SDA Teaching on the Trinity

[8thdaypriest]

On 5/15/2018 at 2:51 AM, The Wanderer said:

Well I woulld never depend upon a  "unsettled feeling" in order to know truth

I DID NOT "depend upon" the feeling.  I depend on the Bible study that came after.  The feeling just pushed me to study. 

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings JoeMo,

It is not my intention to answer all the passages that are used by Trinitarians to support their view of the pre-existence of Jesus as the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Please refer to John 8:24,28 for an explanation of John 8:58, and also Tyndale's translation of Exodus 3:12-14 "I will be". Greg Matthews has drawn attention to John 1:14 and the only begotten or uniquely begotten of the Father is parallel to Luke 1:35, where the begettal of Jesus is detailed. It is not talking about some relationship forged from eternity. The word conceived in Matthew 1:20 is cognate with the word begotten in John 1:14 and John 3:16 and in the margin of the NASB for Matthew 1:20 for conceived has “Lit. begotten”. Thus the three Gospel records that mention the birth of Jesus define “begotten”, while the Trinity is based originally on Platoism and immortal souls that also pre-existed and confuses the whole issue. Jesus was born a man, the Son of God Luke 1:35, not a God-man. This was a unique conception - birth, as God the Father was his father and Mary his mother, but Jesus was a human being, not an incarnated God. The OT God is Yahweh, the One God, the Father and the term "Father" has this primary meaning because God was the literal father of Jesus.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

I believe that the pre-incarnate Son of God, is speaking in Proberbs 8:22-31. 

Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD possessed me [shared spirit] at (or as) the beginning of His way, before His works of old. 23 I have been established [anointed] from everlasting, from the beginning, before there was ever an earth. 24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I was brought forth; 26 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, Or the primeval dust of the world. 27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep, 28 When He established the clouds above, When He strengthened the fountains of the deep, 29 When He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth, 30 Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him, 31 Rejoicing in His inhabited world, And my delight was with the sons of men."

To be "brought forth" is to be born.   Yes - I  know, the passage is a parody on wisdom.   Paul called Christ, "wisdom from God" and "the wisdom of God". 

Proverbs 30:4 "Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, If you know?"

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

"the name above all names" is Jesus.

God the Father did NOT put Jesus "above" Himself.  Philippians 2:9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, (Phi 2:9 NKJ)  

The "head" of Christ is God (1Cor Cpt 11).  

1 Corinthians 15:27 For he "has put everything under his feet."  Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (NIV)

[JoeMo]

On 5/15/2018 at 3:19 PM, TrevorL said:

It is not my intention to answer all the passages that are used by Trinitarians to support their view of the pre-existence of Jesus as the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

I am not a Trinitarian; but I do believe in Jesus' pre-existence as the physical manifestation of God (the Father is the spiritual manifestation).  Jesus said "If you've seen Me, You've seen the Father"; and "I and the Father are One".  Together they are God - One is the physical manifestation and the Other is the spiritual manifestation.  Just my opinion.  But neither of our opinions matter. God will be what He will be.

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe that the pre-incarnate Son of God, is speaking in Proberbs 8:22-31. 

 

Exactly.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 8thdaypriest and JoeMo,

9 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe that the pre-incarnate Son of God, is speaking in Proberbs 8:22-31. 

I believe that Proverbs 8:22-31 is a personification of Wisdom, one of the many attributes of God the Father. Please note that Wisdom is described as a wise woman. I believe that this prepares the way for understanding John 1:1 where the Word, God’s spoken word and the thoughts and character and wisdom behind that spoken word is also a personification, not a person.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[APL]

Christ is the Wisdom of God. 

1 Corinthians 1:24 But to them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

[TrevorL]

Greetings APL,

1 hour ago, APL said:

Christ is the Wisdom of God

Yes, Jesus is now the Wisdom of God but he needed to grow in wisdom before this could be considered a completed process. Prior to this the Wisdom of God in a complete sense was a quality of God the Father only.

Luke 2:52 (KJV): And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

If Jesus possessed the fullness of wisdom before and immediately after his birth, then he would not have needed to grow in wisdom.

Kind regards Trevor

[8thdaypriest]

9 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings APL,

Yes, Jesus is now the Wisdom of God but he needed to grow in wisdom before this could be considered a completed process. Prior to this the Wisdom of God in a complete sense was a quality of God the Father only.

Luke 2:52 (KJV): And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

If Jesus possessed the fullness of wisdom before and immediately after his birth, then he would not have needed to grow in wisdom.

Kind regards Trevor

I believe that Jesus (the man) needed to "grow in wisdom", but the pre-incarnate Son of God did not.  

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 8thdaypriest,

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe that Jesus (the man) needed to "grow in wisdom", but the pre-incarnate Son of God did not. 

I appreciate your perspective, but I will give a brief overview of how I understand these things, as I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. Could I ask you, what was the mind of Jesus like when he was 2, 8, 12, 20 and 30 years old? We are asked to have the mind of Christ, is this his inherited or rather continued fully Divine mind from his pre-existence, or the mind developed through the influence of God His Father and Mary and his own humble choices? I do not believe that Jesus had two minds, one a human mind subject to the same experiences of growth that we encounter and the other a Divine mind that had a pre-existence and was equal with Deity. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God at birth and not before, and he developed into the fullness of being full of grace and truth. When John described the glory of Jesus in John 1:14 he attributes this glory to the fact that Jesus was the only begotten of the Father, and he uses the phrase that he was “full of grace and truth”, and I believe that from birth he had to be filled with this Divine character. As mentioned before I understand that begotten here speaks of his conception and birth Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:35. He was a human, not a God-man and I find no reference to the supposed incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity or similar in these passages, including the favourite, John 1:1,14.

 

One of the remarkable features of the creation in Eden was that each species would beget according to its own species, after its kind. Bees over many generations still build their unique honey nests, without being directly taught, but somehow inherit this ability. Children look and act like their parents and we speak of nurture and nature, that which we learn and what is inherited from our parents. With Jesus he inherited from God his Father, and from Mary his mother, but he had to grow and learn, and I believe that Isaiah 50:4-5 indicates that God His Father taught him day by day, speaking and communicating to him, and he would have been taught by his mother Mary, most probably the most faithful woman who has ever lived, and by Joseph. At maturity, at the age of 30 when he was revealed to Israel, he revealed the moral glory of God His Father, he was full of grace and truth, an echo of Exodus 34:6-7, but even here the uniqueness of the word of God in summarising and giving greater depth and beauty in using the correct words in beautiful balance, as if all of the Divine character and purpose is now focussed in the Son of God.

 

I know you will now requote the various verses which you have used to speak of Jesus being the creator, and other verses. I am not proficient at clearly explaining these verses, or convincing a Trinitarian or a believer in Jesus’ pre-existence. But I believe that these speak firstly of God the Father creating the world with Jesus in mind, and for his sake, and other verses are talking of Jesus as the creator of the new creation. I believe that God the Father is the creator Psalm 8:1-9 and Matthew 11:25-30.  

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[8thdaypriest]

Thanks TrevorL, for stating your views.  I am not a Trinitarian.  I believe God the Father was the original Spirit being, and He beget a second Spirit being whom He called "My Son".   All else came from God the Father - through His Son.  That is my view.  

I see the Son of God as the communicator/mediator all through the Old Testament - not just the NT.   He appeared to Joshua (rendering the ground holy) as "the Commander of the Lord's hosts".   He appeared to Abraham.  He talked with Moses "face to face".   Jesus said, "No one has seen the Father."   If that is so, then who appeared to the patriarchs?   I believe that being was God's Son. 

God the Father could have done all the miracles - through the OT.  He certainly could have created the earth and the heavens.  But there was one thing the Father could NOT DO.  He could not have become a helpless human, and then die (literally die), while at the same time He continued to uphold all things by His power.   Couldn't do both - at the same time.  He needed another being - divine like Himself - to do that.  Hence the reason He beget a Son. 

I believe the Son of God became a man.  He must overcome Satan's dominion (by perfect obedience) AS A MAN, in order to recover dominion of the earth - FOR mankind.  

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, TrevorL said:

I appreciate your perspective, but I will give a brief overview of how I understand these things, as I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus.

Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. He also had this little exchange:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:56-58

So, who do I believe, Jesus or you?

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:1-3

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rachel (8thdaypriest) and B/W Photodude,

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus said, "No one has seen the Father."   If that is so, then who appeared to the patriarchs?   I believe that being was God's Son.

The other alternative is that it was an Angel representing God Exodus 3:2, speaking and acting on behalf of God the Father.

 

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. He also had this little exchange:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:56-58

So, who do I believe, Jesus or you?

I would rather that you accept the Bible, and not even my interpretation of the Bible. I have already briefly mentioned my understanding of John 8:58 based on John 8:24,28 and the future tense "I will be" in Exodus 3:14 as per Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins, but if you read this another way then that is your prerogative. The Bible will gradually teach us all if we are teachable.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[phkrause]

Here's an interesting article from the "Signs of the Times"

Revisiting the Trinity

http://www.signstimes.com/?p=article&a=40074434596.786

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I would be interested to hear more detail/explanation regarding what you wrote about Exodus 3:14 and the phrase "I will be"  I dont quite get what you are trying to say there.

I appreciate the invitation. There are two main views, firstly as it appears in the KJV, that the Yahweh (3rd Person) Name in the first person is “I Am” while the other is “I will be”. Some of the reasons for those who support the present tense is the supposed link with John 8:58, and also that the LXX has the present tense, even though it does not agree with the Hebrew text. Tyndale, the RV and RSV margins and some modern scholars consider the correct translation is “I will be”. I have not read much literature that supports the “I Am” view, but I imagine that it is extensive. I have read much that has supported the “I will be” view, so I suggest that you may like to consider more on both sides. The following is a brief introduction to future tense concept.

The Yahweh Name: Initial Declaration and Fulfilment
The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms:
Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Most translations and commentators accept the present tense "I am that I am", but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given "I will be that I will be" or "I will be what I will be", showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

The word "ehyeh" is in Exodus 3:14 is the same in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense:
Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity.

This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name:
Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.
If the Yahweh Name is simply “I Am”, what would be the great difference between this and the title God Almighty (El Shaddai)?. Both would speak of God’s existence, but here there is an emphasis of the distinction, and that Yahweh is strongly linked with God’s purpose to deliver His people from Egypt.

When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished:
Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
The future tense of God's Name "He will be or become" has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel's salvation.

The Yahweh Name has its greatest fulfillment in Jesus, and His Name can be understood as Yahweh’s Salvation Matthew 1:21. I will leave explaining this as the above would be sufficient, initially at least.

Kind regards Trevor

[B/W Photodude]

13 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

... that eternal life, which was with the Father, ...

 

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

...To me it is not making an in depth  doctrinal statement regarding the nature of Christ so much as it is admonishing us to only share what we have personally experienced, seen, heard, handled regarding The Word. ...

The phrase regarding "that eternal life" I find very important. People seem to always looking for eternal life and some wanting it without Jesus. But whenever He offers eternal life such as in John 3:16, He is not offering eternal life, He is offering Himself, which of course, is eternal! You can have Him eternally.

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

the last part of the article says it best:

 

 

The Signs of the Times is right about the Holy Spirit being equally God along with the Father & the Son. The Times equally makes clear that there is a large swatch of Adventists who reject the Trinity (who believe accepting this doctrine equates to purchasing a one way ticket to hell). Can you imagine ANY other denomination, in their own publication, claiming that the Trinity isn't a salvation issue? In other words, in the SDA Church a member can hold the Arian or Semi-Arian position and still be an Adventist in good standing. Does anyone know IF the Church has done any work in determining what percentage of SDA's reject the Trinity? 

 

 

[APL]

2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

It would be interesting to hear how Elder Moore translates his statement at the baptismal tank. I have written him before and he was kind enough to answer. Perhaps, he will reply if I ask him about this?

Maybe he would do it like in the book of Acts?  Maybe not....

[phkrause]

23 hours ago, APL said:

Maybe he would do it like in the book of Acts?  Maybe not....

Could you expand on this? Thanks

[APL]

53 minutes ago, phkrause said:

Could you expand on this? Thanks

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (13) Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen on none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:3-5 And he said to them, To what then were you baptized? And they said, To John’s baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarry you? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

[8thdaypriest]

On 5/18/2018 at 2:02 AM, The Wanderer said:

OK, this is just me without any quotes or texts or anything. I am trying to figure out here what you mean. Would you agree with the statement that says Jesus was both God and Man and that He overcame in the same way we all have to today? In other words, in your mind, COULD Jesus have exercised His divinity IF He had chosen to during His tenure here on Earth? I am thinking about a few examples where Jesus was obviously not just a Man as in the scene where Judas was approaching Him with the mob and the people were literally stopped in their tracks by Him and the Light He is and was. Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and always? Ill be interested to hear more clarification on that. I can dig up specific passages if needed.

I believe the Son of God - actually BECAME a human being.  He emptied Himself of His own divine powers, in order to BECOME a human being. 

As a human being - He no longer possessed (naturally) any divine powers OF HIS OWN.   Any divine power available to Him, was that of His Father.   The commands of Christ - would be fulfilled (through Him) BY His Father.  

Christ did have "authority" to heal, and to command demons, but that authority was "given" to Him BY His Father.  Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."  Who gave Him the authority?  Answer:  His Father.  

COULD Jesus have exercised His own natural divine power - His divinity - IF He had chosen to?   No.   He had no divine power - except that which flowed through Him, and dwelt in Him - the divine power of His Father. 

COULD Jesus have exercised the authority given to Him?  I believe so - yes.  But to exercise that authority, over God's angels, without His Father's consent, or against His Father's will - would have been rebellion on His part - sin - and He would then have lost both the authority and His eternal life. 

In the Garden at His arrest:

John 18:6 Now when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the ground.  

Why could this also, not have been done for Him (through Him) by His Father?   Jesus did say, "The Father who dwells in me does the works." (John 14:10).   Never once did Jesus claim any divine power - of His own - while living as a man on earth.

AFTER He was glorified (by His Father) following His resurrection and ascension,  His divine powers were restored to Him.  His prayer - "Glorify me with the glory I had with you, before the world was" - that prayer was answered fully.   This allowed Jesus glorified to pour out His own spirit presence upon His disciples. 

[8thdaypriest]

11 minutes ago, APL said:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (13) Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen on none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:3-5 And he said to them, To what then were you baptized? And they said, To John’s baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarry you? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Yes.  Every baptism recorded AFTER Christ ascended, was performed "in the name of Jesus Christ".   Either the disciples got Christ's final instructions wrong, or someone has messed with the text (Matthew 28:19).  I believe the latter.  There is no existent manuscript or fragment containing the words of Matthew 28:19, that is pre-Constantine.  One Aramaic manuscript exists.  In that manuscript, the words of Christ are quoted as "baptizing them in my name".   There is a great debate going on among scholars of ancient Biblical manuscripts, over this question. 

[Gustave]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 9:41 AM, The Wanderer said:

Hello Gus, as far as I know, few denominations see it the way the Adventist Church does. However; I would add that this is what I was trying to talk about in another subject area with you here on the forum. We DO HAVE official beliefs, and we DO HAVE differing views within the rank and file on same beliefs; but we do not have a church which allows anyone, leaders or not, to say what our official teachings are. Thats not how our doctrines are or ever were formed. Did you note how Elder Moore stated it?

That doesnt sound like official church belief, except for the fact that he said the church doesnt want to make this a salvational issue...as in people being "lost" if they dont belive it. It would be like saving that people WLL BE SAVED IF they DO believe this doctrine. Only Jesus saves. (John 1:29)  Doctrines do not save us. Only the Person who wrote the doctrine saves us and this is why I appreciate the fundamental belief about Unity In Diversity! I would also say that Moore doesnt appear to be speaking for the church on official capacity. He said "we here at The Signs..."

 

I read Moore's article a couple of times - the rub is that Elder Moore's reasoning while solidly on the side of the Trinitarian Doctrine, in incompatible with Ellen White or the SDA Pioneers. 

The other thing I noticed about what you said: "We do NOT have a church which allow anyone, leaders or not, to say what our official teachings are". 

Other than the preposterous act of saying that do you have an "official" statement from your Church that says this? 

[JoeMo]

On 5/19/2018 at 11:37 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

COULD Jesus have exercised His own natural divine power - His divinity - IF He had chosen to?   No.  

I disagree.  Jesus had (and has) a free will - just like we do.  Jesus was fully man and fully God.  He set aside His divinity voluntarily; it was not taken from Him.  He CHOSE to rely on the Father's power.  If He had chosen to use His own power, mankind may well have been doomed for eternity.  The Father chose - by His own free will to be a good and merciful God.  Jesus chose to pay the penalty for man's spiritual crimes.  

[8thdaypriest]

IF Jesus was a "fully divine" being, during His incarnation, then He could not have died.  I know.  Some say that only the human part of Jesus died.  But that would mean an incomplete offering - if ALL of Him did not die.   It would mean that God did not die for our sins. 

IF Jesus was a "fully divine" being during His incarnation, He could not have sinned.  It is impossible for a "fully divine" being - to sin.  Which means that He really was risking nothing.

IF Jesus was a "fully divine" being during His incarnation, then what need to be "glorified"  by His Father.   He could shine and show forth His own glory, without any assistance from His Father. 

Before He incarnated, He was the Son of God.  The Father assisted His Son, to incarnate.  The author of Hebrews says God brought His Son into the world.  So the Son did not perform His own incarnation.  During this process of incarnating, God reduced His own Son to a few strands of DNA in the womb of Mary.  HOW the Father did this - is a mystery.   At this moment the former divine being - Michael, ceased to EXIST, and a new human being emerged in the womb of Mary.  This new human being, was indwelt by God His Father, from the moment of His birth. 

Just my opinion - of course.