You'll have to spell out the difference for me, because I don't see it... Except maybe minor semantics.

Oh, that old chestnut.

Reconcile it? - It's not 'unreconciled' in the first place, is it.

No need for a "logical conclusion", since we have sufficient revelation - sufficient for us, of course - from Bible and SOP to understand what the truth is: that the "sovereign of the universe has an associate in creation" (PP, 34.1), the Word was with God in the beginning and is divine as the Father (Jn 1:1c), and the Son is spoken of throughout the Bible.

...God the Father wouldn't do that to himself, of course, so we shouldn't speculate to that 'logical' outcome. Logic doesn't belong in studying the Godhead, really - it stretches revelation.

As much as God has revealed about the Godhead of the Father and his Son and their Holy Spirit, we have to stop there, accepting it by faith . Sooooo, "God" here means the Father of us all: Jesus is the incarnate begotten Son of God, begotten in "the days of eternity". Yes, that's how Christians generally interpret the Bible, including Ellen White's writings and our church's historical belief. Study to show yourself approved: the 1980 vote was uncomfortable, with everything hidden behind the word "trinity".

Jesus is lastly our High Priest and then also King - after his priestly intercession shall cease. He is, from the beginning, the Word of God, with God his Father, that is: God is the Father of Christ and Christ is the Son of God - since before creation began, "in the days of eternity". "To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son." (8T 268.3). We may not delve further into this mystery: we may acknowledge Jesus, our God and Saviour, as the Son of God: that is his identity, as he is our Creator.

His titles are his identities, not 'roles': that's how he could die, God (the Father) himself in the person of his Son, for in him from eternity was the fulness of the Godhead bodily - the Godhead personally manifested to mortal sight. "He who was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God", alongside his Father. Check PP, chapter 1! He consented to be made man, and humbly, again, did his Father's will.

Together, it's perfect, divine family and Biblical drama: creation, redemption, recreation, because of holiness, grace and an active God who gave his begotten Son, who did his Father's will from the beginning.

This is easier than MM's point, perhaps.

The difference, within Adventism, is really, really simple. Under Godhead, as we believed as a church earlier, the pre-incarnate Jesus was/is the only begotten Son of God, since "the days of eternity". SDA trinitarianism cancels this wholeheartedly, rejecting "only begotten" as a wrong translation..., and relying on the NIV for our teaching on the person of Christ, not allowing a family or natural link between God the Father and "God the Son", establishing unity and monotheism on their joint purposes in creation and salvation.

I prefer the original Adventist stance, and have found it unchanged in Ellen White's writings. Hence, in this week's lesson study for January next year - two weeks' time, there is no Ellen White quote at all, except those few lines form DA 19, as the last little bit of further reading. As it happens, that little quote has wording and meanings which clash with the lesson's view, that Jesus isn't the only begotten Son of God from eternity - she writes, "from the days of eternity" Christ has been one with the Father...Think about it.

Ah..er...WHAT?

I didn't get much from that "explaination" except a railing against the NIV. You'll have to be far more precise, and offer some kind of support before I can see you point.

Methinks ye are inventing strawmen just to have an arguement.

Sorry - was juggling things here a bit, so didn't re-check it.

No, I'm not blaming the NIV for the SDA doctrine of the trinity.

Are you aware of the debate in church journals, etc, etc - it's rooted in the primary, simple difference between the two beliefs - about whether Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, from "the days of eternity" (Mic 5:2, marg.), or not? We certainly used to teach that he is.

That's the beginning of it.

First, it's Ellen White who said that Christ's divinity didn't die because divinity can't die. And second, the point is that a God cannot die, otherwise He isn't God. Therefore, anti-trinitarianism prevents Christ from being God.

???
Just the opposite is true! Numbers are infinite. Any number you choose, there are infinite numbers before it and infinite numbers after it. That's why Ellen White said that the existence of Christ is not measured by figures. If Christ had had a beginning, His existence could be measured by figures.

Indeed - the idea that there is a number soooooo large that you cannot write it out 10 x 10^10^10^10^10 (etc) is silly. The only such number is infinity .

That "number that is not infinite yet too high to name" idea is not "why some early SDAs were not Trinitarian". The non-trinitarian members of the SDA denomination in the 1800's were from the church of the brethren - or Christian connection. Those denominations were already non-Trinitarian so James White and Uriah Smith and some others who came out of those groups - were predisposed to that belief.

in Christ,

Bob

Then - for your '1st' & '2nd' are true, if you pause for a moment: did our God not die for us? Just what is going on, in the end??

How did Christ, who as God is equal with the law, die and be "God the Son" who cannot die? - that may be a problem, there, if that trinity doctrine definition is indispensible, and we're told it is. After all, God the Son is part of the eternal trinity, and the trinity has to be eternal, can't be separated one person from another even for a moment, to be the trinity. If not absolutely eternal, it's not the divine trinity. Is that the way it has to be?

Ooops, I should refrain from elaborating on the simplicity of Sister White's statements....

Be careful, too, that you don't misread what she's saying.

Remember these two statements: what do they mean?


Those last two go together.