Early SDAs and theTrinity

[Gregory Matthews]

Much discussion has taken place related to the doctrine of the Trinity, SDA belief in the early days and SDA belief today.

In this post I will mention some major study on this issue and hoe one can read it.  In my 2nd  post, I will mentions some early SDA leaders by name and the beliefs that they held.

Erwin Gane has done well documented work in a MA thesis written some years ago.  In may be accessed at:

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/index.htm

The following link is to multiple sources of value for study.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/index.htm

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The following are names of some early SDA leaders and their possible views on the Trinity:

J B Frisbie  (1816-1882)  Possible  (?) Docetism.  He taught that God had body parts.  As to him, Gustave is correct in what he has said.  Frisbie  understood the doctrine of the Trinity to teach that God was a spirit only and he rejected that.

Joseph Bates (1791-1872)  His understanding of the Trinity was faulty (Modalistic Monarchianism).  He rejected a version of the Trinity that is not an accepted verson.   He condemned what had already been condemned.

John Loughborough (1832-1924) He rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, as he thought it taught theat there were three Gods (Tritheism).

J. M. Stephenson:  He taught that Christ was a created being, based upon what he said was the Biblical evidence. 

John H. Kellogg:  HIs actual views are in debate.  Some have said that he was "Pantheistic."   Others have argued against this.  In any case, this short space is not enough to properly present his view.

What I find of interest is that some of the Anti-Trinitarian views expressed by our early leaders was due to a   misunderstanding of the actual doctrine of the Trinity.  I suspect that might be true today, to include, in part, some who post here.

NOTE:  My source for  the above is below,  but the wording is mine.

 

Biblical & Theological Studies on the Trinity, pages 165 - 217, with major emphasis to pages 176 - 179.

 

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

What I find of interest is that some of the Anti-Trinitarian views expressed by our early leaders was due to a   misunderstanding of the actual doctrine of the Trinity.  I suspect that might be true today, to include, in part, some who post here.

Gregory,

Can you explain "the actual doctrine of the Trinity"? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel:  I may attempt later to explain the actual doctrine of the Trinity.  It is a valid question that I will pass on for the moment.

My comment was to the effect that at least some of the early leaders in the developing SDA Church misunderstood what that doctrine actually taught and  therefor rightly rejected a doctrinal position that was not taught in the doctrine.  One of the examples that I gave was that of a man who understood the Trinity doctrine a teaching Tritheism.  Well he was correct in rejecting Tritheism.  He simply did not understand that the trinity doctrine did not teach such.

While I may respond later to what the Trinity doctrine actually teaches, for now, I suggest that we look at what it does not teach.  The following  website will provide much information as to what it does not teach

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_movements_declared_heretical_by_the_Catholic_Church

NOTE:  I have listed the above due to the fact that it has a lot to say about the Trinity and the Godhead, as that is what we are discussing.

That website also has more on other subjects, which I am not considering here.
 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachell:   I will attempt to respond to your question as to what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is.

In preparing to respond to your question, I spent some time in looking at what others, from differing religious backgrounds have said on the subject.  I first went to some authoritative Roman Catholic sources.  I found, probably three short statements that I could have put together into one brief statement.  But, we have Gustave who posts here.  He has made statements on this issue that were not part of the statements that I found.  In short, it became apparent to me that there is a sense in which the doctrine of the Trinity is defined, in part, by statements as to what it is not.  It is for this reason that I will suggest that it may be of value to check out the website that I have listed in the post above.

I decided to check some SDA books on this subject.  I will mention two (2) that are actually written for people with some academic background.  They did not have a brief answer.  In actual fact, they spent some time in stating what the doctrine of the Trinity is not.  In addition they discussed the historical and theological background of this doctrine.  NOTE:  In the reference below, I have listed the pages devoted to this subject in the following books:

Dederen, Raoul, Editor Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology.  Review & Herald, 2000.  Fernando E. Canale, "Doctrine of God,"  pages 105-159.

Gulley, Norman R., Systematic Theology: God as Trinity, Andrews University Press, 2011, 676 pages.

I do not claim to be a Theologian.  If I were to briefly sum up the doctrine of the Trinity I would say:

 "God, who is one, consists of three co-eternal, personal beings, consisting of the same substance, essence, or nature and will, that is beyond our limited ability to understand, and of which inspired scripture does not give us a clear and detailed understanding."

NOTE:  I use the term "personal being" to distinguish from the word "person" as commonly used today.

The above in my attempt at stating the doctrine of the Trinity.   I welcome comments to include Gustave.  I say again that Trinity  is defined in part by statements as to what it is not, which I have not stated above.

 

 

[Gustave]

I would agree with Gregory that the most we can know about the Trinity is what it is NOT. 

I'll cite from one of the books I often refer to:

The Christian Faith In the Doctrinal Documents Of The Catholic Church (ISBN: 0-8189-0758-4)

Below is a Quote from page 136

"From early times Trinitarian theology developed two different approaches. In the patristic theology of the East the idea prevailed that the one God is God the Father, and that the Son and the Spirit share with him his divine life. This conception had the merit of being based on Scripture, but it could lend itself to misinterpretations. It could lead to subordinationist ideas which in fact did spring up in the East and came to a climax with the heresy of Arius. The other Conception prominent in the West conceived God as the one divine substance, comprising Father, Son and Spirit were easily safeguarded; but the basic truth of the oneness of the divine nature could be misunderstood in such a way as to lead to the denial of the real distinction between the three persons. Modalism in it's various forms did, in fact, deny this distinction. 

The documents of the Church reject the various misguided conceptions of the Trinity in order to preserve the revealed Mystery in its integrity. This indeed is the real significance of the Trinitarian Creeds and of the doctrinal precisions added to them by the Councils. They insist on the one hand on the oneness of God and on the divinity and full equality of the divine persons, and on the other hand, on their origins and their mutual distinction from one another. In a later period, when the origin of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son became a major issue between the Eastern and Western Churches, this controversy took an important place in the documents of the Church. 

The theological concepts and the terminology used in these documents became more and more technical and at times somewhat involved. This could hardly be avoided in view of the depth of the mystery which they had to convey it should, however be borne in mind that the subtlety in reasoning WAS NEVER MEANT TO RATIONALISE THE DIVINE MYSTERY BUT TO PRESERVE ITS INTEGRITY AGAINST ALL RATIONALISTIC SIMPLIFICATIONS. ALL TRINITARIAN HERESIES ARE SUCH SIMPLIFICATIONS WHICH, IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PREVAIL, WOULD ULTIMATELY NULLIFY THE MYSTERY." 

ONE GOD, THREE PERSONS

In God there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: 1-19, 39/2, 301, 303, 306/ 21;24, 308 & 325

The three are one undivided Godhead

Each Person is fully God / The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit

The Divine Persons are distinct through mutual relationship. 

END QUOTE

Under the ONE GOD, THREE PERSONS which aspect of the Trinity interests folks? Is it the "In God are three persons" or "Each Person is fully God"? I'll be happy to quote some sections here or can add lib the best I can. I obviously subscribe to more of the western understanding of ONE SUBSTANCE co-equally owned by Three Individual Persons. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  Your comment on my statement could be seen as stating that you have limited agreement with my statement.   I would be interested in knowing if my statement is understood by you to be in conflict with your statement.  I see it as being in agreement with your statement.  But, in an effort to understand Roman Catholic understanding, I would like for you co clarify  as to whether or not you see disagreement.

My participation in this discussion includes an effort on my part to understand the Roman Catholic position.

 

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I would like for you co clarify  as to whether or not you see disagreement.

I personally don't see who we can heartily agree or disagree with each other on this statement.  God and the nature of God are beyond our understanding.  We can state what our denominations believe and what we personally believe; but none of us really "know" for a fact to the point of being positive.  Just my opinion.

[8thdaypriest]

I kept reading posts giving the idea that the SDA teaching of God as "three persons of the heavenly trio" is different from the Catholic teaching of "God in Trinity".  Now I hear that the "Eastern" churches adopted yet another view, making the God the Father "head" and the Son and Spirit "share" in the Father's divine substance. 
 

I'm just trying to clarify for myself, the difference between the teachings/beliefs.

[GHansen]

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/trinscript.pdf

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/valentine.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/index.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/TrinityWhidden.htm

 

[Kevin H]

9 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I kept reading posts giving the idea that the SDA teaching of God as "three persons of the heavenly trio" is different from the Catholic teaching of "God in Trinity".  Now I hear that the "Eastern" churches adopted yet another view, making the God the Father "head" and the Son and Spirit "share" in the Father's divine substance. 
 

I'm just trying to clarify for myself, the difference between the teachings/beliefs.

There are a group of different beliefs that are considered "Trinity" Some are held in common with both the western and eastern churches, some more unique to one or the other. Actually that way Ellen White's view tended to be (as well as Second Temple Judaism's) apparently are among the eastern orthodox collection and this understanding does not have one or another member of the trinity the head. 

[Gustave]

15 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:  Your comment on my statement could be seen as stating that you have limited agreement with my statement.   I would be interested in knowing if my statement is understood by you to be in conflict with your statement.  I see it as being in agreement with your statement.  But, in an effort to understand Roman Catholic understanding, I would like for you co clarify  as to whether or not you see disagreement.

My participation in this discussion includes an effort on my part to understand the Roman Catholic position.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your comment.

God is ONE Substance which is co-equally owned by The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit - the oneness is "Substance".

Catholics, in my limited understanding, are at liberty to believe in many things, provided the belief doesn't contradict Church teaching,.

A Catholic is at liberty to believe in Evolution ( as a mechanism ) that God used as part of creation. Catholics are not allowed to believe in Evolution in the sense it was random. Catholic Doctrine is God created everything from NOTHING. How God did this is beyond our grasp.

  

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I kept reading posts giving the idea that the SDA teaching of God as "three persons of the heavenly trio" is different from the Catholic teaching of "God in Trinity".  Now I hear that the "Eastern" churches adopted yet another view, making the God the Father "head" and the Son and Spirit "share" in the Father's divine substance. 
 

I'm just trying to clarify for myself, the difference between the teachings/beliefs.

Watch this Video.

[Kevin H]

Some of the main views of trinity that I am familiar with include:

Modism where one God shows up at one time as God the Father, another time as God the Son, and other times as God the Holy Spirit. I like how it has the oneness and threeness, but I find it wrong because it only has one being playing 3 different roles and it ends up dealing with God inside of time and space only. 

Another is the idea that the trinity is like one rope consisting of 3 strands, or a three leaf clover, one clover three leaves (which apparently St. Patrick did not believe and use.) This is still too small. 

I have come across that Pope John Paul the II believed something that sounds like what some of our pioneers followed: That first there was God the Father. Then the mind of God the Father conceived the idea of God the Son and what ever God the Father conceives becomes real and there was God the Son. Then the mind of God the Father conceived the idea of the Holy Spirit and what ever the mind of God the Father conceives becomes real and there was the Holy Spirit. 

Apparently, Kellogg's view was that God was everything, starting out with the problem that everything is just the complete collection of the finite world, time and space.  

The view that it has been suggested fit's Mrs. White's view (and which other scholars are pointing out as being the second temple's view) has been described in ways as a glass of water that represents time and space, and someone outside of time and space putting three fingers into the glass of water but where the fingers are a way to communicate with life within the glass of water. Or a mountain who's top is covered by a thick cloud and we are not able to penetrate above the cloud but experience the mountain by the three slopes/ridges that are below the cloud. (of course the mountain is smaller and comes to the end in the peek, while for God the part above the cloud is much bigger with no end. 

The ancient world understood the universe to be sort of egg shaped with the upper world being reflected on the earth and then the underworld.  At the very top of the dome is where all the forces of nature (the gods) join together at the far north and top of the cosmic mountain into the king god. The Hebrew variation on this was that at the far north was open where God is entering the picture and instead of being a oneness of the forces of nature is a real personality that we experience as El/Eloheim  (God as power). Yahweh/Wisdom/the Angel of the Lord who turns out to be the Lord (God as personal friend) and the Spirit of God actively working on our hearts and experiences. (which the Second Temple Jews described to Greeks and Romans as the one God who's name is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel:  You have asked for a clear statement of the doctrine of the Trinity.  I suggested one. What do you think of my proposed statement?

Part of my participation in this discussion is my desire to accurately understand the doctrinal positons of the Roman Catholic Church, regardless of whether or not I agree with them.  IOW, I do not want to falsely present those teachings to others.

In my statement, I presented the idea that God is one.  A common problem that people have is in understanding how the members of the Godhead are distinct from each other.  Below, I will quote from a  Roman Catholic Catechism, on that point, and I  will welcome any comment that Gustave may wish to make on it:

252   The Church uses (I) the term :substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”)  to designate the divine being in its unity,  (II)  the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

254  The divine persons are really distinct from one another.  “God is one but not solitary. 86  “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirt,” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another.  “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.”  87  They  are distinct from one another in their relations of origin.  “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.”  88  The divine Unity is Triune.

255   The divine person are relative to one another.  Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another.  “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both.  While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” 89  Indeed” everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.”  90  Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly I the Father and wholly in the Son.”  91

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2nd edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1994, 1997 & 2000, 904 pages. 

NOTE: The  bolded numbers in the quote above are not page numbers.  Rather they are specific citations in the cited work that will allow one to access the quote.   

 

[JoeMo]

I repeat that it is highly unlikely (if not impossible) for us limited humans to actually "know" the nature of God and the Trinity (or "twinity" as some of us non-Trinitarians believe).  While I see the logic behind all of the different definitions of Trinity above, to me they are all merely human constructs developed in an attempt to wrap our heads around exactly what the "essence" or "nature" of God is.  God is beyond our human understanding.

I do enjoy the dialogue, though.  Makes me think.

[8thdaypriest]

Thanks to everyone, for the info on different views held on the Trinity.  I'm realizing there is no one clear teaching/view/doctrine, even among SDAs.

My own understand - as you know - is that the "one" God, is the "one" Jesus called "Father" and "My God" and "the only true God".  

God the Father beget a second divine being - His Son.

He then "sent" His Son to incarnate as a human being.  Jesus clearly said His Father had "sent" Him.

He resurrected His Son after evil men killed Him. 

He sent angels to bring His Son to Heaven. 

He glorified His Son 50 days after the resurrection (at Pentecost). 

He "sent the spirit (presence) of His Son" to be "with" and "in" human beings.  This is how the Son "was made a life-giving spirit".

The Son sits next to His Father, on His Father's throne.

I do not see that the spirit presence of His Son is a third divine being. 

The Holy Spirit is never worshiped, or thanked, or prayed to, or praised, or honored.   The spirit has no "name".

It seems that the Trinity doctrine of God as "three persons" sharing "one substance" is based primarily on Matthew 28:19, a verse that is under more scrutiny and is questioned by many scholars, because there is an older manuscript without the triune formula.  In that manuscript, the disciples are commanded by Christ to baptize "in My name" - meaning in the name of Christ, which is exactly what the disciples did.  There is not one passage where any disciple performs a baptism using the triune formula.  In his writings, early church father Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 some 18 times with the singular formula, "in My name". 

I believe my view has at least as much merit as "orthodox" Trinity views, if you exclude the later manuscript readings of Matthew 28:19. 

[Gustave]

On 7/14/2019 at 10:57 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

I kept reading posts giving the idea that the SDA teaching of God as "three persons of the heavenly trio" is different from the Catholic teaching of "God in Trinity".  Now I hear that the "Eastern" churches adopted yet another view, making the God the Father "head" and the Son and Spirit "share" in the Father's divine substance. 
 

I'm just trying to clarify for myself, the difference between the teachings/beliefs.

8thdaypriest, 

I agree with the description Gregory gave as to his understanding of the Trinity and also agree with his assessment that much of what Catholic & Orthodox people say (specifically religiously educated) is devoted to what God is NOT.

I also can say i completely agree with JoeMo - that we as finite creations of an Infinite God can't fathom the Nature of the One who set everything we can observe, into motion. I can't over stress this point JoeMo accurately stated.

My own understanding of this subject is, as a Catholic,  I'm at liberty to believe ANYTHING - provided it doesn't contradict Official Church Teaching, Because Official Church Teaching has communicated that Jesus' two Natures were NOT BLENDED or Mixed any statement to the contrary of that would generate a reaction from someone who accepts the historic Christian Councils. 

Lutherans & Methodists accept the first 7 Christian Councils - not because they believe the Pope can't make a mistake, but because they recognize the theological statements coming out of those Councils as systematizing Sacred Scripture.

 

Your Question:

I'll "try" to address your question about the difference between Catholic and SDA teaching on the Trinity.  My admitted limited understanding is this. The SDA's have a "statement" about God that can be be used to justify heretical positions. Understand, I agreed with what Gregory said about 'The Substance' of God and from what I could tell he would subscribe to the fairly articulate position Shawn Boonstra of  the SDA "It Is Written" program promulgated. If you want to better understand what Gregory said I think he said I would strongly encourage you to watch the following (fairly short) video on the Trinity. 

Now, because of the way the SDA Church is set up I can't confirm that Boonstra's stated views are "Official SDA Church Teaching". He clearly states the Council of Nicaea was VALID and ORTHODOX thereby according to Boonstra, systematized Sacred Scripture. Boonstra goes through quoting many Scriptures in support of the conclusions of both the Catholic Synod of 269 and the Council of Nicaea. Boonstra is explicit that both the Synod and Nicaea 'reflected the Tradition of the Apostles & compliant with Scripture'. If Gregory agrees with Boonstra as to the Oneness of God being The Substance I can easily say I agree with Gregory in this. 

The issue as I see is that the SDA statement of Fundamental Belief would allow a Mormon to be able to say they are Trinitarian.

I'll try to illustrate what I mean by this by referring you to an article in the Review and Herald (which is the general SDA Church Paper).

On page 6 there is an article titled, "Our Source of Confidence and Hope" , which states:

"A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, AND entered into, the role of the Father, ANOTHER the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven. By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father."

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19961031-V173-44.pdf#view=fit

This article describes the "Three Persons of the Godhead, who  possessed the attributes of Deity equally"

This is describing 3 God's, who ADOPTED "alien roles" (to eradicate sin & rebellion from the universe] to restore harmony and peace. The article claims that all of this took place prior to sin. The God who adopted the role of Son "in a sense" became subservient (submitted) to the Father. This description cannot be reconciled in anyway to be complaint with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

The article goes on to attribute the oneness to the incredible degree on which the 3 god's put themselves into character and were able to hold everything together - i.e. they were one in purpose and mind:

"The Father / Son relationship involved great responsibilities and sacrifices on the part of both. The Father would be called upon to permit His Son to be humiliated...……." 

Official Church Teaching would prevent a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian from being able to accept that as anything other than a heretical teaching. A Lutheran, Baptist or Methodist (Churches that accept the 1st several Christian Councils) would be horrified by that article. Because the Official Teaching of the SDA Church allows such belief it's my understanding that the author of that article is at total liberty to assert what he did. 

You also questioned the belief of the Eastern Church whereas the text I quoted from the book "The Christian Faith" illustrates the difference between the Western & Eastern views with the Eastern view. \

"In the patristic theology of the East the idea prevailed that the one God is God the Father, and that the Son and the Spirit share with him his divine life. This conception had the merit of being based on Scripture, but it could lend itself to misinterpretations."

was the above what you had a question about? 

If it was I'll try to answer it the best I can. 

The conception that the one God is God the Father, and that the Son and the Spirit share with him his divine life DOES have merit of being based in the Scriptures with the caveat that concepting of it in that way COULD (not does) lend itself to misinterpretation. God the Father IS the source of ALL and the Son and Holy Spirit DO SHARE with the Father His Divine Life (This was the general Eastern Church View). 

OR (not verses)

The Father has always been the Father, ETERNALLY. The Son has always been the Son, ETERNALLY. The Holy Spirit has always been the Holy Spirit, ETERNALLY.

The Son is ETERNALLY begotten of the Father by an act of eternal generation and the Holy Spirit has always proceeded ETERNALLY from the Father & The Son. (Western Church view)

View / Understand the ways the Eastern and Western Church explained the same thing using different way to explain it. The Eastern way of "explaining it" seemed to be more responsible for giving birth to heresies than did the Western and as time progressed and additional views which contradicted the Tradition of the Apostles rose their heads more specific theological terms were made to set up what essentially were marker buoys to keep the faithful from led astray into odd teachings which were contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles. 

Of course an Eastern Orthodox would probably take issue with my statement that the Eastern view was responsible for more heretical views than the Roman Catholic (Western Church ways of explaining it) but until an Eastern Orthodox shows up and takes me to task this is the way I'll say it is

8thdaypriest, was this your question and did this answer your question? 

[8thdaypriest]

Yes, Gustave.  Thank you very, very much.  I will watch the video now.

[8thdaypriest]

I had already read or heard most everything Boonstra talked about.  

Thank you.  I am glad to understand the subtil differences between Catholic, Easter Orthodox, and SDA.  Many writings of Mrs White certainly support the idea that only God the Father and His Son planned the rescue of their creation.  I don't read about a third divine being in Mrs White's writings during the first 50 years of her ministry. 

It's not as if Constantine really understood exactly what the bishops were teaching.  He even brought Arius back after 3 years in exile.  Then he exiled Athenasius, after Arius died suddenly and mysteriously. 

I have said that my views are not "pure Arian".  I believe "the Son" was "begotten" of God the Father - not created by God the Father. 

I believe the Son was equal in divinity and power to His Father.  He accepted the subordinate role because He chose to, not because He had less power than His Father.  Think of a human son who respects his Father, even when He has equal size and strength.

Just for example, let's compare "the substance" to human DNA. 

A human shares only half the DNA (substance) of his "father".  A clone on the other hand shares 100% of the DNA (substance) of the "parent" cell.  A clone is an exact copy.  A cloned animal is even the same biological age as the "parent" animal. 

Sort of like perfectly identical twins. 

The "Son" of God the Father was "the express image" (the exact copy) of His Father.  An "image" is a copy.  An "image" is not the original.

Which means that the Son had 100% the divine "substance" or DNA, as His divine Father.  They were equal in divinity and power. 

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  John Cpt 1

The Son was "with" the Father, and was divine (exactly like His Father). 

Exactly how God beget another divine being from Himself, we cannot know. 

[JoeMo]

Gustave,

You are truly a gentleman and a scholar.  Being a former Catholic, I respect what you post.  I also admire the respect you show for others.  I pray we are showing you the same.

I watched the video; and agree with its message.

[8thdaypriest]

I have to be gone this afternoon.  Will continue here later. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 minute ago, JoeMo said:

Gustave,

You are truly a gentleman and a scholar.  Being a former Catholic, I respect what you post.  I also admire the respect you show for others.  I pray we are showing you the same.

I watched the video; and agree with its message.

Joe,  If you're saying that you agree - that "the Son" was equally divine with His Father,

then I agree too. 

[JoeMo]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Joe,  If you're saying that you agree - that "the Son" was equally divine with His Father,

then I agree too. 

That is precisely what I am saying.

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Gustave,

You are truly a gentleman and a scholar.  Being a former Catholic, I respect what you post.  I also admire the respect you show for others.  I pray we are showing you the same.

I watched the video; and agree with its message.

Stan and Gregory operate a well oiled machine with this Forum. Initially I didn't think I would last very long here but I'm glad I was incorrect about that. Running a Forum of this scope takes a lot of experience and frankly smarts. I commend the owner and Management on a Job extremely well done.