Trinitarian explanation of the creation of man - What is it?

[John317]

..

While you are almost "proud" in suggesting that non-Trinitarians are in the great minority among Sabbath-keeping Adventists (you used other words....

This is false. I never said, or suggested, anything about being "proud" of it. I stated it as a fact, not as something I am proud of. I have no reason to have a sense of pride in it. I am glad of it and believe it is right and thank God that he's led our church to the truth, but that is completely different from being proud of it. That would be like saying I am proud that the remnant church does not believe in the immortality of the soul or that we don't have the mass in our church.

When posters make these kinds of claims, they appear to think they can read people's motive. It's close to putting words in people's mouths that they didn't say.

If I said I was "proud" of something like this, then you would be in the right to talk about my being proud of it, but otherwise not.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

[...]

Why don't you tell what your understanding of the creation of man is? Then Seventh-day Adventists will respond.

John,

This is no trivial topic, as pointed out in the writings.

I never said or implied that it is a trivial topic, did I? I don't believe it is trivial.

[John317]

... you may be lacking knowledge of the many defections.

You call them "defections." Another word for it is "falling away" or being "shaken out."

Ellen White was inspired to tell us that one of the main causes of the shaking would be the introduction of false doctrines.

But yes, I am fully aware of what is happening in terms of some people attempting to go back to the doctrines of the Pioneers, including their false beliefs. Instead of studying the Bible and the writings of Ellen White, they are basing their beliefs on mere men, such as James White, Bates, Loughborough, Andrews, J. H. Waggoner, Uriah Smith, etc. None of those men would have wanted SDAs in 2011 to base their beliefs on their writings. They would have urged us to base our beliefs only on the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy.

It is one thing to study the writings of uninspired men for the purpose of seeing what they believed; it is something else entirely-- foolishness-- to seek to base one's beliefs on them.

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

More and more Bible students are discovering the absurdity of the "3 in 1" "co-equal/co-eternal" theory to describe the Deity.

So-called "Jehovah's Witneses" make the same lame argument. Since when do we judge the truth by whether it seems "absurd" to human reason? If we did that, how much of the Bible would we believe? Many believe the resurrection of the dead is "absurd" to human reason. Is not the idea of God becoming flesh "absurd"? Paul said the message of the cross is absurd, or foolishness. (1 Cor. 1: 18ff) Therefore isn't it best to test truth not by whether it is "absurd" but by whether it agrees with Scripture and Inspiration?

Here is the clear teaching of the Bible and Ellen White:

1) God is One.

2) We worship One God.

3) That one God is manifested in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each one is, individually, "the fullness of the Godhead."

4) Thus "there are three living persons in the heavenly trio," or Trinity.

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

.... The "few" who cannot keep quiet are seeking discussion.

That is why we are here. Let's discuss.

But that is different from remaining in the church and seeking division and debate among the members of the church for the purpose of leading people to reject church doctrine. If people want to do that, let them do it from outside the church, not from within.

[John317]

...I am an honest believer and am always willing to change when presented with truth.

I have never implied or said you weren't. I deliberately assume the same about each person who posts on this Forum.

[jasd]

>>...the "image and likeness" of God?<<

Material, fire, and energy – or, if you will – matter, plasma, spirit. A Trinity.

Should one imagine the atoms of our bodies as the size of a dime – each atom/dime would be at a remove from its neighbour a distance of ten miles.

Back to the body as it truly is: throughout this collection of atoms there exists a complementary energy/spirit field, which extends three feet beyond the perimeter of atoms in each direction. There is a larger energy/spirit field than there is a matter field. (those within a three-foot radius from one another will actually share the fluids of this three-foot extension – though not as you might imagine) Presently,

the plasma that supposedly ought be a part of this Trinity in man – though potential, is simply a promise with the smallest residual spark extant. This potentiality will be remedied when Jesus Christ baptizes those whom He saves with fire; that is, plasma [gas] – at which point the body will be complete and shining as the stars. Perhaps, brighter.

One is led to deduce that this ‘baptism by fire’ will be a corporate one – and not, as we’ve supposed, individually throughout time one by one...

>>"Babylon" is "confusion."<<

That is colloquially so; however, the etymological root is bab.i.lu – meaning, gate/window of/to heaven, which seems to have been the definition applied-to at the time of its original use; otherwise, one wonders at the ignorance of those who had inherited at least a portion of the accumulated knowledge of the antediluvian world – building upon the plain – rather than upon the highest mountain in the area..., to avoid a repeat of destruction by flood.

>>Let us avoid it at all costs.<<

By all means and at all cost!

[Light Fox]

This would be about like my titling a thread "Arian or Semiarian Explanation of the Creation of Man-- What is It?" and afterwards asking Arians to post their exlanation of their understanding.

I agree - that would be equal. What is the problem?

I would have no objection to posting my views on such a thread - while I might object on some level to the phrasing "Arian" - were someone asking and genuinely wishing to know. I've already posted them here. I'm not sure why there seems to be such hesitance to do so on this thread on the part of the Trinitarian believers. Frankly, I'm interested in hearing it as well.

[John317]

I have discovered, in my readings, that the original position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was distinctly non-Trinitarian. In fact, it was blatantly anti-Trinitraian.

There are many books and articles published by the SDA Church on this topic, and no one disputes that most of the SDA church from 1861 to 1890 was either non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian. That is not news. The best book on the topic is The Trinity, Whidden, Moon, Reeve, (Published by Review and Herald, 2002)

I would bring your attention to six very important, relevent facts in this regard:

1) Ellen White never condemned the Trinity doctrine per se. (She never even used the term, although she did use a word with a similar meaning, trio.) What she fought against were certain false teachings that some have included in the Trinity doctrine.

2) Among our Church in the 1800s were SDA members who believed in the Trinity, including some SDA pastors; and these were never told they must change their viewpoint. Clearly, if our church was officially anti-Trinitarian, this would not have been the case.

3) Our Church's published doctrines during the 1800s were not anti-Trinitarian. I myself accept the SDA doctrines published in the Review and Herald in the 1800s, although they are not complete and are not communicated in the best way.

4) James White published statements in the Review and Herald saying that anti- or non-Trinitarian beliefs were not to be made a test of character or fellowship.

5) The reason that most SDAs were non-Trinitarian was not due to the church's study of this topic and its decision as a body to reject the Trinity, but it was due to the fact that most of the former Millerites who became SDAs were from churches which had been non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian.

6) During the 1800s, our leaders were never in agreement in the matter of the Godhead. Until about 1880, Uriah Smith taught that Christ was a created being. James White and Ellen White were not in agreement. E.J. Waggoner did not agree with his father, J.H. Waggoner. All were in various degrees of change.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

This would be about like my titling a thread "Arian or Semiarian Explanation of the Creation of Man-- What is It?" and afterwards asking Arians to post their exlanation of their understanding.

I agree - that would be equal. What is the problem?

There is no problem. People are free to post what they like and where they like.

Originally Posted By: Qinael

I would have no objection to posting my views on such a thread - while I might object on some level to the phrasing "Arian" - were someone asking and genuinely wishing to know. I've already posted them here. I'm not sure why there seems to be such hesitance to do so on this thread on the part of the Trinitarian believers. Frankly, I'm interested in hearing it as well.

Maybe some SDAs will post their thoughts on this. Maybe not. There are probably Trinitarians of other faiths who have written on this topic.

If I feel like writing about it, I will. If I don't, I won't. You and every other member of our club is free to do the same. No one, of course, is under any obligation to offer an explanation of why they post on the threads they post on.

[John317]

... While it may be true that Ellen White was "unclear" about some things regarding the nature of the Godhead, the fact of the matter is that in the 1800s the Trinity doctrine was already present, fully formed, and accepted by many other Churches.

Certainly true. However, not all the churches agreed in every detail on the doctrine of the Trinity, and some of these details were in error and contradicted the Bible. That is why the Trinity doctrine carries some negative historical and theological baggage, and offers us insight into why Ellen White never used the term. Using the term would only have encouraged division in a church that had a history of being opposed to the Trinity.

I believe it is no coincidence that the prophet of God did not condemn the Trinity doctrine per se. It seems to me that if God's truth was completely opposed to the doctrine as such, she would have known this and communicated it to the church. As it is, the prophet of God wrote things which showed that the Trinity doctrine as understood by the SDA world church is in accordance with the Bible and with the Spirit of prophecy.

Here is the clear teaching of the Bible and Ellen White:

1) God is One.

2) We worship One God.

3) That one God is manifested in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each one is, individually, "the fullness of the Godhead."

4) Thus "there are three living persons in the heavenly trio," or Trinity.

Originally Posted By: Scion

The fact that she was "unclear" about the nature of the Godhead despite the presence of this doctrine, and that she did nothing to correct the very vocal opposition to the Trinity doctrine (Adventists considered it a "dangerous heresy" until the early 1900s!) speaks volumes as to whether or not she "became Trinitarian" at some point during her life. She corrected many, many, many misunderstandings that our preachers taught, and about matters orders of magnitude less important that the nature of our Creator.

During the formative years of our beloved church, neither Ellen White nor James White (or any of the other leaders) understood the doctrine of the Godhead to be a test of either character or fellowship. They had a church to build and it would have been foolish to cause a division over the doctrine of the Trinity. Ellen White was not about to do this. She was a leader and a uniter, not a divider.

Imagine if the church had witnessed public disagreement between the prophet and her husband, the General Conference president and editor of the church papers.

I would think you'd wonder why Ellen White did not herself come out clearly against the view that we worship one God who is manifested in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why did Ellen White write so many statements that favor this view? Such a view is the very foundation of the Trinity doctrine.

You'll notice that the doctrines and views that Ellen White corrected all had to do with the Foundational Pillars of our Faith-- the Sabbath, the Investigative Judgment, the non-immorality of the soul, the Second Coming, the Bible as the Word of God, the Three Angels' Messages, etc. No where does Ellen White (or any other Pioneer) say that the doctrine of the Godhead is among our church's Foundational Pillars of our Faith. Quite the contrary..

You apparently fail to recognize the fact that the editor of the Review & Herald, Wilcox, published in 1913 a statement saying that the SDA Church believes in the Trinity. That was, significantly, 2 years before the death of Ellen White. She appointed Wilcox to be one of the original directors of the Ellen White Estate, something she wouldn't have done if she'd had doubts about his judgment or character. Ellen White never once said anything against the statement that had appeared in the Review and Herald supporting the Trinity doctrine.

As a matter of fact, as I read her writings, I see nothing that shows she disagrees with the Trinity doctrine as it is understood and expressed in the 1980 FB statement of belief.

If anyone does, please present the evidence. Let's talk about it.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Ellen White did not have as clear an understanding of the Godhead in 1879 as she did in the 1890s and early 1900s. The above paragraph does not contain any false information, but neither is it complete. It is like the books of Moses that way-- they aren't false but neither do they tell the whole story.

Just because Ellen White doesn't say anything about the Holy Spirit doesn't mean He wasn't there and taking an active part. You learn this by including the statements she made in the 1890s and early 20th century.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: EGW

We are to manifest the love of Christ through the indwelling of his quickening Spirit. Those who differ with us in faith and doctrine should be treated kindly. They are the property of Christ, and we must meet them in the great day of final account. We shall have to face one another in the Judgment, and behold the record of our thoughts, words, and deeds, not as we have viewed them, but as they were in truth. (YI 12-09-97)

Jesus came to "destroy the works of the devil." "In Him was life," and He says, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." He is "a quickening spirit." 1 John 3:8; John 1:4; 10:10; 1 Cor. 15:45. (DA 270)

Explain what you understand from this with respect to the topic at hand.

[Pastor_Chick]

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

..

While you are almost "proud" in suggesting that non-Trinitarians are in the great minority among Sabbath-keeping Adventists (you used other words....

This is false. I never said, or suggested, anything about being "proud" of it. I stated it as a fact, not as something I am proud of. I have no reason to have a sense of pride in it. I am glad of it and believe it is right and thank God that he's led our church to the truth, but that is completely different from being proud of it. That would be like saying I am proud that the remnant church does not believe in the immortality of the soul or that we don't have the mass in our church.

When posters make these kinds of claims, they appear to think they can read people's motive. It's close to putting words in people's mouths that they didn't say.

If I said I was "proud" of something like this, then you would be in the right to talk about my being proud of it, but otherwise not.

John,

Please forgive me for offending you.

To apologize properly, however, I must say that you exaggerated my statement slightly.

..."almost 'proud'"...

[John317]

...

The Trinity doctrine long pre-dated Adventism, therefore it would be disingenuous to say "increasing light" led to the acceptance of this paradigm, for that would mean the Spirit led us (in our period of most intense study and personal humility as a people) away from the Trinity only to lead us back to it at some later date? That's not how increasing light works.

No one is saying that the Trinity doctrine as Catholicism and Methodism describes it is biblical in all its aspects.

I personally believe that it was no accident that God brought together people from various churches who insisted on believing only what they found to be taught in the Bible. So our Pioneers didn't accept the false beliefs found in the views of the popular churches, which included some wrong teachings concerning the Godhead.

This didn't change until the last 25 years of Ellen White's life. If the church had accepted the Trinity doctrine as it was taught in the Church canons, our church wouldn't have been able to separate the truth from the error, as I believe our church has done. Instead, we would have done like the other churches and accepted the error right along with the truth. We have to remember that there is truth in the Babylonish churches. We would be in error to reject everything those churches believe, simply because they believe it. People can still find enough truth in the Catholic Church to be saved. That is why it is not completely fallen away from the truth.

We don't arrive at truth by going through a Catholic catechism and cutting out everything it teaches. This goes for the doctrine of the Godhead as the catechism and Church councils teach it. Some of those teachings agree with the Bible and God's last-day prophet. What I'm saying, then, is that the councils and church traditions should have no influence upon our beliefs at all, either negatively or positively.

By the way, it's significant that many of our leaders in the 1800s did not have a good grasp of the doctrine of the Trinity as understood by Trinitarians. This is well documented in their writings. Therefore, they were often rejecting false views that Trinitarians themselves generally don't believe.

For instance, Bates and Loughborough and D.M Canright had clear misunderstandings. See page 193 of Trinity, (Whidden, Moon, Reeve) for quotes of these men's writings.

[Pastor_Chick]

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

We are to manifest the love of Christ through the indwelling of his quickening Spirit. Those who differ with us in faith and doctrine should be treated kindly. They are the property of Christ, and we must meet them in the great day of final account. We shall have to face one another in the Judgment, and behold the record of our thoughts, words, and deeds, not as we have viewed them, but as they were in truth. (YI 12-09-97)

Jesus came to "destroy the works of the devil." "In Him was life," and He says, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." He is "a quickening spirit." 1 John 3:8; John 1:4; 10:10; 1 Cor. 15:45. (DA 270)

[John317]

...Please forgive me for offending you.

To apologize properly, however, I must say that you exaggerated my statement slightly.

..."almost 'proud'"...

Thanks for that, Pastor Chick.

I'm not easily offended personally, so I don't mean to give the impression that I was offended. I was writing more as the moderator, even though I didn't put my hat on. :-)

[Pastor_Chick]

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

...Please forgive me for offending you.

To apologize properly, however, I must say that you exaggerated my statement slightly.

..."almost 'proud'"...

Thanks for that, Pastor Chick.

I'm not easily offended personally, so I don't mean to give the impression that I was offended. I was writing more as the moderator, even though I didn't put my hat on. :-)

John,

Glad we are square on that.

[John317]

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

... I think the two statements speak for themselves. See if anyone else can understand them.

[/quote']

As any teacher/tutor of writing and reading will tell you, even statements that appear to speak for themselves are sometimes misunderstood. That is why in an exchange about this topic, it is a good idea to make clear what our understanding is. So, since you quoted it with the intention of supporting a particular idea or viewpoint, I would ask that you clarify what that viewpoint is.

Does that view agree with the clear statements of Ellen White about the Godhead?

As, for instance:

Give to Jesus your devotion where He is in the heavenly sanctuary; seek for the holy Spirit as His representative wherever His people bow to worship Him. {PC 139.1}

Christ gave His representative, the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. This Gift could not be excelled. . . . {CTr 301.4}

Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. . . . {FLB 46.3}

His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures. {FLB 46.4}

Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. {FLB 46.5}

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. {FLB 46.6}

The disciples still failed to understand Christ's words in their spiritual sense, and again He explained His meaning. By the Spirit, He said, He would manifest Himself to them. "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things." No more will you say, I cannot comprehend. No longer will you see through a glass, darkly. You shall "be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge." Ephesians 3:18, 19. {DA 670.1}

The disciples were to bear witness to the life and work of Christ. Through their word He was to speak to all the people on the face of the earth. But in the humiliation and death of Christ they were to suffer great trial and disappointment. That after this experience their word might be accurate, Jesus promised that the Comforter should "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." {DA 670.2}

"I have yet many things to say unto you," He continued, "but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you."...He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit should recall these sayings to their minds. And He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples. These also would be opened to them by the Spirit. The Spirit was to quicken their

671

understanding, that they might have an appreciation of heavenly things. "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come," said Jesus, "He will guide you into all truth." {DA 670.3}

The Comforter is called "the Spirit of truth." His work is to define and maintain the truth. He first dwells in the heart as the Spirit of truth, and thus He becomes the Comforter. There is comfort and peace in the truth, but no real peace or comfort can be found in falsehood. It is through false theories and traditions that Satan gains his power over the mind. By directing men to false standards, he misshapes the character. Through the Scriptures the Holy Spirit speaks to the mind, and impresses truth upon the heart. Thus He exposes error, and expels it from the soul. It is by the Spirit of truth, working through the word of God, that Christ subdues His chosen people to Himself. {DA 671.1}

In describing to His disciples the office work of the Holy Spirit, Jesus sought to inspire them with the joy and hope that inspired His own heart. He rejoiced because of the abundant help He had provided for His church. The Holy Spirit was the highest of all gifts that He could solicit from His Father for the exaltation of His people. The Spirit was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail. The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of men to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church. {DA 671.2}

Of the Spirit Jesus said, "He shall glorify Me." The Saviour came to glorify the Father by the demonstration of His love; so the Spirit was to glorify Christ by revealing His grace to the world. The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of His people. {DA 671.3}

"When He [the Spirit of truth] is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." The preaching of the word will be of no avail without the continual presence and aid of the Holy Spirit. This is the only effectual teacher of divine truth. Only

672

when the truth is accompanied to the heart by the Spirit will it quicken the conscience or transform the life. One might be able to present the letter of the word of God, he might be familiar with all its commands and promises; but unless the Holy Spirit sets home the truth, no souls will fall on the Rock and be broken. No amount of education, no advantages, however great, can make one a channel of light without the co-operation of the Spirit of God. The sowing of the gospel seed will not be a success unless the seed is quickened into life by the dew of heaven. Before one book of the New Testament was written, before one gospel sermon had been preached after Christ's ascension, the Holy Spirit came upon the praying apostles. Then the testimony of their enemies was, "Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine." Acts 5:28. {DA 671.4}

Christ has promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to His church, and the promise belongs to us as much as to the first disciples. But like every other promise, it is given on conditions. There are many who believe and profess to claim the Lord's promise; they talk about Christ and about the Holy Spirit, yet receive no benefit. They do not surrender the soul to be guided and controlled by the divine agencies. We cannot use the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is to use us. Through the Spirit God works in His people "to will and to do of His good pleasure." Philippians 2:13. But many will not submit to this. They want to manage themselves. This is why they do not receive the heavenly gift. Only to those who wait humbly upon God, who watch for His guidance and grace, is the Spirit given. The power of God awaits their demand and reception. This promised blessing, claimed by faith, brings all other blessings in its train. It is given according to the riches of the grace of Christ, and He is ready to supply every soul according to the capacity to receive. {DA 672.1}

[Dr. Waite]

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter.

Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God and the wisdom of God, speaks the truth.

He always referred to "God" as his Father and never as "a unity of three co-eternal persons" and he referred to His Father as the "only true God" as "His God" and he referred to "His Father" as the only source of all. He did not refer to himself as the source of all and he did not refer to the holy spirit as the source of all. He said that he came out from the Father and that the holy spirit proceeds or is sent from the Father.

The trinitarian explanation of the creation of man is that a "unity of three co-eternal persons" is the source of all. This goes against Biblical teaching.

"But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. " 1 Cor 8:6

[ClubV12]

I see great humility within the three worthies. Jesus, who is given all power in heaven and earth, submits His will to the Father. The Holy Spirit stays in the background, humbly going about the appointed work. I see equality among them all, and yet, a humble spirit where no single being, places Himself above the others. The transfer of power, if you can call it that, is a gift, not demanded, it's like seeing "grace" at work at the highest level. Wow, "grace" is the very essence of the three great worthies as they submit themselves one to the other.

[John317]

...He said that he came out from the Father and that the holy spirit proceeds or is sent from the Father.

This isn't referring to the origin of Christ existence, nor to the origin of the Holy Spirit's existence, but Christ is referring to the fact that He came from Heaven to save humankind.

Does Ellen White make any statements that show the pre-incarnate Christ, the Word, had a beginning and that He came out of the Father's Being?

What does "self-existent" mean? She plainly says that Christ is self-existent and eternal. When used of God, "eternal" means without beginning and ending.

For instance, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou [Lord] art God."

Christ is "from everlasting." The same word in the Hebrew is used of the eternal, self-existent Son.

[Gordon1]

The redeemed will have everlasting life.

[John317]

I agree. The Holy Spirit does not seek praise or worship for Himself, but He speaks only of Christ. He wants all glory and praise and worship to go to the Father and to Christ.

If we say Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, we must conclude that the Spirit wants all glory for Himself.

If the Holy Spirit is Christ, it also makes no sense to say the Spirit will not speak of Himself, for then the Spirit would in fact be speaking of Himself, only under a different name.

[John317]

The redeemed will have everlasting life.

Sure. What do you conclude from this fact? Show your reasoning.

The redeemed will then be immortal.

God Himself is immortal-- meaning He is not subject to death. Christ's deity is and always has been immortal. That is why He had to become human-- so He could die.

Humans are of course subject to death.

Therefore "everlasting" when applied to humans in their mortal state does not mean "without beginning" or "without end." Even immortal humans will not be without beginning.

But isn't God without beginning? Isn't that what it means when it says "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"?

So, what does it mean in Micah when it says of Christ that His goings forth have been from "everlasting" or "the days of eternity"?

[Dr. Waite]

John:

Christ is the "way, the truth, and the life" John 14:6

Christ said: "For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given the Son to have life in himself" John 5:26

There had to have been a time when he was given this "life in himself". If he had always had this "life in himself" why did he have to have it given to him from the Father?