RE: Father, Son & Holy Ghost....3 gods.

[John317]

The Bible shows us that all Three divine Persons resurrected Christ from the grave.

According to John 2: 19, 21, Jesus said that He would raise Himself. (This could only be true if Deity did not die.)

According to Acts 2: 24, 32; 3: 15, 26, God raised up Jesus from the grave.

According to Romans 1: 4 and 1 Peter 3: 18 [NKJV & NIV), Jesus was raised up out of death by "the Spirit of holiness," i.e., the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

I'd like to see the quotes that Nic is talking about.

I posted them in post #546099, ten posts above this one.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

As the Second Adam, Christ's temptations proved that it was possible for Adam to have obeyed God. Adam need not have disobeyed God. He could have obeyed God's law. That is what Christ did. But Christ could only demonstrate this if Christ could have sinned. If Christ had an advantage over Adam, the test wouldn't have proved that Adam need not have sinned.

"Christ's temptations proved that it was possible for Adam to have obeyed God".? ? ? ?

Yes, they did.

Adam was a perfect man. He wasn't hungry at the time of his temptation in the Garden, but he had had all the food he could possibly want. Moreover, Adam's body was in perfect health and condition, having just recently come from the Creator's hand.

On the other hand, Christ was tempted in the wilderness after he had gone 40 days without anything to eat or drink. Christ had also inherited all the normal weakness of the human body after thousands of years of sickness and disease.

This shows that Adam actually had the advantage over Christ in terms of his condition at the time of the temptation.

[Dr. Waite]

The Bible shows us that all Three divine Persons resurrected Christ from the grave.

According to John 2: 19, 21, Jesus said that He would raise Himself. (This could only be true if Deity did not die.)

According to Acts 2: 24, 32; 3: 15, 26, God raised up Jesus from the grave.

According to Romans 1: 4 and 1 Peter 3: 18 [NKJV & NIV), Jesus was raised up out of death by "the Spirit of holiness," i.e., the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ, the only begotten divine son of the living God, was able to raise himself only because He received this as a commandment (i.e. authority) from His Father, the only true God.

John 10:14 - 18: "I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: ad I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power (i.e. authority) to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."

The Father is the "the Spirit of holiness," i.e., the Holy Spirit. See John 4:23-24: "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth."

[Gibs]

(Matthew 28:5, 6; Luke 24:5, 6; 2:19; John 10:17, 18; Acts 13:32, 33.)

EGW, quote,

"When the voice of the angel was heard saying, "Thy Father calls thee," He who had said, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again," "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Deity did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In His divinity Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He had life in Himself to quicken whom He will". {5BC 1113.4}

EGW tells us something here the Bible doesn't. Did you notice? "Thy Father calls thee,"

For sure Deity cannot be killed, but the man died and the Father was in Him and is bound to that Body until His, the Fathers investment in Him, Jesus is completed that He is sent forth to do.

Again let us read these important verses, as this is His mission,

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Read very carefully all those verses and note that last one. "That God may be all in all.

Wonderful, Wonderful, Wonderful is all I can say for now.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gustave]

Yes, they did.

Adam was a perfect man. He wasn't hungry at the time of his temptation in the Garden, but he had had all the food he could possibly want. Moreover, Adam's body was in perfect health and condition, having just recently come from the Creator's hand.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, they did.

Adam was a perfect man. He wasn't hungry at the time of his temptation in the Garden, but he had had all the food he could possibly want. Moreover, Adam's body was in perfect health and condition, having just recently come from the Creator's hand.

Yes, a "type" of Christ yet Adam wasn't Christ...

...Are you saying Adam "could have" accomplished the same thing as God the Son, John?

All I'm saying is that Adam could have obeyed God. He didn't have to disobey God's command. The reason Adam sinned was not because He lacked strength or ability to obey. It was his choice to disobey. God made Adam free to choose to disobey Him. Christ's obedience was nothing if it was not due to Christ's genuine choice to obey. It wasn't a genuine choice if Christ couldn't possibly have made a different choice.

How is Christ's obedience and righteousness meritorious and worthy of eternal praise if Christ couldn't possibly have failed in His mission?

[John317]

This shows that Adam actually had the advantage over Christ in terms of his condition at the time of the temptation.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

You have adopted some very strange and alien concepts John.

They may be strange to you, but that doesn't mean they're unbiblical or contrary to the Bible. What I'm saying here is simply that Christ's temptations were stronger than Adam's. Can you show from the Bible that this is error? I would think you would be glad to know that Christ was faithful to God even though His temptations were stronger than Adam's.

[John317]

On the other hand, Christ was tempted in the wilderness after he had gone 40 days without anything to eat or drink. Christ had also inherited all the normal weakness of the human body after thousands of years of sickness and disease.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Christ was tempted in the wilderness because the Spirit DROVE Him into the wilderness TO BE TEMPTED by the Devil...

...Because the Prophets SAID the Christ would NOT have any iniquity in Him.

...What better way to demonstrate that then by having Satan tempt Him?

Sure, but Adam also had no iniquity in him. Adam didn't sin because he had iniquity in him. He was perfect at the time of his temptation. Christ's overcoming temptation shows that mankind doesn't need to disobey but can obey God's commandments. But this is only shown if Christ's obedience was due to genuine choice.

[John317]

Jesus Christ, the only begotten divine son of the living God, was able to raise himself only because He received this as a commandment (i.e. authority) from His Father, the only true God.

Everything Christ did was on account of commandment from His Father. That was the agrement they made in heaven before Christ came to live here as a human being. He would come and rely totally upon the Father in the same way that all men should live. He didn't do anything on His own. This didn't mean that Christ is not true God; it meant that Christ is a man and that He came here as our example.

[John317]

Did Jesus have a choice when He was DRIVEN into the Wilderness?

...I'm thinking He didn't have any more of a choice then when His parents moved Him into Egypt.

Matthew's language--"led up"-- indicates that Jesus had a choice.

Mark's language-- "drove Him"-- means that the Holy Spirit sent Him into the Wilderness to be tempted. Taken together with Matthew's Gospel, it shows that Jesus's will was not forced. The FAther never took away Christ's choice. For instance, in the garden before His death, Christ prayed, "Not my will but yours be done." In other words, Christ recognized that His will was distinct from the Father's will. He could have decided to reject the Father's will and to do His own will, but if He had done so, humanity would have perished. What made the difference with Jesus? It was His love for people that compelled Christ to go through His suffering and death.

[doug yowell]

Yes, a "type" of Christ yet Adam wasn't Christ...

...Are you saying Adam "could have" accomplished the same thing as God the Son, John?

[John317]

Did Jesus have a choice when He was DRIVEN into the Wilderness?

...I'm thinking He didn't have any more of a choice then when His parents moved Him into Egypt.

...So John, what would have happened if Christ never went to Egypt John????

The baby Jesus was completely dependent on God and on His parents just like all other babies. He grew up as any ordinary child. So, yes, of course, he did not have a choice in the matter of going down to Egypt.

His parents were led of the Holy Spirit to choose to go to Egypt.

[John317]

[John317]

...Are you saying Adam "could have" accomplished the same thing as God the Son, John?

Not at all. Christ accomplished our salvation through His obedience and death on the cross. Only God could do that. No angel or human, however perfect, could have accomplished that. But what I am saying is simply that Adam did not have to sin. He was free to chose. God did not cause Adam to sin. It wasn't something that God wanted to happen; it was something He foresaw and allowed to happen because He respects and honors people's choices.

Do you agree that Adam was not forced to sin but that he chose to sin?

And if Adam didn't have to sin, would it help matters for the Messiah to be compelled to obey?

[John317]

...You have adopted some very strange and alien concepts John.

Like the weekly Sabbath, you mean? Or that we should not pray to Mary and the other dead saints?

[Guest]

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...You have adopted some very strange and alien concepts John.

Like the weekly Sabbath, you mean? Or that we should not pray to Mary and the other dead saints?

That was a little cold,John. True, but uncharacteristically cold.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...Are you saying Adam "could have" accomplished the same thing as God the Son, John?

Not at all. Christ accomplished our salvation through His obedience and death on the cross. Only God could do that. No angel or human, however perfect, could have accomplished that. But what I am saying is simply that Adam did not have to sin. He was free to chose. God did not cause Adam to sin. It wasn't something that God wanted to happen; it was something He foresaw and allowed to happen because He respects and honors people's choices.

Do you agree that Adam was not forced to sin but that he chose to sin?

And if Adam didn't have to sin, would it help matters for the Messiah to be compelled to obey?

I AGREE THAT ADAM COULD NOT HAVE PAID THE PENALTY:

"While we dwell upon the paternal character of God, and His love expressed for man in the gift of His only begotten Son, we must tell people why such a costly sacrifice was necessary. It was because of sin. What is sin? The transgression of the law. Only the Son of God could pay the penalty, and that by His own humiliation and death." {1888 781.2}

HOWEVER:

I believe that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of his Father, the only true God, before he was born of Mary and it was only this person (the only begotten Son of his Father the only true God before he was born of Mary) that could pay the penalty.

And, I believe that the Bible and the writings of EGW support this belief.

[Gustave]

All I'm saying is that Adam could have obeyed God.

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...You have adopted some very strange and alien concepts John.

Like the weekly Sabbath, you mean? Or that we should not pray to Mary and the other dead saints?

For now it's more important that you grasp the fundamentals of the Trinity...

...Sunday and the communion of saints are way down on the importance list.

...The Trinity deserves your full attention.

After that we can talk about the Sabbath and communion of saints all you want.

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: John317

This shows that Adam actually had the advantage over Christ in terms of his condition at the time of the temptation.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

You have adopted some very strange and alien concepts John.

They may be strange to you, but that doesn't mean they're unbiblical or contrary to the Bible. What I'm saying here is simply that Christ's temptations were stronger than Adam's. Can you show from the Bible that this is error? I would think you would be glad to know that Christ was faithful to God even though His temptations were stronger than Adam's.

My last couple of posts have been made on a blackberry...

...sitting in a car while my wife terrorizes the outlet mall we are at.

...more on this after I can get on a real pc.

[John317]

I AGREE THAT ADAM COULD NOT HAVE PAID THE PENALTY:

"While we dwell upon the paternal character of God, and His love expressed for man in the gift of His only begotten Son, we must tell people why such a costly sacrifice was necessary. It was because of sin. What is sin? The transgression of the law. Only the Son of God could pay the penalty, and that by His own humiliation and death." {1888 781.2}

HOWEVER:

I believe that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of his Father, the only true God, before he was born of Mary and it was only this person (the only begotten Son of his Father the only true God before he was born of Mary) that could pay the penalty.

And, I believe that the Bible and the writings of EGW support this belief.

Why do you add "however" after the truth of the first paragraph? Both paragraphs fit harmoniously.

I agree with you your second paragraph except that I know you interpret "only begotten Son of the Father" as meaning that the pre-existent Christ had a beginning and came out of the Father in some way. That is not the meaning of "begotten." The word "begotten" simply means "only" or "unique" or "one of a kind." So when the Bible says that Jesus is "the only begotten Son of God," it is saying that Christ is the one and only Son of God. There is no other like Him. He is absolutely unique in the universe.

[Dr. Waite]

John:

You state: "I agree with you your second paragraph except that I know you interpret "only begotten Son of the Father" as meaning that the pre-existent Christ had a beginning and came out of the Father in some way. That is not the meaning of "begotten." The word "begotten" simply means "only" or "unique" or "one of a kind." So when the Bible says that Jesus is "the only begotten Son of God," it is saying that Christ is the one and only Son of God. There is no other like Him. He is absolutely unique in the universe."

Do you have a plain "Thus saith the LORD" to support your doctrine that "begotten" means "only" or "unique" or "one of a kind" rather than actually "born"?

I cannot accept your doctrine except for a plain "thus saith the LORD"

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,-- not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support." {GC88 595.1}

[John317]

For now it's more important that you grasp the fundamentals of the Trinity...

...Sunday and the communion of saints are way down on the importance list.

...The Trinity deserves your full attention.

The Trinity/Godhead as the Bible teaches it, not the Trinity of church traditions or of the creeds.

Actually I think you have the importance of the doctrines confused. The keeping of God's commandments is far more important than being exactly right about all the details with respect to the Godhead. God commands us to obey the Ten Commandments and to be loyal to Him, but His law doesn't command us to believe in the "Trinity" or in certain concepts having to do with the relationship between the members of the Godhead. That's why our pioneers were right to emphasize the commandments of God and not the Trinity, and it's why James White wrote in the R&H that the Trinity is not a test of fellowship or character. I don't believe the Trinity is of itself a matter of salvation. People of both views will be in heaven. The problem comes when people allow the doctrinal differences to cause them to mistreat other believers.

If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. [21] And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.{1 John 4: 20-21}