SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Gregory Matthews]

As the discussion of the Trinity has developed, multiple aspects have opened for discussion.   Included in these is the issue as to whether or not Christ could have sinned while living on Earth and whether or not God, in the person of "Christ, could  have died, if Christ had so sinned.

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.

[Kevin H]

Quote

 Due to the foreknowledge of God, Christ could have sinned.

There is a big different between foreknowledge and the understanding that the infinite God is not limited to time and space but transcends time and  space. God is NOT back  here with us with the ability to look over the future like how we can visit New York City and go up the Empire State Building and look out over the city. But we have God transcending time and space thus God is able to experience the future, able to experience what we choose. Thus Richard Rice's view is half the truth. There is that part of God which experiences moment by moment. 

[In my original post, I had a typo that changed the meaning of what I intended to say.   I have corrected that typo.  My correction of that typo may raise questions  in the mind of some as they read this response by Kevin.  I acknowledge that and simply say:  Let both this post and my corrected post speak for themselves--GM.]

[Gustave]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Christ indeed did die. 

Below is what I'm saying a Bible Alone Protestant would assert.

A)  God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) have absolute foreknowledge

b)   God communicated to us through the Scriptures, explicitly,  that there would be no failure

C)  God cannot lie

Conclusion: If God knows the end from the beginning and cannot lie & tells us unconditionally that the victory would be His - it defaults into the impossibility of Christ sinning and loosing His Salvation. 

 I would say the above is valid logic and supported by the Scriptures.

A Catholic would say the same thing as a Bible Alone Protestant would and accept the below statements as authoritative and systematizing Sacred Scriptures position on this question. 

CCC #438
Jesus' messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, "for the name 'Christ' implies 'he who anointed', 'he who was anointed' and 'the very anointing with which he was anointed'. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.'"35 His ETERNAL messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power", "that he might be revealed to Israel"36 as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as "the Holy One of God".

one Scripture in support of the Catholic position out of more than a 100

Ephesians 1,10
to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out EVERYTHING in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory

The Doctrine of the Trinity prevents the possibility of Christ being "mutable" in any event. The Godhead of the SDA Church allows for this mutation which is the concept I'm saying is incorrect. I'm not saying all SDA's believe this but a great many do because of the following type of assertions.

 

SDA Biblical Research Institute
“The sonship of Jesus, however, is NOT ontological, but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the trinity has accepted a particular role”. - The Trinity In Scripture by Gerhard Pfandl, June 1999.

 

Ellen White, Desire of Ages page 483
However much a shepherd may love his sheep, he loves his sons and daughters more. Jesus is not only our shepherd; He is our 'everlasting Father.' And He says, 'I know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father.' John 10:14, 15, R. V. What a statement is this!--the only-begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He whom God has declared to be 'the Man that is My fellow' (Zech. 13:7),--the communion between Him AND the eternal God is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the earth!"

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast loved Me." John 17:20-23.      Wonderful statement! The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}

She just said that Jesus was no more "God" than Jesus' Apostles were Christ or did I get something wrong there? 

I'm assuming statements like these from Ellen White may have caused so many SDA's to come up with the idea that the "heavenly trio", to restore peace & order to the universe, adopted alien roles and play acted. The three members of the heavenly trio were ONE in the same way that Jesus and His Apostles were ONE (As in NOT in the other way). This seems incredibly similar to Arianism to me. 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As I write this, I have checked the 8T passage, but not the DA passage.  So my comment is  focused on that 8T passage.  It is clear that Gustave has correctly quoted it.  So the central question is:  What was the intent of EGW?

1)  It should be noted that EGW cites the Biblical passage in which Christ prays that the followers of Christ will become united in the belief that the incarnate Christ had been sent by God the Father.

2)  I understand that to be a potential future unity that did  not exist at that moment in time.  I do not see EGW as saying that such a perfect unity could exist in its fullness in the temporal time in which we live today, outside of eternity.

3)  I think that Ellen White is very clear in her writings that understanding God's salvation of humanity will only occur in eternity and not in this life. 

4)  It is also clear that Ellen White did not have a full understanding of the nature of the Trinity.  Exactly what she understood, may be subject to some debate.  but, clearly it was imperfect, and it can be demonstrated that over time her understanding changed.

5)  As officially taught by the SDA denomination and also by Ellen White, the Bible is the ultimate standard by which all spiritual belief should be judged.  The writings of EGW are not that standard.  The Bible is the ultimate standard by which her writings should be judged.

6)  Getting back to the question as to the intent of Ellen White in that 8Tl passage, I will suggest that the following quote clearly tells us that neither the disciples nor humanity in the time of EGW  had achieved the fullness of the unity that existed between Christ and 
God the Father. That would only come at a later time, in eternity.

But the disciples had not yet received the complete, fulfillment of Christ's promise.   They received all the knowledge of God that they could bear, but the complete fulfillment of the promise that Christ would show them plainly of the Father was yet to come.   Thus it is today.  Our knowledge of God is partial and imperfect.  When the conflict is ended and the Man Christ Jesus acknowledge before the Father His faithful workers,  who, in a world of sin, have borne true witness for Him, they will understand clearly what now are mysteries to them.  8T 267

 

[Gustave]

As I understand it (admittedly through the lens of a different Faith Tradition). 

The 8T quote is saying that the way Christ & the Father is ONE is the same exact way that Christ & His Disciples are ONE. 

Ellen was arguing for the SDA 'Personality of God' Doctrine (which existed at that time) which was the primary argument against the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

See, August 29, 1878 And Sabbath Herald, Volume 52 No. 10

This article, edited & revised by Ellen & James White, lists 38 objections to the Trinity Doctrine." Below are a few.

" POINT: #29: Divinity and Humanity were united, never to be divided (SO SAY THE CREEDS), yet the Divinity forsook the humanity on the cross. 

" POINT #30: They are never to divided yet one was dead the other living."

"  POINT #31: God has no body but he took again His body."

"  POINT  #38: The Father, was never crucified, NEVER FORSAKEN BY HIS GOD, AND DID NOT RECEIVE HIS LIFE FROM ANOTHER, but ALL of this is true of the Son." 

NOTE: the highlighted parts. I should have read this article more carefully in the past, THAT is likely where SDA's  got the idea that the Father turned his back on Jesus. I'll run OCR on the Archive Database using those phrases and see what comes up. 

My primary point is still that Christ couldn't have sinned because  because the same thing that qualified the Father as God [Substance] qualified the Son & Holy Spirit as God [Substance]. 

 

 

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

But the disciples had not yet received the complete, fulfillment of Christ's promise.   They received all the knowledge of God that they could bear, but the complete fulfillment of the promise that Christ would show them plainly of the Father was yet to come.   Thus it is today.  Our knowledge of God is partial and imperfect.  When the conflict is ended and the Man Christ Jesus acknowledge before the Father His faithful workers,  who, in a world of sin, have borne true witness for Him, they will understand clearly what now are mysteries to them.  8T 267

I fully agree with EGW's take on this.  We as limited, fallible humans, cannot fully understand the nature or essence of God until we are like He is.  When we face things we cannot hope to fully understand, we create mental constructs (admittedly based on our partial understanding) in an attempt to wrap our heads around facts we cannot fully understand.

I have heard the trinity is like an egg - it has a white and a yolk.  They are two separate elements; but both are necessary to make an egg.  I have also heard the trinity described like a fruit pie.  It needs both a crust and a filling to be a pie. They are  two separate elements; but both are required for a fruit pie.  Furthermore, you can slice the pie into several pieces.  Yet it remains a whole pie.  Eight pieces in one pie is equivalent to three Persons in one God.

While these examples are extremely simple (even sophomoric), they make just a much sense, yet have many of the same limitations as the more sophisticated theological models presented above. 

What is the salvational message here?  To me, it is that there is more than one aspect (or Person) of God - a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit.  Does our salvation hings on whether or not we believe in a Trinity or a "twinity"? I think not.  Does it matter whether or not we believe Christ was capable of sinning? I think not; fact is He didn't sin.  I don't fully understand the "nature" of my computer or my television, either; but I believe that they operate as advertised when used in accordance with the instructions ("commandments").

[Gregory Matthews]

I will suggest that we be careful as to reading back into the writings of EGW thought that she may never have had.  Her formal schooling was that of the 3rd grade.   I can not think that she, in speaking about the nature of God, was considering some of the issues that we attach to that study today.  I do not think that she was  even aware of them.

Regardless, SDAs do not consider her writings to be verbally dictated by God with the intent to be on an equal level to Scripture. 

However, in actual fact, all denominations do at times write in a manner that is not understood well by others.  I will quote a passage of Roman Catholic teaching that on the surface seems to be similar to what Gustave is saying related to his cited passage from EGW.  I do not believe that this Roman Catholic passage does teach what Gustave seems to believe the EGW passage teaches.  My point is that one could consider it to be similar.

460  The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":  78  For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."  79  "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."  80  "For the only-begotten son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."  81

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

NOTE:  If my comment above is faulty, I will welcome any correction by Gustave.

 

[Gustave]

17 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I will suggest that we be careful as to reading back into the writings of EGW thought that she may never have had.  Her formal schooling was that of the 3rd grade.   I can not think that she, in speaking about the nature of God, was considering some of the issues that we attach to that study today.  I do not think that she was  even aware of them.

Regardless, SDAs do not consider her writings to be verbally dictated by God with the intent to be on an equal level to Scripture. 

However, in actual fact, all denominations do at times write in a manner that is not understood well by others.  I will quote a passage of Roman Catholic teaching that on the surface seems to be similar to what Gustave is saying related to his cited passage from EGW.  I do not believe that this Roman Catholic passage does teach what Gustave seems to believe the EGW passage teaches.  My point is that one could consider it to be similar.

460  The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":  78  For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."  79  "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."  80  "For the only-begotten son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."  81

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

NOTE:  If my comment above is faulty, I will welcome any correction by Gustave.

 

 

I could reasonably agree with you had Ellen not said these things. Notice the statement she makes about "Substance". 

"Jesus says his  Father is the only true God but Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and the Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is. Now were I, on going into a place, to inquire for a minister of the Gospel, and one were to inform me that Roger Roe was the only minister of the Gospel in the place, and another were to tell me that two other persons were just as truly ministers of the Gospel as Elder Roe, surely the later would contradict the former. And precisely so do Trinitarians contradict the Savior in in this text. "

And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming
but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible. Any one who is familiar with the teachings of Trinitarians will readily see that we do not at all misrepresent them in the following statements:-

1. They place the Father first in the trinity, and the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. If they are all equal, why do
this?

2. They have a mediator between men and the Father, but not between men and the Son or the Holy Spirit. Then they do not themselves regard them as equals.

3. The Son prays, but the Father does not.

4. The Son has a body, but neither the Father nor Spirit has, according to them.

5. The Son died, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have seen death.

6. They do not pray to the Son in the name of the Father, as they do to the Father in the name of the Son.

7. The Father does not plead with the Son, as the Son does with the Father.

8. They do not offer any sacrifice to the Holy Ghost, as they do to the Father.

9. Their continual effort to prove the Son equal with .the Father is virtually proof that he is not. They never try to prove the Father equal with the Son.

According to Trinitarians,-
10. Greater and less imply perfect equality. " My Father is greater than T." John 14: 28.

11. The Sender and Sent are both one. " Thou didst send me." John 17:8.

12. The self-existent God has a Father. John 20: 17.

13. The expressions one and three mean the same. Eph. 4: 6.

14. The Father and Son are the same. Matt. 3: 17.

15. Christ prayed to himself.

16. Jesus was that Father who sent him.

17. He was that God who gave him.

18. They teach that God sent himself, came out from himself, prayed to himself, thanked himself, bore witness of himself, went back to himself, sits at the right hand of himself, is his own Father and his own Son, pleads with himself, left Heaven, and was there all the time.

19. Jesus is very God and very man.

20. He is the invisible God, but was often seen.

21. He is the immortal God, but he died.

22. He is the omnipotent God, but an angel strengthened him.

23. He is the omniscient God, but did not know the day and hour of his appearing. wMark 13,: 32.w

w
24. He is equal with the Father, and yet is the Father.

25. He is the Son, but is as old as the Father.

26. He is as great as his Father, though his Father is greater than he. John 14: 28.

 

27. He is the begotten Son, and the unbegotten God.

28. He has a Father, and is the God who has no Father.

29. Divinity and humanity were united, never to be divided (so say the creeds), yet the divinity forsook the humanity on the cross.

30. They are never to be divided; yet one was dead, the other living.

31. God has no body, yet " he took again his body."-Creeds.

32. God is eternal, but was " begotten before all worlds."

33. The Son has a Father, but the Father has no Father.

34. The Father has a Son, but the Son has no Son.

35. God never gives thanks, but the Son does.

36. The Father is never second, but the Son always is.

37. God does not receive his power from another, but the Son does.

38. The Father was never crucified, never forsaken by his God, and did not receive his life from another, but all this is true of
the Son. Trinitarian creeds contradict the word of God thus :-

1. Trinity. God. •Gen. 1 IL
2. Triune.
3. God is three. OG(nde. is ono. Gal. 3: 20.
4. God is three Lords. God is ono Lord. Dont. 6: 4.
5. His name is three. His name is one. Zech. 14 :9.
6. Holy three. holy One. 12 : 6.
7. God the Spirit. The Spirit of God. Gen. 1:2.
8. God died for us. The Son of God died. Matt 27:54.
9. Worship the Trinity. Worship (Soot. Rey. '22: 9.
10. When ye pray say, " Holy When ye pray say, " Our Fa-
Trinity."-Ep. Pr. Book. then'' Luke 11 :2.

The Bible says nothing about the trinity. God never mentions it, Jesus never named it, the apostles never did. Now men dare
to call God, Trinity, Triune, etc. It is a great thing to name our God. We may name our horse, our child; but who presumes to name God? The child should not name its father. We should not name God.

God is self-existent, and the source and author of all things,-of angels, of men, of all the worlds,-of everything. Thus Paul says, "For. of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen." Rom. 11: 36. He is the source of all life and immortality. Thus, speaking of the Father, Paul says, " Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approachunto." 1 Tim. 6: 16. Notice that this glorious God is the only one who, in himself, possesses immortality. That is, he is the fountain-head, the source' of all life and immortality, Even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, derives his existence and his life from the Father, for so he himself says, " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." John 6:57. "For as the Father bath life in himself ; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. This statement is unequivocal. The Father has life in himself,
and in his great love for his Son he bestows the same gift upon him; but it will be noticed that the Father is the one from whom the gift came.

Ellen helped write this. 

[Gregory Matthews]

My point is:

*  Yes, Ellen White in her early years did not understand the Trinity as it is understood today.

*  When she used the word "Substance" it was not as a trained theologian and not as we would understand it to day when used in connection with the Trinity.

*  In he later years, she had moved toward a more Standard Trinitarian position, even if not fully  where we are today.

 

[8thdaypriest]

That is a major reason why I no longer have confidence in Ellen White as a "messenger" of God to "His remnant".   How could God allow His messenger to teach, write, and endorse one truth for 50 years, only to teach a different truth in "her later years"?  I must go to the Bible only for my understanding.

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Thus, speaking of the Father, Paul says, " Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approachunto." 1 Tim. 6: 16. Notice that this glorious God is the only one who, in himself, possesses immortality. That is, he is the fountain-head, the source' of all life and immortality, Even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, derives his existence and his life from the Father, for so he himself says, " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." John 6:57. "For as the Father bath life in himself ; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. This statement is unequivocal. The Father has life in himself,
and in his great love for his Son he bestows the same gift upon him; but it will be noticed that the Father is the one from whom the gift came.

Jesus spoke much of this as a human being.

When the Son of God incarnated, He "emptied Himself" of divine power.  As a human he became mortal, and flesh.  The Father had to raise Him from the dead, or He would have remained dead. 

As a human being, the divine power He accessed was that of His divine Father.  He said Himself, "The Father who dwells in me does the works."  Jesus healed no one by His own divine power.  The Father's life poured through Him.  It is the same today.  The Father's life and spirit are poured through His Son, to us.

[Gustave]

31 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

My point is:

*  Yes, Ellen White in her early years did not understand the Trinity as it is understood today.

*  When she used the word "Substance" it was not as a trained theologian and not as we would understand it to day when used in connection with the Trinity.

*  In he later years, she had moved toward a more Standard Trinitarian position, even if not fully  where we are today.

 

Alright, I can concede she wasn't a theologian and 'possibly' did not understand the significance of the term. I'm trying to demonstrate that the Historic Christian Church did understand & dealt with that specific issue starting in A.D. 269, A.D. 325 & after that time. 

The difference between that "partial quote list"  and the Boonstra video is remarkable. I'll grant that the SDA Church has indeed come a very long way. 

To me, a theological suggestion that Christ could have sinned, lost His salvation and "rotted in the tomb" is akin to saying;

'when Jesus walked on water "He could have" sunk and drowned. He didn't but He could have'

or

'when Jesus went into the desert "He could have" been envenomated by a King Cobra & died.  

Once could fabricate an endless list of such hypothetical end points for Jesus but each and everyone of them would terminated in the same, absolute statement of fact. He wouldn't have been the Christ in the 1st place. According to the Scriptures.

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus spoke much of this as a human being.

When the Son of God incarnated, He "emptied Himself" of divine power.  As a human he became mortal, and flesh.  The Father had to raise Him from the dead, or He would have remained dead. 

As a human being, the divine power He accessed was that of His divine Father.  He said Himself, "The Father who dwells in me does the works."  Jesus healed no one by His own divine power.  The Father's life poured through Him.  It is the same today.  The Father's life and spirit are poured through His Son, to us.

Christ did not empty Himself of divine power. 

Christ, in speaking of what kind of power He had. 

John 10,18: "No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father"

Christ absolutely had the power, but being the "eternal Son" He ALWAYS (as in eternally) did the will of The Father. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel said in the quote below:

The fact that Ellen White had a faulty understanding of the Trinity demonstrated the truth of her statements to the effect that the Bible was the standard and Ellen White's writings were to be judged by the Bible.  We today, as in the time of Ellen White are to go to the Bible to see what the Bible teaches as a standard of our doctrinal beliefs.  This does not mean that we are to exclude what EGW said from our consideration of doctrinal understandings any more than we should exclude what I may say in a sermon on Saturday morning.  Hopefully, both what I may say in that sermon as well as what EGW may have written will have some value in our  consideration of a doctrinal position.  However, regardless of that, both EGW and my Saturday sermon are to be subjected to the authority of the Bible and if the Bible disagrees with what either of us has said, we are wrong and the Bible is correct.. 

 

That is a major reason why I no longer have confidence in Ellen White as a "messenger" of God to "His remnant".   How could God allow His messenger to teach, write, and endorse one truth for 50 years, only to teach a different truth in "her later years"?  I must go to the Bible only for my understanding.

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

Christ did not empty Himself of divine power. 

Christ, in speaking of what kind of power He had. 

John 10,18: "No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father"

Christ absolutely had the power, but being the "eternal Son" He ALWAYS (as in eternally) did the will of The Father. 

 

The word translated as "power" actually means "authority" - not some actual physical or spiritual divine strength.

NIV  John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

He received the "command" before He incarnated.

Here are a few verses which make it plain that God the Father resurrected His Son.

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

    Ephesians 1:17-20 “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places.”

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

    Acts 3:15 “ ... and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” (Acts 4:10)

Acts 13:30   “But God raised Him from the dead.”

Romans 6:4 “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

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

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Christ did not incarnate Himself either.

NIV  Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

God the Father brought His firstborn into the world.  

Which means, the Son of God was only able to incarnate by the divine action of His Father.  He did not do it by Himself.  He consented to it, but He did not bring it to pass. 

[Gustave]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The word translated as "power" actually means "authority" - not some actual physical or spiritual divine strength.

NIV  John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

He received the "command" before He incarnated.

Here are a few verses which make it plain that God the Father resurrected His Son.

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

    Ephesians 1:17-20 “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places.”

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

    Acts 3:15 “ ... and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” (Acts 4:10)

Acts 13:30   “But God raised Him from the dead.”

Romans 6:4 “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

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

 

 

It's actually another argument for the Trinity. Jesus clearly said He was God, Jesus also clearly said the Father was God. Jesus said He had the power to take up His life after laying it down. The Father Rose Jesus from the dead NOT BECAUSE JESUS LACKED THE POWER but because He was the Eternal Son who always ( as in eternally ) did the will of the Father.  This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

[Gregory Matthews]

A  slightly different concept is that Jesus, as God,raised himself from the dead because God the Father said:  It is finished.  Salvation is accomplished.  Your may again assume your power as God.  That time has  come.

NOTE:  The above assumes a Trinity and a God in Christ that could not, did not, die.

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, Gustave said:

It's actually another argument for the Trinity. Jesus clearly said He was God, Jesus also clearly said the Father was God. Jesus said He had the power to take up His life after laying it down. The Father Rose Jesus from the dead NOT BECAUSE JESUS LACKED THE POWER but because He was the Eternal Son who always ( as in eternally ) did the will of the Father.  This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

You are saying that Jesus (the man) always possessed the divine power to do anything He chose to do.  He did not use that power, because He had been forbidden to do so, by His Father.  To do so would have been a sin against His Father. 

Am I right so far - about what you believe? 

You believe that the Son could raise Himself from death, but did not do so UNTIL commanded to do so by His Father. 

Why is there not a verse saying just that - saying that God commanded His Son to raise Himself?   Why all the verses that say God the Father resurrected His Son from death, and will resurrect us in the same way? 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

A  slightly different concept is that Jesus, as God,raised himself from the dead because God the Father said:  It is finished.  Salvation is accomplished.  Your may again assume your power as God.  That time has  come.

NOTE:  The above assumes a Trinity and a God in Christ that could not, did not, die.

 

 

The "God in Christ" was "the Father". 

John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."

Still only Father and Son - two divine beings, with two wills. 

"not my will, but thine be done" 

My will and Thy will. 

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?

What does this say about us when the scriptures say Christ lives in us; and that we live in Christ?  Or that we may be one even as the Father and Son are one?

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

You are saying that Jesus (the man) always possessed the divine power to do anything He chose to do.  He did not use that power, because He had been forbidden to do so, by His Father.  To do so would have been a sin against His Father. 

Am I right so far - about what you believe? 

You believe that the Son could raise Himself from death, but did not do so UNTIL commanded to do so by His Father. 

Why is there not a verse saying just that - saying that God commanded His Son to raise Himself?   Why all the verses that say God the Father resurrected His Son from death, and will resurrect us in the same way? 

You mean Jesus the God-Man. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox as well as all orthodox Protestant denominations assert that Jesus was one Person with two Natures that were perfectly united. I'm saying that God became man WITHOUT CEASING TO BE GOD. 

Jesus "always" (as in Eternally) did the will of the Father. 

John 4,34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work

John 6,38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me

John 8,29
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him

As in Eternally. 

As to your last question it's simply "the will of the Father". I think I understand what you are getting at. Let me know if I'm right. 

Were you initially educated as a Seventh-day Adventist? If you were educated as SDA you were probably taught that prior to the creation of the world three entities "adopted" roles that were new to them. One entity adopted the role of Father, the next one adopted the role of Son & the final entity adopted the role of the Holy Spirit. 

Once it was decided who got what role the "play acting" started and the Son immediately became subservient to the Father who "issued" credentials of divinity to the Son (Christ) who was free to keep the Divinity PROVIDED HE TOWED THE ROPE (didn't screw up) like a State Issued Driver's License. If He did screw up (such as sinning) the License would be revoked - such as;

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. Surrounded with sorrow, suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the people to whom had been intrusted the oracles of heaven, Jesus could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven. He was ready to take once more His divine glory when His work on earth was done

I know already from your statements that you don't accept Ellen White as a prophet any longer and that's not what I'm after here. I want to know if the concept is still in your mind? 

The basic Trinity Doctrine affirms that is that ONE Substance the Three Members of the Trinity equally possess, by Nature. So, when it says God will do such and such it indicates that Christ, The Father & The Holy Spirit are involved. I.E. Christ doesn't do ANYTHING that's not willed by the Father so when something is done it can be said it's done by the Father & the Son in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In a previous posts,l 

[Gregory Matthews]

In a previous post, Gustave asked Rachel a question that I am quoting below:

My education through Seminary was totally in the SDA system.  Only later did I have education outside the SDA system.

I was never taught what Gustave has stated below.

I had never heard of what Gustave has stated until I was an adult.

 

Were you initially educated as a Seventh-day Adventist? If you were educated as SDA you were probably taught that prior to the creation of the world three entities "adopted" roles that were new to them. One entity adopted the role of Father, the next one adopted the role of Son & the final entity adopted the role of the Holy Spirit.  [/quote}

[Gustave]

15 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

A  slightly different concept is that Jesus, as God,raised himself from the dead because God the Father said:  It is finished.  Salvation is accomplished.  Your may again assume your power as God.  That time has  come.

NOTE:  The above assumes a Trinity and a God in Christ that could not, did not, die.

 

 

Where is it that SDA's get that Jesus lost His power? 

Matthew 9, 6

John  2, 1-11

John 4, 46-54

Mark 2, 1-12

Luke 7, 11-17

John 6, 16-21

And approximately another 34 other documented supernatural events.