Jesus was the second Adam. He was born sinless, unlike us, without the propensity towards sin that our carnal flesh has from birth. Jesus did not have an earthly father, thus His flesh was blameless.

For God loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten son, so that all who believe in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through his son, might have eternal life. John 3:16 and 17 (my paraphrase.)
I don't think the Bible affirms the above article at all. God would not have sent or allowed his son to die for us if there was any other way to save us. He is a God of love, and as such would not allow his son, Jesus die on the cross for our sins, if that wasn't really necessary. When we think we are more intelligent then scripture itself, then we are on dangerous ground.

Donna, you should be complimented for daring to broach such a "hot" topic in Adventism. But like many of its doctrines, there are far more assumptions than facts.

The first Christians saw Jesus as a new Moses, and Mark's Gospel, the earliest, portrays Jesus as a perfectly normal man with no angels at his birth and nothing remarkable about him in any way. Paul, the earliest NT writer, never called Jesus "God," but the "Son of God" in its Jewish sense; he certainly did not believe that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself. He believed that God had replaced the Torah as God's principal revelation of himself to the world.

There were no detailed theories about the crucifixion as an atonement for some "original sin" of Adam. This theology did not emerge until the fourth century and the early church fathers: Tertullian, Origen, Clement, and Iraneus all contributed to this developing doctrine of the incarnation and later the Trinity.

Few Adventists recognize the long and difficult controversy surrounding these major doctrines that are now almost universally accepted by Christians. One thing we should not forget: all church doctrines are decided and written by man. Neither God nor His Son formulated any explicit church doctrines, and the closest to that is the one most repeated: Do unto others as you would have them do to you, and love your neighbor as yourself. These should always be the most important beliefs and practices in Christianity and are part of all world religions.

@Daniel Apple -

Spectrum's "mainstream" is relevant, quality reporting on news events and views from across the ideological spectrum. Articles that stimulate thought and conversation are the norm. For other uses of the word "mainstream," see also "Adventist Review."

I used to live there.

Ms. Haerich, I was misled by your title. I had hoped for something truly fresh and enlightening. Instead your 3rd alternative seems disturbingly familiar to what has been written in progressive Adventist blogs and even Bill Knott's Adventist Review/World.

What I did find novel was your peculiar statement about expletives Jesus uttered after miscalculated blows to the thumb. Based on your alarming view of his spontaneous response to accidental pain I cringe at the thought of what scatological or vulgar expletives the 39 lashes or the jabs of pain each hammer blow must have elicited.

"Ah, but these are merely theological speculations and like all such speculations they have very little application to Truth or Revelation. " -- Oscar Wilde (Adapted).

Might I add that I've known Christians who, though once given to rare outbursts of profanity or vulgarity under duress, a close walk with God has remarkably eliminated 99.9 percent of that kind of talk.

But who am I to talk for I am a man with a lifelong battle with sins of the flesh and not just of the conceptual kind.

Still, I was relieved to note that I found the suggestion that our Lord and Savior used profanity or yielded to the pleasures of wine offensive and potentially heretical if not scandalous.

Nevertheless, your recap of Christian thought and Adventist theological history was cogent and informative. For that I am grateful. God bless.

"Jesus was the second Adam. He was born sinless, unlike us, without the propensity towards sin that our carnal flesh has from birth. Jesus did not have an earthly father, thus His flesh was blameless."

Excellent. Spot on. The only way to preserve Christ's sinless, divine nature and the concept of His perfect righteousness in our stead is the pre-lapsarian position. The post-lapsarian position saddled with it's vile Final Generation theology and perfectionist baggage is heresy. A foul belief that has polluted and permeated Adventism with its stench for far too long.

Edward Heppenstall, one of the last great voices on this topic:

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/How%20Perfect%20Is%20...

We have come to believe that "Jesus had to die" in order for man to be saved. This surely cannot be true if there were millions before Jesus, and millions since who never knew his name. Will they be lost? This limits the few who fully believe that unless there was death and the shedding of blood, no one could be saved. In the NT, baptism was preached as the remission of sins and in Hebews, it relates blood necessary for the remission of sins but the title of the book
is specifically a letter to the Hebrews who were most familiar with blood sacrifices. For the new Gentile Christians, that was not part of their religious practices and had no meaning except for appeasment to their gods--something that should be completely rejected by all Christians, but sadly it is almost part of the entire Christian doctrine that without blood, the sins will always remain.

The Jews did not believe that their sacrifices entitled them to anything more than confessions to a priest does today. God is so much bigger than that, and to believe otherwise is to believe that your god is far too small to judge us unless we have accepted man's explanation of the ultimate importance of accepting a blood sacrifice. Will all the Jews, Muslims, atheists and non-Christians throughout the ages all be lost unless the knew about, and accepted Jesus as their sacrifice?

This is unacceptable to rational minds and we should reject such an arbitrary God.

From Donna
" My God does not need an offering of blood, even the pure blood of his son, in order to forgive me; he is forgiveness personified. Neither do I need a super-human example to prove I can keep the law. God’s law is a description of the nature of reality. It does not need the acquiescence of a mortal being for its validation. While God did not need his Son to die in order to forgive humankind, He did need a faithful witness to his character and his kingdom."

Apparently you aren't aware of the entire scope of salvation history and the system God set up. Christ did not need to die to simply show us love. Love is shown by a loving life, not 3 years of preaching to deaf, Pharisee ears and dying while being mocked.

The entire sacrificial system for the Israelites to be able to stand before God through the high priest was put in place for a reason. It pointed to Christ. Christ isn't called the lamb for nothing. If Christ did not need to die to satisfy the just requirements of the law, then God the Father is pretty cruel to ignore the pleadings of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane to 'take this cup from my lips'.

Paul is quite clear what the blood of Christ is all about and what 'covers us' and why Christ had to die. The entire scope of salvation history from the OT to Revelation shows the nature of sin, the remedy for sin and the method to deal with it.

Where in the Hebrew Bible is their understanding that all their sacrifices were pointing to Jesus' sacrifice. They had no such interpretation as their sacrifices and offerings were most specific for specific occasions, none of which ever pointed to Jesus.

This interpretation was not made until long after Jesus' death when his followers were attempting to understand both why he was crucified and the meaning of his death. The Gospels made an attempt to explain his death were at least a generation later and each had his own interpretation and none were personally acquainted with him. With not a single NT writer who can be proved to have known Jesus personally, it must be recognized that they all wrote their own understanding. This is no different than those who write about the meaning of Christ today: all ae personal opinions based on their unique understanding and none can do more than that. No human is either infallible, inerrant or inspired, despite all the claims

Elaine,
How about you explain exactly what the purpose of the sacrifical system, the spotless lamb, the high priest, blood atonement was for in the OT? Especially when it is clearly linked in the NT. Why did Christ come when He did? Why did He come at all? He needed to, to institute the plan of salvation under better promises. The sacrificial system was not working. The anti-type needed to meet the type.

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29

"11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining[b] eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God! " Hebrews 9:11-15

" In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many" Hebrews 9:22-28

If you want to disregard Paul and the rest of the NT writers who saw the blatant, obvious connection of salvation history, be my guest. However, don't sit there and say that the Bible writers do not speak in harmony with each regarding this subject.

Like Zane, I am content to affirm the theology of the Chalcedonian Creed. But I also understand that the creeds, being written from a metaphysical perspective that is no my own, need to be interpreted.

As of late, I have been quite captivated by the theological work of Robert W. Jenson, who has done some creative work in interpreting the early Christian creeds. Following Barth, Jenson understands the doctrine of God through the doctrine of election: Jesus is eternal in that from eternity God was the Father of this man from Nazareth; God the Father's identity is wrapped up in Jesus, and so he is not God without Jesus, nor is Jesus who he is outside of his relationship to the Father; Jesus is divine in that he is fully and uniquely a participant in God's life, identity and history; he is fully human in at he is a full participant in human life, identity and history.

As I understand it, Jesus'sinlessness is that his life was in perfect coincidence with God's will, and that this was so by the very fact of who he was and is.

Well said Matt - as ever!

How does Jenson deal with Jesus being the LOGOS of John 1 through whom all things were made, thus pre-existing his human form?

On a more general topic:

Asking the question "Could Jesus sin?" is like asking the question "could God sin?". Surely Jesus did not have the propensity to sin, as he was truly God.

This does not stop him from being our example - because by God's grace, we too are given all the strength we need to avoid giving in to temptation.

Donna, very thought provoking! You wrote:

Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of his conception. This meant he was conscious of God’s special closeness and intimately aware of God’s presence in a uniquely profound way throughout his entire life. This knowledge permeated and illuminated all of his life experiences. As a result of this consciousness, the “glass” through which Jesus viewed the world was clearer and more transparent than the one though which we see.

I do not believe this goes far enough in understanding Jesus as fully man AND fully God, "The word was with God and the word was God." Also, other humans are thought to have been filled with the Holy Spirit at various stages before their birth - I think of Mary and St John. Jesus was God, not just filled with God's Holy Spirit.

Elaine - great points. It is interesting to trace the Christological moment chronologically through the New Testament writings - for St Paul (earliest writings) the risen Christ is God, for Mark - the baptised Christ is God, for Matthew and Luke the baby in the manger is God, and for John (latest) "In the beginning was the WORD".

Tim

"for St Paul (earliest writings) the risen Christ is God, for Mark - the baptised Christ is God." Mark's account of Jesus'baptism records a voice out of the heavens "Thou art my beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased."

Paul did not believe that Jesus had been God incarnate. He constantly used the phrase "in Christ" to describe his experience of Jesus a subjective and mystical experience, "in him we live and move and have our being, "as was the vision he had on the road to Damascus. Even in his letter to the church at Philippi, Paul quotes what is generally believed to be a very early Christian hymn which raises some important issues: "and that every tongue shall acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father."

This seems to reflect a belief among the first Christians that Jesus had enjoyed some kind of prior existence "with God" before becoming a man. Paul was too Jewish to accept the idea of Christ existing as a second divine being besides Yhwh from all eternity. The hymn shows that after his exaltation he is still distinc from and inferior to God, who raises him and confers the title "Lord" upon him. He cannot assume to himself but is given this title only "To the glory of God the Father" indicating subordination.

Nor did Peter claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God. He "was a man commended to you by God by the miracles and portents and signs that God worked through him."

It is easy to accept that what is believed by Christians today has always been the same, but a study of Christian history reveals that it is far from the actual reality of the long struggles, still continuing, to define and explain Jesus. If we could explain, we would be gods.

Elaine, I'm sympathetic to your reading of the New Testament, although I disagree with your conclusion.

I believe the church was correct in noticing what I refer to as a the "Trinitarian structure" of the economy of salvation: The Father saves us through the Son, to whom we are joined in the Spirit. And I don't see how just any human could reconcile us to God. If Jesus reconciles us to God, then Jesus must be an identity of the one God. And if we are joined to Jesus by the Spirit, then the Spirit too must be an identity of the one God. After all, no creature has the ability to join him or herself or others to the Creator. This is the meaning of God's holiness, isn't it?

If it were so simple, why did it take the church four centuries to make a decision, a decision that has never been accepted by all Christians, as evidence by the discussion here. There was no clear explanation in Scripture of either the Trinity or that Jesus was God Incarnate. This was adopted much later and as Ole says above, once the concept was adopted, all sorts of explanations followed and had they been sufficiently clear, why all the continuing discussions after 2,000 years?

Ole Edvin and Elaine,

Again, I am sympathetic to skepticism about the Trinity, and agree that there are difficulties. I do not think this is a case of beginning with an answer and then justifying it; in what sense am I adding to the Bible or twisting it to say that God saves us through Jesus in the Spirit? Reconciliation with the one God happens by God's initiative in Jesus, by the power of the Spirit. I think that this is a faithful articulation of the message of the New Testament. Correct me if I am wrong.

That the church took four centuries to articulate their belief in the Triune God should not trouble us. The early Christians worshipped Jesus as God long before the Nicene Creed was written, and they believed in baptism in the Triune name of God long before any creed was written.

And again, Elaine, I don't deny that there is "no clear explanation" in the Bible. This is why we have to work to interpret the Bible. The question is not whether or not the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, but whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is a faithful interpretation of the not-very-systematic Bible. I believe that this doctrine is a faithful interpretation.

Donna:

The penalty for sin is death. Thus the conflict was posed: How could God at once be just and the justifier of sinful man? God solved the dilemma by paying the price Himself.
The Reform Faith calls that the Everlasting Covenant agree to by the Godhead prior to the creation of Adam. Christ would become the assurance. That is why Christ is referred to as the Lamb slain from the foundations of the earth.

Adventism has slowly moved into a Hebrew view--as God's chosen people: The Final Generation of which shall overcome sin and vindicate God. Christ was merely the forerunner of a generation of perfect men and women.

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirt and thus bypassed "Original Sin" We are totally from the loins of Adam and share his fate. Redeemed only by the Sacrifice and Grace of Christ our Lord.

Salvation is an invitational gift by a God who has paid our ransom. There is no third way, not even a second way. There is only one way. Jesus the Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

Jesus in His debates attempted to clarify the ego-centricity of the Jews. He declared Abraham saw my day and was glad. Abraham so it most clearly when he saw the ram caught in the thicket.
He then understood the price God paid for Abraham's rescue and his seed--all those who trusted by faith in the finished work of Jesus for us. Faith is accepting His sacrifice, His invitation, His Spirit, and His commission. There is only one way. The Sermon on the Mount was His Mission Statement and now it has become ours. Blessed are they-----. Tom Z.

.

I find it interesting that atonement was not a concern of Jesus. He was a Jew who gave up his job to preach to his contemporaries that God was about to establish his rule on Earth again and that people who wanted to be part of that reality needed to repent of their sins, ask for forgiveness and embrace the ethics of the kingdom of God.

As a Jew, Jesus apparently believed that God was free to forgive people without engaging in a quid pro quo scheme involving the shedding of divine blood. That's the main problem I have with the traditional blood atonement: it turns forgiveness into a restitution scheme which empties forgiveness of much of its meaning. God turns into a Shylock demanding his pound of flesh before there will be any talk of restoring the former relationship. He promises to disregard the original offense provided you pay for it in full. (And then there is the problem that Jesus didn't really die, if you believe Christianity. His death supposedly paid for everybody's sins, but in reality he rose again. That's not my definition of death. Death means you stay dead.)

Elaine is quite right about the Jewish blood sacrifices. To Jews they didn't prefigure anything, nor is there anything that I know of in the OT to suggest as much. Shedding blood was a way of placating the gods of Antiquity, but it was all about the present, not the future. The fact that Jesus ended up shedding his blood, led people eventually to connect his blood--by the 2nd century, the blood of a God-Man--with that of the OT sacrifices, but that is an idea imposed on the OT, not one that springs from it.

Who was Jesus praying to in Gethsemane? Himself? He always addressed God as "My Father." If he was God, he had no need to pray to another. Neither did Paul say that Jesus was God, but the "Son of God"

The eminent historian, Will Durant, has captured the essence of Christianity:

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek language became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the Last Judgment, and a personal immortality of reward and punishment. From Persia came millennarianism, the dualism of Satan and God, of darkness and Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the 'Light shining in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to midlead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world."

Durant wrote of the early church:

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ; that every man born of woman inherits the guilt of Adam, and can be saved from eternal damnation only by the atoning death of the Son of God. Such a conception was more agreeable to the pagans than to the Jews. Egypt, Asia Minor, and Hellas had long since believed in gods--Osiris, Attis, Dionysus--who had died to redeem mankind; such titles as Savior and Deliverer had been applied to these deities; and the word "Kyrios" (Lord), used by Paul of Christ, was the term given in Syrian-Greek cults to the dying and redeeming Dionysus.

Elaine...

Paul's language and imagery can also certainly be viewed as his adaptation of culturally understandable and relevant terms and concepts to effectively communicate his gospel to a Gentile audience..to whom he was sent. It does not necessarily mean that its content and substance was derivative from paganism. His good news was more a confrontation than a derivation of pagan thought, in which he argued on their ground and used their language to challenge and overturn their worldview. In his own words , he "became all things to all men, so that by all means he might win some." He sought to "take captive every thought to obey Christ." He saw that "all things were created by and for Christ." Thus, he was not afraid to borrow and to take over key lines of opposing systems of thought.

What you and the above quote also fail to address was his fundamental Jewishness and grounding in the OT. Romans and Galatians, as examples, are his reading of the OT, through the lens of the Christ event. In them, he is largely arguing against Jewish inoculators. In his eyes, the hope of Israel, the constitution of Israel, the covenants, the Law, and eschatology are all now reconstituted through the lens of the crucified and risen Christ.

Yet, his theology remains essentially Jewish in its direction toward the rest of the world. It is grounded in the Jewish expectation of the One God of israel's purpose to include the entire world in his redemptive plan. This hearkens back to the prophets who heralded that as Israel was finally redeemed, then blessing would fall on the Gentiles. Paul recasts these prophetic "glad tidings" "to the Jew first and also to the Gentile," in the Messiah Jesus.

What you also fail to address is the language of kurios and worship that Paul applies to Jesus. To a Jewish rabbi, who believed in the one God of Israel, such language and imperative would have been unthinkable to apply to any mere human. Paul is equating Jesus with YHWH and his divine call and claims, over against the Caesar cult and its call and claims of divine prerogatives. This again is a fundamentally Jewish confrontation with the surrounding culture, just as the prophets of the OT confronted the false gods of their time with the call and claims of YHWH. Paul's thinking is again rooted in Jewish prophetic thought directed towards the claims and distortions of pagan belief, all through the One God of Israel as seen now in Christ Jesus.

I would like to see you deal directly with the text and its implications yourself rather than appeals to authority through the quoting of secondary material.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank
History shows that the Christian message resonated with pagans in a way it never did with Jews. I suppose Jews might have been willing to live with a kyrios Jesus, sent by God to restore the fortunes of Israel, a Jesus with the powers of a Harry Potter and an allegiance to the Torah, but when he was declared to be divine, and that he had come to do away with the Torah and Judaism, the Jews would have none of it.

The reason I doubt Paul ever saw Jesus as the full-blown divinity he appears to have become in the Gospel of John is that Paul was persecuted for his view that Jesus was the new Torah, not that he declared him to be divine. Both ideas were anathema to the Jews, capital offenses against their religion, but you don't see Paul enter into polemics with the Jews about the divinity of Jesus. Romans and Galatians are about the Torah, not the issues of the Gospel of John. Paul focused on the role of Jesus, not his essence.( That role, however, seems consistent with the later belief that Jesus was God.)

Elaine
Thanks for posting the Durant quotes. Amazing how clearly he saw things way back when, and modern scholarship does not seem to have modified his thesis much.

By Aage
"As a Jew, Jesus apparently believed that God was free to forgive people without engaging in a quid pro quo scheme involving the shedding of divine blood. That's the main problem I have with the traditional blood atonement: it turns forgiveness into a restitution scheme which empties forgiveness of much of its meaning. God turns into a Shylock demanding his pound of flesh before there will be any talk of restoring the former relationship. He promises to disregard the original offense provided you pay for it in full. (And then there is the problem that Jesus didn't really die, if you believe Christianity. His death supposedly paid for everybody's sins, but in reality he rose again. That's not my definition of death. Death means you stay dead.)"

As a Jew, Jesus would have fully understood and accepted the concept of blood atonement for the sacrificial system was all about the blood of the lamb in the Most Holy place making restitution for one's sins. As God the Son, He would know fully what His mission was: to be the Lamb of God that takes away sin forever so that man may approach a Holy God in whom no sin can exist. It is who God is. It is the nature of God. Hence, a way was needed to reconcile sinful man with a Holy God. God thus emptied Himself to reconcile us back. If He didn't do this, we'd still be sacrificing lambs and goats, always making payment. No, God doesn't need payment to forgive us our sins, the price has already been paid. This is the gospel. This is love, forgiveness and mercy.

Death pardoned iniquity but to give us the victory over sin and death, Christ had to rise. Christ came to conquer death as man-God. This could not be done if He didn't die as a man, but be raised once more as fully God.

Two questions for those of you who are discussing either atonement of the divinity of Jesus:

1. Atonement: If penal substitutionary atonement is the meaning of Jesus' death, in what sense is his resurrection necessary for salvation? (Don't just proof text)

2. Christology: If Jesus is not divine, in what sense is his life, death and resurrection salvific?

...and thus we come up with the derogatory word of 'heretic', which grooms most people to stay in the realm of irrational, and irrational is changed to the word 'faith'...and it has worked for eons. They are finding now that it is highly likely that Peter was really buried in Jerusalem rather than Rome but the church in Rome says that can't be because that would contradict tradition.

The lead article states:

"Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of his conception."

This concept was not established by the Gospel writers until at least a generation after Jesus died. Mark has nothing whatsoever to say about his conception, while Matthew and Luke greatly embellish the entire birth narrative to preposterous and very contradictory narration. Paul, who wrote so voluminously about Christianity, nowhere mentions the Christ's virgin birth. Had he not heard of this rumor, or was it not until Luke detailed it that it became part of the legend around Christ?

It was Matthew, who wrote his Gospel perhaps a decade after Luke, who takes a very different approach to the virginal conception of Jesus and is bent on proving that Jesus is the Messiah by fulfilling Hebrew prophecy: "Behold, a young woman shall bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel" (Is. 7:14). The point of the OT story has nothing to do with virginity. Matthew used a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT in which "alma" can mean either a young woman or a virgin.

As virginal birth were commonly part of the Greek pantheon: Zeus impregnates the mortal vigin Danae, who gives birth to Perseus; the god Appolo begets Asclepius; the god Mars begets Romulus; Zeus also father Hercules. Thus, virginal births were not at all extraordinary and were considered to be the gods prerogative. Today, Christians consider that the virginal birth recorded by Luke, was a most miraculous event, but in that time and place, there was nothing unusual about this story.

So Elaine and Aage,

What do you believe? That Christ was not truly divine and did not die to satisfy any just requirements for sin? That he was simply a human prophet as Islam states, and the bible writers simply got it wrong and 'embellished the facts?

Sounds like 'Jesus Seminar' stuff to me. At what point does it all stop becoming 'Christian'?

Hi, something is amiss

Jesus, just like many historical figures became deified by His followers after his death.

Yes, I believe that there was a man called Jesus just as there was a man called Alexander (titled the Great and a god, also) and that there were men called Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and many other figures in history.

But humans gave him divinity. He never claimed to be God but a Son of God, as was the Jewish custom for great rabbis.

According to the Bible accounts, the man Jesus died. Had he truly been God, Christians would have to admit that God died. If the Godhead, or Trinity had died, we would never know would we? How?

Whether one believes in God or not, has nothing to do with whether there is such a god, or whether there is a Trinity.
Nothing happened when Jesus died to indicate divinity--if so does divinity die?

There is not one secular account of any contemporary historian (Josephus, Philo) of having seen Jesus or that he was God. All that one knows about Jesus was written by those who never knew him, but reported the accounts they had heard.
For those who believe, this makes no difference; for those who don't believe, this makes no difference.

Great stuff discussed here. However, nothing new. these ideas have been battled over and over. Elaine, it seems you have read lots Jesus seminar stuff especially Marcus Borg writings and adopted their perspective. I recommend you read The meaning of Jesus a dialogue between Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright so that you can get Wright's scholarly refutation of most of the ideas you articulate above. According to your position, we cant trust the Gospels, Paul is not reliable, there is no trinity, Jesus is not God. Therefore, Christianity is a big Hoax, A religion of peoples imagination. That is the position of Islam: There is no trinity. By the way, Was Mathew, Peter, James and John not disciples of Jesus? didn't they write some NT books?

Julius, FYI, I have no knowledge of Marcus Borg, other then seeing his name occasionally on these and other websites. I have read Crossan, but my concepts are in seeking the historical rather than theological. While historians have their own biases, unless they are to be trusted as historians, they must usually address facts that are common to all historians.

This is my approach to Christianity, as my master's thesis was on the first four centuries of Christianity and which I still am studying.

I don't recall saying that Paul was not reliable, as I quoted him in these discussions. As for the authors of the Gospels, there is absolutely no verifiable facts that any of the names given those books were actual disciples. It was very common to give a prominent name as the writer of such essays in order to give it more authority and acceptance. We also have the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of Barnabas and many other church fathers that were contemporary with much of the NT. The approximate dates for these Gospels was no earlier than 60 A.D., and John's Revelation is dated at ca 90 A.D., which means that if it was written by the disciple called John, do the math: how old would he have been ca. 30 A.D. when Jesus lived?

From the "Interpreter's Bible":

"Detailed analysis of Matthew shows that the author used Mark as one of his sources and all the gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew. We have no evidence for the origin of Matthew and no assurance of its author's name; indeed all the gospels are anonymous. Later tradition has attached to them the names they now bear. Mark, the first gospel, was likely written ca. 70 A.D., and Matthew ca. 80-85 A.D."

Again, from the same book:

"In no case can Luke be recognized as an eyewitness of events in the career of Jesus. His own account is at best secondhand depending on the works of those sho 'were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word' (1:2). He seems to have accurate knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (19:41-44); 21:20-24) and evidently wrote after 79 A.D."

"The Gospel of John suggests a date after the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 A.D. (2:19-20; 4:21), and probably after the expulsion of Jewish Christian believers from the synagogues, which was effective ca. 85-90 A.D. (9:22; 16:2). Tradition for acceptance of authorship by John, son of Zebedee was based on testimony of Irenaeus, who claimed he received the tradition firthand, when a youth from Polycarp. No reader of the gospel who was not familiar with the Synoptics and Acts would identify the "beloved disciple" with John or with either of the "sons of Zebedee."

From Bart Ehrman:

"In short, there is no certainty established as to the authors of any of the Gospels. Nor are there original copies of any of the books of the NT, nor any of the first copies nor any of the copies of the copies. The earliest complete texts of the NT ere from about the fourth century, or three hundred years after the writings themselves had been produced. The early manuscripts are significant for showing that the books of the NT were not copied with the assiduous care you might think or hope for. In fact, the earliest copyists appear to have been untrained and relatively unsuited to the tasks; they made lots of mistakes. and these mistakes were themselves then copied by subsequent copyists (who had only the mistake-ridden copies to reproduce) down into the Middle Ages."

Unlike those who believe that historians have as their task to discredit the Bible, they are searching the oldest manuscripts and read them in the original Greek or Hebrew (the NT was all written in Greek). This is the historian's pursuit, not theological interpretation, which is left to those who are trained in the hermeneutics and read many other theological expositions.

"Nothing new here. Just another liberal who prefers the moral influence theory to the substitutionary atonement, ignoring the very plain teaching of Scripture." Read

What more needs to be said. This very succinctly captures the essence of the article. Thanks.

Amen...I do think that fear to ask questions...not just the questions that we have answers to, goes back to how we see the character of God. God is big enough; when we look at the cosmos, it tells us that God is big enough

From Loren Seibold,

"She's thinking, not just reflecting what she's always been told, which is more than a lot of people can say. If it helps her (and I hope, us) to understand Jesus a little better, then it seems to me (given a 20 century struggle to understand these concepts by the greatest minds in the Christian church) God won't mind."

And at what point is it when someone reasons God away through their questions and comes to the complete opposite conclusions from what they've been taught, Pastor Loren? How is that productive in our walk with God when we reason away the very foundation of our faith through logic and science? What good are questions when they cast doubt on the very fabric of Christianity?

We are not talking about whether SDA apocalyptic is accurate or whether we've gotten a few doctrines wrong here. This is much, much more serious.

I'm all for questions but I'm also for solid belief. What good is it when that foundation is shaky and someone decides to embrace cold logic and toss away faith?

Aage & Loren,

Darrell is asking a legitimate question...and that is what is it you are basing you faith ON...The WRITTEN faith of scripture OR you desires and reason apart from it. Traditional Protestantism is based on sola scriptura. IT seems evident that beside normal human doubts... Adventism has injected other doubts supposedly rooted in the "great controversy theme/event" as variedly understood in multiple understandings in Adventism.

If you do not choose Chrisitanity Aage that is fine...follow your path. If "the faith" once delivered to the saints Loren is to you inadequate for faith and practice, fine...just don't call it "Protestant Christianity" and SDA the heirs of it!!! Quite frankly I am sick of it!

regards,
pat

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. In those pages life can be found to those who believe Jesus Christ has died for their sins (see John 3:16). God's perfect justice required that we die for our sins. However, God wouldn't leave us alone to die. He sent Jesus, Jesus came willingly. For you and I. I would urge readers of Spectrum blog to take the Bible at face value. God truly love us enough to die for us.
My whole life has been turned around because God has changed me from the inside. Yes, I am imperfect but the Bible says: Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2.

I believe we can trust God's revealed Word completely. It brings hope and shows us just how much God cares fo us.

For a great video of how much God cares please see this link:
http://www.thefinalmovement.com/2010/07/09/the-pearl-of-great-price-davi...

He did have an earthly mother ...

To Darrrell C

Please give us one example of where logic --by itself--led anyone astray or brought them to a wrong conclusion? And show us where illogical ideas ever brought us an affirmable truth.

Be careful when you assail logic...it will give the same right back to you.

Donna,

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts - it's always, without exception, always a blessing to me when others add to my understanding of Jesus our Messiah. I accept the possibility of the dual nature, even if it surpasses human reason, it still edifies my spirit.

Also, I extend appreciation to Elaine and Aage.

Elaine, I feel that my spirit shares with yours a common faith in blessed assurance - simply that God IS, and that is ultimately sufficient for me. Yours is one unencumbered by dogmatism and religious trappings - whereas for me, the traditional cognitive constructs add colour, flavour and depth to my religious journey. And I agree that God is big enough to handle our differences too.

Aage, my spirit is always uplifted by the patience and kind honesty evident when you present your thoughts with care and integrity. Many blessing be upon you.

Aage, I'm not sure what kind of atheist or agnostic you are. Many measure themselves by other men, then congratulate themselves on how good they are doing as an unbeliever and how shabby the man of faith is.

It's not an inaccurate assessment. Good breeding, blood lines, education, sophistication and culture can carry a long person a long way, just short of heaven's door.

Seinfeld often displayed this kind of righteousness as he, sometimes in self mockery, reviewed his virtues: He notifies someone if he sees them drop a glove, returns mail mistakenly delivered to his address, insists that after three dates, a breakup with a girlfriend must be face to face, and so forth. He even tried to help Babu with his restaurant!

Adventism, and Christianity in general, often attract people who are not doing well in the material world. Really, how many people from the better class of society do you know who have converted to Adventism?

If I understand the Bible correctly, this is exactly as God would have it. He has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom. That is not to say that God is not concerned about those who do well in life, it's just that he understands those people usually have no use for Jesus, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and so forth.

EGW's chapter in Ministry of Healing, "Ministry to the Rich", is a chapter which I have enjoyed, even as one who lacks good breeding, blood lines, wealth, sophistication, and so forth. I like that chapter because it accurately describes the spiritual needs of every soul, a need some have described as existential loneliness.

Perhaps you are "spiritually" fulfilled in life. I hope so.

Pat

I always appreciate your thoughts. Your perspective is one I am very familiar with, and where it explicates the work of the Reformers, I mostly accept your views.

However, much of our discussion is meta-theological here, meaning it is implicitly shaped by underlying assumptions about what theology is, what the Bible writers were doing, etc.

I am trying to open this dimension so that we have more thoughtful conversation together, ones that are able to increase our understanding.

In that vein, I find your complaint above (about Frank's ideas?) quite puzzling: "It quite frankly appears to be something quite different based on multiple readings and understandings of EGW evidenced on Spectrum...among other things."

In my view, the multiplicity is a good thing... in yours?

Mr Potato
"Aage, I'm not sure what kind of atheist or agnostic you are. Many measure themselves by other men, then congratulate themselves on how good they are doing as an unbeliever and how shabby the man of faith is."

Am I surfing on somebody else's intellectual wave? Is that your question? If so, obviously yes. I'm a high school English and French teacher with an M.A. in Religion from Andrews. I'm not a scholar. I read books, I don't write them. When I weigh in on the historical or theological aspects of history, the integrity of my argument rests entirely on the solidity of research that lies behind the books I've read--and of course, the use I make of those facts.

As to the kind of 'atheist or agnostic' that I am, I would say I'm a religious unbeliever in the sense that I lost my faith within the context of religion, not secular philosophy or science. I only read Dawkin's brilliant book, The Blind Watchmaker, about ten years after surrendering my faith, and it took me nearly 30 years after the fact to read his and Hitchen's atheist books. My faith died a religious death in the midst of the kind of questions we're discussing on this and other threads on the Spectrum blog. That's why I participate in this conversation and not some atheist blog.

I'm not sure if you were suggesting that I come from some elite, upper-class background (the rest of your remarks were cryptic). If so, no. Solid Norwegian working class. I probably would never have even gone to college had I not become an Adventist at age 19.

Why is engaging in questions bad for everyone's faith? Perhaps those who find it so should avoid it, & not attempt to control those who do not.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part,"

Graeme,

Actually I was affirming Frank. We seldom disagree on what scripture says about Christ.

My comments about EGW were the obvious ways in which the "perfectionist",traditionalist,progressive SDA's read her. Not only does it in practice therfore add a layer of authority but also of additional obvious confusion.

Of course no one has an "exhaustive understanding" of God and in this sense He is unknowable. However He is not unknown or unknowable in the things He has made known/revealed of Himself through the writers of scripture which include the life of Christ.

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."Dt.29:29.

To discuss whatever one wants to here is fine...and to believe whatever one wants is fine...but it does not represent Classic Protestant thought and if the SDA church claims to be heir of the genuine Reformation...it truly has a problem and that claim is mearly a fasade as I see it today. It is incumbant that it realize that and defend the continued claim based on it's history...including the points in Question on Doctrine legitimately asked. That is my ONLY point which I tried to respectfully make to Donna and others on this strand.

regards,
pat

The pure white light of Christ refracts into doctrines and attitudes that are componants of that perfect truth/being. Alter those aspects and you no longer have Christ but an "anti-Christ" purposefully or not.

Steve...I think thee doth protest too much. "Attacks" ? "Accusations" ? C'mon now.

There is no attacking going on here, least of all from me, and I am not making accusations against you or anyone else. I never even hinted that you were attacking Donna in any way. ..where did you get that from? (Anyone can check above Sat, 06/25/2011 - 22:22)

I think you perceive attack where none exists.

To restate or summarize what someone else believes is not an attack, it is a representation. In normal, reasonable conversations, people make representations and claims all the time. To give my judgment or analysis of your or anyone's ideas is not an accusation or attack. And judgment or assessment is not judgmentalism. If you feel my analysis is wrong, then please help me understand you better. Use my commentary on your views as an opportunity to clarify your readers' misunderstandings, just like Pat did in his last post. That's how conversations go.

So, just what in my post was untrue about what you believe? I'm willing to be corrected.

Your misrepresentation of my thought as "attacking" etc. is unjustified. I challenge you to learn how to write without using violent language. (This post is not an attack on you, either.) Feel free to edit your post.

Ok Graeme I sort of hate to beat a dead horse, but since you have in essence demanded a retraction let me be more specific about what you said of me:

1. “So many of your readers such as Pat and Steve are so sure that their view, the Protestant view, is correct” - This is true, and I have no problem with this statement, however it is also true of everyone who holds a view, just as Donna is sure of her view and you are sure of yours.

2. You then go on to say: “they do not see or allow that other views might also be beautiful and true.” Here is where I have a problem. I have never said that I do not see or allow for other views. This is simply a mischaracterization of who I am. It would in fact seem that you are doing the very thing you accuse me of, because of the view I hold, you apparently view me as something less than . . .

3. Continuing to quote you: They think that because the Bible--or a letter of Paul--affirms the substitutionary death of Christ--which it does-- that is the final word on the topic. – While I do believe in the substitutionary death of Christ, it does not mean I believe there is nothing more to learn or understand. You seem to not want to allow me to hold that view or at feel that because I hold that view there is something wrong with me for holding to that view.

4. You also say: ”I think it quite probable for one to be a believing and practicing Christian without believing precisely in a particular explanation of the nature of Christ, or of salvation, or of the beginning or end of all things. This seems to be a matter of the heart, not of the head. - If you read the things I have written both articles and in the discussions following articles, the one consistent argument I have made is that people need to be allowed to have different views in their spiritual journey. That we should be very careful in treating people harshly because of differing views and understandings. This is perhaps why I am so sensitive to your criticism, because you have taken one of my core values as a relatively conservative Adventist, and charged me with having the exact opposite value.

5 You close with this: It is a conversation we are in, in which we listen, respect, respond and learn. Not everyone is saying the same thing. And that is a good thing.
Yet it seems to me that you have demeaned my position when all I did was state my position. In this last statement you imply that I do not listen, respect and learn. You close by suggesting that I somehow do not believe it is a good thing that not everyone is saying the same thing. This is again a gross mischaracterization of who I am and what I believe.

In the grip of grace

Steve Moran

Matt and Aage,

Matthew Henry said this about Rom.4:25 concerning the "raised for our justification." This view is supported by not but a few NT evangelical exegetes.

", where we have a brief account of the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection, which are the two main hinges on which the door of salvation turns. 1. He was delivered for our offences. God the Father delivered him, he delivered up himself as a sacrifice for sin. He died indeed as a malefactor, because he died for sin; but it was not his own sin, but the sins of the people. He died to make atonement for our sins, to expiate our guilt, to satisfy divine justice. 2. He was raised again for our justification, for the perfecting and completing of our justification. By the merit of his death he paid our debt, in his resurrection he took out our acquittance. When he was buried he lay a prisoner in execution for our debt, which as a surety he had undertaken to pay; on the third day an angel was sent to roll away the stone, and so to discharge the prisoner, which was the greatest assurance possible that divine justice was satisfied, the debt paid, or else he would never have released the prisoner: and therefore the apostle puts a special emphasis on Christ’s resurrection; it is Christ that died, yea, rather that has risen again, ch. 8:34. So that upon the whole matter it is very evident that we are not justified by the merit of our own works, but by a fiducial obediential dependence upon Jesus Christ and his righteousness, as the condition on our part of our right to impunity and salvation, which was the truth that Paul in this and the foregoing chapter had been fixing as the great spring and foundation of all our comfort."

In the resurrection Christ was publically declared to be God and His atonement acceptable for our justifcation...or His body would have remained in the grave.

regards,
pat

Tom,

Thank you. I was at the first Adventist Forum meeting in Atlanta where the topic concerned Des, JBF and the sanctuary. The issues today primarily deny those early issues and focus on doubt and skepticism of God's revealed Word.

We both are aware of some of the areas of difficulty in Reformed thought but as a "system of understanding" coming out of the Protestant Reformation, I do not believe a better one exists. All issues are not so internally linked so that one must believe particular election and reprobation or immortality of the soul... causing their other extremely valuble scholarship fail. Most also favor amill over post-mill recognizing the dangers of dominion theology from any source in the present age.

When I was raised a SDA the Bible was taught as the final authority by my mom in our house.
I was raised to admire the Protestant reformation and that we supposedly "continued the torch."
Well, If that was ever true, the original torches teachings regarding the core beliefs of salvation must be embraced as that primarily is the core of the Reformation.

My time at RTS was a blessing and I never sensed any hostility for my fellowship as a SDA because my friends and profs new of my love and understanding of the doctrine of JBF "alone" as taught by both Calvin and Luther. Roger Nicole made it a point to never pass me without saying...hello Brother...he recently died a giant for the gospel of Christ.

Blessings to you and your house Tom and may God always grant us the courage to stand for the cross of Christ which is scandal and offense to those who are perishing.

Oh that we could always just quote Jn.3:16...but continual thesis' against that simple truth often require an answer to defend "the faith" once delivered to the saints.

regards,
pat

Aage,

I appreciate your comments. I consider you an “enemy only in sense of the gospel” which I am so unworthy of.

In the sense of a neighbor, fellow human and potential friend you are not.

The intellect and education of some of these of the reformed faith is scarcely appreciated in this modern age. Witherspoon of what later became Princeton Univ. & Theology School(Presb.) was the only clergy to sign the Declaration of Independance.Later Westminster Theological Seminary resulted due to "theological liberalism" at fromerly conservative Princeton. His student James Madison, "the father of the US constitution" drew up the 1st Amendment of course with Jefferson's like approval...that which all believers in freedom of religion praise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Witherspoon

Regards,
pat

Matt,

In my experience, reading lots of David Bentley Hart may be an indication of a neurological malady, or will eventually induce one. Reading Jenson along AND him, is a sure confirmation. :) I hope to get a chance to read some Jenson in the future. Thanks for the introduction.

Aage,

My hope is that you will accept the good news of Christ as savior. In that sense since you reject it are you not an enemy of Christ?
I've lived all over the world and find many places and people facinating. While living in HK, I had friends that professed being Hindu and Buddhist.My Filipino brother-in law professes to be a Muslim. I choose to be no ones enemy...includng you...but concerning the most important gospel you are.
" As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable." Rom.11:28. I know that specifically refers to the Jews but I suggest also those who oppose the gospel...in the spiritual sense.

May you experence what God in His common Grace has the best for what is best for you. And, may you by his grace find His tender mercies in Christ.

regards,
pat

There was no war in heaven. It is a religious myth, using the broader positive meaning of "myth".

"Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of his conception"

Donna, much appreciate all that you so well share! I shall have to sit in at 10am every week I can!

I have only one observation; consider the jesus, as second Adam, born of woman as son of man and hence pre-stained with the generational DNA of human sin in this identity and role, and came with disadvantages Adam did not
versus
THE JESUS, as begotten Son of God and primary in creation Tribunal, with all the power attendant with this identity and role, without even a hint of sins DNA. Can i wrap my mind around this?

When public declaration sounded from heaven at the Jordan River; SATAN took notice.
His 3 ensuing attacks on Jesus were not deed, or doctrine. Only identity..."IF you ARE....the Son of God, PROVE it!" Jesus said, I AM, and YOU SHALL NOT tempt me with this!

What are WE doing proving OUR identity with deeds and doctrines, and denying anyone else's right to adoption with these? Doing so is fig leaves and apple polishings. Is this not image of the first and fallen, not 2nd, and victorious Adam.

I'll pose a "dangerous" question right here; is it possible that doing this (proving the SEAL -identity-)
by DEED (hand) and DOCTRINE (head) is a form of the "mark", as on the first Adam, who was condemned? (Note Adam's defense; I KNEW I was naked, so I MADE a fig-leaf tux)
Is this why, in all 3 trials, only one charge was asked of Jesus (ARE YOU son of God?) Is this why it was also his only testimony, admission, deposition, defense- and His condemning testimony-in words, deeds, life and death? Naked and bleeding, not ONE word from the cross about deed or doctrine; but instead 5 about "sonship". 40 days later...last words on earth...more about the same. "I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU ORPHANS." If you know you ARE a son, you need NOT prove it via other means! Though naked, wretched, BELOVED anyway!

What remarkable restraint to NEVER using His power and authority (which He GAVE to God the Father via His submission "to Fathers will") to correct the egregious earthly injustices (to himself or any other marginalized and rejected "outcasts"). He could have, as JESUS, called down the powers of heaven on any of these...and as jesus would have failed. THIS is the "FAITH OF JESUS", and by inheritance as sure sons of adoption, this is also your and my SINGULAR "faith question".

For Jesus to NOT rely on deed or doctrine (and whatever power and might, authority and right that might -RIGHTFULLY even-confer upon HIM) was a test I cannot fathom. How submitted to the Fathers will to not utter ONE word of deed or doctrine from tree of death; instead, perfect faith ONLY IN HIS IDENTITY.
I AM your son; I TRUST YOU (even though You slay me), and I bring you back these other sons who no longer desire to be orphans in the wilderness, who have tired of sewing ever finer fig leaves and incessantly polishing apples.

Does my life testify I believe you, too, and everyone, aliens, brothers, strangers, enemies, are LIKEWISE offered same identity? This is my witness; If i love HIM, I will love you, (and myself) as well.

Is my life one marked as first adam; "i am homo viator, wanderer, naked orphan So i cover, lie..."
jesus lived the vagrant, homeless orphans life...
Or do I accept the seal as HOMO VIKTOR through my inheritance?"
Jesus died a diametric and antithetic death despite being FOREVER SON,
and trusted Abba, anyway. This is the faith I pray for.

Trending back toward what I think was the original intent of the article: I am unapologetically post-lapsarian. That does not mean I believe Jesus was born a sinner. Some thirty years ago, while spending several days in Phoenix, Arizona, on business, I attended one of the larger SDA churches there for Sabbath Services. The young preacher spent the entire sermon period in a vigorous defense of the pre-lapsarian doctrine, excoriating as a heretic anyone who might dare believe otherwise. After the service I approached him in the foyer and asked him a simple question what he had meant by one of his statements. He became very angry and threatened to call the police to have me removed from the premises. I am glad to see that we are now able to approach the topic with somewhat less heat.

I was happy to read Elaine's comment that it took the church several hundred years to reach what might have been construed at that time as a consensus about the nature of Christ. A more accurate statement would be that the church has never been fully unified or clarified on the topic. In the second and third centuries several widely diverging beliefs were put forward. That of Arius was the less radical and thus caused the greater confusion. This is not the place to plow through modalism, adoptionism, and the rest, nor all the details of the various teachings often called Arianism. Enough said that Arius taught, among other things, that the Son was of less stature than the Father because he was begotten and could therefore not be co-eternal. He cited several Bible texts which can be interpreted to support that position. His teachings found some degree of traction in the theology school at Alexandria and in many of the eastern churches.

The ensuing uproar and division between the eastern and western bishops threatened to divide the empire, and Constantine responded by calling the bishops (about 300 of them) to the town of Nicaea to settle the matter. He ended up dictating the language which became the core of the Nicene Creed. There was considerable resistance at first by most of the eastern bishops, though all but two finally acceded to the emperor's language. Some reverted to their previous teachings as soon as they got back to their home churches. Subsequent counsels added language over the centuries to arrive at the present form, which is largely similar in the Roman, Orthodox and Armenian liturgies.

It is generally assumed that the Nicene Creed firmly establishes the currently popular conception of the Trinity, with the Son and the Holy Spirit being eternally co-existent with the Father. That is not true. Witness the Latin Credo, as stated in the Vatican II form of the mass, where belief is stated in the Son as the only begotten of the Father: Et ex patre natum ante omnia saecula--and born of the father before all ages (saecula < saeculum). There are two immediate questions here. First: how could he be eternally co-existent if the Father gave birth to him? Does that not infer a time lapse? And second: what is the actual meaning of "saeculum"? A good Latin dictionary will tell you it means generation, life-time, century, or an indefinitely long period. That may or may not infer eternal co-existence, depending on how you interpret the plural. Later in the Credo the Holy Spirit is described: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit--who proceeded from the Father and the Son. In other words, the current Roman form of the Nicene Creed states that the Son came into existence after the Father and that the Holy Spirit came into existence after both of them.

Of course we do not base our doctrine on the Roman Credo, but that document is useful in understanding the position taken by the assembled bishops at Nicaea in 325 A.D. under the emperor Constantine's insistence as a political solution. It also should untangle us from dogmatic assertions about the theology of the trinity. Plainly stated, the currently dominant doctrine of the Trinity is extra-biblical. It is, in fact, a development growing out of a compromise reached between church leaders under political pressure about three hundred years after Christ, and specifically Arian thought has persisted even within the highest ranks of the Roman church. For example, besides the Credo as commented above, the great doctor of the church, St. Thomas Aquinas, justified the hierarchical structure of medieval society by reference to the hierarchy of the godhead – The Holy Spirit being subordinate to the Son and the Son to the Father.

It is commonly stated that the early Adventists were all Arians, including Ellen White, and that they got smarter and more mainstream as time went by. That is specifically untrue. The positions promulgated by the Adventist pioneers are quite in tune with those of the eastern non-Arian bishops at the Council of Nicaea. Over the decades some Seventh-day Adventist writers did flirt with a more deviant Arian position, that the Son was a created being, notably Uriah Smith, but Ellen White slapped him down, and he retreated. She never did object to the teachings of the pioneers on the topic.

Ben
On what specifically do you base your rather astonishing assertion that "Over the decades some Seventh-day Adventist writers did flirt with a more deviant Arian position, that the Son was a created being, notably Uriah Smith, but Ellen White slapped him down, and he retreated. She never did object to the teachings of the pioneers on the topic."

I say astonishing because how do you explain that J. H. Waggoner, a leader in the church, could publish anti-trinitarian books with SDA imprimatur without rebuke (e.g.Elder J. H. Waggoner. The Atonement; An Examination of a Remedial System in the Light of Nature and Revelation. Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1884). Nor is there any evidence, to my knowledge that EGW slapped down his son E.J. Waggoner of Minneapolis 1888 fame for preaching the same Arian message as his father (e.g. E. J. Waggoner, "The Divinity of Christ," Signs of the Times, April 8, 1889, p. 214). In fact EGW though Waggoner was the harbinger of the latter rain.

Re-read the dictionary definition of myth I printed above. Myths may very well contain actual events, but they may also have distinctively cultural elements to the specific cultures where they are told. Such are the Bible stories. Myths attempt to explain a world where there was far less scientific and quantitative realities and belief in demons, gods, angels and such that are encaptured in the various tales. Just as the Babylonian Epic has very similar creative acts for six days of the week as the Genesis story.

Yes, Homer's epic has literal facts as well as gods and events that they believed at that time; not too different from the Bible writers who also had similar beliefs.

The Bible accounts are not being discredited, but we should not take everything as literal anymore than to believe the Babylonian Epic as literally true or Homer's epics. Why should only one story, dating from approximately the same time be the only true one and the others are mere myths?

Elaine, I don't think Homer actually believed that Achilles was immune to injury except through his heel. It is open to question how much he believed that the gods did any of the things he credited to them.

There are many things in the Bible which are obscure and open to interpretation. I don't think they should on that basis be automatically consigned to the category of myth.

Ellen, reading Revelation 12:7-9: "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

The language is archaic -- at least this particular translation. The vocabulary, that is, some of the names given to Satan, is symbolic but securely based in Old Testament figuration. Unless you dismiss the entire Bible as a cultural artifact, there is no reason to dismiss this passage as cultural.

What do you see in any SDA teachings that contradicts or adds unfairly to the above Bible passage? In any case, what justification do you have for saying there was no war in heaven when the Bible explicitly says there was? Do you simply dismiss the Bible out of hand in order to conform to your own cultural preferences?

I don't think any serious Christian construes the "war in heaven" as being fought with tanks and airplanes and heavy artillery, or even with swords and spears. Give us some credit for rational symbolic thinking--both as to the original biblical expression and the SDA extensions.

Bible study is a wonderful exercise in metaphorical thinking.

.

Ben
If the Council of Nicea taught Arianism, as you seem to imply, then 19th century Adventists were indeed Trinitarians. Here's a typical definition of Arianism, from Wikipedia:

"Although virtually all positive writings on Arius' theology have been suppressed or destroyed,[2] negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, where only God the Father existed."

And here is E. J. Waggoner, the sensation of 1888: "There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ's statement recorded in John 14:28 ['My father is greater than I']. One is that 'Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is the greater in that he had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning." ("The Divinity of Christ," Signs of the Times, April 8, 1889, p. 214.)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Christian church, for 1700 years, has misunderstood its own Nicene creed, and that the Arian or semi-Arian SDA pioneers got it right after all. If so, I suppose you must be of the view that the SDA church made a huge mistake when it adopted the mainstream doctrine of the Trinity, or what?

What if God is a metaphor and/or myth of a greater reality that us humans barely comprehend? Blows any literalism away, and reduces us to humility in our unknowningness and wonder at what we do know.

The point being Frank, that it is possible for BOTH to be wrong since all of it is speculation, inferences such as how Christ spoke about the father assumes that the Father is older etc.
Just like the Pharisees and the Sadducees, especially on this subject, it is quite possible that both are off base or at a bare minimum woefully incomplete understandings.
Many people find it strange that Christ spent 40 days in the wilderness fasting and praying to himself.
So its not like the trinity concept enjoys exceedingly great clarity and sensibility to the human mind either.

Ben..didn't the early SDA's see Christ as Michael the archangel, at least for a time?

Frank, John 1:1-4 is not quite so cut and dried as you think. The words in Greek (John 1:1) are "en arche en ho logos...kai theos en ho logos," commonly translated as "In the beginning was the word...and the word was God" The problem is that "en arche" does not necessarily mean "in the beginning" as we commonly understand the term. According to Liddell-Scott the term "en arche" may mean, "in the beginning," "from the first," or "from old." The first two definitions accord with your position. The third affords other possibilities.

We teach that the Bible must be allowed to interpret itself. That is, we compare texts with other texts in order to clarify ambiguities. One other text used by Arius to support his position was 1 Cor 8:6: "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." This language is reflected in the Latin Credo, which thus reflects by implication that aspect of the Arian teachings.

"Mr. Potato": The doctrine of the trinity, as presently developed, is extra-biblical. That is, the word never appears in scripture; our understanding is inferred from various texts by which we may draw certain conclusions about the godhead which are not explicitly stated. The basic doctrine of the Trinity is secure. It is in the details that we can get into differences. More is often made of the differences than ought.

Certain teachings ascribed to Arius are explicitly anti-biblical. For example, there exists a purported letter from Arius to one Eusebius, possibly a forgery, which states in part: "...that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not...." It is quite possible that, if the letter is for the most part genuine, the "or created" was inserted to condemn Arius.

The New Testament is explicit that Christ was in fact "very God." It is on that basis that the entire doctrine of his atonement and our redemption rests. Our pioneers were in full accord with that teaching.

Ben...

I would first compare text with text in John's gospel, before going outside of it to clarify meaning. Jesus' I AM statements, and his pronouncement that, "I and the father are One," reveal the claim of equivalency with YHWH, the One God of the Shema, the One God of Israel. The reaction of his hearers...wanting to kill him for blasphemy... shows the audacity and extent of his claims.

Thanks...

Frank

"..... the prologue and even the entire book itself, portrays Jesus as fully God, not a lesser god as Waggoner's position implies." Frank

Perhaps its my understanding of what a GOD is that makes it of small consequence.
Isnt a God defined by the 3 omni's?

To be a God dont you have to be
Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient?

In which case how can one be a lessor God? One is either a God or they arent. True?

It was their view of the atonement that drove the SDA pioneers' view of Christ's divinity. A human sacrifice--or the sacrifice of a mere human 'nature'--would not suffice, they argued. On the other hand, God could not die, so as to provide atonement. To square this circle they proposed that Jesus was "divine"--extruded from the divine essence--but not so divine that he couldn't die and effect the atonement. In Christ a part of God died, but not God himself. One theological pretzel in exchange for another.

What made the SDA church abandon their 'lesser God' view of Jesus was that they changed their view of the atonement. After 1888, mainstream "righteousness by faith" was popularized within the Adventist church, and this atonement model did not require a lesser deity for purposes of reconciling mankind to God.

Of the two views, the Trinitarian and the Arian, the latter is easier to project onto the historical Jesus, making him out to be a Jewish Perseus--or a Harry Potter fighting the good fight against Satan's Waldemort.

The Trinitarian view makes little practical sense. The classic objection, "Did Jesus pray to himself?" has been raised so often that Trinitarians no longer are able to realize what a serious challenge it is to the Nicene Creed.

The Trinity is a Mystery.

As humans we have limited capabilities for understanding God. But this does not mean we should not try.

Hilary of Poitiers talked about the Mysteries of the faith being "Bottomless wells of truth" - we can continue to search and discover, but will never get to the bottom of them. However that is not to say that our searching is in vain. St Hilary also suggested that we fall into heresy whenever we think we have fully defined a mystery.

Thus we hold the belief of one God, in three persons. We hold that Christ is both fully man and fully God. We undertand Christ to be one with the Father - and also to submit to the Father. We understand that while God the Father is indeed the origin, there is no time when the Son was not also with him.

It is a mystery. But should we really expect to fully understand the inner workings of the Godhead?

Tim

Frank, I think we should not set one Bible writer against another. It is all one Bible. If we begin to deprecate one Bible writer against another, then we lose all sense of the unity of God's Word.

One of the problems we face here is that we do not know exactly what "begotten" means. John repeatedly uses "monogenes, as do Luke and the writer of Hebrews. "There has been a lot of ink spilled in recent years over redefinition of the Greek "monogenes"--questioning the extent it might be compared to the meaning of the Latin "unigenitus." The Septuagint (early Greek translation of the Old Testament) several times uses "monogenes" to translate the Hebrew "yahid," which the KJV translates in Psalm 35:17 as "darling." "Yahid" is variously defined as "only, only begotten son, beloved, solitary." Recently theologians have interpreted the New Testament application to describe the uniqueness and love of the Trinitarian relationship as opposed to a parent-child relationship.

As I noted early on, the developed Nicene Creed assumes a parent-child relationship, as in the act of giving birth.

None of this is to suggest that a parent-child relationship should in any way diminish the divinity, the "Godness" of the Son.

What I am arguing for here is not a specific interpretation, rather for a more open consideration, an acknowledgment that we don't know exactly what the relationship was, for an end to name calling, for an end to accusations of heresy against the Adventist pioneers because they did not conform to the contemporary narrowed definition.

In sum, the language of the Bible is not specific enough to command a hard conclusion; the language of the Nicene Creed, reflecting the understanding of the early church fathers, specifically states a parent-child relationship. Parents exist before their children are born. We should not condemn early Adventist writers as heretics simply because they drew natural conclusions from the language of the Nicene Creed.

Ben...

I'm not attempting to set one writer against the other. I am simply saying that one should begin a search for meaning from internal context. ...from the immediate passage, to the context of the entire book, then to the same author's other writings, if there are any others within the canon, before moving to the wider biblical context. This is a simple principle of sound exegesis.

Other than that, I agree with much of what you are saying. I particularly agree that name calling and labeling should be avoided at all costs, especially when approaching a profound mystery that is beyond all our deepest comprehension. No matter our beliefs, such engagement is contrary to the spirit and the love of Christ.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank,
I would not argue Waggoner is right, only that the other option has at least as many dubious or hard to prove assumptions and as such is no more "right" through evidence than the other.
I also allow that the concept of a "lessor God" attributed to Waggoner didnt come from his own lips but were words stuffed into his mouth by people who perceived what he said as meaning that.

Quite often, especially in the bible, relationships are described in language that denotes sphere of influence or endeavor. Father and Son being one example.
When the correct understanding is used there are no issues, only when one carries the word pictures to far by extrapolating them to all sorts of other applications do things get crazy.

Even the words and phrases we use to discribe in attempts to clarify cause those who would mispercieve sufficient ammunition to doubt.
An example here.

"However, His assumed role as Son, and as the human representation of God to humanity is also in harmony with Paul description of the kenosis. Jesus, "Did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but emptied himself..." He did so freely and voluntarily, lowering himself in subjection to the Father all the way to the disgraceful death of the cross. This in itself is surely a profound mystery that we will contemplate for all eternity." Frank

For me, I know you understand what I was saying about roles not being conflated with superior or inferior positions because you said "His assumed role as Son".
But cant we also see that those who love doubt would have trouble with trinity issues when things are described so frequently and clearly as if there were 3 separate individuals?
For example here,
"...He did so freely and voluntarily, lowering himself in subjection to the Father..."

Aage, What is missing from your comment is a recognition of the God-man thesis of Anselm of Canterbury, describing the dual nature of Christ--totally God and totally man--which is thoroughly absorbed into Reformation theology and was never questioned by the Adventist community as a whole.

We are not faced with a choice between modern Trinitarianism and Arianism.

Elaine,

I certainly believe that Jesus performed certain signs or miracles to authenticate his teaching authority. I also believe that many modern day saints have done yet greater things (as Jesus himself suggested). How we fit these events into our philosophical understanding of reality is a different question.

Nothing is impossible with God.

Tim

Elaine

To the Western mind rational thinking is Greek thought as in Euclid geometry. Lateral thinking is usually limited to humor. Such as a policeman sees a man pulling a string down the street. The policeman stops the man and asks: "Why are you pulling that string?" The man replied: "Did you ever try and push one?" Of all the things one can do with string--pushing isn't one of them. An extreme form of lateral thinking. One merely needs to look deep into one's soul to know there is something radically wrong with human nature. Of all the propositions for remedies:
The Christ event is the most lateral of them all, yet the most compatable with the size of the problem.

On the issue of redemption, Paul sets the proposition clearly within a historical context being well versed in both Hebrew and Greek thought. Romans 1-5 are the clearest statment of the problem and its divine solution. He repeats it in 1 Cor. 15 and then the author of the letter to the Hebrews places the issue squarely within Hebrew thought. Ritual has become reality.Man has forever attempted to get his two cents worth in. Each one adds their own speed bump to the simple yet unfathonable Gospel.

Ben,

The Greek NT, edited by Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wikgren, renders John1:18:

"...monogenes Theos..." IOW, The one and only or one of a kind God. This is based on manuscript evidence that supports this reading over against other manuscripts supporting "o monogenes hiuos."

Admittedly, any choice by English translators is an interpretive one. However, the contemporary English reading is not based on some contemporary presumption as you put it, just pulled out of the air, or on later church tradition. It has ancient manuscript support, seen by these textual scholars as stronger than the other alternatives.

Thanks...

Frank

To add to my comment on vertical and lateral thinking. To make it simple: vertical thinking would put the Trinity thus--

The Father
The Son
The Holy Spirit.

Lateral Thinking would place the Trinity thus-- The Father: The Son: The Holy Spirit.

One does not need a key text to conclude a Triune God. The many times that Jesus declared Himself to be the Son and one with the Father. The many times He spoke of the Father and the times He promised the Comforter. Moreover, the angel speaking to Mary that the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee---We have trouble with oneness. But we are very comfortable with one nation, indivisable and still speak of the Commonwealth of Virgina etc.

No man is an Island! All are part of the main.

Tom Z.

Ben,

Darius Jankiewicz of the Andrews Theological Seminary wrote a nice post at the Memory, Meaning, Faith blog a few months ago about the Adventist pioneers and the Alexandrian fathers. I think he basically says the same thing you are claiming. You can read it here:

http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2010/06/adventist-antitrinitarian...

You'll see that to it I commented:

"[I]t seems to me that the crucial distinction between Arianism and subordinationism needs to be made more explicit . The central issue is not the time of Christ's creation, but if he was created or not. Even if Christ was created in the far distant past, this does not "for all practical purposes" make him eternal, or equal with God. Rather, it makes him a creature, i.e. Arianism, and this has disastrous consequences for soteriology.

The Alexandrians were not Arians. The language of "generation" should not be read as an analog to the language of creation, affirming Christ had a beginning in time. The issue of subordination is an issue dealing with the relationship of the members of the Trinity to each other, once their co-eternity is assumed. It assumes that Christ is not a creature, i.e. equal with God, but has a distinct role to play in relation to the Father."

I mention this because I am sympathetic to your read of the Adventist pioneers, but in my book, they are still Arians, with the exception of Ellen White, because they view Jesus as a created being.

“It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.” Albert Einstein

Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? Jer 32:27

What is the hardest thing for God??
Answer......

Hi Elaine,

Even as I scientist (perhaps especially as a scientist) I often try to answer questions which seem futile, with no hope of ever knowing the "full truth" whatever that might be. As an example, let us take Newtonian mechanics. Newtons equations are sufficiently accurate for reasonably sized, slowish moving objects - accurate enough that we can get a man on the moon - or fire projectiles at targets. They do not however give us a full description of gravity or space-time, particularly when we start moving at appreciable fractions of the speed of light, at which point we need Einstein's relativity. But this theory is also not the full story (the "full truth") as it breaks down at the very small scale where need quantum theory.

So we progress, getting closer and closer to the truth - each model being a better model, and none being "wrong".

This is the same with the mysteries of the faith, and the development of doctrine. That Paul and Mark did not mention certain facts may well indicate that the related issues were of less importance to them, and the communities to which they were writing. But this does not mean that later writers made these "stories" up. The bible is not written as a catechism. It is not a set out as a text book on Christianity. As the author to the Hebrews says:

11 Concerning [g]him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though [h]by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the [i]elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

Thus the bible doen not contain all this early teaching explicitly (this milk) - and certainly not laid out in a nice order.

But is it futile to discuss the things of God - perhaps without his help yes! But he did not leave us as orphans but sent his Holy Spirit to guide the church into the fullness of Truth. If God did not want us to know anything about him, he would not have revealed himself to us in his Son.

I like the definition of the Son that the author of the letter to the Hebrews (1 v 2) presents:

in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature,

Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature - he is the perfect revelation of God. We are still understanding all that he revealed to us of God's character - hence our development of doctrine, but there is no new revelation that God has for us - he has spoken through his Son, he has shown us the exact representation of his nature.

What a wonderful gift. It seems to me (and to others far more learned than I) that the incarnation fullfilled several crucial purposes. One was certainly our salvation from sin. But more importantly it brought our humanity into the Godhead - because Jesus is human - we too can hope for true communion with God. The incarnation made it possible for us to be true sons, co-heirs with Christ as our brother. This is so much more than a restoration of the original ADAM.

Tim

Zane, thank you for your reference to Jankiewicz's essay. I had not seen it before.

I have read very little recent Adventist anti-Trinitarian writing, partly because much of it tends toward the ancient heresy of modalism, of which I tire very quickly. I have read extensively of the early Adventist materials on the nature of Christ. Here I find Jankiewicz in error in that he credits Uriah Smith's view of Christ as "the first creation" to the pioneers in general. I find that quite untrue. I see in their writings the same concept of "generation" which you attribute to the Nicene fathers.

A beginning later in time does not require also creation, which implies a fundamental difference in substance. There are other modes of generation. We think, for example, on a secular level, of grafting or cloning or parthenogenesis, where the resulting organism is genetically identical to the parent, actually a real extension of the parent, fulfilling the Nicene imperative of "very God from very God," but still allowing for a distinction in time, a parent-child relationship, and the hierarchical distinction stated by Thomas Aquinas and many others--also inferred from several New Testament texts.

I see no reason why a parent-child relationship should require that the child not be equal in substance and power to the parent--using the Nicene phraseology.

To say that the Alexandrians were not Arians is functionally equivalent to saying that Arius was not an Arian, since his teachings dominated the Alexandrian school and churches in the region for some time. As noted before, we really don't know what Arius taught in that most of the literature on the topic was created by his enemies, largely on political grounds, subject to the distortions such a prejudice implies.

With all that I reject the term Arian being applied as a general pejorative to the entire swath of early Adventist writers. I propose that a careful reading of their core works will show they were in general concord with the eastern bishops at Nicaea and do not deserve to be deprecated as they too often are. Sometimes I feel that the charge of Arianism is a red herring intended to allow deprecation of the early Adventist teachings in general. After all, if they were Arians, how can we trust anything else they taught? ---So much the easier to dismiss the entire Investigative judgment, etc., even Sabbath observance.

Ben,

It was what the NT writers wrote that LATER became the topic of much discussion. John was castigating those who did not
believe as he wrote. This is not how discussions are categorized. There must be at least two in discussions. The arguments among Christians began soon after the NT writings closed.

Who were John's attackers? Yes, the Gnostics but there were others, and John became the most controversial in these Trinitarian discussions precisely because he seemed to incite controversy.

Tim wrote:

"Paul and Mark did not mention certain facts may well indicate that the related issues were of less importance to them, and the communities to which they were writing. But this does not mean that later writers made these "stories" up. The bible is not written as a catechism."

I made no conclusion about Mark and Paul's not mentioning the virgin birth; only that for them it was not of major importance. Whether because they hadn' heard of it or lack of interest. We neither can verifyh those stories or whether they were added by those writers to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and had a virginal birth as did a number of pagan gods. Why the other Gospels wrote about it is also another question. Was it of particular importance to their readers that they placed such importance in establishing Jesus' birth? Surely, there was an intent to write on it but where did they learn of it if the earliest writers did not mention it? Since the virgin birth is a major tenet of Christianity, it depends on SOME, but not ALL NT writers for this belief.

Ben,

I completely agree with you that each gospel writer had a particular audience and agenda in mind, which is why each is different, and there are parts that cannot be harmonized and we should not expect to find them in complete harmony--which they are not.

I didn't intend to leave the impression that during the first century there was not discussion of many later doctrines, but that they became more contentious until the Nicean Council. But, nevertheless, even the Gospel writers were not all in total agreement about much which needs no ennumeration.

Aage,

See: Eyewitness to Jesus by Matthew D'Ancona and Carston Thiede, first published in 1996, with other later (perhaps expanded) editions available from Amazon.com. I'm sorry I can't give you a page reference since I lost my copy in a fire and haven't replaced it yet.

"There is no "portion" of the "original" Matthew in existence nor is there an "immediate copy" of it in existence. This marvellous re-dating of p64 was first proposed by Carsten Thiede, an evangelical freelance academic researcher, who attempted to show that papyrus 64 (known as p64), consisting of three small scraps containing parts of Matthew 26: 7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33 (these tiny scraps do not constitute a "copy" of Matthew!), were first century fragments. Thiede's arguments are universally rejected by the scholarly community. Therefore the greenhorn's claim that this fragment dates from "50-60 AD", as if this were an accepted indisputable fact, is nothing short of gross disinformation.

There are a number of scholarly refutations to Thiede, some of them available online:

An online review by Professor Elliott
Media Papyri: Examining Carsten Thiede's Rediscovered Fragments by Sigrid Peterson, PhD
The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64): A Response to C.P. Thiede, by Peter M. Head
A critique in a Christian magazine Indiana Jones and the Gospel Parchments.
A simple search on the internet would have made it quite clear that Carsten Thiede does not have much of a reputation in the scholarly arena and that his dating of p64 is universally rejected by scholars. But then again, we are dealing with a greenhorn!

According to evangelical textual critic, Prof. Holmes:

The claim by C. P. Thiede that fragments of Matthew should be dated to "c. A.D. 66" is based on a rat's nest of fanciful hypotheses and unsubstantiated assertions ... (Michael W. Holmes, Textual Criticism, in, David Alan Black & David S. Dockery (Editors) Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, 2001, Broadman & Holman Publishers, p. 66, footnote No. 11.)

The popularity of any book has nothing whatsoever with its credibility with experts, but its sensationalism is often the reason.

So much of the intricacies of the arguments in these discussions would simply dissolve if we pay close attention to the type of questions we are asking.

The Trinity, mystery, only begotten, etc. are the answers to questions people were asking two thousand and more years ago. They are not often OUR answers, as we have different questions, and we may be asking them in English or Spanish or Chinese, not Greek, Hebrew or Latin. A lot of these terms and ideas are completely illusory in other languages and cultural contexts--they cannot be absolute truths! I don't think there is any payoff these days to be too positional on these topics... unless we are dealing with people who have so little education they will believe whoever yells the most and quotes the most texts.

Here is the key: people in ancient times--writers in the BIble from the Prophets to Luke-- wrote what THEY believed. Paul wrote what he believed. John wrote what he believed. Matthew wrote what he believed, the author of Hebrews wrote, and so on. None of these had all the truth--they had their own personalities, perspectives, sources, and audiences. SImilarly, Christians generation after generation got together to debate and hash out what they believed. Then they wrote it down, and we have their testimony to what they believed. That's it.

It sounds too simple, doesn't it. Our task today is to dialogue with our heritage and write about what WE believe and experience TODAY. We will get nowhere if we keep measuring each other against what others wrote hundreds or thousands of years ago. Nothing compels us as Christians to remain within the tight boundaries of what the ancient Jews or Christians or 19th century Adventists believed. The writers of some of the creeds we recite AT THOSE SAME COUNCILS voted to express anti-Semitic, anti-women and other sentiments that Christians should abhor.

The Spirit moves on, and so should we.

"When Scripture insists that God is one "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one..." why should the church devise a formula which insist that he is three?"
My question exactly. If Christ was the second Adam, he ought to have been the son of God in much the same way that the first Adam was. The first Adam failed to be the image of God he was created to be. Christ, always completely under the Father's direction, remained the perfect Son of God he was begotten to be.
Get the book: http://www.holditpreacher.com

A church that proudly represents itself as having the "truth" may find itself in a position where it is impossible to adopt a position for which there will always be uncertainty and for which there can be no "right" answer. Do other
denominations have such dissension over major Christian doctrines? Or, are they content with not having such explicit creeds which locks a church into difficulty explaining them?

I stick to the idea that we are all a cosmic experiment. Wish I'd be around to see how it turns out....

"Mr. Potato"

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to say that Christ was not God? Do you understand the technical theological use of "very"? Do you repudiate the concept of triune unity? Do you believe that the "fraud" of 1 John 5:7 negates everything else the Bible says about the divinity of Christ?

It is true that 1 John 5:7 does not appear in any known Greek manuscript before 1400. It is found in older Latin manuscripts and was back translated into Greek editions of the 15th century. We don't need that verse to sustain the doctrine of the trinity. It should be enough that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" (Matt 28:19). Of course there are other texts as well.

Ben, There is no argument. You yourself said that the Trinity doctrine is extra Biblical. If I believe that Jesus is the Creator and that his death on the cross provided an substitutionary atonement for my sin, why should I care about his exact relationship to the Father? Perhaps it is important to you that I articulate my understanding in a certain way; that however, is your problem, not mine. It appears that the distinctions are purposely vague in Scripture.

The Bible says our God is one. Does is plainly, explicitly, state that our God is three? To baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost isn't addressing the exact relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it is suggesting that they empower/authorize the church to work in their name.

How explicit is Scripture in defining who, what where, when, and why of the HS. How explicit is Scripture in defining its exact nature, substance, and relationship to either the Father or Son?

The study of historical theology is an interst of some people. It's contemporary relevance and redemptive value is another matter.

Paul went into a lot of detail about justification by faith and the significance of the cross. That's what is important to the world.

Thanks, Potato, for the clarification.

Mr. Potato,

You ask: "If I believe that Jesus is the Creator and that his death on the cross provided an substitutionary atonement for my sin, why should I care about his exact relationship to the Father?"

The answer, as I see it is, is simply this. If Jesus is a created being, than Jesus is not the Creator. This means that "salvation", however you understand this word, is not God's work, but something done by a surrogate. It is a creature saving other creatures. Christian orthodoxy has denied this view of soteriology.

One could accept Arianism and still believe that the visible, material universe was created by or through Jesus Christ. And even if we accept that Jesus could not be a created being and still be the redeemer, we still don't have to resort to the illogical, intelligence insulting mess that is Trinitarianism. What about modalism, where God appears successively in the forms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or something like what the Oneness Pentecostals believe, in which God manifests at any given time as the form most suited to his function?

"You ask: "If I believe that Jesus is the Creator and that his death on the cross provided an substitutionary atonement for my sin, why should I care about his exact relationship to the Father?"

The answer, as I see it is, is simply this. If Jesus is a created being, than Jesus is not the Creator. This means that "salvation", however you understand this word, is not God's work, but something done by a surrogate. It is a creature saving other creatures. Christian orthodoxy has denied this view of soteriology."

Zane, You philosophers are a hoot, really. There are at least 2 billion people in India and China, half of the world's population, who could care less about these things. 99% 0f them have never read a Bible. How much time do you want to spend discussing issues which are irrelevant to 2 billion people going to hell?

When you can show me some Scripture which indicates this is something I should really be concerned about, maybe I'll get concerned. I see Paul's great concern was preaching justification by faith to the Gentiles

The Bible clearly states that YHVH Is one. Suppose that they had a one child law in heaven. After the father created Jesus, exactly like Himself, he could not create anything else. The Father vested all his creative power in Jesus; consequently, for all practical purposes,regardless of his origin, Jesus is the Creator of all things, by virtue of which he is also our Redeemer.

I'm not saying this is the case, but there are a range of possibilities which one might consider.

YHVH is one, according to the Bible, not three. Show me a text which says that God is made up of three beings and that defines their nature and relationship to one another. Then we have a Biblical issue to discuss.

Frank7,

Great points.

As people above have said, John's Gospel is focussed on two central and interconnected themes: 1) Jesus is God, 2) The "Hour" of his glorification on the cross and our redemption

The culmination of these two great themes is epitomised in the Thomas's confession when he is presented with the marks of the passion - "My Lord and my God".

Tim

I hate to inform you, Elaine...but the divinity of Jesus, and the doctrine of the trinity is not considered a minor teaching of the Christian church. It is one of the teachings that is shared by Christianity at large across all denominations. Those that reject it are generally considered within the kingdom of the cults...to borrow a phrase...something that you seem to often imply about Adventism.

As far as evolving doctrine, well, John's writings are generally considered the latest of the NT. Interesting how Mark's gospel, the earliest...begins at Jesus' baptism, Matthew and Luke at his birth, and John to Jesus' pre earthly existence as the logos from eternity. How about viewing it as a spectrum of evolving views, focused to meet the various needs at various times of their audiences, instead of contradictory accounts. Since John has the most to say explicitly about Jesus' divinity, his gospel thus becomes the major point of reference, just as Paul's letters to Rome and Galatia become the major point of reference in the NT concerning justification by faith, the relationship pf Law and grace, etc. I don't see you voicing complaints about why we should examine Peter or Mark as opposed to Paul when exploring those issues.

Thanks...

Frank

The combined population of China and India do not equal half the world's population. Potato head was wrong about that.

Elaine and Frank,

As far as evolving doctrine, well, John's writings are generally considered the latest of the NT. Interesting how Mark's gospel, the earliest...begins at Jesus' baptism, Matthew and Luke at his birth, and John to Jesus' pre earthly existence as the logos from eternity. How about viewing it as a spectrum of evolving views, focused to meet the various needs at various times of their audiences, instead of contradictory accounts.

Elaine, does Paul or Mark say that Jesus was not God? Is there really a contradiction, or is there a growing understanding, like my example of newtonian mechanics not being "wrong" but of being a special case of relativistic mechanics. Our understanding of Jesus revelation of the Father continues to improve (if you have seen me you have seen the Father), this is perfectly natural, and occurred as as the bible writers were writing and continues to occur to this day.

The trick is how to balance a development of doctrine, without deviating form the "faith once delivered to the saints". For catholics, this is where the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth comes in (in conjunction with St Paul's statement that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth). The church operates as the council of Jerusalem did in Acts 15 - all sides present their understanding of a particular doctrine - including the scriptural support, and the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, gives its judgement.

Tim

How can it be denied that the TRINITY is a metaphor? A metaphor is figurative language; a figure of speeh in whiah a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.

Nor can the idea of a trinity be taken literally as it represents nothing in the human realm or vocabulary. This is why it will always be how humans experience God. This is why a remark such as "the Holy Spirit directed me" or "I have a personal relationship with Jesus or God" is often heard and no one takes it literally. This is patently impossible as a literal reality.

The expression used in the Creation was man's attempt to tell a story he had heard repeatedly. To conclude that God was talking to ? when the writer wrote: "Let us make man in our likeness" is not to imply that humans can be three in one.

Prov. 8:22-27 "The Lord made me the BEGINNING of his work, the first of his acts of old (this from the Gen. 2 creation acccount). Ages ago I as formed, before the establishment of the earth....When he made the heavens, I was already there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

These words clearly state that God had created wisdom even before the heavens and the earth were made. When ancient interpreters spoke about God's creation of the world, many mentioned specifically that wisdom existed even before the creation itself: "But the Lord God is true....who made the earth with His power, established the world with His WISDOM and by His understanding stretched out the heavens" (Jer. 10:10,12). "Oh Lord, how great are your works, with wisdom you have made them all" (Ps. 102:24). The Lord by wisdom founded the earth, establishing the heavens with understanding" (Prov. 3:19).

There appears to be as much reason to believe that Wisdom was with God at creation as was Jesus, but where is Jesus mentioned in the entire OT stories? Re-interpreting the OT was a liberty the NT writers freely took in their writings.

Wisdom was equated with the Torah in the Judaisms of Jesus' and John's day. The Torah, coming from God, was believed to be the agency through which God created.

John is saying in his prologue that Jesus is not only the Torah personified, he exceeds the Torah. He is not only the agency through whom God created, he is God himself. With his incarnation, a new genesis, a new age, characterized by a new revelation of God that brings with it a new creation has now come upon the human race, that far exceeds all that has come before in the age of Torah. And, it was open to all who would believe and trust in Jesus.

Thanks...

Frank

Tim,

Would you agree the "new creation" does not profess to bring the "not yet" consummation into the present?

;)

Pat

Hi Pat,

St Paul tells us (2 Cor 5:17):

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Having died with Christ in baptism, we now live as new creatures, not according to the old but to the new.

I know my comment above was perhaps a little tongue in cheek, forgive me!

Tim

Hi Pat,

I would love to discuss the sabbath issues with you, but I think this comment section probably is not the place!

Today, you can enter that rest!

Come to me all who labor and I will give you rest.

Tim

Don: I appreciate your explanation of the Trinity. The problem is that something so ambiguous is not logically a basis for ostracizing or even physically harming people who don't agree, both of which happened to Tri-skeptics after the Council of Nicea. And that's another thing. The doctrine of the trinity is the result of ancient church maneuverings and wheelings and dealings that modern American Prots--much less SDAs--can't even begin to understand. Not only haven't they understood how the sausage was made, they don't even know--or want to know--that it's a sausage.

Shouldn't we all be a little more reticent in decribing the Trinity and especially demanding that it must be believed by Christians--and in the way that the church has described it.

If we accept that all the blind men gave a true description of the elephant which they could not see, how can we
refuse to accept a variety of definitions of something we cannot see or touch? Attempting to describe such an abstract concept is attempting to describe God, which is too close to blasphemy to be considered an imperative of Christians. The Greeks have always been the great thinkers and still deserve that title.

How many Adventist members know that the concept of the Trinity was decided by order of Constantine in 325 A.D.? The same ruler who legitimized Christianity and his successor, Theodosius, issued the rule that Christianity was to be the religion of the empire? This became the Roman church which is anathema to Adventists. Religious rules are like sausages and laws: no one should watch them being made.

Pat,

I'm not sure just where you are trying to go with this:

"I checked the textual apparatus/Greek NT 4th edition and Frank has properly represented the preferred choice considered to be the most accurate source and representation. Now you are certainly entitled to choose any manuscript/source you prefer but I would suggest to you Aland definately is not "conservative" in his scholarship. He once held that there was potentially lot of looseness in the transcribers work a position he later changed. Perhaps you have better credentials than those listed by Frank. Perhaps you could supply them to us? Otherwise I will depend on their exceptional skills."

Aland IS the 4th edition. That is, the 4th edition of the Greek New Testament issued by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft is edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland and several others and is commonly referred to as Aland 27, reflecting the fact that Kurt Aland, et al., issued a number of editions before the project was picked up by the Bibelgesellschaft.

I have a number of NT editions -- including several different editions of the Textus Receptus, two editions from Tischendorf, the final version from Westcott-Hort, and two versions of the Byzantine-Majority text, all besides the Aland I referenced. I looked in my Aland (4th) because that is the one Frank referenced. My comment on the footnote was in direct response to Frank's comment that Aland gave a certain rendition. I checked to see what sources Aland had used for his rendition and commented on what I found in the footnotes of the edition Frank cited.

Elaine, you thoughts and sharing of other people's insights bless me and give clarity. Thanks!

Ben,

I am not trying to go anywhere with this. I am just saying what the preferred choice was...and I don't beleive that choice was guided by "their theology" which is often used as a red herring.

regards,
pat

Mr. Potato,

I see from your comments that at least two of us are interested in what, to some, seems like an arcane topic. I believe, and I think you do do, that it's an important one, although it seems we do not agree in our conclusions. For me, theology (our views of what God is like) cannot be divorced from soteriology (how we think humans are saved) and furthermore, ethics (how we think we should treat one another.)

Arian views of Jesus, ultimately lead to Pelagian and Gnostic views of salvation, which leads to egoistic and objectifying attitudes toward other humans.

God is a nebulous inclusive term and metaphorical idea to allude to that which is greater than human conception. And nitpicky humans argue the details of the map rather than engaging in the experience of the territory.

Nicola,

It is impossible to describe an idea, particularly when they all originate in one's mind. Since there are as many minds as humans, there will be the same number of concepts about God. God cannot be defined, but man, nevertheless, has been intent on creating him, and that is what everyone has done when he attempts to explain the ineffable.

This has caused millions of Christians to write innumerable books in their futile attempt; and none are more correct than another. The early Christians became obsessed with understanding the relationship of Jesus to God the Father and were so involved that they resorted to violence. It was Constantine's desire to unify the empire that prompted him to call for the Council at Nicea, hoping to settle the divisions that were affecting his status. He had no real theological interest and it was demonstrated in first accepting Athanasius' view, and then Arius, each one being temporarily exiled over this; as if such a decision made one whit of difference with God!

We should be content, as the Greeks, in personally accepting that we each experience God differently and not try to force a position on anyone. But then, that would remove all authority of the church to control their members by defining heresy.

Pat, you wrote:

"I am not trying to go anywhere with this. I am just saying what the preferred choice was...and I don't believe that choice was guided by 'their theology' which is often used as a red herring."

Just keep in mind that the "preferred choice" was that preferred by the particular editors, not necessarily what was preferred in the vast majority of manuscripts. In fact, the vast majority of manuscripts is different from what the Aland editors chose. Note that Tischendorf preferred "monogenes Huios" while Westcott-Hort preferred "monogenes Theos," both working from essentially the same set of original manuscripts. Aland followed Westcott-Hort rather than Tischendorf, so how does that make the Aland choice the "preferred" one other than that he and his fellow editors preferred it?

By the context of John's gospel, in the end both textual variants of 1:18 support his overall theological theme and message...that Jesus was the Word made flesh, the ultimate revelation of God to mankind, climaxing in his death and resurrection for us.

Thanks...

Frank

Yes, Pat,

Modern New Testament textual criticism basically begins with Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort. Nearly all other modern textual criticism relies on those two (but primarily on Westcott-Hort), who were working with essentially the same set of original texts and fragments of texts.

In the case of Westcott-Hort, Westcott's private correspondence displays a very significant theological prior bias.

I personally much prefer the edition of Maurice Robinson, who works in the Byzantine tradition, which for a number of reasons I consider more faithful to the autographs.

Elaine

Christians accept what God through the Holy Spirit has revealed. The Sistine Chapel is a projection not a revelation. Although over used and trivialized: John 3:16 following on the heels of John 1: 1-14 are the keystones of the Gospel. John wrote his narrative to combat the Gnostic intrusions of his day. Now in these "enlightened days" the same invasion is occurring. In the forefront of that movement has been Spong et al. As a clinician I am a user of science, as a baptized Christian, I am a adherent to orthodoxy of the Reform understanding as newly articulated by the likes of Stott, Lamb, Heppenstall. Sproul, Packer, Craddock, and Yancey. I do take courses through the Great Course Series. I find it interesting, informative, and instructive history as well filled with agnostic interpretation. The history of man is filled with false starts, ego-centric understandings, and vile behaviors much in so-called defense of the Gospel.

We are seeing much the same unfolding before our eyes in current events within Adventism and within the world conflicts. What I believe is open to constant revision. In whom I believe is sealed in blood of Jesus, the Christ. Tom z.

P.S.

It is tragic that in our day, the liberal "Christian" is a Unitarian. A utilitarian ethic without a redemptive first cause. Tom Z.

Ben,

I am not challenging you. Perhaps your scholarly credentials match those of the UBS text and you can properly evaluate why they literally came to the decision for the best variant...in declining value.

I will close by saying most strong linguistic scholars and theologians would state that the appropriate use of any variant will in no way change any major teaching of the Christian Faith.

regards,
pat

Ben,
>>That is a choice, based on a prior bias, and I am not obligated to comply with anyone else's prior bias.<<

and I suggest that the decision can be made on an objective view of all the evidence of the most reliable, complete and consistent source for establishing the variant. This is a monumental task by extremely qualified scholars...and at the end of the day with sound exegesis no major essential doctrine of the Christian faith would be changed by the appropriate use of the legitimate variants.

Ben,

Made my point...the last word was yours.

regards,
pat

The question is not if one is allowed to think but...what is the source for making the decision. To the Protestant Christian it is the scriptures that form our thinking and discussion and not external sources that we appeal to. The basis of that is...if that isn't your source you have major and unsolvable disagreements. That's ok...you just ain't a Protestant Christian. :>)

The path "downward" against sola scriptura proceeds, I suggest, as I posed to Steve last Friday.

>>First there is the attempt to avoid the difficult texts. When that becomes difficult there is the move "in SDA circles" to say EGW says the "words" are really not inspired. When it becomes better understood that thoughts have to be delivered in words and the Holy Spirit guides those word-thoughts and they are thus "God's Words" for us for "faith and practice" another stage begins shared by "liberal theology." It questions through "higher and lower criticism" that scripture has been properly recorded as to it's original text and weather the authors were truly inspired. One ends up in this "progression" of defending one's thoughts with a god of one's own creation. Some feel this god is best described as "a god of love" but is degraded to sentimentalism as scriptures definately can't be relied upon to explain His/God's expectations or "true doctrine."<<

regards,
pat

"No one can explain how one God can function as three, or how a Son can originate simultaneously"
Amen, Elaine.

Get the book: http://www.holditpreacher.com

Thanks a million, Elaine. I hope you bought it at the book's site. There's confusion on Amazon between the current edition (Revised First Edition) and the previous one which is retired.

Do "before" and "after" have any meaning when discussing God? Don

Ben,

Hopefully my comments to Matt above show that in referring to the different heresies from church history, I am making a structural, not a historical, claim. As I see it, all these debates are really the nature of salvation, and relatedly, what we think God is like--not in the technical language we are using about "substance" or "begotten" but in the sense of character attributes like "loving" and "gracious."

The creeds, for me, are about trying to preserve a way of talking about God that makes the terms "loving" and "gracious" mean something determinate, and has determinate implications for the way we are to treat each other--the way we understand God to treat us, i.e. graciously.

Thanks for clarifying your position. It still seems to me that crux of the issue is with the word "begotten." You understand it to mean "born." I think a better word is "generated," and as clarified later by early Christian theologians, "eternally generated." This means that at no point is the Father without the Son, and vice versa.

The difference, in my mind, I realize very crudely, can be illustrated by two different metaphors--jello and light. I'm concerned that your view leads to the view God is like a blob of jello, and that at some point a piece in this jello mass either breaks off or distinguishes itself from the blob. So Jesus is the same "substance" as the Father, but still not the originary source of all existence, which, paradoxically would mean that Jesus does not share the same substance/being as the Father.

I like the metaphor of light better. God is the source of the light (the Son) that is always shining.

(I think the position you articulate is technically called semi-Arianism. Correct me I am misunderstanding you, but either you are claiming that the writers of the Nicene creed were really semi-Arians or that the Nicene creed is open to semi-Arian readings, and because this the Adventist pioneers were really Christians in the robust, theological sense.)

I think its not simply begotten, it's "Only Begotten", a unique type of begotten.
what that means for human father and son, we can understand.
what that means for God and Messiah - I think that Don Rhoads hits that one well.

The God / Salvation equation is also not the be all and end all either... not for me...
it doesn't take precedence over the I AM. in my opinion.

I think I see it more in others, more than I can with language. Maybe this could lead to something like Zane's #4 Egoist? But, I'm not sure if it necessarily does if it's not couched in terms of the salvation equation. It leads to something different if couched in the I AM.

It's got me thinking... :)

Royo,

Will look for the book, you keep advertising

Your comment connects for me with something someone else mentioned on these threads about the younger one receiving the blessing, rather than the older born. Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau, and now Adam/Jesus.

I was reading into the Only Begotten something more than His incarnation - you may be right, maybe that's my eisegesis.

Elaine...

So much of what you write is what you say religion and churches hold forth...your own views that also reflect your own biases. The mirror reflects both ways.

Frank

Thanks, Chris. Will most certainly do. I would also love to see some feedback, good or bad, from Elaine Nelson who has read it. Dr Kieth Burton also has a copy. Maybe we could squeeze a review out of him.
Many years ago an Apostolic Pentecostal explained their take on the godhead to me, and now, after over 30 years of being Adventist, I'm still unable to lay it to rest.

Get the book: http://www.holditpreacher.com

Reply to [Elaine Nelson - Fri, 07/01/2011 - 08:27: re: morality without religion; Golden Rule]
=
My grandchildren attend Catholic schools [their mother's religion]. One exercise that seems common when they study Religion in High School is to interview an adult concerning Beliefs, and I seem to get chosen frequently.
=
Karl was in 10th grade last year and it was his turn. I told him I would divide "beliefs" in general into two categories - physical and moral.
= =
Although I am a retired science professor, I can't get excited about physical problems, because the "difficult" ones involve extreme distances (very large or very tiny), extreme speeds (very fast or imperceptible), extreme times (more than a thousand years back or forward). None of these seem to me to REQUIRE an ordinary person to find a solution or even to adopt a definite position.
=
And the "easy" physical problems are mostly solved by Newton's three "laws" about inertia and gravity.
= =
And in the moral realm, I told Karl, you just can't beat the Golden Rule.
= = =
But lately I have been thinking there IS some benefit for having a hook on which to hang the GR. In specific cases it sometimes still leaves room for indecision. A concept of God might help in such cases.

Half the solution is recognizing the dilemma, and some dilemmas are called that because there is not "right" solution.

The role of "Context" in ethics:

The 1960s produced a view described as "situation ethics" or "contextual ethics" [e.g.: J. Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966)], most versions of which are rightly criticized as excusing immorality.
=
However, at that time I attended a Methodist Mens Breakfast and Study Group, where we discussed some of the problems of this view.
=
The most perplexing, I thought, is the problem of defining a specific situation or context: where do you draw the boundaries?
=
An example frequently cited is dropping Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Viewed in immediate and local terms, this act was horribly "evil" (an obvious reason being that thousands of innocent persons were killed). In a larger context (asserted to have been used by President Truman in making his decision to proceed), it was "good" because it ended the war. Then, in a still larger context, it was again "evil" because it set the world on the path to nuclear holocaust.
=
Where does this dilemma end?
=
I found a hint in the economic concept of "long range benefit." A company should sponsor research even though it reduces the short-term "bottom line," for the sake of the future. A farmer plants an orchard that will not produce fruit for several years.
=
My mathematical background directed me to postulate an "infinite context" for ethics: base your judgment as to the morality of an action in terms of its effect on as many people as possible, for as long a time as possible, etc.
=
I later discovered I had not been the "original discoverer" of such a concept, nor of the term "infinite context."

Zane,

Reading your posts has been a great thinking / learning experience for me - thank you!

One thing I gleaned from you responses above is perhaps an understanding of why Adventists frequently play down Jesus as the perfect revelation of the Father, and play up the Law (by which they mean the 10 Commandments) as the perfect revelation of God's character.

The semi-arian and Pelegian leanings totally account for this tendency. As you put it, if one does not believe Jesus IS God, then how can he be the perfect revelation of God.

Most enlightening,

Tim

Tim...

I think you're onto something. If Jesus is not the ultimate revelation of God himself in the flesh...especially as seen in the fullness of his death and resurrection...then he becomes more of a human teacher and moral example than anything else. His death becomes nothing more than that of a super martyr, but not of the self giving God/Man.

However, if Jesus is God in the flesh, then his teachings, life, dying and rising becomes the zenith of God's revelation to us. This is surely John's point in his prologue and gospel. One can no longer look to the Law/Torah to find the height of God 's revelation; one must look to Jesus, and then to the Torah in light of him.

You are right, many Adventists call the law,,,specifically the 10 comm... the transcript of God's character. It's been an Adventist catchphrase that is stuck in the OT, or maybe unwittingly in Judaism, and tied to an insufficient view of Jesus and soteriology. I believe that you may be right; it is tied to our roots and the views of Jesus that were held along with the semi-pelagian perspective of salvation that persists to this day in many quarters of Adventism.

Thanks...

Frank

Revelation 4 and 5 clearly depict what are known as the three members of the Godhead interacting with one another. The one on the throne, the Lamb, and the 7, not one, spirits before the throne.

13 and every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "to him who sits on the throne, and to the lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

To the one on the throne and the Lamb, all praise is given. How about the 7 spirits before the throne. Any praise, blessing, or dominion, or glory mentioned?

Note that the one on the Throne is described as LORD GOD ALMIGHTY and Creator. He is described as "our lord and our god"

8 and the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME."
9 and when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne, to him who lives forever and ever,
10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before him who sits on the throne, and will worship him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
11 "worthy are you, our lord and our god, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and because of your will they existed, and were created."

The Lamb is called the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, one who prevailed and redeemed mankind:

5 and one of the elders *said to me, "stop weeping; behold, the lion that is from the tribe of judah, the root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals."
6 and I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of god, sent out into all the earth.

9 and they *sang a new song, saying, "worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals; for you were slain, and purchased for god with your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
10 "you have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our god; and they will reign upon the earth."

schmuck,

Mr Potato used the word 'depict', whereas you seem to have been expecting him to provide a cold hard 'clear thinking' 'proof'. Were you expecting for it to be proven in a literalistic sense?

Do you think that Adventist's don't understand it spiritually? I guess that is your view, in order to make your accusation.

Depiction: for example Vincent Van Gogh's fantastic depiction Starry Night.
another example, John the Revelator's awesome depiction of the heavenly adoration of the Godhead.

Proof: Depends on the kind of claim you are asking to be convinced of. A mathematical claim requires a mathematical proof. A scientific claim, is weaker than a mathematical claim, it only requires a scientific proof. A law claim often requires a plaintiff to convince a jury - it's even less rigorous than a scientific proof.

What kind of proof do you expect from a spiritual claim, such as the trinity? Actually, the trinity is another depiction of other spiritual claims.

Are you able to share with us how your spirit experiences the depictions provided by others? It doesn't need to be cold hard logical and mathematical language, feel free to use spiritual language, full of colour, feeling, hopes (or fears) and whatever works for you personally.

I guess you have shared your reaction already, please understand if I took it as an unhelpful negative accusation. Me being one of them sensitive unclear thinking Adventist types and all...

"It is just three aspects of experiencing the one God." Which is exactly the position taken by the Greek Orthodox some 1700 yeas ago. Quite perceptive, weren't they?

Chris writes: "My personal religious faith is that Jesus Christ, The Way, is the fullest depiction of God. As the walk that I choose to follow, I worship and adore God who sacrificed himself for restoration of all. Jesus reveals this God that I worship. The Holy Spirit testifies this to me. "

This is a fairly clear expression of the ancient heresy of modalism which was a problem for the church in the second and third centuries -- That is, a singular God who reveals himself in different modalities at different times for different purposes.

That is NOT the position taken by the Greek Orthodox 1700 years ago.

Ben,

Would you please kindly describe why it is a heresy?

Allow me the opportunity to respond to what it is that you think I am rejecting, and/or to clarify what it is that you think I am claiming.

I was just having a go at the way literalists use metaphoric scriptures to prove literalistic points. I'm more on you're wavelength Chris. While there is much of Hinduism that isn't my style, I am inspired by their millions of ways that God is manifested. We easily put down Hinduism for worshipping many Gods but in certain understandings of Hinduism there is one God with many manifestations. Why stop at 3!

Zane writes:

"It still seems to me that crux of the issue is with the word "begotten." You understand it to mean "born." I think a better word is "generated," and as clarified later by early Christian theologians, "eternally generated." This means that at no point is the Father without the Son, and vice versa."

As I frequently am obliged to tell one of my daughters: "When all else fails, look in a dictionary." I understand the word "begotten" to mean what the dictionary says it means.

Of course, a word may have more than one meaning. We have to be flexible when we look at ancient languages. The sum total of different words in either the Old or New Testaments is around 8000, compared with hundreds of thousands in English. That means inevitably almost any ancient word will cover a broader sense field than almost any English word we can use to translate it. For example, Greek "agw" may mean go, come, carry, bring... and several other things. The intent can only be determined by context--that is, of moving oneself and/or an object from one place to another in either direction. And we choose the correct term in English according to our reading of the context.

"monogenes" likewise has several different potential meanings depending on the context. Those who translated the Greek texts into Latin believed the context was to be read as "unigenitus," which is much more limited in scope, meaning explicitly "only born." I concur with the early Latins over the contemporary revisionists.

All that said, I'm wondering what difference the use of "generated" would make in the time sequence. If the Nicene Creed were re-stated to say "generated by the Father," the Father would still be in existence before the Son was generated.

I'm not arguing against the eternal co-existence of the Father and the Son, I am arguing that one cannot, on the grounds of the Nicene Creed, legitimately call a person an Arian because he believes the Son came into existence after the Father.

To quote your comment: "....or that the Nicene creed is open to "semi-Arian" readings, and because of this, the Adventist pioneers were really Christians in the robust, theological sense."

Bingo! Couldn't have have said it better myself. (Subject to some few technical emendations).

And I'm curious how you come up with the idea:

"2. Pelagianism = Humans can be good without God's help."

Or, if that is an accurate reading of Pelagius at some point in his career, what has "being good" to do with salvation?

Source(s) please.........

I don't care what the church teaches! Every church and every Christian has their own brand of heresy.

I don't care what the church teaches! Every church and every Christian has it's own brand of heresy.

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat my point, stickler for the pedantic!

Ben,

"The church teaches that the godhead consists of three persons acting in perfect unity."
This sounds to me like what they call Economic Trinitarianism? I believe this too has been labelled as a heresy? But then, which church are we talking about now?

If the term modalism is incompatible with "three persons acting in perfect unity." Then, my view is not modalist.

I see no reason why three aspects of the one Godhead could not present to us as three distinct individuals. I do not reject that view. It is compatible with my understanding of the Godhead.

I do have to allow flexibility when it goes beyond my ontological limitations.

Chris, I believe the term "economic trinitarianism" is merely a clever way of asserting the subordination of the Son to the Father.

With that, the underlying concept is not new. St. Thomas Aquinas taught a concept of hierarchy eight centuries ago. The question is, Does a hierarchical relationship of the godhead in the sense taught by Aquinas mean also subordination of authority and purpose in the sense taught recently by Knight?

Did sin change God's love? If so, how did it change God's love and does that mean that sin is stronger than God's love and that God's love is malleable?

God IS love, and is in all and through all and His love is full and complete and doesn't change by the tiniest degree. There is a dissonance in this story. Try juxtoposing the Love Chapter over the story of an angry God who is only satisfied with blood. The comparison is very stark and jolting.

God got his pound of flesh and pint of blood but is He REALLY appeased? Temporarily, but very temporarily. But when those who reject the blood story, the need for appeasement swells beyond the need for Jesus' blood, now He is demanding more blood, more bodies. But still,, is He really appeased, is his love still fully intact? Most of Christendom believes in an eternal hell and in that case, He is definately never appeased, for there isn't enough time in all of eternity to appease this God. We continue to find ways of spiritualizing this but any earthly father behaving in such a way, would find himself in a padded cell.

Ben,

Their views could be compatible to some degree, but honestly I don't know their theology in sufficient detail to provide any meaningful perspective on that. Knight's subordination ideas seem to be used along with gender role arguments, could possibly play into a misogynistic agenda, which I would be opposed to.

But another thought about the trinity. Jesus is Creator of time and space. Then challenges about before and after, questions about sequence, logic and number are not necessarily sensible. Likewise, words like subordination and hierarchy, even the very word 'trinity' are all human words to depict God that doesn't fit into the boxes that we make.

Tim,

I think some of the connections you make to the heresies I've described and Adventist history are certainly there, with the Adventist pioneers thinking that the law of God is the perfect transcript of his character, instead of Jesus, who is an example of someone who perfectly keeps this law. Ellen White is the one notable exception, at least later in her life. Despite the misuse of writings, and some of her statements on other issues, she is the person responsible for keep Adventism on track on these important issues--the nature of God, Jesus, hence the nature of salvation.

The discussion of all this becomes more nuanced/complicated in Adventism because of two addition issues--a.) the pre-fall/post-fall human nature of Jesus and b.) our Weslyean soteriology.

I think that b.) makes our understanding of "salvation" more holistic and also more in harmony with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understandings of salvation as including "sanctification" and "healing." But, as in these other streams of the Christian tradition, there is some confusion on what "sanctification" looks like and who is responsible for the sanctifying (Is it God? Is it humans? Is it God and humans?). As in church history, in Adventism, an emphasis on sanctification as a part of salvation and that human effort is somehow involved has resulted in "legalistic" understandings of soteriology that has created a backlash to "justification" only models of salvation.

The importance of issue a.), I think, is pretty unique debate to Adventism. Personally, I don't know why we make such a big deal of it. It has to do with the issue of Jesus being an exemplar, which I think you could link to the Arian leanings of early Adventist pioneers.