Now, let's suppose that at a certain moment of eternity Christ was born, or begotten. A thousand years after this (it could be just a week after this) He and the Father decide to create the angels. All this was too far back in eternity for us to calculate. According to the concept of eternity that is being proposed here, the angels are also eternal.


So you believe Christ's divinity preexisted Him?

...but we know angels are created: in EGW's famous statement, the saints are adopted children of God, angels are created children, and Christ is alone the begotten child of God.

Does the Bible say that Christ is as eternal as his Father as well as that he's as divine as his Father? Doesn't it say his divinity is evidenced primarily by his Sonship, in O & NT? He creates, saves, is worshiped, too, etc, of course, and is the express image of his Father. Also, both EGW and Ellet Waggoner said his existence as God's Son goes incalculably far back in eternity for us: as you suggest. Isn't that what the Bible says, too.

The angels' creation in eternity, incidently, is informative for us, but we needn't worry about their eternal existence - as creatures..., just ours.


I believe, and find SOP statements and the Bible saying so, too, that the Son of God is a major form taken by the Word of God, existing within God the Father "in the beginning" and equal with God. Christ, therefore, has taken "the form of God" (Phil 2:6), as in personal appearance (Heb 1:1-3), having been the Word of God all along.

So, yes, the divinity of the Godhead is of the Father and his Son and their Holy Spirit; and each of them are fully of the Godhead, concealed from mortal eyes, revealed to mortal eyes, and manifesting divine grace among us who believe, as you know her quote.

I know the trinity doctrine requires co-existence and co-eternity: is that Biblical?.... Why did God found our church with leaders who opposed that trinitarian notion while upholding Christ's divinity, including Ellen White and her husband among others?

What I mean is, if Christ was as "eternal" as some creatures (or just a little more "eternal" than they), He couldn't be described as eternal at all.


Sorry, Colin, but I can only disagree with these statements, and I don't see how any biblical or SOP statement could be quoted in support of any of them. In fact, I don't believe you can find support for these ideas even in the views of the pioneers which you defend so much.
Christ has always been the Word, and He has always been the Son - He is the eternal Word and the eternal Son. But what you are saying is that the eternal Word is "more eternal" than the eternal Son. We can't be in agreement about this.

"The eternal Word consented to be made flesh! God became man! It was a wonderful humility." {TMK 68.2}

"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, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God. ... 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 247.2-4}

Co-equality involves and pressuposes equality in everything, including eternity. Infinity also pressuposes no end, either forwards or backwards. This view destitutes Christ from a number of attributes of the Deity. I can't see how it's possible to consider Him God in this way.
Why did God found our church with leaders who opposed the trinitarian notion, you ask. Well, these leaders also ate pork and other unclean meats, and we have evidence Ellen White herself ate oysters until almost the last decade of the 19th century, if memory serves me well. Truth is progressive.

IMHO so we could see both sides of the coin and choose the correct one, if we didnt have Sunday keepers who formed the Adventist movement, there would always be that lingering doubt about the Sabbath and we could be shaken. But when you come from the Arian point of view and are converted to the proper understanding of the GodHead, there is no going back...Gods has blessed us and has openned our eyes and ears, why close them..

Yes, we changed some positions during Ellen White's lifetime, but not our beliefs on the Godhead! I'll speak to that in my next post. That you think it's impossible for Jesus to be divine that way, does that make that view a mistake, or should you and I and each of us check and check again, until all the evidence has been seen and evaluated?

What our founders believed wasn't a proper understanding of the Godhead??? Sorry, Richard, but: CHECK YOUR SOURCES! I know you read a lot, now, so check Terry Hill's website for Adventist publications on the Godhead including e v e r y b o d y, till the present. What the church publishes now about Ellen White's day is misrepresentative in the extreme; but philosophies have also changed - for the worst...It's all there, on that website.

It's really bad that our church founders are labelled as Arian when they consistently upheld the deity of Christ as equal with his Father - James White, Joseph Waggoner, and others including Uriah Smith, eventually! Saying in print - even the SS lesson! - they didn't believe that is truly bad manners.

Having compared the historical writings with the Handbook of SDA Theology in detail, I go with the historical position as non-speculative and Biblical. Check out Terry Hill's materials: they're an eye-opener! Who is Jesus in Biblical truth, is the question here: is he the literal Son of God or does the Bible not mean "son" when it says so, in Old or New Testament, as believed by God's people since by Moses day...till the last hundred or so years?

I really don't understand the big debate here regarding Jesus. The Bible seems so simple and clear on this point. I can understand the questions regarding the Holy Spirit somewhat better, but regarding Jesus, the issue seems straightforward.

1) As of the writing of the book of Numbers, God was neither a man nor his son.

2) Jesus has always existed, according to the Bible, and will always exist. "From everlasting to everlasting..."

3) Jesus may have many names, but it would appear that He was first called "Jesus" when He was born as a man. Since this is the name by which we know Him, it is not inappropriate to refer to "Jesus" in speaking of His pre-incarnate times--likewise for the terms "Son of Man" and "Son of God," which were applicable to His incarnation.

4) That the Bible refers to Jesus, prophetically, as the "Son of God," should not surprise us. It also refers to Him as a lamb, and speaks of His future crucifixion in the past tense (see Isaiah 53). He had been promised, and therefore, it was as good as done in God's reckoning, in spite of the fact that the event was yet future. None of this means that He had ever been God's Son before His incarnation except by covenant.

5) In John 3:16, we see that Jesus was the only "become-son" (begotten) member of the Godhead. Whereas He had not been a son before, He became one for us. [Note: This is a truth that the modern versions do try to efface, by changing "begotten" to "one and only," which is a falsehood.]

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thanks for that on Jn 3:16, Green ginomai should read "only begotten".

The ramifications of the "trinity doctrine or not" reach round all the truths of the Bible, including salvation itself ("The trinity" is actually a speculative doctrine - since Nicea, not a teaching from Bible texts). The sacrifice of the atonement itself is at risk because of the Nicene and SDA "trinity doctrines" (they differ from each other!): that's why our church pioneers really opposed it and taught the Godhead truths Biblically and not of this doctrine, which sadly adds to the Bible.

About salvation???...Did God die for our sins, or just man??? It's common in Adventism that Jesus' divinity didn't die, since deity cannot die, isn't it: what's the actual truth of this, since we need a worthy sacrifice?!

www.theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk has enough evidence from church publications to sort this all out - for securing the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation: why there's a debate, what the problems are, who thought & taught what and now is thought & taught, and suggestions on what to do today.

Here, though, for starters - for everyone here! - is Terry Hill's personal testimony, since 10 years ago he hadn't given this all any thought, either!!

http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBUH.htm