I anticipate those EGW quotes in my post last night may rock your boat, Rosangela and Dedication, and others here: that's why I'm happy for you, in first response, just to say they're beyond what you're used to reading from her on Christ, even that they appear to move the goal posts. They challenge current teaching. How to make room for them is the further, necessary discussion!

Maybe it's time to move this whole, current discussion to the thread on whether the trinity as we commonly teach it is Biblical...? - since we've moved on from Elle's original topic.

These SOP quotes are daring - and there are of course more where they came from, but they just take a possibility of a radical interpretation of Scripture, compared to current teachings in our church literature, and Sister White affirms that radical possibility! Doesn't she have the licence to do so, and don't we owe her the primacy of testing her directly with Scripture rather than testing her against any other interpreter? Other teachers clearly have their turn next to the messenger of the Lord, but they queue up behind her.

Ah, you think co-eval and co-eternal are synonyms?? Well, in mainstream SDA circles & literature that I've seen, they're not, just like co-eternal and co-existent aren't. How do Sister White's quotes, which I responded to yours with, read to you?? What clear impression does she leave?

Co-eval and co-existent are both taken to exclude a literal father-son relationship, since there's obviously no age difference. In the Handbook of SDA Theology - where neither of these words is used (I don't think) - a literal family relationship is expressly excluded, for the reasons that "only begotten" is a wrong translation, and should read "unique" - a(discredited argument given at least Strong's Concordance - and that Greek philosophy both made the family scenario belief in the first place and doesn't belong in Bible interpretation.

Those same reasons are not given the time of day by Ellen White, who constantly affirms a literal family relationship of "the eternal God" and "his eternal...begotten Son". Is there cause for reflection for us, there, what with current church teaching?

Here they are again..., better displayed, too. From Post #114497: refer to it for my comments. I'll reiterate here the issue of a literal Sonship of Jesus, begotten of God, "His Father".

Your comments - from anyone and everyone - are required, for fairness here and fairness to the messenger of the Lord.

Colin,

Your last several points exhibit an almost gleeful "I told you so" type of "Haha" that something is different than expected based on the quotes you present. However, when I read the quotes, I find nothing startling in them. I see no problem there.

The quotes affirm that:
1) Jesus and God are equal,
2) Jesus and the Father are co-existent,
3) Jesus and the Father reign upon the same throne,
4) Jesus has always existed for eternity, and
5) Jesus and the Father are one in purpose.

The quotes further use English poetic forms such as simile and metaphor to help us understand the relationship between God the Father and Jesus. When we look at the Bible, there are many similar comparisons. Similes, metaphors, allegories, etc. are never meant to be taken literally. They each represent something that, indeed, would be difficult to explain in literal terminology.

For example, Jesus/Christ is spoken of as the "bridegroom" who will come for His "bride." We know that He will not literally marry us, as we think of marriage between a man and a woman. It is symbolic language.

When the Bible speaks of Jesus being the "first born," and when Mrs. White does the same, it is equally non-literal language. It is prudent to note that Jesus was called "God's son" and "only begotten" in the New Testament, but not in the Old, with about two prophetic exceptions. That anyone, including Ellen White, might use the same title for Jesus when writing upon past themes, even from early times before He had become a son, should be no surprise. It is equivalent to me saying something like "Abraham left Ur of the Chaldeas," when of course, technically, it was "Abram" for he did not receive his name "Abraham" until many years later. It is nonetheless inaccurate of me to say "Abraham," for that is how we call him today.

Jesus is God's son in the same way. He has not always been called this, for He has not always been this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Really??? You mean nothing startlingly different from current teaching, so long as not one of the references to begotten Sonship in those quotes is taken literally?!! - but he is the Word

That's completely farcical, given she was in total agreement with her contemporaries till her death, on the Sonship issues in those quotes: it's in their books, too: HAVE YOU LOOKED IT UP, YET?

That's making her into an SDA trinitarian, since absolute co-existence is required and she couldn't have meant "only begotten of God" or "first born of heaven" literally - but that's the only thing she had to mean figuratively, since Jesus couldn't be God's literal Son.

I'm sorry, that's as likely an interpretation of her writings as macro-evolution from geological evidence - something you do know a bit about.

So...: Sister White is banned, by us via our leaders today, from speaking literally when she wrote that Christ takes Prov 8:22-30 personally??! She is adamant about Christ claiming that for his own story.

And her contemporaries shared her views, as published by them and endorsed in the church and by her. To tie her down to exclusively figurative or anything but a literal reading like that is wrong scholarship, presuming she has to think like we want her to, after we tie ourselves up in trinitarian requirements additional to those she supported...

Not good!

She supported co-eternity of God's Son with his Father, but not absolute eternity for Jesus' Sonship, as is stated in those quotes, where she comments on Jn 8.

You left out lots of truths about Jesus from those quotes!...

"One in nature": which, on current teaching of united in common purpose only to avoid tritheism is inadequate, also by trinitarian standards! Our church pioneers taught one nature of Father and Son by a one-off begetting of the divine Son by his Father in the unknown eons of eternity; the only begotten Son is also the Word from the beginning. Without a literal Sonship for Jesus, how on earth do God & Christ have one nature???

You cannot have "co-existence" without making her speak figuratively - but only on Sonship wording, which no-one around her took her to be doing: you can thus only use this attribute interpretationally, and she doesn't go in that direction. See also my reply to Rosangela, on that phrase.

Your number 4 isn't reflective of SOP's adamant personal application of Prov 8 to Jesus, so that has to lose its "always".

Try again: it's literal or it's figurative - which does the evidence of our church literature of the time support? - not current thinking: we need the whole, historical picture.

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. [/quote]
i think the language of the bible verses quoted is figurative and, i dont think we can base a lot on that. if Jesus was literally begotten somehow it is a mystery and maybe we should just leave it at that. there are plenty of texts that refer to Him as "begotten" and the "Son of God", and from my study of the pioneers, and sop they generally tried to just stay with the bible language and not go beyond that.

but i have always wondered about texts like this:

EGW is not doing an exegetical examination of Pr. 8:22-30,nor of Micah 5:2.
Her whole purpose is to declare the greatness and majesty of Christ, who was with and Who was God. She is simply quoting many verses to show this.
I think there are some 8 different Bible Books that she quotes from on that one page.

See adds other texts as well like:
"A glorious high throne from the beginning" was the place of His sanctuary Jeremiah 17:12; " a scepter of righteousenss" the scepter of His kingdom Hebrews 1:8 "honor and majesty are before Him; strength and beauty are in His sanctuary" Psalm 96:6. PP 34



Not every one who reads these quotes sees this as pointing to the same "literalistic" interpretation as you appear to be doing.

The text:
His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2

“But thou, Bethlehem, 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 (Micah 5:2)

This text (in its context) is contrasting the earthly kings of Israel who live for short periods of time, (the ruler of Israel is smitten on the cheek, he will be defeated and crushed) but in due time a RULER is to arise in Israel, coming forth out of Bethlehem WHO, unlike the earthly kings who are born and die, does not have His origin there in Bethlehem, but comes from everlasting. His origins are eternal not temporal, limited in time. This verse is a “contrast” verse-- contrasting the “beginnings” of kings, against the “eternal” who was there before “days” began, is the ONE who will come forth in Bethlehem.

The words “come forth” #3318, out of thee shall "come forth" mean to (appear, come forth).

Whose "goings forth" #4163 (motsaoth) “outgoings” (Youngs Concordance) “brought out,” “going forth” “proceeded out,” are from days everlasting.

This shows that the one coming to Bethlehem, who will be going forth, out of heaven, into this world, has been "going forth" as commander and king to created intellegent beings from ancient times, in fact He is from everlasting -- -- (from before Creation, Christ was ordained to be the “lamb, slain from the foundations of the earth“-- going forth to save mankind).

Yes, I like it simply like that, too.

And then someone says that it's a mystery in that it's figurative, not literal: that's not helpful, given what our church taught during Ellen White's lifetime, and that she taught it too. They are unanimous.


Yes, Jesus giving the kingdom back to his Father after finally putting everything under his feet: that's amazing.

Thanks for your comments, Dedication. No, you did an exegetical examination: Ellen White just quoted those texts and applied them to Christ.


Not only did she apply these texts to Christ, she is adamant Christ claims Prov 8 speaks of himself. Is it fair on her, and ourselves reading her, to make only her references to his divinely begotten Sonship strictly figurative, while virtually everything else she quotes from Scripture about Jesus is fine to be taken literally? Whatever the "eternal existence" arguments today against his literal, eternal Sonship, is that even pertinent to Jesus' begotten Sonship as full deity: it wasn't for Ellen White.

The nub of it is: literal or not, whether figurative, metaphorical of another option. Not many SDAs today think it should be read literally, and such an option is discouraged by our scholars. In Ellen White's lifetime the entire SDA church leadership, in concert with her, wrote and believed that "only begotten Son" and related texts had a literal reading. A good selection of that literature, on this issue, is also online, but there's not enough space here for it unless one studies one quote at a time.

However many quotes one can list from them, including EGW, it still comes down to, a literal reading - like theirs - or not: our church doesn't teach a literal reading anymore, but should it yet, seeing as the messenger of the Lord led our entire church in doing so till she died,and her contemporaries continued? It was the next generation, like Leroy Froom, who consulted books other than hers, to write books with new ideas which don't really sit with her position. That's history: what do we learn from it?

Colin,

I have not studied in depth what our church may have believed "back when" nor even what we supposedly believe "nowadays." I only know what I have always understood myself from both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. Your quotes did not surprise me in the least. Please accept that. The statements agree with my beliefs, nor do they differ from anything I have ever believed on the subject. On the other hand, my father instilled in me from childhood the figurative value of much of the Scriptures. For example, this text...literal or figurative?



The very term "first fruits" is highly figurative, throughout the Bible. The term "only begotten" is hardly different. For example:



Isaac, however, had SEVEN BROTHERS. How is it that he was the "only begotten son?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.