Because verse 15 refers to the Father whom Christ came to show.

AV 1Ti 6:14 That thou keep [this] commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

AV 1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, [who is] the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

AV 1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Jesus is the King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Sorry, but you can't use that. The text is completely ambiguous; the relative pronouns can refer either to persons or to things (for instance, in the translation of the KJV "to show" refers to the appearing - that is, he shall show the appearing; the verb "to see" can refer to the light; etc.). Besides, as kland pointed out, twice in Revelation the title "King of kings and Lord of lords" is applied to Christ, not to the Father.

Yes, you have to look twice, Rosangela: no-one's saying otherwise, but verses 15&16 appear in simple reading and meaning to refer to the Father.

Again, Rosangela, it's not strictly about roles - suggesting that strictly only one of them may be called King of kings - but about identities: even Jesus referred Satan to his Father for rebuke when Jesus himself had authority over Satan,...just authority maybe disputed by Satan. The authority of the Father is unquestioned, in comparison.

The God of the Bible is a pragmatic God, a family God, having a begotten Son, and adopting the saints from this earth as his children, too, for Jesus' sake. Our God is not a God of formulas and rigid uniformity within the Godhead: God has a begotten Son, and they share the Holy Spirit of the Godhead. That's our profession of faith, isn't it?

I disagree. The text is contrasting one of the Persons of the Godhead with the earthly sovereigns. When it is said that He alone possesses immortality, this is in contrast with the other (human) kings and lords, not with the other Persons of the Godhead. And it's more natural to consider Christ as this only true Potentate who will come and put an end to the kingship and lordship of all others. That's also why Revelation attributes the title to Christ in His coming.


This is the real reason for Christ's words:

Christ Himself, when contending with Satan about the body of Moses, “durst not bring against him a railing accusation.” Jude 9. Had He done this, He would have placed Himself on Satan’s ground, for accusation is the weapon of the evil one. He is called in Scripture, “the accuser of our brethren.” Revelation 12:10. Jesus would employ none of Satan’s weapons. He met him with the words, “The Lord rebuke thee.” Jude 9. {MB 57.3}
His example is for us. When we are brought in conflict with the enemies of Christ, we should say nothing in a spirit of retaliation or that would bear even the appearance of a railing accusation. He who stands as a mouthpiece for God should not utter words which even the Majesty of heaven would not use when contending with Satan. We are to leave with God the work of judging and condemning. {MB 57.4}


Our profession of faith is that God and Christ are co-equal, not that Jesus has always been and will always be subordinate to the Father.

Covering all points at once, perhaps, Jesus is the pre-incarnate begotten Son of God.
Thus, the KJV rendering of Jn 3:16b should read "only begotten Son", despite the 'scholarly arguments' for the NIV: not just that Sister White had but the KJV or the Revised Version (1881), but that her understanding of and belief in God and our Saviour Jesus Christ expressed itself in her writings in line with the rendering of the KJV. God taught her what he taught her.

On Jesus and the Devil, yes, that is also true.


That they are "co-equal" is implicit in what I suggested, of course: having to state "begotten Son" is necessary, since we should believe it - see that SOP quote! - but we have forthrightly, publicly denied it, remember.

I am currently reading about Origen of Alexandria(185 - 254 AD) here. It is interesting to note that Origen, who was taught by Clement of Alexandria, believed that only the Father's divinity was underived.

He taught that "the basic and traditional assertion that there is one God who is the father of the Lord Jesus Christ and sender of the Holy Spirit. Basing his comments on the opening sentence of John' Gospel, Origen explains that this one God is the God-in-Godself and his divinity is his own and not derived whereas the Logos is simply called God because his divinity, though real and true,is derived from the supreme God."

Yes, Origen is a little confused. To him, both the Son and the Holy Spirit are derived from God, and God communicated His divinity to them. He was still trying to understand this profound subject.

Do you think that we(SDAs) know this subject any better? We both know that there is a massive disagreement among SDAs concerning the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Plus we don’t even understand the nature of the Father either.

The early church was Hebrew in culture, language, background and heritage. Major lost of meanings and understanding of the Gospel stems from the church moving from Hebrew to Greek, and then later from Greek to Latin. The Church went through a 1700+ years of “Babylonian” ruling and philosophy which has plunge the Church into deeper confusion.

To my understanding, Origen and Clement and others before them were the last Hebrew Christians whose teachings were past down from the disciples and Paul.

Without being side-tracked with your disagreement with Origen understanding of the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit which no one seems to have it straight including myself, my simple point here is that Origen understood 1Ti 6:14-16 as it plainly reads, that the Father only had immortality.

Elle, I'm sorry to disagree. If the language had anything to do with this, the Jews would be the most wise and orthodox Christians on earth. But they continue to be Jews and don't understand their own Scriptures at all.


But Origen and Clement weren't from hebrew origin at all. They were born in Alexandria and had a helenistic background. This is what the Wiki says about Clement: