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

[Lysimachus]

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.

[SivartM]

I haven't read the whole conversation, so forgive me if you've already gone over this, Lysimachus, but if you see the Father and Son as a literal relationship in the same way as human parents and children, what sort of reproductive process would have spawned that? Do you see your view as Arian, semi-Arian, or what?

[Lysimachus]

SivertM,

You are right, you did not read the whole conversation. I believe the Son to have pre-existed eternally, and is equal with the Father. I do not believe that the Father and Son have a literal relationship in the sense that there was some reproductive process. Remember, God is the creator of re-productivity, thus He himself did not need re-productivity in order to create the reproductive process.

I believe the Father and the Son are literally related from all eternity. This was the mystery I'm referring to. I do not believe it was a role-play, yet, somehow, God knows how, the Father is truly the Father of Christ, and the Son is truly the Son of God.

Quote:

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}

[SivartM]

Okay, thanks for explaining! Now, I don't intend to belittle anyone's beliefs by saying this, but I always think it's interesting how this kind of discussion goes; your belief and the orthodox one are so fundamentally similar except in a few points of terminology, but it always ends up in a heated discussion, as if one's entire conception of God depends on whether or not the Father and Son are "alike" or merely "similar", when there is little practical difference for most people. I just don't understand what the prejudice against your position is.

Quote:

My father has preached many sermons on this. It's beautiful, and I have seen some break down in tears once it hit them at just how close the Father and Son truly are, and what it cost the Father to give up His real Son.

I think that this attitude is what makes your conception of God beautiful, because it tears down a wall of abstraction, adding a lot of meaning to the story.

[Lysimachus]

Thanks SivertM.

Yes, I'd consider this a small difference indeed. Yet, at the same time, I think that one small difference can indirectly affect our understanding of God's love.

However, I'd say there are a lot more issues of paramount importance. Such as: Practicing what we preach, living holy and pure lives, pressing together in true Christian brotherly love, and sharpening our swords so that we might more effectively defend the faith and successfully refute strong delusions capturing the Christian world such as popular Dispensationalism.

The big issues in the last days won't be over understanding exactly how the Godhead functions (we'll learn all these mysteries when we get to heaven), but it will be big concerning the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, the Mark of the Beast, the Seal of God, and of course, the identification of the Antichrist and the delusive miracles Satan will perform.

[John317]

But we have numerous statements concerning the literalness of Christ's Sonship.

She said:

How do you understand the phrase, "tore from his bosom"? I understand it to mean that it was not an easy decision to let His beloved Son go. It was a struggle.

Do you believe that the title, "only begotten Son," requires that the pre-incarnate Christ have a beginning?

I don't believe that God's love for the Son requires that the Son originated from the Father. I believe their love was based on an eternal relationship and the fact that the Son was exactly like the Father.

Do you understand "made" to mean that Christ was literally "made" by the Father?

When John 1: 1 it says that "in the beginning was the Word," it is telling us that at the beginning, the Word (Christ) was already in existence.

"And the Word was with God" tells us that the Word always existed with God. As Ellen White says, there was never a time when Christ was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. Elsewhere she says that Christ was with the Father "from ALL eternity." When we put everything that she wrote together, including her statement that the pre-incarnate Son was eternal, self-existent, and omnipotent, I think we have a picture of a Father-Son relationship that was without beginning. In reference to God, "eternal" or "from everlasting" means without beginning or end.

That is the way SDAs have understood the description in DA 530 of Christ having in Him "life, original, unborrowed, underived." These words contradict what E.J. Waggoner wrote in his book Christ and His Righteousness, pages 21, 22. The words of Ellen White came as quite a shock to many early SDAs at that time because they understood them to mean that Christ did not derive His existence from the Father. They caused the people such as M.L. Andreason to talk directly to Ellen White about them and to restudy their Bibles on the topic of the Trinity. M. L. Andreason ended up becoming a convinced Trinitarian as a result of those words.

[John317]

...The big issues in the last days won't be over understanding exactly how the Godhead functions (we'll learn all these mysteries when we get to heaven), but it will be big concerning the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, the Mark of the Beast, the Seal of God, and of course, the identification of the Antichrist and the delusive miracles Satan will perform.

We certainly agree here, Lysimachus.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

But we have numerous statements concerning the literalness of Christ's Sonship.

She said:

The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind. ( {RH, July 9, 1895 par. 13})

How do you understand the phrase, "tore from his bosom"? I understand it to mean that it was not an easy decision to let His beloved Son go. It was a struggle.

Does this mean that there was a debate in the "counsels of heaven" as to whether it was "worth it" to come and save humanity?

[John317]

Does this mean that there was a debate in the "counsels of heaven" as to whether it was "worth it" to come and save humanity?

No.

Quote:

The Son of God, heaven's glorious Commander, was touched with pity for the fallen race. His heart was moved with infinite compassion as the woes of the lost world rose up before Him. But divine love had conceived a plan whereby man might be redeemed. The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. In all the universe there was but one who could, in behalf of man, satisfy its claims. Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law and bring him again into harmony with Heaven. Christ would take upon Himself the guilt and shame of sin--sin so offensive to a holy God that it must separate the Father and His Son. Christ would reach to the depths of misery to rescue the ruined race. {PP 63.2}

Before the Father He pleaded in the sinner's behalf, while the host of heaven awaited the result with an intensity of interest that words cannot express. Long continued was that mysterious communing--"the counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13) for the fallen sons of men. The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8); yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. Oh, the mystery of redemption! the love of God for a world that did not love Him! Who can know the depths of that love which "passeth knowledge"? Through endless ages immortal minds, seeking to comprehend the mystery of that incomprehensible love, will wonder and adore. {PP 63.3}

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Does this mean that there was a debate in the "counsels of heaven" as to whether it was "worth it" to come and save humanity?

No.

Quote:

The Son of God, heaven's glorious Commander, was touched with pity for the fallen race. His heart was moved with infinite compassion as the woes of the lost world rose up before Him. But divine love had conceived a plan whereby man might be redeemed. The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. In all the universe there was but one who could, in behalf of man, satisfy its claims. Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law and bring him again into harmony with Heaven. Christ would take upon Himself the guilt and shame of sin--sin so offensive to a holy God that it must separate the Father and His Son. Christ would reach to the depths of misery to rescue the ruined race. {PP 63.2}

Before the Father He pleaded in the sinner's behalf, while the host of heaven awaited the result with an intensity of interest that words cannot express. Long continued was that mysterious communing--"the counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13) for the fallen sons of men. The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8); yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. Oh, the mystery of redemption! the love of God for a world that did not love Him! Who can know the depths of that love which "passeth knowledge"? Through endless ages immortal minds, seeking to comprehend the mystery of that incomprehensible love, will wonder and adore. {PP 63.3}

Apparently the Father had to "sold" on the idea. If God "truly Loved" why then would it be a struggle? I thought "Love" would never struggle with such a situation because "Love" never thinks of "self". It is thinking of self when it is a "struggle" to give up your "Son".

It sounds to me like the Father was "struggling" whether to satisfy "self" or to give up His Self in Jesus Christ.

Ellen White's words are quite plain that it was a "struggle" for the Father. That is NOT LOVE. That is more like "self".

[Robert]

It sounds to me like the Father was "struggling" whether to satisfy "self" or to give up His Self in Jesus Christ.

If you are to fear God then fear being struck down for making God a sinner.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

It sounds to me like the Father was "struggling" whether to satisfy "self" or to give up His Self in Jesus Christ.

If you are to fear God then fear being struck down for making God a sinner.

I am only making God exactly what God says He is in His Word the Bible. You seem to ignore parts of the Bible because it does not fit your pagan view of God.

[John317]

You might be interested in reading what M.L. Andreasen wrote about meeting Ellen White and staying for a while at her home in order to examine her writings in manuscript, before any editors had touched them. He talks here specifically about DA 530 and the affect upon him of the words, "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived."

A link to the source is given at the bottom if you would like to read the entire story of his visit to Mrs. White's Elmhaven home.

Quote:

“This study led me to a review of such evidence as was available to me bearing on the question of the origin of the writings of Mrs. E.G. White. Hitherto I had accepted the testimonies of others without any critical appraisal or profound conviction one way or the other. Now, however, I felt I had come to a point in life when I must make definite decisions for myself. This became the more necessary as I was shortly called to head the newly established seminary in Hutchinson, Minnesota [where Scandinavian workers were to be trained], and would have to deal with young men about to enter the ministry. For their sakes, I decided that I must know for myself and not depend upon any secondary authorities, however good they might appear to be.

“This led me to consider a journey to St. Helena, California, where Mrs. White resided at that time. I wished to have firsthand knowledge as far as it was obtainable. I did not wish to be deceived, nor did I wish to deceive others.

“Consequently, in due time I arrived in St. Helena and was cordially received by Mrs. White. I stated my reason for coming, which was to obtain permission to examine her writings in manuscript before anyone had done any editorial work on them. I had brought with me many quotations from her writings that were of outstanding interest, either for their theological import or their beauty of expression.

“In my own mind, I was convinced that Sister White had never written them as they appeared in print. She might have written something like them, but I was sure that no one with the limited education Sister White had could ever produce such exquisitely worded statements or such pronouncements on difficult theological problems. They must have been produced by a well-trained individual, conversant not only with theological niceties but also with beautiful English.

“I was given ready and free access to the vault where the manuscripts were kept, and I immediately began work.

“I was overwhelmed with the mass of material placed at my disposal. It did not seem possible for one individual to produce such a quantity of matter in a lifetime, most of which was handwritten. I had imagined that Sister White dictated most of her writings, for she had helpers. Now I found that while she might at times dictate, most of her writings were produced by her own pen . . I spent days at this work; and, being a reasonably rapid reader, and with the assistance of the office staff, I accomplished my task.

“When I was done, I was both amazed and perplexed. Here I saw before my eyes that which I believed could not be done. I verified many of the quotations I had brought with me. I saw in her own handwriting some of the statements that I was sure she had not written—could not have written. Especially was I struck with the now-familiar quotation in the Desire of Ages, page 530: ‘In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.’ This statement at that time was revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my former view—and that of the denomination—on the deity of Christ.

“I had examined many of the manuscripts in the vault with the exception of the family letters. Though the son, W.C. White, doubted that I would get permission to read them, Sister White readily gave me access. And so I read them. Here were the letters written by the parents to the children and the children to the parents, by James to Ellen and Ellen to James. Ellen’s letters might begin with ‘Dear James’ or ‘Dear Husband,’ followed by some remark or statement of a purely personal character, and then she would launch into an extended recital of some religious topic with appropriate admonition and counsel. If the few introductory remarks were left out, the complete letter could be printed on the editorial page of the Review today, no name need be appended, and many readers would immediately recognize the origin of the composition.

Source:http://spiritofprophecydefend.com/andreasen.html

Question: Why does M.L. Andreasen say, "This statement at that time was revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my former view—and that of the denomination—on the deity of Christ"? What does the statement contain that would cause such a complete revision of the church's view on the deity of Christ?

[Robert]

You seem to ignore parts of the Bible because it does not fit your pagan view of God.

My "pagan" view?

All pagan religions appease an angry, vengeful god. That's the god you present.

[John317]

Apparently the Father had to "sold" on the idea. If God "truly Loved" why then would it be a struggle? I thought "Love" would never struggle with such a situation because "Love" never thinks of "self". It is thinking of self when it is a "struggle" to give up your "Son".

It sounds to me like the Father was "struggling" whether to satisfy "self" or to give up His Self in Jesus Christ.

Ellen White's words are quite plain that it was a "struggle" for the Father. That is NOT LOVE. That is more like "self".

What Ellen White's words show is that God the Father loved His only Son infinitely.

It wouldn't be a sign of love for His Son if the Father had given Him up without hardly a thought. So Ellen White's statement actually supports the biblical account that God loved humans so much that He gave His only beloved Son. The fact that the Father gave up His beloved Son for humanity is proof that God's love is infinite.

God would have been just and rightous to allow the world to reap the natural consequences of rebellion and sin. But instead, because of His great love for us, God sent His only Son to suffer and die on the cross. God did not have to do what He did in saving the world. He did it freely because of His agape/love for each and every person who's ever lived.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Apparently the Father had to "sold" on the idea. If God "truly Loved" why then would it be a struggle? I thought "Love" would never struggle with such a situation because "Love" never thinks of "self". It is thinking of self when it is a "struggle" to give up your "Son".

It sounds to me like the Father was "struggling" whether to satisfy "self" or to give up His Self in Jesus Christ.

Ellen White's words are quite plain that it was a "struggle" for the Father. That is NOT LOVE. That is more like "self".

What Ellen White's words show is that God the Father loved His only Son infinitely.

It wouldn't be a sign of love for His Son if the Father had given Him up without hardly a thought. So Ellen White's statement actually supports the biblical account that God loved humans so much that He gave His only beloved Son. The fact that the Father gave up His beloved Son for humanity is proof that God's love is infinite.

God would have been just and rightous to allow the world to reap the natural consequences of rebellion and sin. But instead, because of His great love for us, God sent His only Son to suffer and die on the cross. God did not have to do what He did in saving the world. He did it freely because of His agape/love for each and every person who's ever lived.

The FACT remains no matter how much God loved His Son (Jesus Christ) the fact that Ellen White calls it a "struggle" means that God had to make a choice between who He loved more. This FACT is in contradiction to the Bible.

This discussion is also in the light of the statement made by Robert, I believe, that God loves humans more than Himself (Himself would include Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is God just as the Father is God, the two cannot be separated).

If Ellen White's statement that it was a "struggle" is true? then God didn't really "love the human race more than He loved Himself".

It would have been a no brainer if God loved humanity more than He loved Himself. There would have been no struggle.

Thus,

1. The statement that God loves humanity more than Himself is a pagan idea and not Biblical.

2. Ellen White by stating that it was a "struggle" is also not Biblical and in fact contradicts the Bible account in John 3:16-18 alone. God thought of self which is why it was a "struggle".

John317 make up your mind which it is?

[Lysimachus]

Robert is right.

Miz3's views are pagan.

[joeb]

Robert is right.

Miz3's views are pagan.

I disagree with most of what miz3 believes, but in this instance I tend to agree with his point, although I would not go so far as to describe Robert's view as pagan, but it is unBiblical.

Here's why. Robert's view of "Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself" relies on his interpretation of as being: as == more_than. This is an interpretation of the word "as" that has no foundation anywhere but in Robert's mind.

In Matthew 22: 36-40 Jesus says that the first great commandment is that we should love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. And that "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is the second great commandment. Thus it is a transcript of God's character for it is the summation of the last 6 commandments.

Therefore, Robert is distorting God's character through his misrepresentation of the word as. He is saying something that God Himself never said about Himself, nor did He ever require Robert's interpretation of His character of humanity.

[miz3]

Try these texts:

1. Psalm 11:5

"The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates."

I believe this explicitly states that God hates the wicked, the wicked human entity. This alone proves you wrong.

2. Proverbs 6:16-19.

"There are six things the LORD hates,

seven that are detestable to him:

17 haughty eyes,

a lying tongue,

hands that shed innocent blood,

18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,

feet that are quick to rush into evil,

19 a false witness who pours out lies

and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

Let's see God hates eyes, tongue, hands, heart, feet, that do evil. In addition God hates the "human who is a false witness". The whole human person. Also, God hates the "man" who stirs up dissension with other humans.

So God indeed does HATE THE HUMAN AS A WHOLE ENTITY.

3. Jeremiah 12:8.

"My inheritance has become to me like a lion in the forest. She roars at me; therefore I hate her."

Clear Word that God hates Israel (His inheritance), THAT IS HUMANS.

4. Hosea 9:15.

"Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious."

Again, God is stating that He hates the persons of Israel. That God HATES HUMANS.

5. Malachi 1:2-3.

"I have loved you,” says the LORD.

“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’

“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” the LORD says. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

You state that God is not talking about Esau the person. Ok, lets give you that. However, God is talking about "human people" that He hates. God is stating that He hates every man, woman, child, and little tiny baby of the Esauites. That is each individual of that group God hates. They are "individual humans".

6. Romans 9:13

"Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Let's say again for your sake that this is not talking about the very person of Esau. Ok, we give you that again. Now reread the notes on Malachi chapter one above and see again that we are still talking about God hating humans including little tiny babies and those still in the womb.

You are clearly wrong because the Bible definitively states that God does indeed hate "humans" as individuals and as groups, regardless God still hates humans.

Here are those texts that explicitly state that God is not just "agape" God is also "Hate". This is also God's Word and I take Him at His Word too when He says that He Hates human persons.

It is there in very plain and simple language.

Either you accept it or you reject it.

Basically what everything boils down to is:

God says you humans obey me and love me or I will kill and torture you in Hell.

That is God.

Whether you like it or not that is God. For you, Lysimachus, to say that these plain and clear Bible statements are pagan is just shocking.

Here is the Bible speaking again of how God hates.

Is the Bible wrong?

[Robert]

God cannot and will not require humans to adhere to a standard He rejects for Himself. His commandments form not only the foundation of His government in heaven and on earth; they actually depict His character in words (see Psalm 119:172; Jeremiah 23:6;33:16), as a novelist draws the inner life of characters with the pen. The principle which says "Thou shalt not kill," which Jesus expanded to mean Thou shalt not hate or damage in any way, originates in the heart of God.

[Robert]

Robert is distorting God's character through his misrepresentation of the word "as". He is saying something that God Himself never said about Himself, nor did He ever require Robert's interpretation of His character of humanity.

"...why was the law given? It was given to show people how guilty they are!" [Gal 3:19 NLT]

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." [Rom 3:19 NKJV]

Guilty of what? Of failing to live a life of agape!

The law was given to show how rotten we are by nature. The law was given after the fall. So when Christ said, "You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself" He was speaking to sinners.

The law commands sinners to love their neighbor as they naturally are bent to themselves. This bent is self-love. Christ is not giving two commands - that is - love your neighbor and yourself. It's one command: Love your neighbor AS you love yourself.

Take all those things you've done for yourself and instead do it for your neighbor...even better, your enemy. That's how Christ lived. Hence, "Jesus...thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself."

Ellen White agrees on the spirit of the law: "You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth." [DA 439]

Notice, in Ellen White's statement, she doesn't say that you will have that love which looks out for its own wealth and the wealth of others! No, she describes "agape" as a love that seeks not her own wealth, but another's wealth.

[Robert]

One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.

If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross. Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.

So what does God do? God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I create evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment.

[John317]

... Robert's view of "Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself" relies on his interpretation of as being: as == more_than. This is an interpretation of the word "as" that has no foundation anywhere but in Robert's mind.

But let's suppose a person hates himself.(There are many people in the world who don't love themselves.) Does this mean that it's OK for such a person not to love others?

Wouldn't it then mean such a person should love others more than he loves himself?

I think Robert is saying that people generally don't do what Christ said: to love ALL others as much as we love ourselves.

[miz3]

God cannot and will not require humans to adhere to a standard He rejects for Himself. His commandments form not only the foundation of His government in heaven and on earth; they actually depict His character in words (see Psalm 119:172; Jeremiah 23:6;33:16), as a novelist draws the inner life of characters with the pen. The principle which says "Thou shalt not kill," which Jesus expanded to mean Thou shalt not hate or damage in any way, originates in the heart of God.

Yet we have cases, such as Ananias and Sapphira, where God did "kill". That means that God "broke His own Commandment". This singular fact alone blows up and destroys your erroneous theory.

Thus, God both kills and hates.

[miz3]

One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.

If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross. Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.

So what does God do? God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I create evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment.

That is your opinion. This theory is NOT BIBLICAL. This is just "human devise" in order to not face what these texts actually say.

The Bible clearly states that God "hates". It is not ambiguous. God is both Love and Hate.