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

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

the definition of "self-existent."

If you can furnish the Bible text which uses these English words, then a definition may be possible. If not, then you are asking my opinion which is not worth much if anything at all.

Let's stick with inspired sources on such an important theme.

Quote:

The Pre-existent, Self-existent Son of God.--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. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. {Ev 615.2}

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, self-existent Son.--Manuscript 101, 1897. {Ev 615.3}

These statements about the pre-incarnate Christ being self-existent are supported by the Bible.

See John 8: 58

Exodus 3:14.

Jesus Christ is known in the Old Testmaent as Jehovah, the name meaning "the self-existent One."

1 Cor. 10:4

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

1 Cor. 10:9

We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

See also Jude 5 in the English Standard Version.

[Gordon1]

Proverbs 8 and Micah 5:2 - They are not talking about how Christ originated.

It's hard to see they could mean anything else without great forcing of Ellen White's own testimony.

"The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings." PP34

Clearly Christ was God's Son, long before Creation, well before Satan's fall.

[John317]

"The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings." PP34

Clearly Christ was God's Son, long before Creation, well before Satan's fall.

I don't deny that Christ was God's Son long before Creation. Of course He was. I have said this quite a few times already.

I've quoted Ellen White, "Christ was the eternal, self-existent Son."

Here it is again:

Quote:

The Pre-existent, Self-existent Son of God.--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. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. {Ev 615.2}

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, self-existent Son.--Manuscript 101, 1897. {Ev 615.3}

What does "Son of God" mean in this context?

And did Christ become Son of God in a different sense after His birth on earth than He was when He was in heaven prior to His incarnation?

[Lysimachus]

Before Christ's birth as a human, God was not literally His Father.

Now that's where I'm going to have to disagree with you John ;-)

I believe with all my heart, as well as my entire family, that Jesus, the Son of God was literally and truly His Son before His birth. To deny this is to completely destroy the infinite Sacrifice the Father went through in giving up His own flesh and blood. While Christ is from ALL eternity, mysteriously Jesus was truly and literally His Son.

The English here is very plain:

"God IS the Father of Christ; Christ IS the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son." {CCh 76.5}

I do not believe that trillions and trillions of years ago, Jesus and the Father just randomly bumped into each other in space, and said "who goes there?" "OH, I'm God!" "You're God? How can that be? I'm God!" "Well I'm God too". "Okay, then let's make a deal... you'll be my Son, and I'll be the Father". "OK!".

No no no... Jesus is truly the Son of God, His own flesh and blood, literally. Yet He is from all eternity.

Trinitiarians argue that this cannot be because Jesus would have had to have a beginning in order for Him to be literally His Son.

Anti-Trinitarians argue that because He was literally His Son before Bethlehem, that this must mean He had a beginning and did not come from eternity.

In other words, both sides pick one not realizing that both can be right, even though our finite minds cannot comprehend how both can be compatible. He is both truly and literally His Son even though He comes back from all eternity.

I believe we should just accept it by faith, as hard as it is for our finite minds to comprehend it.

[Gordon1]

When you furnish a bible text with the English words "self-existent", then we can compare scripture with scripture to find a definition.

The book Evangelism (1947 compilation) is woefully adequate to discuss such a profound theme. Although over 700 pp., only four pages chop at this grand subject in 11 different excerpts (!!) Even more insulting are fabricated titles to suggest ideas which never came from Ellen White's pen, including the insertion of the word Trinity which she never used. There is a warm baptism awaiting "whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Rev. 22:14) Imagine introducing the chief doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church into Ellen White's work - as a title no less.

Yet in 1904 she testified that the SDA Church doctrines had remained pure for 50 years:

"Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years." 1 Selected Messages 207.

"The truth that has stood firm against the attacks of the enemy for more than half a century must still be the confidence and comfort of God's people." 9 Testimonies 70.

"Upon these foundations have we been building for the last fifty years." 8 Testimonies 297.

See also 1SM204, 2SM 387 or search 'Fifty years'.

Many dishonest voices will claim she changed, but she testifies "No change".

It's hard to believe any can have confidence in these 'Evangelism' pages. They make of no effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.

Those who desire a pure source will seek out The Ministry of Healing. "This book contains the wisdom of the Great Physician" 9T 71. Here we find over fifty pages of original text explaining 'The Essential Knowledge' of the Godhead. (pp.409-466)

[skyblue888]

"Before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58

"I AM" means self-existent One, eternal presence.

sky

[Gordon1]

If you believe otherwise, please quote the sentence that you believe teaches that Christ's existence had a beginning.

" His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting...When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him." Proverbs 8:22-30. "

Patriarchs & Prophets 34.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Before Christ's birth as a human, God was not literally His Father.

Now that's where I'm going to have to disagree with you John ;-)

I believe with all my heart, as well as my entire family, that Jesus, the Son of God was literally and truly His Son before His birth. To deny this is to completely destroy the infinite Sacrifice the Father went through in giving up His own flesh and blood. While Christ is from ALL eternity, mysteriously Jesus was truly and literally His Son.

ALL eternity means ALL eternity. God is eternal, everlasting. Jesus is God. Jesus is also named Jehovah.

Do you believe that the pre-existent Christ was self-existent?

[John317]

[Gordon1]

The full text which the Son of God declared concerning Himself:

"The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before his works of old.

I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

Then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him."

Proverbs 8:22-30.

Patriarchs & Prophets 34.

[John317]

If you believe otherwise, please quote the sentence that you believe teaches that Christ's existence had a beginning.

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

(quoting): His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting...When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him." Proverbs 8:22-30.

Patriarchs & Prophets 34.

Where does either the Bible or Ellen White say or teach that Christ had a beginning?

It is not in the passages you've quoted above.

"Goings forth," "possessed," "set up," and "brought up"-- none of those are a reference to Christ's existence having a beginning. They are not saying that before the pre-existent Christ was "brought forth," He did not exist at all.

What do "eternal," "infinite" and "self-existent" mean when they are used with reference to God?

When the Bible says "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God," what does it mean? Is it saying God has a beginning?

Isn't that a way of saying that God has no beginning-- that He has always existed as God?

So when the Bible says that Christ's "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," it is saying that Christ is without beginning.

God is eternal-- without beginning. Christ is God. Therefore Christ is without beginning.

[John317]

What specific words in that passage do you believe teach that the pre-incarnate Christ's existence had a beginning?

Jehovah's Witnesses use it wrongly to claim that Christ is a created being.

[Gordon1]

There is much confusion in Christendom regarding God's order.

"But I would have you know,

that the head of every man is Christ;

and the head of the woman is the man;

and the head of Christ is God."

1 Corinthians 11:3

[John317]

There is much confusion in Christendom regarding God's order.

"But I would have you know,

that the head of every man is Christ;

and the head of the woman is the man;

and the head of Christ is God."

1 Corinthians 11:3

This verse doesn't say that Christ's existence had a beginning-- that there was a time when Christ didn't exist.

Christ is God essentially and in the highest sense.

Was the pre-incarnate Christ self-existent?

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: John317

If you believe otherwise, please quote the sentence that you believe teaches that Christ's existence had a beginning.

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

(quoting): His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting...When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him." Proverbs 8:22-30.

Patriarchs & Prophets 34.

Where does either the Bible or Ellen White say or teach that Christ had a beginning?

It is not in the passages you've quoted above.

"Goings forth," "possessed," "set up," and "brought up"-- none of those are a reference to Christ's existence having a beginning. They are not saying that before the pre-existent Christ was "brought forth," He did not exist at all.

What do "eternal," "infinite" and "self-existent" mean when they are used with reference to God?

When the Bible says "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God," what does it mean? Is it saying God has a beginning?

Isn't that a way of saying that God has no beginning-- that He has always existed as God?

So when the Bible says that Christ's "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," it is saying that Christ is without beginning.

God is eternal-- without beginning. Christ is God. Therefore Christ is without beginning.

True, Christ, the Son of the Living God, is God because the Father calls him by that name. See Hebrews 1:9

Christ as God has a God. See John 20:17 and Rev. 3:12

However, God the Father does NOT have a God. He is the Most High God. There can only be one most high God, not three.

[Lysimachus]

ALL eternity means ALL eternity. God is eternal, everlasting. Jesus is God. Jesus is also named Jehovah.

Do you believe that the pre-existent Christ was self-existent?

I definitely do John317

But yet still, truly, and literally the Son of God.

It may seem inconceivable to our mortal minds of how Jesus can be fully God, pre-existent and self existent and yet truly and literally the Son of God, but we have numerous statements on both sides of the coin from Sister White. I choose to accept both sides of the statements, not just one or the other.

Like I said, even though I am unable to understand it, by faith I believe both are possible.

[John317]

ALL eternity means ALL eternity. God is eternal, everlasting. Jesus is God. Jesus is also named Jehovah.

Do you believe that the pre-existent Christ was self-existent?

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

I definitely do John317

But yet still, truly, and literally the Son of God.

It may seem inconceivable to our mortal minds of how Jesus can be fully God, pre-existent and self existent and yet truly and literally the Son of God, but we have numerous statements on both sides of the coin from Sister White. I choose to accept both sides of the statements, not just one or the other.

What statement does she make that causes you to believe she is saying the pre-incarnate Son was literally the Son of God-- that is, that the pre-existent Son's existence had a beginning and that Christ's life was dependent upon someone else?

"Self-existent"= not dependent on another for one's existence and life.

[John317]

True, Christ, the Son of the Living God, is God because the Father calls him by that name. See Hebrews 1:9

But why does God the Father call Christ "God"?

Is Christ truly God, the same as the Father is God?

John 1: 1 and Hebrews 1: 3 both tell us that the pre-incarnate Christ is of the same essence and nature as God the Father.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

Christ as God has a God. See John 20:17 and Rev. 3:12

Notice that Christ never says, "our God." Jesus was always careful to make a distinction between His relationship with God and the relationship that other humans have with God.

Both of those verses were written after Christ became a man. As a man on earth, Christ was dependent on His God. Even now, though Christ is King, the head of Christ is God. However, we shouldn't forget that Christ is God essentially and in the highest sense-- equal with the Father. Being God in "the highest sense" means that God the Father is not God in any higher sense than Christ Himself is.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

However, God the Father does NOT have a God. He is the Most High God. There can only be one most high God, not three.

That is not because Christ is inferior to the Father. Christ has a different function or work but Christ is of the same essence and nature as God. John 1: 1 says that Christ has the very same nature as God. Notice the NEB reads, "What God was the Word was." That's exactly the sense of that verse.

Titus 2: 13 calls Jesus "our great God and savior Jesus Christ."

Christ is fully God and fully man.

Finally, notice 1 John 5: 20--

1 John 5:20-- And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

[BobRyan]

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

In this discussion, we will say the flesh of Christ died the second death. I don't want to discuss that point here.

What I do want to discuss is this; Did the divine nature of Christ die or suffer soul sleep at the crucifixion?

Christ's divine nature did not cease to exist at His death. It was by His divine nature that He could claim to have the power to "Raise MYSELF from the dead".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Before Christ's birth as a human, God was not literally His Father.

[BobRyan]

The Son of God was brought forth in the days of eternity. See Proverbs 8, Micah 5:2 & PP 36.

[Lysimachus]

What statement does she make that causes you to believe she is saying the pre-incarnate Son was literally the Son of God-- that is, that the pre-existent Son's existence had a beginning and that Christ's life was dependent upon someone else?

"Self-existent"= not dependent on another for one's existence and life.

I think the more important question that we should ask is "what statement does she make where she suggests that the Father/Son relationship is nothing more than a "role-play"? Was Jesus pretending to be the Son of God, and was the Father pretending to be the Father? We have not even the slightest suggestion.

The concept of a "role-play" completely destroys the Father/Son relationship, and injures the intimate affection and love that has always existed between the Father and the Son. That is what made the Father's sacrifice so valuable. Ellen White says the Father gave "a part of Himself".

Every statement from the Bible and Ellen White tells us that Jesus IS the Son of God. Not "now is the Son of God, but wasn't before". The description of Him being the Son is the same as recognizing that He was His Son before.

While the Son may not be dependent on another for existence of life, He's STILL literally the Son of God! To deny this is to believe in a mere "role-play".

Once again, we are using human reasoning and mere feeble human brains to comprehend this. But by faith, I believe it is important that we accept that both are true.

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

Who can anticipate the gifts of infinite Love. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." God's love for the world was not manifest because he sent his Son, but because he loved the world He sent his Son into the world that divinity clothed with humanity might touch humanity, while divinity lays hold of infinity. Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf and what material did he use? A part of himself, the brightness of the Father's glory came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, and in his own divine character, in his own divine body, bridged the gulf, and opened a channel of communication between God and man. The windows of heaven were opened, and the showers of heavenly grace in healing streams came to our benighted world. O what love, what matchless, inexpressible love! {1888 711.3}

Quote:

God's love for the world was not manifest because He sent His Son, but because He loved the world He sent His Son into the world that divinity clothed with humanity might touch humanity, while divinity lays hold of divinity. Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, a divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf. And what material did He use? A part of Himself. The brightness of the Father's glory came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, and in His own divine character, in His own divine body, bridged the gulf. . . . The windows of heaven were opened and the showers of heavenly grace in healing streams came to our benighted world. . . . {OHC 12.2}

Regardless of the fact that Christ goes back through ALL eternity, and is equal with the Father, He TRULY is the Son of God. The Father TRULY gave a "PART of Himself!" He was truly and literally the Son of God, regardless of His pre-existence and self-existence.

These are the "mysteries" of the Godhead that we are not to try and solve. This is why we have Ellen White's counsel not to try and solve these mysteries!

By stating that it is a "role-play", and that Jesus can't literally be the Son of God because of those statements is, in a sense, pretending to solve the mystery of the Godhead.

[John317]

...That word - "Everlasting" is "without end"

It is the same thing as "he has no beginning".

And so it is used of YHWH - God in the OT Ps 90:1-2.

So unless you are willing to imagine that "out of nothing" was born "infinite God" - you have to stick with the more Biblically correct view that God has no beginning - and that includes the Son of God.

That's right. "Son of God"= of the order of. That is, the Son of God is fully God, of the same nature and essence as God the Father. He is equal with God. He perfectly represents the glory of God's Being and Character. He can do that only because He Himself is God.

So "the Son of God" doesn't refer to Christ's origins in heaven but to His relationship to God.

[John317]

...I think the more important question that we should ask is "what statement does she make where she suggests that the Father/Son relationship is nothing more than a "role-play"? Was Jesus pretending to be the Son of God, and was the Father pretending to be the Father? We have not even the slightest suggestion.

It's like the statement that Jesus is "the Lamb of God." No one would say that if He is not really a lamb, then it is mere role-playing.

Jesus is also called "the Word," "the bread," "the water," "light," etc. They are mataphors for basic truths about Christ. We would be foolish to think they are names describing what Christ literally is. He is not literally a "word," but He is literally everything that God has to say to the universe about Himself.

Similarly, the Bible does not use "the Son of God" in the sense that Christ literally came out of God's body or Being. The Bible uses "the son of" in reference to "the sons of the prophets" and to "the sons of the singers." These help us to see that "the son of" doesn't necessarily refer to physical descent.

Therefore, title "Son of God" refers to His relationship to God-- that is, that Christ and the Father love each other like a father and son love one another. Christ represents the Father like a son represents his father. Christ is of the same nature and essence as God just as a human son is of the same nature and essence as his father.

Ellen White tells us directly that Christ is "self-existent." She says nowhere that Christ's existence had a beginning or that He came out of His Father like human sons come out of their father and mother. If He did, He couldn't possibly be "self-existent."

Finally, the Bible uses the same language about the pre-incarnate Christ as it does of the Father-- both are "eternal." Ellen White also refers to the pre-existent Christ as "infinite." John 1: 1 says that the Word was everything that God was. Therefore, since God had no beginning, neither did the Word. This would be in harmony with the concept of Christ as "self-existent," whereas if He had a beginning, it would flatly contradict it.

Are you familiar with the Ellen White statement that at His conception, Christ became the Son of God in a way that He had never been before?

One way He would have become Son of God for the first time at His conception is that He had a beginning. Jesus of Nazareth the man had never existed before and God was literally His Father. For the first time Jesus was also totally dependent on the Father.