Leaderboard

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.

It is finished: There seems to be some discussion going on as to what EGW meant when she commented on the statement, "It is finished."" The following quote from EGW suggests to me that she believed that statement meant that salvation was accomplished.

It wasn't alien technology. It was a direct result of a supernatural act. Jesus was not a Nephillim; He was the Son of God and God in the flesh. The increasingly popular theory that gods were simply beings from another planet/star system who were for more advanced than us is a road to apostasy. I've watched "Ancient Aliens" and how cleverly they twist and weave scripture into their heretical theories. The "gods" (and the God) are extraterrestrial alien beings is only true in the sense that they did not originate on earth; or in the physical realm. They are spirit/supernatural beings from the eternal spiritual realm.; not physical beings from another physical planet.

Here is a 2nd quote from EGW on this issue. I understand it to be a statement by EGW, to the effect that Christ on the cross, in his human element was discouraged. But, he overcame that and in the announced that salvation had been accomplished.

What does it mean to be perfect? How perfect must one be in this life? Suppose you saw someone who never swore, never gambled, never smoked, never drank, never stole anything, never lost his temper, never broke the Sabbath. Would you be looking at a perfect person? I hope not, because you could be in […] The post The Meaning of Perfection (14:5) appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

It is one of the more probable scenarios for the end. Fallen angels posing as beings from the planet Omicron 4 over in the Delta Quadrant - 200 parsecs away. They will get here using wormholes and hyper-warp drive. RRRIIIGGGHHHT! Yet, if it occurs that way, so many people will believe it. And God will allow them to believe the deception. Why? Because they refuse to believe the truth that is in Jesus Christ - the ONLY Name under heaven by which we may be saved.

The teaching that "aliens" with star ships and advanced computer like communication systems, from a distant star system, came to earth and interacted with human beings, that Mary was impregnated by one of these alien beings - in my opinion, IS the deception that Satan will use to deceive the whole world in the last days. I believe that Satan (the son of perdition) will appear in a rebuilt Temple. He will "sit in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God". He will claim to be Christ returned - yes. But he will also claim to be the Messiah, Buddha, the 12 Imam, etc. etc. He will be all things to all people - the messiah figure of every "religion". He will claim that he has visited earth many times, in many centuries, in many cultures, to "help" human beings advance in their development. He will claim that earth is on the brink of self destruction, necessitating his appearance. The whole population of the earth will "worship him" (which means serve him) except those who have been "sealed by God the Father, and are preserved in Jesus Christ". They will try to warn. And for their efforts to warn against this being, they will be persecuted severely. "And when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things will be finished." (Daniel 12). So you see. All this talk of "alien" interaction is supporting the coming great deception.

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.]

I'm not anywhere near an expert on EGW; but I have never heard this before from her or even other SDA's.

Rachell: I will attempt to respond to your question as to what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is. In preparing to respond to your question, I spent some time in looking at what others, from differing religious backgrounds have said on the subject. I first went to some authoritative Roman Catholic sources. I found, probably three short statements that I could have put together into one brief statement. But, we have Gustave who posts here. He has made statements on this issue that were not part of the statements that I found. In short, it became apparent to me that there is a sense in which the doctrine of the Trinity is defined, in part, by statements as to what it is not. It is for this reason that I will suggest that it may be of value to check out the website that I have listed in the post above. I decided to check some SDA books on this subject. I will mention two (2) that are actually written for people with some academic background. They did not have a brief answer. In actual fact, they spent some time in stating what the doctrine of the Trinity is not. In addition they discussed the historical and theological background of this doctrine. NOTE: In the reference below, I have listed the pages devoted to this subject in the following books: Dederen, Raoul, Editor Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Review & Herald, 2000. Fernando E. Canale, "Doctrine of God," pages 105-159. Gulley, Norman R., Systematic Theology: God as Trinity, Andrews University Press, 2011, 676 pages. I do not claim to be a Theologian. If I were to briefly sum up the doctrine of the Trinity I would say: "God, who is one, consists of three co-eternal, personal beings, consisting of the same substance, essence, or nature and will, that is beyond our limited ability to understand, and of which inspired scripture does not give us a clear and detailed understanding." NOTE: I use the term "personal being" to distinguish from the word "person" as commonly used today. The above in my attempt at stating the doctrine of the Trinity. I welcome comments to include Gustave. I say again that Trinity is defined in part by statements as to what it is not, which I have not stated above.

Be ye saved ? Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

The verse says He WILL NOT do iniquity; it doesn't say He CANNOT do iniquity. Jesus as God has always been a Being with a free will. He is a much higher order Being than I am. I have a free will and am capable of sin, Jesus has at least as much (probably much more) power of choice than we mere mortals have. Jesus CHOSE to be a gracious and merciful God. He didn't HAVE to be. He could have "uncreated" us in less than microsecond and started over. Had He wanted to, He could have said "to hell with you all" and not died for us. How many times in the OT did He turn back from the terminating what He intended to do to His Chosen people? Jesus CHOSE to be obedient - even unto death on a cross. Obedience involves a choice; and Jesus always "chose" right. But He didn't have to. If it were impossible for Him to sin, satan would have every right to call "foul". When God said He WILL NOT sin, that was foreknowledge - not predestination. There's a big difference.

This is on the order of other questions. Like: Can God create a rock that He can't lift? If God the Father is "above all and through all and in all" then He is the omnipresent great holy Spirit. So why would He be "passing by" a star? He is everywhere. He exists outside this dimension He created. One tiny sun going super nova would not cause much of a shock wave - in godly terms. There are as many suns in our universe as there are grains of sand on all the beaches. If I stepped on a tiny grain of sand, and it exploded. It wouldn't do that much to my foot. If God the Father ceased to exist - everything else would die. Because He is the source of life, (and continued life) for every living thing.

I believe that Jesus could have sinned. I infer from the fact that He was tempted in every way that we are that He COULD have sinned. He had a free will. If He was incapable of sinning, He would also have to be incapable of being tempted and would not be able to exercise free will. For example, I am not tempted to use heroin because the idea is absolutely abhorrent to me. OTOH, I am tempted to have a beer on occasion, because I have always liked beer. We aren't tempted to do things we hate; we are only tempted to do things we enjoy. Jesus had to overcome the same way will will have to overcome. In the Kingdom, we will still have a free will; and for eternity we must always - 100% of the time - CHOOSE not to sin. This boggles my mind.