but we cannot derive underived life. You cannot borrow something that is unborrowed. You cannot derive something that is not derived.