A John 3:16 Thought...

[Stewart (SDA)]

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." (Jn 3:16)

God the Father loved the world. Did the Son share this love? Did He ALSO love the world?

We need not entertain a single doubt upon this point. The Son may be honored equally when it comes to the motivation behind the great venture. (Jn 5:23).

 

But in real terms, who initiated it? What were some of the mechanics behind the Father actually giving and sending forth His Son? For those that accept the words of Ellen White there is some striking clarity on this matter.

 

The following scene is described. It takes place in heaven, after Adam's fall.

 

"Soon I saw Him [Jesus] approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the 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 lovliness which words cannot describe. He then made know to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; THAT HE HAD BEEN PLEADING WITH THE FATHER, and had obtained PERMISSION to give His own life as a ransom for the race..." (Early Writings p.126)

 

It was only after Jesus asked -- it was only after Jesus had pleaded with His Father -- that He might be allowed to give His life, that the Father "GAVE" His Son. It is clear I think, that the Father would never have sent His Son, had Jesus not first asked to go. And Jesus would never have taken such a step without seeking the permission and approval of the Father.

 

"Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them." (ibid. p.127)

 

HE GAVE.

The Father did not "loan" Jesus to the human family as a temporary measure (i.e. it was not simply a matter of 33 years). It behooved Him [it was imperative to Jesus] to be made like His prospective brethren. And when He took humanity upon Himself, the Divine Son took it upon Himself for ever. He retains humanity [albeit glorified humanity,] to this day, and its limitations are upon Him for eternity. Did the Son give up His omnipresence? If He did, the limitations of humanity go far beyond the loss of omnipresence! The sacrifice undertaken by the Father, Son, and Spirit was enormous. Yet we have such a dim, flickering, view of what it cost each one of them, but our salvation cost them an everlasting cost, and it was the Son that carried the greatest burden.

[teresaq]

Language is a funny thing. It can often sound like we think the Father owned the Son even far into adulthood. Do we really think that patriarchy, earthly patriarchy which we are projecting onto the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, consisted of adults owning their now grown offspring and continuing as dictators (as such can only be)? For me that is a fallen concept, not the least resembling the character of God, but our own need to be over others. 

The scriptures also state that

1. God hardened Pharaoh's heart,

2. That God killed Saul

3. That God "will cast" Israel away

and many similar instances where scripture states something opposite to the recorded facts. Did God "give" His Son as if He owned Jesus? Or did He "give" Him in the same sense that a wife might give her husband to a war in that God agreed to this act as a wife might finally agree to her husband volunteering  to go to war?

On a similar note, in reading the pioneers of our church to see if they ever believed the scriptures encouraged any form of headship in the SDA church other than Christ, I was surprised to see it was believed, including Ellen White, that Adam as head referred to Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis 5 which meant that husband and wife were co-heads of the family. That went against the norm of their day. Have we degenerated over the years into a system our pioneers left?

 

 

[Stewart (SDA)]

Language is a funny thing. It can often sound like we think the Father owned the Son even far into adulthood. Do we really think that patriarchy, earthly patriarchy which we are projecting onto the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, consisted of adults owning their now grown offspring and continuing as dictators (as such can only be)? For me that is a fallen concept, not the least resembling the character of God, but our own need to be over others. 

The scriptures also state that

1. God hardened Pharaoh's heart,

2. That God killed Saul

3. That God "will cast" Israel away

and many similar instances where scripture states something opposite to the recorded facts. Did God "give" His Son as if He owned Jesus? Or did He "give" Him in the same sense that a wife might give her husband to a war in that God agreed to this act as a wife might finally agree to her husband volunteering  to go to war?

On a similar note, in reading the pioneers of our church to see if they ever believed the scriptures encouraged any form of headship in the SDA church other than Christ, I was surprised to see it was believed, including Ellen White, that Adam as head referred to Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis 5 which meant that husband and wife were co-heads of the family. That went against the norm of their day. Have we degenerated over the years into a system our pioneers left?

 

 

Thank you for posting this, Teresa! I think it is very well stated.

The idea of projecting our human ideas onto the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit represents a constant danger for us. Like you, I do not believe that the Father has ever had any superiority over the Son. Friends of mine think I am quite mistaken by holding this view. But I have responded with the idea that when creation was being anticipated, the Godhead chose "ROLES" for themselves. When the angels were created, Michael [possessing a lesser physical glory that the Father,] went out among them. God literally dwelt among them. He was approachable to them. And later, of course, it was a similar thing with Jesus. God literally dwelt among the human family... and His physical glory was then completely cast off. So Father and Son, to me, represent "roles" enabling the created intelligences to comprehend things that would otherwise have been beyond their reach. No superiority, no inferiority... Nevertheless the Son completely depended upon His Father as His Savior from the power of temptation, didn't He? And yet, this was only to show us what a life of faith was truly like. Ultimately there is no inequality in their relationship... never has been, never will be.

_________

Teresa, with regards to your comments re Adam and Eve, have you seen this? To me it is quite a wonderful thing !

"When God created Eve, He designed that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to the man, but that in all things she should be his EQUAL. The holy pair were to have no interest independent of each other; and yet each had an individuality in thinking and acting. But after Eve’s sin, as she was first in the transgression, the Lord told her that Adam should rule over her. She was to be in subjection to her husband, and THIS WAS A PART OF THE CURSE". (3T 484)

[Kevin H]

Excellent!!! However we need to remember that Mrs. White's description was to have us understand the cost and the struggle.  There are other aspects that we need to remember as well. One aspect is that the Bible is written in different poetic forms, frequently a chiasm. the original readers of the Bible; reading about the 3 times Jesus prayed "If possible let this cup pass from me" would have seen implied in the text that there must have been a time that there was a chiastic reflection of 3 times Jesus asking to come. We don't think that way today and have lost the context so the Holy Spirit let us know through having Mrs. White write this to fill in a gap in our knowledge.

Another thing to remember is that the trinity are the way the one infinite God communicates with the finite world.  While on the one hand they are each distinct individuals; on the other hand they are not as distinct as we are from each other. It would almost be more like 3 fingers on a hand rather than full individuality. The council is a  way to illustrate what was going on in the infinite God on a level that we are not able to understand.

And a third thing to remember is that in the roles of the trinity, God the Son is the personal aspect the spokesman of the trinity, and that both the 3 times asking to come described here and the 3 times asking for the cup to pass from him: Jesus was on the one hand asking over and over again, but also he was asking for each member of the trinity, and that he was dealing with the 3 deceptions of Satan and thus was dealing with each deception. Each one alone needed redemption and each alone was too great for the trinity to bear but they bore all 3 and the whole sin problem.

[Stewart (SDA)]

...the Bible is written in different poetic forms, frequently a chiasm. the original readers of the Bible; reading about the 3 times Jesus prayed "If possible let this cup pass from me" would have seen implied in the text that there must have been a time that there was a chiastic reflection of 3 times Jesus asking to come...".

Thank you Kevin, I especially like the thought about the chiasm.

[Stewart (SDA)]

1 Cor 11:3 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.

"...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Jackson, I would suggest that the man's 'headship' came about as a result of the curse that came upon the earth as a result of sin. And the Father's 'headship' over Christ came about as a result of the plan of salvation. I don't think that the Father's 'headship' implies superior 'rank', or greater honor.

 

Edited September 28, 2015 by Stewart (SDA)

[8thdaypriest]

I believe that God the Father BEGET a Son in His express image.  Through that SON, he created all things.  The Father EXISTED FIRST, then beget a Son in His express image.  Mrs. Whtie believed this for 50 (yes 50) years.  James White believed this.  So did the early Advent pioneers.  James White called the idea that there are three divine beings, (or one who simply manifests as three) - "a Romish doctrine".  He will be astounded, when he learns that his beloved church accepted this doctrine. 

God literally GAVE His only begotten Son.  If God is three co-equal, co-eternal divine beings, who simply CHOSE "roles", then GOD did NOT give "His only begotten Son." 

The idea that God's son, had to PLEAD with His Father, to get His Father, to consent to the "plan of salvation" - just doesn't FIT the Scriptures. 

"God (the Father) was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself."  It was "the Father's plan".  Christ came to "do the will of my Father." 

"I came forth from the Father AND have come into the world." (John).

Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com

[teresaq]

I don't know that I've seen that particular quote, but I do know as I read another quote used against women, I had that paradigm shift where I saw what it said instead of how it had been interpreted. What people said it meant. That paragraph was not as clear as what you shared, yet it still said the same thing.

 

And yes, I do so agree that Jesus came as our example. Not to prove that there is some kind of slavery, of one being owning another being in heaven, which cannot be escaped in hierarchical thinking, but that the scriptures have tried to get through to us how powerless we are and need to be utterly dependent on God which is what Jesus did. Jesus was our example in all things and so did not use His equality with God including His power as we have not that same power.

In the hierarchical thinking there is no way to escape that a husband owns the wife when all is said and done, and that parents own their children, not just as minors, but throughout their life. I know people who thought that.

We have to surrender our thinking to the Lord, turn to Him and let Him reeducate us as we study the bible. So much to unlearn and so much to learn.

 

Thanks for your share. It brightened my heart at the end of a very disappointing time that has left me feeling as if crushed.

[teresaq]

The Father EXISTED FIRST, then beget a Son in His express image.  Mrs. Whtie believed this for 50 (yes 50) years.

James White called the idea that there are three divine beings, (or one who simply manifests as three) - "a Romish doctrine". 

It is quite clear to me that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their existence are beyond my comprehension. I am quite content to wait for heaven  for more understanding as it is not worth digging myself into a ditch that leads far from both God and the bible.

Mrs White states:

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.—Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (1905).

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.—The Signs of the Times, August 29, 1900. {Ev 615.2}

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

I don't remember James White making any statement regarding "Romish" and "trinity". Looking just now I still don't see it. Perhaps you could supply the reference please.

 

If you haven't seen this you may enjoy it by James White:

IMMATERIALITY

THIS is but another name for nonentity. It is the negative of all things and beings - of all existence. There is not one particle of proof to be advanced to establish its existence. It has no way to manifest itself to any intelligence in heaven or on earth. Neither God, angels, nor men could possibly conceive of such a substance, being, or thing. It possesses no property or power by which to make itself manifest to any intelligent being in the universe. Reason and analogy never scan it, or even conceive of it. Revelation never reveals it, nor do any of our senses witness its existence. It cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled, even by the strongest organs, or the most acute sensibilities. It is neither liquid nor solid, soft nor hard - it can neither extend nor contract. In short, it can exert no influence whatever - it can neither act nor be acted upon. And even if it does exist, it can be of no possible use. It possesses no one, desirable property, faculty, or use, yet, strange to say, immateriality is the modern Christian’s God, his anticipated heaven, his immortal self - his all! {PERGO 6.2}

O sectarianism! O atheism!! O annihilation!!! who can perceive the nice shades of difference between the one and the other? They seem alike, all but in name. The atheist has no God. The sectarian has a God without body or parts. Who can define the difference? For our part we do not perceive a difference of a single hair; they both claim to be the negative of all things which exist - and both are equally powerless and unknown. {PERGO 6.3}

The atheist has no after life, or conscious existence beyond the grave. The sectarian has one, but it is immaterial, like his God; and without body or parts. Here again both are negative, and both arrive at the same point. Their faith and hope amount to the same; only it is expressed by different terms. {PERGO 7.1}

Again, the atheist has no heaven in eternity. The sectarian has one, but it is immaterial in all its properties, and is therefore the negative of all riches and substances. Here again they are equal, and arrive at the same point. {PERGO 7.2}

As we do not envy them the possession of all they claim, we will now leave them in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the same, and proceed to examine the portion still left for the despised materialist to enjoy. {PERGO 7.3}

What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image. {PERGO 7.4}

What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like his Father, being “the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” He is a material intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones. {PERGO 7.5}

What are men? They are the offspring of Adam. They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such a degree as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of Jesus Christ, and to possess immortal flesh and bones. Thus perfected, they will possess the material universe, that is, the earth, as their “everlasting inheritance.” With these hopes and prospects before us, we say to the Christian world who hold to immateriality, that they are welcome to their God - their life - their heaven, and their all. They claim nothing but that which we throw away; and we claim nothing but that which they throw away. Therefore, there is no ground for quarrel or contention between us. {PERGO 7.6}

We choose all substance - what remains
The mystical sectarian gains;
All that each claims, each shall possess,
Nor grudge each other’s happiness.
An immaterial God they choose,
For such a God we have no use;
An immaterial heaven and hell,
In such a heaven we cannot dwell.
We claim the earth, the air, and sky,
And all the starry worlds on high;
Gold, silver, ore, and precious stones,
And bodies made of flesh and bones.
Such is our hope, our heaven, our all,
When once redeemed from Adam’s fall;
All things are ours, and we shall be,
The Lord’s to all eternity. {PERGO 8.1}

I have also come to admire much of A.T. Jones writings. He seems to understand Ellen White's caution not to try to define God, that silence is eloquence if I remember her words correctly. 

TRYING TO PUT GOD INTO A FORMULA

IT could not possibly be otherwise, because it was an attempt of the finite to measure, to analyse, and even to dissect, the Infinite. It was an attempt to make the human superior to the Divine. God is infinite. No finite mind can comprehend Him as He actually is. Christ is the Word—the expression of the thought—of God; and none but He knows the depth of the meaning of that Word. “He had a name written, that no man knew but He himself; ... and His name is called the Word of God.” Revelation 19:12, 13. {BEST September 13, 1897, p. 292.5}

Neither the nature, nor the relationship, of the Father and Son can ever be measured by the mind of man. “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27. This revelation of the Father by the Son can not be complete in this world. It will require the eternal ages for man to understand “the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” Ephesians 2:7. {BEST September 13, 1897, p. 292.6}

Therefore, no man’s conception of God can ever be fixed as the true conception of God. God will still be infinitely beyond the broadest comprehension that the mind of man can measure. The true conception of God can be attained only through “the Spirit of revelation in the knowledge of Him.” Ephesians 1:17. Therefore the only thing for men to do to find out the Almighty to perfection, is, by true faith in Jesus Christ, to receive the abiding presence of this Spirit of revelation, and then quietly and joyfully wait for the eternal ages to reveal “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God.” {BEST September 13, 1897, p. 292.7}

An ecclesiastical historian who lived near the time, and was well acquainted with the whole matter, Socrates, has well remarked that the discussion— {BEST September 13, 1897, p. 292.8}

“seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another.... In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes, as if contending against adversaries; and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace.” {BEST September 13, 1897, p. 292.9}

That which puzzled Socrates need not puzzle us. Although he could not divine why they should not agree when they believed the same thing, we may very readily do so, with no fear of mistake. The difficulty was that each disputant required that all the others should not only believe what he believed, but they should believe this precisely as he believed it, whereas just how he believed it, he himself could not define. And that which made them so determined in this respect was that the strife was not merely for a doctrinal statement, but for supremacy and for political power. {BEST September 13, 1897, p. 292.10}

[Kevin H]

I believe that God the Father BEGET a Son in His express image.  Through that SON, he created all things.  The Father EXISTED FIRST, then beget a Son in His express image.  Mrs. Whtie believed this for 50 (yes 50) years.  James White believed this.  So did the early Advent pioneers.  James White called the idea that there are three divine beings, (or one who simply manifests as three) - "a Romish doctrine".  He will be astounded, when he learns that his beloved church accepted this doctrine.

God literally GAVE His only begotten Son.  If God is three co-equal, co-eternal divine beings, who simply CHOSE "roles", then GOD did NOT give "His only begotten Son."

The idea that God's son, had to PLEAD with His Father, to get His Father, to consent to the "plan of salvation" - just doesn't FIT the Scriptures.

"God (the Father) was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself."  It was "the Father's plan".  Christ came to "do the will of my Father."

"I came forth from the Father AND have come into the world." (John).

Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com

Then you and those close to you will have to suffer the consequences this thinking leads to. Mrs. White told Eder Andresen that she had become a Trinitarian when he came to visit her expressly to find out if she became one and she convinced him to become one. Many of his friends were not happy that she changed him into believing trinitarianism. Also, James White wrote a letter towards the end of his life saying that he was finding the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against it. So please be more honest in how you portray James and Ellen. Also a study of people who had known James found that all but one of them did not ever remember him talking about the trinity. That they assumed that he was anti-Trinitarian, but that he was very quiet if that topic came up. There was one man who as a little boy once had the White's over when he was something like 8 years old and he said that at that lunch James was talking against the trinity. But none who were closer to him every remembers him discussing the topic, and as I said he did write a letter saying that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against it.

Also, the trinity has turned central to the structure of Mrs. White's theology. If you remove the trinity then you only have a bunch of words that you can mold however you want and form all kinds of weird ideas and use her words to push these strange ideas.

[GayatfootofCross]

 

In order for GOD to be LOVE

It has to be outwardly directing

It is not GOD is in Love with His own self

GOD is Love with the Other Two  and Each of the Two loving each other ..All into Each of the Three.

It is passing around from Three to Three Forever in Eternity past.

The Family of  Triune GOD HEAD has always been looking into each others eyes and Rejoicing before Each Other

It has and always will be all Three

 

Before time began a Separation of sorts had to happen to extend that love even more outward.

Before one creature was even made it was decided that That the Three would manifest itself differently as...

1.GOD on a Throne above (Father) Creation.

2.God along the side of Creation ( with others) (Michael/JESUS).

3.God inside the Creation (Holy Spirit).

 

It would even be more Pronounced when sin came.

 

I think that's where the confusion is.

How can any of us explain GOD the Infinite with finite brains.

Love is not a quality in GOD.

Love is GOD.. always going out to Others.

Unconditionally Self Sacrificing  .......       not Conditional and Self Preserving.

 

Love is beautifully explained in 1 Cor 13 and shown on THE CROSS

If you use that as a jumping off point to explain GOD

we are closer to the TRUTH of Who and What He is!

God bless you all!

I believe that God the Father BEGET a Son in His express image.  Through that SON, he created all things.  The Father EXISTED FIRST, then beget a Son in His express image.

 

.Ty Gibson touches on this Ancient Relational GOD

 

i put the link up and this video happened and i can't get rid of it

Maybe Tom Wetmore will just make it a link.. I can't

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding why it was a struggle for God to send His Son, we are told (in 3 places that I am aware of) in the Spirit of Prophecy that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.  Once we understand what was at stake, I think it's easy to understand the reticence on the Father's part.

Regarding the concept of risk in Scripture, there is a book "The God Who Risks" which discusses this, by John Sanders.

[8thdaypriest]

Then you and those close to you will have to suffer the consequences this thinking leads to. Mrs. White told Eder Andresen that she had become a Trinitarian when he came to visit her expressly to find out if she became one and she convinced him to become one. Many of his friends were not happy that she changed him into believing trinitarianism. Also, James White wrote a letter towards the end of his life saying that he was finding the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against it. So please be more honest in how you portray James and Ellen. Also a study of people who had known James found that all but one of them did not ever remember him talking about the trinity. That they assumed that he was anti-Trinitarian, but that he was very quiet if that topic came up. There was one man who as a little boy once had the White's over when he was something like 8 years old and he said that at that lunch James was talking against the trinity. But none who were closer to him every remembers him discussing the topic, and as I said he did write a letter saying that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against it.

Also, the trinity has turned central to the structure of Mrs. White's theology. If you remove the trinity then you only have a bunch of words that you can mold however you want and form all kinds of weird ideas and use her words to push these strange ideas.

I believe that even leaders like EGW can make mistakes.  I leave the final judgment of "consequences" to God. 

I studied this issue long and hard for four years, with a great deal of prayer, before I came to my present belief that there are ONLY TWO divine beings. 

[phkrause]

I studied this issue long and hard for four years, with a great deal of prayer, before I came to my present belief that there are ONLY TWO divine beings. 

Not taking anything away from your right to believe one way or the other, but there have also been many theologians that have studied this too, and for more years than 4, with also a great deal of prayer and come away with a different answer than you have.

[teresaq]

This was responding to your thoughts, Stewart but I forgot to mention that.  

I don't know that I've seen that particular quote, but I do know as I read another quote used against women, I had that paradigm shift where I saw what it said instead of how it had been interpreted. What people said it meant. That paragraph was not as clear as what you shared, yet it still said the same thing.

 

And yes, I do so agree that Jesus came as our example. Not to prove that there is some kind of slavery, of one being owning another being in heaven, which cannot be escaped in hierarchical thinking, but that the scriptures have tried to get through to us how powerless we are and need to be utterly dependent on God which is what Jesus did. Jesus was our example in all things and so did not use His equality with God including His power as we have not that same power.

In the hierarchical thinking there is no way to escape that a husband owns the wife when all is said and done, and that parents own their children, not just as minors, but throughout their life. I know people who thought that.

We have to surrender our thinking to the Lord, turn to Him and let Him reeducate us as we study the bible. So much to unlearn and so much to learn.

 

Thanks for your share. It brightened my heart at the end of a very disappointing time that has left me feeling as if crushed.

[teresaq]

We seem to so often forget that we need to keep looking to get the whole picture, and even then there may still be even more we are not aware of. Thanks for sharing as I had forgotten about this. And I am sure there is still more.  

Regarding why it was a struggle for God to send His Son, we are told (in 3 places that I am aware of) in the Spirit of Prophecy that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.  Once we understand what was at stake, I think it's easy to understand the reticence on the Father's part.

Regarding the concept of risk in Scripture, there is a book "The God Who Risks" which discusses this, by John Sanders.

[Kevin H]

I believe that even leaders like EGW can make mistakes.  I leave the final judgment of "consequences" to God. 

I studied this issue long and hard for four years, with a great deal of prayer, before I came to my present belief that there are ONLY TWO divine beings. 

Fair enough 8thdaypriest. I respect your honest approach to the issue. My concern is that there are people out there who 1. want to insist that James and Ellen were militant anti-Trinitarians their whole lives and therefore 2. want to force the anti-Trinitarian view on to others. and 3. rejects the evidence of the James White's silence on the topic and that letter towards the end of his life, and the way Mrs. White offered the solution to preaching "The Law, the law, the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboah" by turning to a more fuller godhead picture of the trinity and the visit with Elder Andresen.

 Being honest and willing to discuss. to present your understanding in a clear fair way and to allow those who we share with to evaluate the evidence and make their choices based on the evidence is God's method.

But too many want to force their views upon others using external control psychology. Good theology helps, bad theology can cause problems, but love covers a multitude of sins. Being honest and fair and willing to study and grow is what God is looking for.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Kevin H

[8thdaypriest]

Fair enough 8thdaypriest. I respect your honest approach to the issue. My concern is that there are people out there who 1. want to insist that James and Ellen were militant anti-Trinitarians their whole lives and therefore 2. want to force the anti-Trinitarian view on to others. and 3. rejects the evidence of the James White's silence on the topic and that letter towards the end of his life, and the way Mrs. White offered the solution to preaching "The Law, the law, the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboah" by turning to a more fuller godhead picture of the trinity and the visit with Elder Andresen.

 Being honest and willing to discuss. to present your understanding in a clear fair way and to allow those who we share with to evaluate the evidence and make their choices based on the evidence is God's method.

But too many want to force their views upon others using external control psychology. Good theology helps, bad theology can cause problems, but love covers a multitude of sins. Being honest and fair and willing to study and grow is what God is looking for.

Kevin, I'm not sure what your talking about.  I don't feel I'm forcing anything on anyone.  I'm just saying WHAT I believe.  I didn't know that you wanted my to discuss WHY I believe WHAT I believe, here on this thread. 

As for WHAT Ellen White believed and WHEN she believed it, I searched the EGW database and found that her statements really did change about 1896.  For 10 years, there were many "three statements".  Eg: "third person of the Godhead" or "three living beings of the heavenly trio".  I have not searched so extensively into the history of WHAT James White believed and WHEN he believed it. 

Let me see if I can clarify further, WHAT I believe.  I do NOT deny that the Spirit of God exists.  Of course He does.  I just believe that the Comforter Spirit is Jesus, in His glorified, omnipotent, omnipresent nature. 

    1 Corinthians 15:45 “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.  The last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving spirit.’”

    This passage is not puzzling, when we know that the Spirit of the Father, given to us through Christ, comes to us as the Spirit of Christ.  

Ephesians 4:10 “He that descended [into the grave] is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.”

Christ could only "fill all things" if He became the Spirit, when He was glorified. 

John did say, "He will baptize you with fire."  Christ would baptize them with fire.  It is Christ who baptizes with His own spirit. 

There is only ONE go-between (mediator), and that is Christ.  To say that the Father communicates with us THROUGH Christ, who then communicates with us THROUGH another divine being called The Holy Spirit, puts another mediator in the mix. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

I find it most interesting, in Mrs White's account, and in this thread, that only the hesitation of the Father is noted.  What about the hesitation of the Holy Spirit - if indeed He is a third divine being.  His feelings about the planned sacrifice are noticeably missing. 

[8thdaypriest]

And many, many, many theologians have studied for years, and years, and years - and believe that Sunday is the correct day of worship, that the Ten Commands are obsolete, that the soul goes to Heaven or Hell at death, etc. etc. etc.  That doesn't mean I should agree with them. 

I was just trying to say that I have seriously tried to determine for myself, what is true concerning the nature of God, - as Father and Son, or as a Trinity of three co-equal, co-eternal divine Beings.  I believe the weight of Scripture evidence is on the side of two divine beings - God our Father, and the LORD Jesus Christ.

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

There is NO COMMAND in Scripture to specifically worship, or glorify, or pray to, the holy spirit.  We worship the Son, BECAUSE the Father has commanded us to worship Him. 

Revelation 5:13  "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne [God the Father], and unto the Lamb [Jesus Christ] for ever and ever." (KJV)

Only TWO beings are praised and glorified here. 

In church, when we used to sing, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost . . .", we were NOT in agreement with Scripture. 

Ten times, Paul opened his letters with "Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the LORD Jesus Christ."  I don't think he forgot a greeting from the Holy Spirit. 

Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com

[Kevin H]

[Kevin H]

Oops, I don't see my post with the quote from 8thdaypriest. He asked me about my post and if I was "Kevin, I'm not sure what your talking about.  I don't feel I'm forcing anything on anyone.  I'm just saying WHAT I believe.  I didn't know that you wanted my to discuss WHY I believe WHAT I believe, here on this thread.  " and I wanted to clearly that I think you misread my post because I was thanking you for NOT being like that. I found your post refreshingly open and honest. Even though we may have to end up agreeing to disagree I am impressed by the spirit of your post. I was saying that too many OTHERS when dealing with this topic do not want to be fair to the facts and demand that we accept their view. So your honesty and openness is something that you can be quite proud of and that I respect.

[8thdaypriest]

Oops, I don't see my post with the quote from 8thdaypriest. He asked me about my post and if I was "Kevin, I'm not sure what your talking about.  I don't feel I'm forcing anything on anyone.  I'm just saying WHAT I believe.  I didn't know that you wanted my to discuss WHY I believe WHAT I believe, here on this thread.  " and I wanted to clearly that I think you misread my post because I was thanking you for NOT being like that. I found your post refreshingly open and honest. Even though we may have to end up agreeing to disagree I am impressed by the spirit of your post. I was saying that too many OTHERS when dealing with this topic do not want to be fair to the facts and demand that we accept their view. So your honesty and openness is something that you can be quite proud of and that I respect.

Thanks Kevin. 

I was taught that God is three co-equal, co-eternal, divine beings.  Only when a friend challenged me, after she began to see inconsistencies, did I begin to really study into this question.  I wanted to prove my friend wrong.  Funny thing about trying to prove someone wrong.  You may end up finding more evidence to support their view. 

I think Matthew 28:19 is the verse most often sited to prove God is a Trinity of three divine beings.    The following is what I found concerning this verse:

BAPTIZING THEM  - IN THE NAME

    Matthew 28:19  “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

        The Emperor Constantine commissioned and paid for a copying and compilation of the Scriptures now known as the “New Testament”.  The resulting Greek text is known as the “Byzantine”.  New Scholarly work by those familiar with the ancient manuscripts has revealed no Greek manuscript older than the time of Constantine, which contains Matthew 28:19.  The last portion of every pre-Constantine Greek manuscript - the part containing Matthew 28:19 was torn off.   Kinda hints that official powers-that-were didn't WANT converts to the new Christian faith, to see that passage. 

ONE pre-Constantine manuscipt - this one in Aramaic - remains intact.  In this manuscript, the verse reads "baptizing them in my name".  Other passages confirm that the disciples did just that.  They baptized "in the name of" Christ Jesus. 

    Acts 2:38  “Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

    Acts 8:16  “For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 19:5  “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

    Romans 6:3 “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?”

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

1 Corinthians 6:11  “But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

        Eusebius of Caesarea wrote during the 4th century.  He was a “friend” of Constantine.  In his work “Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Cpt 5, Section 2", he quotes Matthew 28:19 as “make disciples of all the nations in my name”.  He quotes the passage in the same way in “Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Cpt 16, Sect. 8" .  He quotes the passage in the same way some 18 times.  He finally (in old age) quotes the passage once, as “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.  He may have been influenced (or threatened) by his Emperor.  

Blessings, Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com

 

 

[Stewart (SDA)]

...  Eusebius of Caesarea wrote during the 4th century.  He was a “friend” of Constantine.  In his work “Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Cpt 5, Section 2", he quotes Matthew 28:19 as “make disciples of all the nations in my name”.  He quotes the passage in the same way in “Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Cpt 16, Sect. 8" .  He quotes the passage in the same way some 18 times.  He finally (in old age) quotes the passage once, as “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.  He may have been influenced (or threatened) by his Emperor.  

 

Rachel,

I find it curious that when Eusebius cites Matthew 28:19, he appears to omit any reference to baptism, as well as making no mention of "Father... Son... Holy Ghost". This seems quite strange to me.

 

And it appears that the Matthew 28:19 text used by Eusebius was not based on the "Byzantine" manuscripts. His source seems to be lost.

I would be glad to see a little more clarity on this point. Where did Eusebius actually get his version of Matt 28:19 from?

[Stewart (SDA)]

Rachel,

I find it curious that when Eusebius cites Matthew 28:19, he appears to omit any reference to baptism, as well as making no mention of "Father... Son... Holy Ghost". This seems quite strange to me.

 

And it appears that the Matthew 28:19 text used by Eusebius was not based on the "Byzantine" manuscripts. His source seems to be lost.

I would be glad to see a little more clarity on this point. Where did Eusebius actually get his version of Matt 28:19 from?

Rachel, one more thought on this point about Eusebius.

If Eusebius' rendering of Matt 28:19 cannot be traced to any Biblical manuscript, then an alternative explanation comes to mind. It runs like this.

 

Eusebius was a representative of a church that did not know Jesus, but they were invoking His name. In the time of Eusebius (300'sA.D), untaught, untrained, people were coming into the ministry, and many of these "trusted in the magical virtue of ordination" to make up for their lack of knowledge. (Schaff vol.3, chp.5, sec 48.) Many also believed that by invoking the name of Jesus they would be able to perform miracles. (ibid. vol.2, chp.3 sec 40.)  It does not seem out of the question to me, that Eusebius and his church should produce "evidence" to support their beliefs and practices. By making Matt 28:19 into a text that focused primarily on the name of Jesus, they were able to cultivate a superstitious veneration for Jesus' name. The cloak of superstition shrouded the so-called Christian faith, and Jesus' name became part of  their magical "formulas". So to put Jesus' name alone into 'the great commission' would seem quite logical.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Stewart (SDA)