perhaps this is what you are referring to.

Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}

I like the rendering of the RSV: "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." But how can equality be flexible? You can't be less equal or more equal - you are just equal.


Where does P&P say that?


A literal father and son relatioship would require a mother, so it can't be literal, to begin with. If Christ had had a beginning He wouldn't be eternal. But the Bible says that Melchizedek was a type of Him because he "has neither beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb. 7:3). Christ is also called "Everlasting Father" or "Father of Eternity" (Isa. 9:6).
The covenant of mercy is eternal, but there couldn't be any covenant (agreement) if only the Father existed.

The salvation of the human race has ever been the object of the councils of heaven. The covenant of mercy was made before the foundation of the world. It has existed from all eternity, and is called the everlasting covenant. So surely as there never was a time when God was not, so surely there never was a moment when it was not the delight of the eternal mind to manifest His grace to humanity. {AG 130.2}

The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant... 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. {1SM 247.1-3}

If eternity in the past had a beginning, we can say that eternity in the future will have an end.


Since what Ellen White wrote in The Desire of Ages began to sink in.

Yup, that's a good start, Teresa!

i think it is all in how one reads it. i read it as in contrast to how satan was behaving, in the same chapter. i mean, i dont see "obedience" so much as "cooperation". Jesus wasnt going to go His own way like the invented heathen gods fighting among themselves, one in favor of one country or tribe and the other in favor of another country/tribe.

"...grasped", compared to "not robbery"...: doesn't the RSV (usually my second choice!) hint at not being equal at all, instead of an honest entitlement?? Essentially, God's Son didn't push it for himself or on anyone else, but he is divine.


Ok, it's a subtle point, and simply the beauty of the Godhead, but...


Both the last line there, and the mention of "The King of the universe" and "his Son", plus the rest of the chapter, showing Christ as working with his Father....I'm not completely precise in my wording - and "obedience" I'm willing to take back, but Sister White is clear in hers on God's relation to his own Son.

But, Rosangela, you're putting words into my mouth, here. Did I say Christ had a beginning??? I may dislike "trinitarianism" for its personal variableness & ambiguity, but even the literal Sonship of Christ, since eternity before creation, was supported by SOP - you may cease worrying about needing a divine mother....


R: If eternity in the past had a beginning, we can say that eternity in the future will have an end.

C: I didn't suggest beginnings or endings; you're suggesting my position necessitates them, and that's not the case...: Consider these, then...: sorry there're a few more EGW quotes than you posted, but in this post I'd just like to make the Ellen White position & SDAism of her day a little clearer.

Sister White applied Prov 8:22-30 literally to the person of God's Son, as God's literal Son, God being his literal Father.
If this P&P reference to Prov 8:22-30 appears brief, try this and don't miss the 4th & 5th quotes below, too


C: Since when have 'we' as Adventists believed in the co-existence of Jesus with the Father?

R: Since what Ellen White wrote in The Desire of Ages began to sink in.

In light of the above spread - dating randomly from before and after 1898, The Desire of Ages didn't change anything from before it with "in him was life, original, unborrowed underived". Abandoning Christ's pre-existent, literal, divine Sonship - i.e. the essence of SDA trinitarianism, on that sentence, is completely amiss; it's not even what her message was in Signs of the Times when she originally wrote that sentence. She didn't change her position on the God's Word's literal Sonship!

Ja, hey: obedience is the wrong word but learning the ropes with his Father, "as one brought up with him", is possibly a better word for it, as Sister White herself wrote of Christ. Jesus was the express image of his Father..., and showed it in his attitude to being divine.

???
I can agree with the "flexible" part, if it's refering to Christ setting aside His equality and clothing His divinty with humanity, and becoming subordinate when He became a human being.
As a human He learned obedience through suffering.
But this was not His position in heaven.






Personally, as I pointed out in the "Michael" thread, I see Christ veiling His glory as He goes forth to mingle with the angels.
Hebrews 1:3 says of Christ, "Who being the brightness of glory, and the express image of his [the Fathers] person,"

When the true position of Christ was revealed it was shown to the angels that Christ shared the Father's throne, and the eternal glory of self existance encircled both.



Yes, scripture speaks of Christ as the Son of God.
But does this mean LITERAL, in ages past, or is this to help us understand their closeness? --the intimate relationship between them? Is it used to help us understand the part of Christ's mission to save mankind, when He becomes the Son of God and the Son of man? Our brother, bringing us to the heavenly Father?





The question arises --
How can Christ be the LITERAL Son unless He had a beginning? Now, I realize you don't believe Christ had a beginning.
Yet, as soon as you want this "sonship" to be LITERAL, it does imply that at some point in time God produced a Son.

To "beget" "begotten" etc. LITERALLY a son, means one at that point, becomes a father.
As soon as one insists this is LITERAL, that's just the natural conclusion one reaches.





Associate means working together in mutual agreement.

Christ is the "WORD"
that is He is the One who "goes forth" to communicate.
He is the One Who spoke the world into existence.
He is the "WORD".
He is the One Who "goes forth" to command the angels.
He is the One Who "goes forth" to reveal the divine will to humanity.

Thus many of the angels preceived Him to be a "messenger" like they were, but He was more, much more. None of the angels could be God's associate, because they were not God.



The Son reaching maturity?

Now the question arises -- if both the Father and Son are from eternity, why would the Son reach maturity at a much later date than the Father?

And is there ever a time when God was not "mature"?
Or is "being God" something that is "developed"?
Which leads to more questions?!?!

I see in PP that Christ had been the beloved commander of the angels long before this (since the angels were created)
"His supremacy, so full of blessing to all who came under its benignant control, had not heretofore been questioned" (PP38)
In the glorious demonstration before the angels
"there was no change in the position or authority of Christ....this had been the same from the beginning." (PP38)

This isn't talking about any "coming to maturity", this is talking about making clear to the angels something that had always been.





What are you saying?
I believe EGW always believed that Christ was eternal -- that there never was a time when Christ was not with God the Father.

That Uriah Smith believed that Christ was created
and others believed that He was somehow literally begotten (pro-created in some way) some ages before creation is true enough, but I don't think you yourself hold to that, do you?

Colin, if you didn't, why do you find fault with the concept of coevality?

I nearly didn't answer that till after you come to comment on the EGW quotes I posted up, and respond to the essence of my post - which Christ's co-eternity, never disputed, it was not.

I relented, since we all need to go beyond, without abandoning them, the Biblical attributes of God of trinitarianism. Christ is the Word from "the beginning", and he is also the "only begotten Son" of God. Thus the Bible appears to say (see below 2!) there was the Word of God of the whole of Jn 1:1 before the Word was also the Son of God.

Also, Christ's Sonship is his literal identity - in addition to being the Word, simultaneously (SEE: AM NOT SWITCHING BETWEEN THEM, or leaving one behind!) not the notion of a role in itself chosen instead of being the Father, as chosen by another member of the trinity: such role selection is not what Sister White taught, nor do I find it in the Bible.

Sister White applies Bible passages like Prov 8 quite literally to Christ's eternal pre-existence as God's Son. She places his eternal Sonship and deity alongside his existence as the Word of God. Therefore, seeing everything she says, and that she interprets the Bible texts to mean that God has an actual Son since before creation, co-evality isn't in the picture, while co-equality, co-eternity, and fulness of the Godhead manifested, etc, etc, is.

What, to reiterate, of those quotes of hers I posted: you haven't said a single word to that, adding to the truths of her quotes you supplied?! I take it you did find them, in my post.

Colin, I'm trying to understand what you believe but I'm having a hard time. Are you saying you believe Christ is co-eternal with the Father? If so, how can you believe in a literal father-son relationship (since fathers are older than sons)?
Also, I didn't understand what you said here:


What is the difference between coevality and co-eternity in relation to the members of the Godhead?