if they are studying they are likely to come to wrong conclusions til they get it right.

Jehovah means eternal, self-existent. in this day and age, especially in america, names have no meaning, they are just what we are called by.

in bible days, and still in some countries, names have a meaning. names are a description, or hope, or whatever, for the child. sometimes the child is named for other reasons, such as ichabod and Benoni changed to benjamin by jacob.

the descriptor eternal, self-existent was to keep before the israelites that their Elohiym was different from the elohiym of the surrounding nations. the true Elohiym did not come into existence through birth, nature, warfare, etc. the Godhead always was and never went through any changes.

we need to keep in mind, also, the cultures present in bible days. since our neighboring countries generally do not have other "gods" we lose sight of the real picture of the ot and nt. having a knowledge of the gods and beliefs of the surrounding nations of those times helps put it all in perspective.

here the eternal self-existent (translated Jehovah) in the first verse is the Son. in the second verse the eternal self-existent (translated Jehovah) refers to the Father.on the other hand in this verseLORD (Jehovah) (eternal, self-existent) refers to the Father while Lord (to rule)(Adon) refers to the Son.

here it is saying the eternal, self-existent Gods (or Powers as ellen white and a hebrew scholar translate it), Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the earth and heavens. all three were present and active in this creation.

if we apply Jehovah to Jesus only, then we are doing away with the eternal, self-existence of the Father and Holy Spirit, not to mention being just a bit unbiblical.

but im sure everyone already knew all that somewhere in their minds.

Thanks, Thomas:...you meant the bolded part in the context of the paragraph? No, that's straight from the horses mouth:


It is from the book co-written with fellow Seminarians Jerry Moon and John Reeve.

Earlier, on page 34-35 he writes that Jn 3:16 is interpreted by Arians and Semi-Arians against Trinitarianism as the Son being created or "sort of split off from the nature of the Father to form a separate divine person". The next sentence is:

Do our scholars today seriously class SDAism up till 1957-80 as as believing Jesus, "the [only begotten] Son of the Eternal Father" - per our belief statements till 1914 and also in the 20s perhaps, to be an "inferior god"??? Some may think of Jesus that way, but our historical writings are crystally clear on Jesus being equal with the Father in all matters of deity, while being begotten of God: indeed, fully divine and bodily of the Godhead because he is God's begotten Son. Jesus' deity is recognised by his Sonship, which carries full authority, etc.

Froom's Movement of Destiny is exposed by Whidden himself as not revealing the non-trinitarian-doctrinal beliefs of the early SDA church, but is he himself any fairer to history by classing our early church beliefs along side Mormons, etc?!

Whidden turns the issue, as it has to be by the tradition of the trinity doctrine, on the eternity of God. Where in the Bible does it say God and his begotten Son are co-eternal in the sense of this doctrine? "From the days of eternity" (Mic 5:2, marg.) isn't strictly co-eternal with the Father, of course, when applied to God begetting his Son (not forgetting Jn 1:1), but does the Bible shy away from God's Son being equal with his Father before the universe of creation that they formed together out of nothing, while it also has those words in Micah?

Try these two OT gems...:


The Bible is consistent in God having a begotten Son, who is God, too, as Heb 1 also spells out. Our SDA Church was clear on this, but not anymore...

The trinity doctrine is the trouble for Christendom, not the Biblical truth of a trinity of personalities, the Spirit being the least revealed and appearing differently to Father and Son. The deity of Jesus is undiminished by his Sonship being begotten of his Father in the days of eternity, as our church published throughout Ellen White's lifetime, and her writings too, and beyond her lifetime by those who refused the doctrinal tradition adopted in 'its own form' by us - our trinitarianism differs vastly in certain points with the Nicene Creed orthodoxy. That detail isn't for this thread, of course.

Does SDAism's adoption of its own form of the trinity doctrine render non-doctrinal beliefs in the Biblical revelation of three persons of the Godhead invalid? Specifically, does the Son of God have to be as absolutely eternal as his Father, as that doctrine demands, when the Bible doesn't insist on it? To the Word and to the Testimony, and that includes being fair to Ellen White for her Biblical authority.

Yes, Jehovah/Yahweh is the 'primary' name of God, yet the Spirit only imparts the truths of God to us and isn't revealed in Scripture as being worshiped, while definitely submitted to but that too is in Jesus' name. Thank you for the reminder from those texts that Father Son and Holy Spirit work together in creation and redemption: this though is not the basis on which they are one - merely the demonstration of their holiness.

They are one because they are of one nature, the Godhead, the Son of the Father and "the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead", of the Father and the Son each personally, individually, being their omnipresence with us, etc, also sustaining creation generally by the power of the creative word of the Son.

The self-existence is confirmed by Jn 5:26 and his harmonious character with his Father since before creation by Jn 17:5. The eternity of Christ's Sonship of God is in Mic 5:2, yet that results in relative co-eternity because of non-co-exitence (always Father and Son isn't taught).

The Godhead isn't based on being eternal but on holiness. Simply put, while the Father is absolutely eternal for certain, eternity itself is a created entity, not equal to God - who is above it too, nor a requirement of the Bible for God's Son to be equal to God his Father, who is absolutely eternal. Also, the Word of God of Jn 1:1 is God from the beginning of Bible revelation - part of the Godhead but most likely in the Father before begotten as God's Son in "the days of eternity" (Mic 5:2, marg.)

Jesus is the "I AM", too, as God's Son.

See my comments just posted, too.

Colin, what I don't understand is how "the omnipresence" of two persons can be classified as a third person.

Or how two deities can be one God only by sharing goals...

It is an infinite Spirit for a start, so is present beyond their personal bodies, whose Spirit it is, and has personality traits when representing them to us. Difficult to grasp, I know, so I just believe it as the Bible reveals it.

As for "omnipresence" and "third person", both are Ellen White's own words and contexts.

Remember, too, that she also says the Spirit is a different type of person than Father and Son, being their living Spirit of the Godhead the Father and Son are bodily of but the Spirit bodily isn't of, i.e. has no body but is rather "the Spirit of the Godhead" thus of God and Christ's bodies, separately and of each: one infinite Spirit of one Godhead/divine nature. That's what we're told in the Bible and SOP, and more we cannot know.

No questions re Christ's deity in my comments?

the pioneers believed the Holy Spirit to be Gods representative. i would say that makes their understanding essentially different from the antitriniarians.

a "representative" is an entity separate and distinct from the person, not a part of him/herself.

from The Great Empires of Prophecy From Babylon to the Fall of Rome Alonzo Trevier Jones 1898 CHAPTER XXXIII

"Eternally begetting" isn't what it appears, in Nicene reasoning.

It means an eternally ongoing begetting, not a one-off event.

Arius differed from Alexander not just on same and like substance, but on method of begetting: Arius tried to pinpoint the time in eternity past when the Son was begotten of the Father as a separate person, what sort of persons I can't quote him on as his library was torched after the Nicene Council - his views survive in letters to friends. "Like substance" in that context meaning same but separate person. Alexander's idea, formulated by Athanasius, was same substance of two "personae" who are personally joined and not separate in that mystical substance of the being of the One God.

Those "personae" also are certainly not like persons as we think of persons, having neither bodies nor physical parts, but merely "centres of consciousness": thus the Son is eternally being begotten by the Father without leaving or separating from the Father in the same substance with him. Not a pretty picture, but that's the reality of the notion of Nicene consubstantiality.

Our pioneers were on Arius' side for the most part, opting for two separate persons based on a literal begetting; where we differed was forbidding any pinpointing of a time in eternity past for when God's Son was begotten of his Father: Ellen White was unanimous with them, her contemporaries, and many believed it beyond her death, like Judson Washburn, Charles Longacre and W R French, all of whom survived well past the 2nd WW.

Anti-trinitarian as our pioneers' stance was, and ours also who take their stance, today still: this version of anti-trinitarianism is against the traditional doctrine's errors, not the number of divine personalities involved. Is confessing the truth of the Godhead or allowing the word trinity but taking time to distinguish from the orthodox tradition, easier?