The Trinity?

[ClubV12]

God said it, to Job!

We can understand God only to the degree He allows. Consider,,, the Saints will study the plan of salvation for eternity and will never exhaust it. Can you explain the mystery of salvation? Enough for people to catch a glimpse of it, through a glass darkly!

This attempt to understand the character and the essence of the God, essentially the mind of God, is bravado, a proud spirit, ego to an extreme level.

A final solution, a definitive statement, a solid conclusion on the exact nature of the Son of God is impossible. At best, a glimpse, a theory, speculation is all anyone will be left with.

[o2bwise]

Hi John317

Quote:

But such a conclusion contradicts the plain statement of Ellen White that Christ's life was not derived.

This has already been covered, but here goes:

Quote:

The Foundation of Our Faith, Allen Stump

“Original, unborrowed, underived”

Despite her Trinitarian background in the Methodist Church, Ellen White never used the terms “Trinity,” or “Triune God.” During the first fifty years of Sister White’s ministry, her brethren found nothing in her writings to cause them to alter their anti-Trinitarian theology. A turning point came in 1898 with the publication of The Desire of Ages. On page 530 the following statement appeared:

In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. (Desire of Ages, p. 530)

The significance of this declaration is noted by Elder M. L. Andreasen who wrote: “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.” (Without Fear or Favor, p. 76) While clearly speaking of the divinity of Christ, what did Ellen White mean by Christ’s life being “original, unborrowed, underived?” Was she now advocating a Trinitarian position? Following the rule that “The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given,” we look to an article published one year prior to the publication of The Desire of Ages. This article appeared in The Signs of the Times and was entitled, “Christ the Life-giver.” We find in this article a clarification of Sister White’s understanding of the concept.

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual receives. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Life-giver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. “I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18), He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour. (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897- See Also 1 SM, pp. 296, 297)

The significance of this statement is tremendous! While stating that Christ’s life was “original, unborrowed, underived,” she also stated that “this life is not inherent in man.” So far to this point there is nothing to send up a red flag. The next two sentences opens up a whole new perspective: “He [man] can possess it [life, original, unborrowed, underived] only through Christ. He [man] cannot earn it [life, original, unborrowed, underived]; it is given him as a free gift if he [man] will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour.”

According to what Sister White wrote a year before The Desire of Ages was published, man is offered the same quality of life that Christ had. If Christ could bestow this life as a free gift upon man, then He could have received that same life from His Father. It was the original, unborrowed, underived life of the Father that Christ possessed and is able to bestow upon man. This is what Jesus meant when He said; “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26).

The Original Source

Sister White’s libraries contained well over one thousand volumes. These volumes were cataloged in two main groups: “One section involved her private library in her ‘sitting room bookcase,’ the other, her office library where her literary assistants worked.” (A Bibliography of Ellen G. White’s Private and Office Libraries - compiled by Warren H. Jones, Tim Poirier, and Ron Graybill, p. i) One of the entries listed as being in her private library is Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, by John Cummings. On page five we find the following statement: “’In him was life,’— that is, original, unborrowed, underived.” (Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, p. 5 - 1856)

It is no coincidence that this statement and the reference in The Desire of Ages are almost word for word identical. Research reveals that Sister White used the language of Cummings’ book for we find her quoting these words, and more, in at least two other places. These passages have been published in at least 13 places.11 In a letter dated Nov. 1, 1905, she wrote to the manager of one of our sanitariums:

In Him is life that is original,—unborrowed, underived life. In us there is a streamlet from the fountain of life. In Him is the fountain of life. Our life is something that we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to Himself. (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 19, p. 23.)

The parallel statement from Cummings reads as follows:

“In him was life,” — that is, original, unborrowed, underived. In us there is a streamlet from the Fountain of Life; in him was the Fountain of Life. Our life is something we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to himself. (Cummings, op. cit.)

Except for one word, these statements are word for word identical. It is not our purpose to discuss the extent of, or problems behind the literary borrowing of Sister White.12 It has been freely admitted by the brethren that such borrowing was done and in a much larger scale than first realized. It is also known that some of the borrowing was at times done by the secretaries. However, with Cummings’ book being in Sister White’s private bookcase, it is reasonable to believe that Sister White, under inspiration, made the decision on its usage instead of one of the literary assistants.

Two areas of Cummings’ statement should be considered. We’ll examine the context first. Cummings noted: “He [the apostle John] at once begins by asserting the Deity of Christ as God and Lord of all; ...” (Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, p. 5) While upholding the Deity of Jesus Christ, Cummings makes no statement here concerning the Godhead in relationship to a Trinity or a Triune God. This closely parallels the thoughts of the early Advent pioneers and Sister White who wrote positively of the Deity of Christ, but never of the Trinity or Triune God.

Secondly, we would like to examine the content of Cummings’ statement. Christ is said to be the “Fountain of Life.” We are said to be a “streamlet.” A streamlet is defined as a “small stream.” (Webster’s Dictionary) A streamlet does not carry a large quantity of water nor is it the source of the water. However, it does carry the same quality of water that comes from the source! Ellen White wrote concerning our receiving the life that flows from the Fountain:

In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour. (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897)

Here Sister White states that man may have “original, unborrowed, underived” life, but he can receive it only as a gift from Christ. Christ can bestow the same quality of life upon the sinner that He has because He has received it from His Father to give. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26) Jesus has received it because He is the only begotten Son of God.

The “weight of evidence” clearly reveals that Sister White believed Jesus to be the literal Son of God.13 The question arises, What about Sister White’s statements concerning the eternal nature of Christ? If Jesus was eternal, then would it not have been impossible for Him to be the begotten Son of God before Bethlehem? First let us notice a typical statement:

The world was made by Him, “and without him was not any thing made that was made.” If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. 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. (Signs of the Times, April 26, 1899 - See also R&H, April 5, 1899; and 1 SM, p. 247)

These statements seem very clear to most people. The following Bible statements also seem very clear.

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.(Revelation 14:11) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

Adventist Bible students have found that these Scriptures mean what they say, however, they do not teach what most people who only surface read think they do. The same is true with some of Sister White’s statements. Her writings must be kept in line with Biblical concepts. When she wrote “eternity” we have no reason to believe otherwise. But what does the say about “for ever and ever”? Is that not eternal in the usual sense of the word? Yes and no. Scripture must be compared with Scripture to find the Biblical meaning of passages that might otherwise be interpreted using human wisdom instead of divine wisdom. If the different statements that Sister White wrote concerning Jesus Christ, His eternal nature, and His begottenness are true, then they must be reconcilable. We cannot use six or seven statements that seem to teach a Trinitarian doctrine and ignore the scores of references that speak otherwise!

John317, here is a portion of the above quote:

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual receives. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Life-giver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. “I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18), He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour. (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897- See Also 1 SM, pp. 296, 297)

The significance of this statement is tremendous! While stating that Christ’s life was “original, unborrowed, underived,” she also stated that “this life is not inherent in man.” So far to this point there is nothing to send up a red flag. The next two sentences opens up a whole new perspective: “He [man] can possess it [life, original, unborrowed, underived] only through Christ. He [man] cannot earn it [life, original, unborrowed, underived]; it is given him as a free gift if he [man] will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour.”

According to what Sister White wrote a year before The Desire of Ages was published, man is offered the same quality of life that Christ had. If Christ could bestow this life as a free gift upon man, then He could have received that same life from His Father. It was the original, unborrowed, underived life of the Father that Christ possessed and is able to bestow upon man. This is what Jesus meant when He said; “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26).

If Ellen White states that Christ can give us the very same thing, it cannot be insisted Christ could not have been given it as well.

Regardless, John317, my main thought is the idea of the weight of evidence. You have never even responded to what I consider to be by far the most significant issues. One of which is to allow the Bible to speak with its most apparent meaning.

Now, why is that? Why would you be silent with respect to this and instead employ a manner of identifying truth through selection of a handful of texts?

When you use the method you do, you 1)ignore the massive amount of texts that in their most apparent meaning refute your position and 2)fail to realize the possibility of another meaning to the very texts you cite.

This being an excellent example. It carries absolutely zero weight with respect to endorsing a Trinitarian position.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Cannot be understood in it's FULLNESS RLH, we have only glimpes and see through a glass darkly.

I'm surprised at the major ego's displayed by some on this thread that all but declare the human language and their logic is enough to explore the mind of God and explain all things concerning His nature!

Such foolishness is breath taking in it's out right stupidity.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Cannot be understood in it's FULLNESS RLH, we have only glimpes and see through a glass darkly.

I'm surprised at the major ego's displayed by some on this thread that all but declare the human language and their logic is enough to explore the mind of God and explain all things concerning His nature!

Such foolishness is breath taking in it's out right stupidity.

OK. You state WHAT you think folks are doing and their QUALIFICATIONS for doing so (major egos, foolishness, outright stupidity.

Strong words. Strong enough for me to demand PROOF that some are thinking to "explain ALL THINGS concerning His nature."

I submit that I do not believe I am thinking to be able to "explain ALL THINGS concerning His nature."

I submit the following.

It is mistaken on a massive scale to categorize one thinking it appropriate to assert Jesus is the literal born Son of God, as thinking to be able to explain all things concerning His nature and doing so with MAJOR EGO, FOOLISHNESS, AND OUTRIGHT STUPIDITY.

But, you know what? I will gladly be in line with the following allegedly ego-driven person.

Quote:

EJ Waggoner, 1888 Minneapolis GC Session

The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.

But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject.

Blessings,

Tony

Ditto!

[ClubV12]

"According to what Sister White wrote a year before The Desire of Ages was published, man is offered the same quality of life that Christ had."

I think this thought on the subject warrants consideration. MAN can have the same quality of life that Christ has. What does THAT mean?

This is an example of why I see a certain, unexplainable (mystery, can't be put into the words of human language) between what the pioneers (often called arian, but I think the word is misapplied) believed and what Sister White believed.

Somewhere between the current position of the Church, which I support, and the position of the pioneers, which I support, is the truth of the matter.

I note there has been ZERO attempt at resolving this apparent conflict as on it's face it seems like an impossibility. And I concur, it IS impossible! Instead, the posters break up into "camps". Supporting various views and all adamant that they, and they alone, have the "truth" of the matter. Offering an endless array of quotes from various sources and bible texts to support their position. No one gaining an inch.

Such has been the case for centuries, this "foolish" quest to put the nature of Christ in a box, with a bow and decidely deliver it with the label of "truth".

Arian, by a strict definition says Christ was created. The pioneers often noted NOT created, but "begotten". Whatever that means, I don't accept the commonly used definition of the word "begotten". It is at this point the debate falls into chaos.

[Guest]

Quote:

Here's a link to one of the best discussions I've ever seen on the Godhead/Trinity issues:

http://eslmission.truth-is-life.org/docs...t%20Babylon.pdf

The author thoroughly examines and answers just about every question or objection that anyone has ever brought up against the concept of the "Trinity." He gives answers based on both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy.

It's 89 pages of verbose drivel. He doesn't look at John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 15:28, John 14:28, 1 Timothy 2:5 or anything that clearly sinks the trinity. Tell me, how can you say that this drongo "thoroughly examines and answers just about every question or objection that anyone has ever brought up against the concept of the "Trinity."? I've never pegged you for somebody blatantly dishonest. Was I wrong?

It is execrably bad - just blah, blah, blah for 89 pages. It's Ellen White this and Ellen White that. Seems to me the SDA Church is the Ellen White Church as far as the trinitarians are concerned. Obfuscation in the worst degree. It will only convince trinitarians.

Who said such a dumb thing anyway? I notice you didn't use their name. Probably because you didn't want to embarrass them. I couldn't even get the link to work.

I notice that you do go out of your way to protect the feelings of the village idiots. I admire that. :)

[Gordon1]

It's 89 pages of verbose drivel. He doesn't look at John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 15:28, John 14:28, 1 Timothy 2:5 or anything that clearly sinks the trinity.

Quite true. A very meager, biased and incomplete assessment.

Avoids the clear evidence, good for the choir.

[o2bwise]

Hey Club,

It is noted that you traversed from calling people foolish, ego-driven, and outright stupidity to calling the quest foolish.

Quote:

I don't accept the commonly used definition of the word "begotten". It is at this point the debate falls into chaos.

For you, yes.

I am unable to understand why one would not interpret "begotten" as very close to "born" for the simple reason that the word is connected to "son" and all sons are born.

Tony

[Guest]

Maybe he's breathtakingly foolish and stupid! No, that couldn't be it. :)

[o2bwise]

Hi RLH,

Quote:

http://www.smyrna.org/Studies/Truth_About_God.htm

Micah prophesied, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth 4163 [origin&] have been from of old, from everlasting [the days of eternity (Green’s Literal Translation)].” (Micah 5:2) “Whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” (Micah 5:2, Revised Standard Version)

This verse is talking about the Son of God, whose origin (beginning) was long before the beginning of this world; and time as we know it. We know that this verse is talking about the Son of God, because it is quoted in reference to Him. “And when he [Herod] had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” (Matthew 2:4-6)

The Scriptures again affirm the wonderful truth that Christ is in reality the Son of God; brought forth from the Father. In the first verse of Proverbs 8 it says that wisdom is speaking. Who is wisdom? Verse 8 tells us that He has a mouth, and speaks. Paul wrote, “But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:24) “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1 Corinthians 1:30) Christ is Wisdom, and is speaking in Proverbs chapter 8.

“When there were no depths, I was brought forth 2342; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth 2342.” (Proverbs 8:24, 25) Also, let us look at this verse in The 1965 Bible in Basic English: “When there was no deep I was given birth, when there were no fountains flowing with water. Before the mountains were put in their places, before the hills was my birth.”

The Hebrew verb which was translated brought forth is used, in this verse, in the Pulal form: the definition for the Pulal form is the only definition that can apply here. This definition is as follows: “to be made to writhe, be made to bear, to be brought forth.” & This verb in this form is only used three places in the Bible, and here are the other two places where it is used.

“Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made 2342 [Hebrew: Pulal form] before the hills?” (Job 15:7) “Behold, I was shapen 2342 [Hebrew: Pulal form] in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5) As you can plainly see, the term brought forth in Proverbs 8:24, 25 can mean nothing other than being begotten, or born. If Proverbs 8:24, 25 were talking merely about an intellectual wisdom, then you must say that at some point God acquired wisdom, and that before that time He did not have wisdom. These verses cannot be talking about that, but rather the origin of the Son of God.

And perhaps some would like to see what some of the early Christians believed about the word "begotten."

You know...before the beast power started to ascend.

Blessings,

Tony

[ClubV12]

IF Jesus was "very close to born" (your proposed definition of "begotten", not mine), then it follows He had a "beginning". A beginning means you accept this nebulous concept we call "time".

The Father had no beginning, "time" is irrelevant to Him. I believe the same can be said for the Son, "time" is irrelevant.

Einstein couldn't solve this mystery, but he DID catch a glimpse of the relativeness of time and space. As if through a glass darkly, as it were.

In the end, this quest for a complete understanding on this matter will not come to fruition on this side of the Kingdom. I am not sure it will even come to fruition on the OTHER side of the Kingdom!

For those that believe Sister White, we are told we will spend ETERNITY studying the plan of salvation and will never exhaust the many facets of that jewel of truth. In other words, we will NEVER be able to comprehend it in it's fullness. Some aspect of it will forever remain a "mystery". So it is with the Father and the Son, mysteries that will never be solved.

[Gibs]

In Joh 3:16, "only begotten" has this meaning, the two words together,

3439. monogenes

Search for G3439 in KJVSL

monogenhV monogenes mon-og-en-ace'

from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child).

See Greek 3441

See Greek 1096

That should clear up the fuss on that. It's just as plain to read it as the KJV has it!

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

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.

[o2bwise]

Hi Club,

I think you are conflating two things.

One

Confessing Christ is the literally born Son of God.

Two

Not grasping the concept of time as it relates to #1.

Confessing #2 does not require denying #1.

For example, I do not comprehend HOW God can create.

This lack of comprehension does not require me to DENY that God did so.

Furthermore you seem to deny the doctrine of the literal Sonship of Christ on the basis of lack of comprehension of how. But, is it not hypocritical and irrational to not deny some "Triune God" belief for the very same reason?

What is your rational justification for denying one and not denying the other when the very same criteria applies (and I would suggest applies by far more with your view)?

Blessings,

Tony

[Guest]

Hi Club,

I think you are conflating two things.

One

Confessing Christ is the literally born Son of God.

Two

Not grasping the concept of time as it relates to #1.

Confessing #2 does not require denying #1.

For example, I do not comprehend HOW God can create.

This lack of comprehension does not require me to DENY that God did so.

Furthermore you seem to deny the doctrine of the literal Sonship of Christ on the basis of lack of comprehension of how. But, is it not hypocritical and irrational to not deny some "Triune God" belief for the very same reason?

What is your rational justification for denying one and not denying the other when the very same criteria applies (and I would suggest applies by far more with your view)?

Blessings,

Tony

Now that is good reasoning right there, Tony! Just good common sense if you ask me.

[Guest]

And perhaps some would like to see what some of the early Christians believed about the word "begotten."

You know...before the beast power started to ascend.

[ClubV12]

The answer is simple Tony.

#1. His life is unborrowed, of Himself, He is fully divine, so says the prophet. Yet, He is "begotten" of the Father. Whatever that means, I don't understand it. The pioneers didn't understand it, Sister White never commented on it. Nor did she ever say or even suggest that the pioneers were wrong!

#2. I cannot explain the concept of "time" as it relates to One who has no beginning, and you can't either!

Logic and reason only take you so far and then you hit the wall. I remember when I first became a Christian. My career was one of reasoning from cause to effect, one of reason and logic. I never accepted statements like, "It's a mystery". EVERYTHING had a reason and a solution WILL be found. I was very good at my work, which was mostly figuring out what went wrong with something.

I approached Christianity in the same way. The doctrines were irrefutable, they not only made sense, you could graph it, do math with it, they were solid. It didn't take long for "logic" to collapse and slowly I began to understand that spiritual things must be spiritually understood. Even more troubling: realizing that not everything COULD be understood!

[John317]

Quote:

Isaiah 45:5 New International Version (©2011)

I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,

Is this one being talking, or a chorus of three? Anyone in his right mind will say this is just one being talking. Therefore, just one being is God, just like Jesus said in John 17:3, which does not exist in the trinitarian Bible.

Quote:

ACV: Exodus 34:14. for thou shall worship no other god. For Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Somehow I think having three gods, or like the household oil, three in one, is not such a good idea. Satan got most Christians to ditch the Sabbath in favour of a day supposedly honouring Jesus...

I believe the Bible evidence is that the Godhead-- i.e., YWHW-- is comprised of Three living, eternal Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

When God said "apart from me there is no God," He was signifying that the only true God is the living God, Yahweh. All others are false gods.

The Shema (Deut 6: 4) was not intended to tell us how many persons compose the Godhead. It is telling us that Jehovah alone is God. (There is much Bible evidence showing that God is not a single, solitary Person.)

Jesus Christ is Jehovah Immanuel. He is as much Jehovah-- the self-existent One-- as the Father is.

The Father is not jealous of Christ, and Christ is not jealous of the Father.

In fact, Christ said that the Father wants everyone to give the same honor to the Son as they give to the Father. He said when people don't give honor to the Son as they give to the Father, they actually are not honoring the Father. {John 5: 23}

[Guest]

What dishonors the Son is to say that He is not really a Son, but something else. The more I see you talk about this, the more I am convinced. :)

[Guest]

Jesus had to get permission from His Father, before the plan of salvation could be put into place. Did you know that?

[John317]

Both the Father and the Son are without beginning and without ending.

The Godhead is eternal and is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. {Upward Look, chapter 134}

Christ is the infinite, eternal, self-existent Son of God.

If the pre-existent Christ had a beginning, He could not be either "infinite" or "the absolute Godhead."

Ellen G. White wrote (1895): "That doctrine that denies the absolute Godhead of Jesus Christ, denies also the Godhead of the Father." (ST June 27, 1895)

[Guest]

I just read Upward Look, chapter 134, and I don't see where it says any of the things you've put forth. I don't think anybody is denying the absolute Godhead of Christ. I know I'm not. Ah, but no time to argue now. I'm off to the back, for some light reading, and eventually sleep. :)

[o2bwise]

John317,

I do note that your dialoguing style is just really poor. It is bad taste to directly address someone and have him repeatedly ignore you.

[John317]

Jesus had to get permission from His Father, before the plan of salvation could be put into place. Did you know that?

Did the pre-existent Christ "have to" to get permission from His Father?

That is, should we understand that Christ "had to get permission from His Father" in much the same way that a human son has to get permission from his father?

Christ was equal with the Father, infinite and omnipotent. {Ms. 101, 1897}

Christ and the Father always work together in complete harmony-- both in the work of creation as well as in the work of redemption. Therefore when we talk about the Son obtaining the Father's permission to give His life a ransom for mankind, we are misunderstanding it if we think the Son "had to" get permission. Human sons are compelled to get their Father's permission because they are inferior in status and authority, but such was never the case with Christ.

"Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore" {7A SDA BC, page 438}. cf. Romans 9: 5.

Please study carefully both of the following quotes regarding the making of the plan of redemption:

Quote:

Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right. {EW 126.1}

Quote:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. Here is love--the contemplation of which should fill the soul with inexpressible gratitude! Oh, what love, what matchless love!{CH 221,222}

[John317]

I just read Upward Look, chapter 134, and I don't see where it says any of the things you've put forth. I don't think anybody is denying the absolute Godhead of Christ. I know I'm not. Ah, but no time to argue now. I'm off to the back, for some light reading, and eventually sleep.

Quote:

The eternal Godhead--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent, . . . confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, through heavenly efficiency, partakers of the divine nature and workers together with Christ. {UL 148.4}

The CD-ROM gives this quote as "The Upward Look, Chapter 134."

[John317]

Quote:

EJ Waggoner, 1888 Minneapolis GC Session

The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.

But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject.

Did you get this quote from the 1888 Minn GC Session, or from the 1890 publication, Christ and His Righteousness, pages 21, 22?

(I remember reading that very paragraph you quoted and showing it to Robert w. Olson in 1973 after his class in the Spirit of Prophecy at PUC. I still have the copy along with the words "DA 530-- 'ORIGINAL, UNBORROWED, UNDERIVED'" in his handwriting at the top of the page.)

E.J. Waggoner did indeed write the above, but the idea that Christ "proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father, but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning," contradicts what the prophet of God wrote.

How does this compare with what Ellen White wrote: "Christ was with God FROM ALL ETERNITY, GOD OVER ALL, blessed forevermore..."? {7A SDA BC page 438}

E.J. Waggoner was not a prophet. He was wrong about this, because he not only flatly contradicts the Scriptures but he contradicts the Spirit of prophecy.

Ellen White said that "in Christ was life, original, unborrowed, underived" (DA 530).

She also wrote, "That doctrine that denies the absolute Godhead of Jesus Christ, denies also the Godhead of the Father."

"The Absolute Godhead" of Christ means He has always been a part of the Godhead-- God in the highest sense from all eternity. There's no beginning to "all eternity." If there was a beginning to "all eternity," it wouldn't be "ALL eternity."