[/quote]

Those texts point out that it is Jesus Who is reconciling everything back to God.

John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

I think the misunderstandings come from not taking into consideration the great plan of reconciling God's creation fully back to God.
God -- meaning both Christ and the Father.


God the Father has given this work of reconciliation to Christ.

John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;


It is Christ Who has "gone forth" that is goes amoung the created to manifest, teach, do, fulfil what God (in total) planned from before creation.

Christ "went forth" to create, for scripture is plain that ALL things were created by Him, and without Him was not anything created that was created. (See John 1:3)
He is the WORD that spoke "Let there be light, and there was light" etc. etc.
He is the One Who breathed into Adam "the breath of life".

Christ "went forth" to command and lead the angels. (See Joshua 5:15)

Christ is the One Who "went forth" to find Adam and Eve as they hid in the bushes, and gave them the promise of a Messiah.

Christ is the One Who "went forth" and led the children of Israel in the pillar of fire, fed them with manna, gave them water from the rock. (See 1 Cor. 10:4)

And Christ "went forth" and became both the Son of God and the Son of man in Bethlehem.

Micah 5:2 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 everlasting.

While washing the disciples feet, Christ is fully conscious of His power, that He was not just man, but the One Who had come forth the Godhead, was commissioned with all power, the ONLY ONE Who could reconcil the universe to God (to Himself as well as to the Father). Though He was One with God, it was HIS responsibility, and His alone to fulfil the plan. In His hands the fate of the universe rested.

"All things were given into His hands". John 3:13
He came from God (as He was with God, and was God)into this world to reconcile all things to God (to the Father and to Himself) and He was about to return back to God (back to sit on the throne beside the Father)

This is not some "elevation" or granting of godlike power. This is being given the full responsibility to fulfil the plan of reconciliation.

That sole responsibility has not yet ended.

He is standing at the head of the human race, as our representative. Having taken the place of Adam. He is mediating in our behalf.
It is Christ Who will come again at the head of the heavenly armies to end earth's demonstration of sin (See Rev. 19)
It is before Christ's throne that all that ever lived will be gathered in the final judgment (See Rev. 20 and Romans 14)

Romans 14:10 for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

John 5:27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

The whole plan -- from creation to full restoration is fully given into Christ's hands. The One Who is with God and is God (See John 1:1-3)

But totally unlike Lucifer, when all things are done, the plan is fulfilled, the battle is won, all is harmony and peace and love throughout the whole universe (all fulfilled and brought into being by Jesus Christ) He doesn't exalt Himself above God the Father, He doesn't set His throne above God the Father.
He turns to God the Father, and says -- "it's yours".

And the Father says to Christ, Who retains His humanity forever to identify with us forever -- He is the Son of God and the Son of Man forever.
Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son, He says, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

What does "literally begotten" mean? Does it mean something like asexual reproduction?

I didn't deny that she applies these texts to Christ.
Nor do I deny that Christ is the Son of God. I just don't believe in a literal "birthing" pro-creation meaning of the words. Any literal, birthing, pro-creation meaning happened only in Bethlehem, when Christ literally took His place at the head of the human race, literally, in the human sense of the words, "Son of God" and "Son of Man".

Christ's position as the Son of God prior to His incarnation has meaning that we should not ascribe to human levels.
He wasn't "given" divinity and life. He IS as in "I AM" the the ever present tense, God.
His life is underived. He is "self-existing".

And that takes us to the meaning of "divinity" -- what does it mean to be "divine" to be "deity"?
Too many people that I've talked to, who have claimed to believe that Christ is "divine" have denied that He is true God.

Back to Pro. 8
Prophets (including EGW) VERY OFTEN take meanings from texts that have dual meanings and apply them to eternal things.
Like Isaiah's description of new earth. Phrases are taken to refer to the future "new earth" while others in the same passage, that include aging, and dying are rejected as having anything to do with the future new earth.

Many of the prophecies concerning the first coming of the Messiah are embedded in texts that are talking about something different, and the phrases are lifted out that apply, while the rest is rejected as pointing to Christ. Just go through the book of Matthew and the texts "be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets" and check the original verses.

Proverbs 8 -- while holding gems concerning Christ, is primarily talking of "wisdom" as "she" and contrasting "lady wisdom" with "lady folly". To take that passage literally would mean thinking of Christ as a little girl called wisdom God was raising who didn't take part in Creation but merely watched. We can't just apply it literally -- it's OBVIOUSLY poetic personification of wisdom. Since Christ is the CREATOR, fulfilling the wise plans made in the councils where He and the Father planned it all, He "brought forth" the wisdom of God in creation and they rejoiced together in what was created.

that seems like a pretty good understanding you have come to regarding that passage. my only concern is that the bible/sop make every effort to distinguish the members of the Deity and not blend or confuse them.

Ok, wasn't intending to squeeze your piece into a square..., but:
Amen.

That was my phrase, wasn't it? Ok, take out "literally", as it's unnecessary, and isn't in the Bible, anyway...

"Only begotten" basically means only child of another, in this instance, God the Father (as in Jn 3:16): it's either, primarily, at Bethlehem or in the incomprehensible eons of eternity past - definitely before anything was created!

Either way we just don't know how - and we must not, may not, use any human or created illustrations - not so?! - to describe the Godhead in any way, for it (the Godhead and persons of it) and they (illustrations) cannot be compared: we have forceful instruction on that, of course. We only have those words, "only begotten Son"...

For the rest of the issues...: What is the whole picture of her writings on Jesus' only begotten Sonship "of God"? Our church was with her with one voice, too, so how do we stand today?

Of course human meanings of pro-creation aren't applicable in Christ's pre-existence: we're not supposed to go there in the first place! - EGW gave us her example, in that. Moreover, the SOP goes far beyond Prov 8..., and merely uses "only begotten" in its normal sense, as did our church, with her, not questioning how: isn't the rule - don't ask?!

As for Jn 5:26, you left out a few words that belongs there! - what you say is not wrong, but it's not right, either. Remember: "For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself," so there's definitely a connection, a relationship Jesus speaks of.


No, he is true God, but in the Bible he avoids that label..., and the Father gets it, instead. Jn 1:1 differentiates Father from Word, and Son, by the well known "God" with "the" and "God" without "the" - the Word being the latter, of course. That means qualitatively true God, while the Father is called "God" regularly, and his Son isn't, that's all. It's clearly wrong to draw strict conclusions against Christ, from that.

Yes, prophets of God have used literature with divine wisdom of inspiration, to glean God's truth & what God has prophesied! I remember Matthew's references well.


Well...: she uses the clause "as one brought up with him" in Jesus' pre-existent relation to God, all over the place. What sort of hint is that? I clearly wasn't suggesting every word like even the femininity of wisdom applied to Christ...! What is the actually debated wording, you know... How does SOP apply the passage, and not just in these quotes I've posted???

there is nothing like letting the brain process something before getting it!! its like toms statement somewhere else. i didnt get it until sometime later reading it again.

not saying im necessarily in agreement one way or the other with thoughts expressed by the postor, folks.

Colin,

Since we have discussed these EGW quotes in the past, in the Trinity threads, I’m not understanding your insistence in my commenting about them. Of course you know that I consider these expressions as figurative. I don’t think the word “begotten” can mean that God literally gave birth to Christ and, as to the expression “brought up with him,” it is also highly figurative, as the whole chapter of Prov. 8. As I said in the past, there never was a time when God existed and His wisdom didn’t, so how can anyone take anything in that chapter as implying a beginning?
But what I still wasn’t able to understand was your position. “Coeval” means “of the same age.” In relation to God, doesn’t this mean co-eternal (since God has always existed)? The point is, the Father did not exist before Christ, and Christ did not derive His life from the Father. This is what the Church believes. Do you agree or disagree with this position? This, as I said, excludes a literal father-son relationship, so I understand you don’t agree with this position, although you are saying now that Christ didn’t have a beginning. A literal father-son relationship presupposes a beginning, but the concept of eternity presupposes that there wasn’t a beginning. Could you please clarify?

I have no problem accepting the distinct persons of the Godhead. Christ is not the same person as God the Father, and God the Father is not the same person as Christ. They are distinct beings. But they are still in perfect unity, a oneness unmatched by anything we know.

The Bible, as I see it, doesn't make much effort at all to distinguish between God the Father and Son, in the OT.

In the NT the biggest concern was getting people to recognize Jesus, the man who walked the dusty roads of Palesting, as much more than a man. Their challenge was getting people to recognize and accept


Actually, aside from the philosophical attempts by finite minds which seek a theological explanation for physical oneness, it seems to me that people in general put TOO MUCH difference between God the Father and Christ Jesus.

For example --
People see the Father as the God of the Old Testament, a stern and exacting God. They see Christ as the loving, merciful God Who overthrew God the Father's rule and replaced it with a rule of grace.

Of course, a careful study shows that Christ was the God of the Old Testament -- the One Who talked with the Patriarchs, Who led the Israelites out of Egypt, etc.

But the Gnostic concepts haven't gone away. It's surprising how many people see God the Father with a character very different from Christ Jesus.

Another example are the references in John to "keeping the commandments" -- a lot of people think Jesus is talking about "His own commandments" not the Father's commandments spoken from Sinia!

So it seems to me the philosophers got things wrong because their focuse was on a physical unity, (which we don't agree with) and too often seemed to have missed the true unity, or oneness that exists in Godhead.

God is still ONE GOD,
a unity of three persons.
But that unity isn't a physical mathematical ONE,
It is a unity of love, purposes, motives, plans,
they are exactly alike, identical in nature, character, etc.
in perfect harmony, and agreement





It is this "oneness" that I find a lot of people seem to miss recognizing.