1

Christ our mighty God and Everlasting Father

                                   

By  Jeff  Wilson  

Study 2 of the King of Glory Series Relating to the Eternal Son Covering 5 Successive Eras.

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the body of Christ

I would like to thank all my precious friends who contributed to this study – even those of you I have not met in person. We may not see everything the same way, yet that’s ok. “Uniformity” does not mean conformity where we all think or act the same way. We all uniquely differ and complement each other in a unity not necessarily based on EXACT doctrinal conformity but a unity of love, in worship, spirit, purpose and a passion for gospel truth in the body of Christ. I am mindful and grateful of the way my friends within the “body” of believers offered their thoughtful contributions, and sensitive and constructive criticism to help complement this series of studies. Thank you. What I am saying is that, in one sense, this series is the result of prayerful synergistic “shared thinking”!

Acknowledgements: James Crider: You were the one who influenced me to explore Revelation’s slain Lamb’s imagery a little further and decode Rev 5:6,7. Michael Delaney: You helped me understand some critical dynamics surrounding Christ’s substitute death “as us” more fully. Frank Klin: In our correspondence you placed a key in my hand that opened the Scriptural passages that correlated and contrasted the seven-horned Lamb with the antichrist more perfectly. Gary Hullquist: Appreciate your insights on John 10: 17,18 as presented in Theos Magazine. Corey McCain: Your thoughts on the nature of the separation between the Father and Son at the cross were an insightful and important contribution. Blair Andrews: Your blunt criticism enabled me to push the boundaries just that little bit more. I valued your words of encouragement also! Carron Lake: The way you clarified Phil 2:6,7 by greatly simplifying the difficult-to-explain concept of Christ’s self-emptying was a Godsend. Adrian Ebens: Your sermons, DVD’s, written articles and The Return of Elijah helped me gain more appreciation for the universal channel of blessing concept and how this is key to the blessing, security, success and preservation of marriages, churches, families and society. And your burden for God’s SDA church and your spirit and decision to follow your convictions at any cost is inspirational. Terry Hill: Your thoroughness and scholarly depth in your Biblical research is powerful and affirming reminding us to “dig deep” for hidden treasure. David Clayton: Out of everything I have ever heard or read concerning the vital/central subject of righteousness by faith, in connection with the personality of God and Christ, few have presented it with such power, clarity and depth that both stirs my heart and speaks to my heart as you have. I could name 3 other very close friends who helped me see things clearer. One person in fact who has helped more than any other by . . . countless editorial comments and suggestions, and who will remain anonymous for personal reasons, deserves my hearty thanks. Thank you ______ I am grateful for the many opportunities to connect with all these, and other, beautiful people in the body of Christ. May the Father bless you all! I really appreciate your input – every one of you! J

3

The King of Glory Series

__________________________________________________________________

Study 1: Family Attack

___________________________________________________

Study 2: Christ Our Everlasting Father

_____________________________________________

Study 3: Epic sacrifice

______________________________________________

Study 4: Omni Paradox ____________________________________________

Study 5: The Great Arian Controversy

4

King of Glory Series

Covering 5 Expansive Eras Study Outline

Study 1: Family Attack (“Days of eternity” Era) A study of heaven’s family dispute as prefigured in the life of Joseph. We will explore the universal principle of submission and how it was reflected and demonstrated in the life of Joseph and more importantly – the life of Jesus. We will see how this principle is vitally necessary for the

success and happiness of individuals, families, churches and society.

-------3: Epic Sacrifice (The Incarnation Era) Exploring the incarnation and “infinite sacrifice” of Christ and how the inestimable value of this sacrifice is proportional to His divine identity. This study directly interconnects with the two studies before and after it

-------4: Omni Paradox (Pentecostal Era) Features the glorification of Christ as our anointed everlasting priest and how this was connected to Pentecost and relates to us today

--------5: The Great Arian Controversy (Dark Ages Era to Our Day) A study concerning the 3rd century identity war over the Father and Son and how this was associated with the abomination of desolation which seems to be repeated in our day

‘Truth Looses Nothing By Investigation’

Cover illustration/Graphic design: Jeff Wilson

jeffmurraywilson@gmail.com

Study 2: Christ the Everlasting Father (Pre-Creation – the Cross Era) Features the Pre-existent Son and the significance of His many “given names” and “family names” as related to His nature and character. The controversy concerning the identity of God’s Son is considered.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction p. 6

Identity Attack # 1 p. 6

The Rebellion of Korah Against Moses p. 8

Identity Attack # 2 p. 11

Identity Attack # 3 p. 13

Jesusʼ Names Before His Incarnation p. 14

Jesusʼ Highly Exalted Given Name p. 16

A Priest Forever; p. 18

“Whose Son is He?” p. 22

The “Omega” p. 26

What is the “Omega”? p. 27

Correlations concerning the Alpha and Omega p. 31

A Solid Immovable Platform

p. 34

How to respond to church leaders (“Blessing Received Through Submission to Headship”) An Excerpt from The Return of Elijah, Adrian Ebens

p. 45

6

Introduction: This study explores the meaning and significance behind the multiple names of Godʼs Son and how these names are connected to His nature, identity and character in relation to the entire plan of salvation including His priestly ministry. These three attributes of Christ have long been under attack, (and still are to this day) and this attack was not limited to the time of His first advent. It is a cosmic conflict by nature involving the whole universe originating in heaven. Lucifer is the originator of the controversy, and his relentless attack over the position and identity of Godʼs everlasting only begotten Son was, and still is, highly a sophisticated and most subtle in nature. The controversy concerning the Son, and His disputed identity, will continue until the Second Advent when Christ returns in power and indescribable glory. Striking parallels can be seen between the rebellion of Korah and his associates toward Moses and Aaron and the original rebellion of Lucifer and his angels against the Father and His Son and their heavenly government. Even further correlations can be seen with something Ellen G. White referred to as “the alpha and omega” of apostasy. (1 SM p. 204, 205; EW 258, 259). This was a term referring to something of a dangerous and misleading spiritualistic nature introduced in the early 1900ʼs that clashed with the established foundational pillars of the Advent movement concerning the sanctuary truth, and the three identities within the Godhead. She said the “omega” was to immerge at the close of time. The first two correlations regarding Korahʼs and Luciferʼs rebellion will be addressed first and are presented in a tabulated form. The third correlation concerning the alpha and omega will be introduced at the end of this study. This will help us better conceptualize the strangely consistent principles repeated within the controversy and enable us to see some astonishing similarities between all three rebellions as a warning to SDAʼs not to follow this pattern. As indicated on the previous page, this is the first study of a series of five progressive studies featuring, among other things, the everlasting gospel of righteousness and the various things mentioned above, and the human/divine nature and atonement of the worldʼs redeemer. What follows here now under the 3 “Identity Attack” subheadings is a review of some of the principles brought out in “The Begotten Son Controversy” study. This review will serve as a foundation to give context to this study. It is my prayer that readers will become more keenly aware of the subtle nature, and the enormity of the scale of this Godhead government controversy, and that the true picture of the disputed identity of Godʼs only begotten will come into clearer focus and cause us to appreciate, worship and adore Him more than we have ever done before. ************************************************************************************ Identity Attack # 1: (Luciferʼs original “alpha of apostasy”. Directed toward the Son of God before the “beginning” of earthʼs creation). __________________________________________________ In the book of Proverbs Christ, the pre-existent Son of God, is figuratively named “Wisdom”. (Prov. 2:10; 3:19; 8:1,11, 12; 1 Cor. 1:24,30; Matt 11:19) He existed with His Father before anything in the universe was created. This master craftsman, “associate co-worker” with the Father was greatly privileged to share His throne and assist in the indescribable creative process of the universe. (Zec. 6:13; Prov. 8:22-30) Lucifer, “Son of the morning” or “day star” (Isa 14:12), was the first of all the created intelligences the Father and Son made (Heb. 1:1,2; John 1:1-3; Col 1:16,17). He was full of wisdom and beauty and possessed great musical abilities. This majestically adorned angel choir leader that appeared as he was covered with “every precious stone” was perfect in his ways from the day he was created, “till iniquity was found” in him (Eze. 28: 13,15). Although he was highly honored and favored of God above all the heavenly hosts, one day, strange feelings of discontent, envy and jealousy took up

7

residence in his heart. At first he secretly and masterfully tried to hide these feelings yet in time he perverted his God-given freedom until his disaffection manifested in open revolt against the government of God. Scripture states in revelation “And there was war in heaven: Michael and His angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels” (Rev 12:7). This was not a war of a military like nature consisting of swords, guns or ammunition explosives but a political war involving, on Satanʼs side, lies, misrepresentations, and accusations concerning the justice and fairness of the character and government of God. Not only did Lucifer aim his emotive weaponry against Godʼs government and His “law of liberty” (a perpetual life-law for the happiness, protection, security, freedom and blessing of every created intelligence within the universe), Lucifer also subtly attacked the character of Godʼs closest friend “Michael”. Dissatisfied with his position, for no justifiable reason, his envy and jealousy grew stronger and stronger against the Fatherʼs eternal only begotten Son – the Son of His love, His “daily delight” and the object of His supreme and deepest affection (Isa. 14: 12-14; Prov. 8:30). Now Lucifer became known as the “serpent”, “the devil and Satan” (Rev. 12:9). Eventually he openly attacked the Son of Godʼs identity (nature), by questioning His exalted relational position with the Father. In the first chapter of Patriarchs and Prophets Ellen White enlarges on this,

“The history of the great conflict between good and evil, from the time it first began in heaven to the final overthrow of rebellion and the total eradication of sin, is also a demonstration of God's unchanging love. The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate--a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:1,2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father--one in nature, in character, in purpose--the ONLY being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. Not content with his position, though honored above the heavenly host, he ventured to covet homage due alone to the Creator. Instead of seeking to make God supreme in the affections and allegiance of all created beings, it was his endeavor to secure their service and loyalty to himself. And coveting the glory with which the infinite Father had invested His Son, this prince of angels aspired to power that was the prerogative of Christ alone. - PP 34 (Emphasis added)

Here we see in what way the Father and His “associate-co-worker” Son are “one”. (On this point it is worth mentioning here that they are not one in authority, personage or identity because the Bible declares several times to “one” supreme Almighty God (James 2:19; Mark 12:32; Mark 12:29; Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:4; 1 Chron. 29:11; 1 Cor. 11:3; Rom 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3; Psalm. 110:1; John 20:17; Acts 2:32; Rev. 3:12; Titus 1:4; Gal 1:1,3; Col 1:3; 2 John 3; Rev. 1:6; 2 Tim 1:2; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:16; John 6:27; Psalm 45:7; Heb. 1:9; 1 Cor. 15:24). Therefore the Father and Son are one, or we could say in harmony or “united”, in “nature, in character and in purpose”. Proof of this can be seen upon simply observing the context of oneness by comparing the following texts that refer to the Christian as being “one” with God. (John 10:30; Gal. 3:28; John 17:11,21,22). We see here that these texts cannot possibly be referring to oneness in person.) Lucifer coveted the glory the Father had bestowed upon the Son and inwardly craved to be worshiped.

“The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father is truly God in infinity but not in personality” The Upward Look p. 367 The Father is God in nature (divine) and person – unbegotten The Son is God in nature (divine) - begotten

The very first being to dispute the Sonʼs supremacy

“To dispute the supremacy of the Son of God . . . impeaching the wisdom and love of the Creator, had become the purpose of this prince of angels.” - PP 36 (Emphasis added)

8

Clearly we see here the real nature of the conflict. The dispute was over the highly exalted and honored supremacy of Michael. And continuing it says,

“To this object he was about to bend the energies of that mastermind, which, next to Christ was first among the hosts of God.” - PP 36

Christ the Son……….would exalt the Father's glory

“The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--"ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11.) . . . . . Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love.” - PP 36,37 (Emphasis added)

So here we see the very original rebellion of a grand scale was directed toward two supreme beings – the two divine architects of the universe. There is one event in Scripture that serves as a type that illustrates some striking parallels from the cosmic conflict concerning this. It is the rebellion of Korah, and his associates, against Moses and Aaron we will now consider as illustrated on the following 3 pages. The Rebellion of Korah Tabulated Parallels between the rebellion of Lucifer and his angels against the Father and Son, and the rebellion of Korah and his followers against Moses and Aaron.

9

The Father: Ruler on the throne,

Sovereign of the Universe.

The Son: A High priest; Fatherʼs

mouthpiece “The Word” or “Godʼs thought made audible”(DA p 19)

. . .

Lucifer: Was highly honored, a master musician and gifted choir leader, an anointed cherub and appointed by God as a minister in His temple. He was not part of the Godhead and became envious and jealous of the exalted position of God’s Son and was determined to gain equal favor and authority

Moses: Chosen Ruler of Israel Moses represented God the Father

(Moses ano inted Aaron wi th the “ho ly o i l ” (Lev 8:12 Ex 40:13; Nu 35:25; Psm.133:2)

Aaron: A priest and mouthpiece or represent-ative spokesman for Moses. He prefigured Christ/Son of God

(Aaron was ano inted wi th “ho ly o i l ” – s ign i fy ing the Spir i t : (Psm. 89:20; Zec. 4)

Korah: As a member of the tribe of Levi Korah was assigned an honorable position but he was not appointed to the priesthood. He became dissatisfied with his place and he aspired the position of the priest because he considered this to be a higher office and calling than a Levite. He became determined to overthrow Moses and his throne.

God the Father

. . God has a form and “God is a Spi r i t ” (John 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:17 - He has a sp i r i tua l d imens ion to H im a lso. Psm. 139)

The Son . . .

As a Pr iest, Chr is t ’s d iv ine/human form has a “ l i fe-g iv ing” omnipresent sp i r i tua l d imens ion – (1 Cor.15:45; 2 Cor. 3:17)

Lucifer: Leader in the rebellion. Became dissatisfied with his exalted position. At first worked in secrecy but eventually openly challenged the Government of God and aspired the exalted position of His Son. Influenced many angels in rebellion.

10

“He glorified in his brightness and exaltation and aspired to be equal with God. He was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host, angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wisdom and glory above them all. Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He

shared the Father's counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. "Why," questioned this mighty angel, "should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?"

“He began to insinuate doubts concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that though laws might be necessary for the inhabitants of the worlds, angels, being more exalted, needed no such restraint, for their own wisdom was a sufficient guide. They were not beings that could bring dishonor to God; all their thoughts were holy . . . . The exaltation of the Son as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who it was claimed was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could attain to this his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven for it was his object to secure freedom for all. But now even the liberty which had hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute Ruler [Christ/Michael] and to His authority all must pay homage” – PP 37 “Taking advantage of the loving, loyal trust reposed in him by the holy beings under his command, he had so artfully instilled into their minds his own distrust and discontent that his agency was not discerned. Lucifer had presented the purposes of God in a false light--misconstruing and distorting them to excite dissent and dissatisfaction. He cunningly drew his hearers on to give utterance to their feelings; then these expressions were repeated by him when it would serve his purpose . . . . . . . While claiming for himself perfect loyalty to God, he urged that changes in the order and laws of heaven were necessary for the stability of the divine government . . . . . While secretly fomenting discord and rebellion, he with consummate craft caused it to appear as his sole purpose to promote loyalty and to preserve harmony and peace.” – PP 37

Moses (Represented the Father )

Aaron (Represented the Son of God)

Korah: At first his work was carried out secretly influencing others including 250 Levites in the rebellion until he openly challenged the leadership of Moses and Aaron. “Korah's success with the people increased his confidence and confirmed him in his belief that the usurpation of authority by Moses,

if unchecked, would be fatal to the liberties of Israel; he also claimed that God had opened the matter to him, and had authorized him to make a change in the government before it should be too late. But many were not ready to accept Korah's accusations against Moses.” (Likewise Lucifer was not able to persuade the entire heavenly host against God)For a time this work was carried on secretly. As soon, however, as the movement had gained sufficient strength to warrant an open rupture, Korah appeared at the head of the faction, and publicly accused Moses and Aaron of usurping authority which Korah and his associates were equally entitled to share. It was charged, further, that the people had been deprived of their liberty and independence.” – PP 398

11

God the

Father

The Son

Of God

Lucifer: Lucifer was not immediately destroyed but was given time to develop his schemes and manifest the true intent of his evil character in contrast to the Father and the Son. Lucifer will eventually be destroyed by “fire” and brought down to earthʼs desolate “pit” along with his angels similar to the men of Korah (Isa 14:15)

Moses: (Prefigured the Father)

Aaron (Prefigured the Son of God)

Korah: God did not immediately pronounce judgments upon Korah

or his associates through Moses. He gave them time to develop and manifest the evil in their characters.

“ Now it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground split under them, and the earth opened up its mouth and swallowed

them up, with their households and all the men of Korah with all their goods They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said , Lest the earth swallow us up also. And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.” (Num. 16:31-35)

See also p. 24 and 25 for further astonishing correlations between Korah, Lucifer and J.H. Kellogg in relation to the “alpha and omega”.

(The above concepts were Partly adapted from Pr. Stephen Bohrʼs sermon entitled “Rebellion in the Camp”)

Identity Attack # 2: (During Christʼs incarnation and ministry on earth when He rightfully claimed to be the “I Am” and “Son of God”). __________________________________________________ The second era of identity attack occurred several thousand years later, and 30 years after the promised “seed” or Messiah was born into our little world. Satan chose a time when Jesus was most vulnerable - when He was weakened after His fast in the wilderness preparatory to His ministry (Matt 4:1,2,6). In Satanʼs very first psychological blow, he even tried to insinuate doubt in Christʼs mind concerning His Sonship/identity with the Father. Whatʼs interesting is Satanʼs emotional and psychological attack occurred around 40 days after His baptism when His Father actually blessed the Messiah with the words that unmistakably confirmed to the onlookers, and reaffirmed to Himself, of His real identity, “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17; see also 17:4-6). However it was not Satan alone that questioned and disputed the Son of Godʼs identity. Much of the “identity attack # 2” was directed through the hard-hearted religious leaders who were under the influence of Satanʼs demonic agencies. (Satan is content to remain in the

12

shadows so long as he can achieve his purpose). This attack was evident when the religious leaders questioned and denied His divinity, relational equality and Sonship with His Father. They considered Jesusʼ ʻSon of Godʼ claim as “blasphemy” and therefore were bent on destroying Him because of it. (John 7:25, 30,32; 8:42, 49, 58; 9:32-35; 10: 29 – 33; 36-38.)

“Again the priests and rabbis cried out against Jesus as a blasphemer. His claim to be one with God had before stirred them to take His life, and a few months later they plainly declared, "For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God." John 10:33. Because He was, and avowed Himself to be, the Son of God, they were bent on destroying Him.” DA 470

Not only has the identity of Godʼs Son been under attack, the identity of the Holy Spirit has also been under attack – not directly but in a theological manner. We will consider this in a moment. Further in this study, and subsequent studies, we will consider the divine attributes of Christ during His incarnation that further affirmed His Sonship. We will also explore what Jesus inherited from His Father when He was glorified during His 10 day coronation prior to Pentecost. One of those things includes reaffirming one of His significant names – namely Yeshua/Jesus. It needs to be understood Jesusʼ names are more than random titles. As we will see, they actually denote His character and divine nature. Only two beings in the universe can be rightfully named “God”. (Neither Father or Son prevented anyone from either worshipping the Son or calling Him their “Lord”, “Savior” or “God” Matt 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33: 15:25; 18: 26; Phil. 2:9,10; Heb. 1:6). Understanding the reasons why in Scripture Jesus was sometimes called “God”, and even on one occasion “Father”, should eliminate any possible confusion concerning these two identities of the three divine dignitaries within the Godhead. And it should help us in forming clearer conceptualizations of the two almost identical, yet beautifully distinct, relational identities of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit: - The latter of which among many things, is the worldwide non-physical personal presence of the Father and Son which converts, convicts, comforts, guides, justifies, sanctifies, and empowers the believer to overcome all hereditary and cultivated sin and impress Christʼs character upon His church. Amen. (Psalm. 139:1-10; John 14:16-18,23,26; 15:1-8; 16:7-9; John 7:37-39; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2; 1 Cor. 6:11; 15:45). The Specific Names of the Holy Spirit In a theological, and subsequently experiential way, Satan has also distorted, confused and spiritualized away the true identity of the Holy Spirit third person of the Godhead. The results of this can readily be seen in charismatic and so-called Pentecostal “revival flame” churches. There are at least dozens of verses in Scripture admonishing us to worship the Father and His Son. And yet aside from the symbolic descriptions of the Holy Spirit, while it is literally an essential personal power, the Holy Spirit is described as “third person” or “personality of the Godhead”, “divine dignitary” “personal [non-physical] presence of Christ”, a “life giving Spirit”, “I”, ”He”, “We”, “the Comforter”, *“the Spirit of God”, (God is “the Father of spirits” Heb. 12:9) “Thy Spirit”, “the Spirit of the Lord”, “the *Spirit of life”, “Godʼs Spirit”, *“the Spirit of Christ”, “the Spirit of His Son”, *“the Spirit of truth”, “the mind of the Lord” and the “mind of the Spirit” = “the Spirit of the Lord” (Compare Rom 11:34, 8:27 with Isa 40:13) In other words the Holy Spirit is VERY closely interconnected with the thoughts and feelings of God. Additionally, the Spirit is described as “a mighty rushing wind” or the “breath of Christ” within the Godhead (See John 20:22) (all descriptions imply ownership or the original source of). One day, before I understood this, I began to look for a single indication in Scripture, and afterward the S.O.P., that suggested we should worship the Holy Spirit. I could not find one. Apart from one text that on the surface APPEARS to indicate that the believer is to communicate with the Holy __________________________________________________________________________ *If I were to include references here for phrases like “Spirit of God”, Godʼs Spirit, or “Spirit of Christ” it would probably almost fill up the whole page. I will leave that for curious readers to do their own investigations with a Concordance if they so desire.)

13

Ghost (2 Cor. 13:14), what might come as a surprise to some readers is that there is not the slightest indication in Scripture that admonishes believers to worship the Holy Spirit at all – and certainly not as a co-eternal self-originating god-Being. (You can carefully check it out for yourself). Yet “God is a Spirit: and they that worship HIM must worship HIM in Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:17 emphasis added). Not only does the Bible declare God to be a Spirit but oddly enough, it also states Jesus is a Spirit (“the last Adam was a “quickening” [“life-giving”] spirit” 1 Cor. 15: 45; Rom. 8:10; 2 Cr. 3:17). Knowing Jesus is a tangible being, and knowing the Father has “shape” and substance (John 5:37) and since we are “created in His own image” “after [His] likeness” (Gen 1:26,27) then why do the Apostleʼs words seem to contradict this fact? How then are we to make sense of all this? It simply means, unlike us, the Father and the Son have a unique intangible Spiritual dimension to them known as “omnipresence” – the extraordinary ability to be everywhere non-physically, yet PERSONALLY present - for our advantage! (Psm. 139:1-10; Isa 51:11; 63:10,11) (For quite some time, 1 Cor. 15:45 describing the last Adam (Jesus) as “a quickening Spirit” was to me one of the weirdest verses of all Scripture that remained vague and confusing in my mind. And so when I was confronted with this verse while perusing Scripture, I would usually just brush over it. Nowadays the meaning is crystal clear and it is one of my absolute favorite texts in all Scripture that provides a very solid foundation to the personal identity of the Holy Spirit – the non-physical personal presence of the Father and/or the Son themselves! It may not be wise to worship the means of divine communication above the divine channels of communication themselves. When the identity of the Holy Spirit is distorted, there is danger for the Christian to give misplaced importance to feeling over and above faith, feeling over obedience, sanctification, Godʼs Word and even the real God-intended object of worship and adoration, namely the Father and Son exclusively. Just as the Father and Son have specific names and corresponding characteristics revealing their identities, so too does the Holy Spirit of God have specific names and characteristics revealing His identity – all of which helps us to form a true picture of the nature of the Godhead.

“All professions of Christianity are but lifeless expressions of faith until Jesus imbues the believers with His spiritual life which IS the Holy Ghost” - 3 SP 242 (Emphasis added)

See Appendix A (page 50, 51) for 14 more Spirit of Prophecy quotations that unmistakably point to the divine identity of the Holy Spirit

Identity Attack # 3: “Omega of apostasy”? The post 1888 current progressive spiritualizing away truth within Adventism concerning the Godhead and the literal Sonship of Christ. __________________________________________________ We will see that this subject, especially relating to the theological attack upon Christʼs identity, could possibly be linked to what Ellen White refers to as the “omega of apostasy” that was a repeat of the “alpha” of apostasy that was introduced in her day. (1 SM p. 197, 200). She prophesied and warned of a deadly spiritualistic heresy that would be introduced into Godʼs church prior to the return of Christ. Although the omega of apostasy is not the major focus of this study, we will however, briefly factor this in later at the close of this study. My chief purpose for now though, is to encourage readers to develop greater appreciation for Christ and His exalted position as our everlasting redemptive Father. We know the Elijah message is to be proclaimed before “the great and dreadful day of the Lord” to “turn the heart [H # 3824, feelings, will, intellect] of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to the fathers” (Mal 4:5,6). And I like to think the Elijah message will also turn the hearts of our heavenly Fathers, namely God the Almighty Father, and His Son -

14

the Father of our redemption, to the children of the kingdom, and the children of the kingdom to the two exalted glorious Fathers and Creators of the universe. Hallelujah and Amen! Up to here I have presented an overview consisting of four identity attacks over the government of God. 1) Luciferʼs rebellion in heaven, 2) Korahʼs rebellion which echoed Luciferʼs rebellion, 3) Satan, and the religious leaders, attack upon the incarnate Son of God, and 4) The alpha and the final omega. We will now back up and zoom in on the third attack concerning Christ during His incarnation and in addition to this consider His pre-existent given names. Jesus’ Names Before His Incarnation We normally associate “Yahweh” the “Almighty” Father, who is often referred to as “God”, with the Old Testament and we associate Jesus with the New. When in fact, many times it was actually the pre-existent Christ that was the representative for His Father. Christ was the appointed medium in both the New and Old Testament for His Fatherʼs miraculous power and glory. In those instances when He manifested Himself in the Old Testament, sometimes He is referred to as the “Son of God” (Dan 3:25); sometimes as the “son of man” (Dan 8:13); He was in the pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night leading the Israelites through the desert; He appeared to Moses in the burning bush; He was present within the thick cloud, fire and smoke on Mount Sinai as a “mediator” in communication with Moses when he received the ten Commandments (Heb.12:18-20; Gal 3:19); He appeared on one occasion as the “LORD” disguised/veiled as a common traveller visiting Abram (Gen 18: 1-3); He sometimes manifested as an “angel” of the covenant (Acts 7:35; Jude 1:9; Judges 2:1); and yet beneath all these manifestations He was the “express image of God”! (Heb. 1:8; John 1:1; Psm. 50:2). And there was good reason for veiling His glory. So people could simply behold Him and live! No one could look upon His unveiled intrinsically majestic form without being instantly overwhelmed or destroyed. (See DA p.25) Michael, meaning “One like God”, was Christʼs pre-existent given name in heaven (Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7).“The only begotten of the Father” naturally took on the last name, or as we say today, the family names of His Father prior to His incarnation and long before the creation of the universe. According to a prophesy of Isaiah, He took on the name “Father” exclusively during His incarnation and redemptive work for a very specific reason (Isa 9:6). He is their spiritual Father in a redemptive context. Jesus inherited His Fatherʼs Family Names (Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai) as specified in the following table.

Our Family Name: You and I have a “family name” as well as at least one “given name”. (Along with my 2 siblings, my family name is Wilson, and my first given name is Jeffrey, or as I prefer, Jeff). A family name really reflects the physical nature and genetic traits a baby receives from its mother and/or father immediately at birth, while the given name is supposed to pertain to the character or personality of the infant. It is because I resembled my father in some ways, I received his family name. So in other words, an individualʼs full name is intended to reflect his or her nature

Elohim: The plural form of EL, meaning “strong one.” (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18; Deut. 5:23; 8:15; Ps. 68:7). El Shaddai: “God Almighty” dwelt in Christ (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:1; Ps. 91:1, 2) Yahweh (YHWH): Comes from a verb which means “to exist, be.” (Gen. 4:3; Ex. 6:3 (cf. 3:14); 3:12).

“Jehovah is the name GIVEN to Christ” - ST May 3 1899.

Adonai: Like Elohim, this too is a plural of majesty.

15

and character. Sometimes certain notable figures in Scripture, like Jacob and Saul for example, were given new names when, for whatever reason, their life-experience and character underwent radical changes. Lucifer is another example. (We know Jesus gave nicknames to some of His disciples according to their various characteristics.)

Many people have little idea what their name means, yet to the Hebrew mind it didnʼt matter what the name sounded like, what was important was what the name signified. Unlike most of the developed western world culture today, it was customary for the Hebrews to name their newborns according to their particular character and inherited traits. That is why it was not unusual for a name to be given to a baby sometime after it was born when his or her characteristics would be manifest. Today, parents generally choose a particular name for their baby girl or boy for no other reason than because it sounds cool or has a certain ring to it. “Lachlan sounds nice, or what about Zac or Toby?” If it is a girl, names like Machala, Olivia, Hayley, Lara, Jade or Abbey for some parents might have the preference over Ethel or Gwen these days. (My apology to anyone with those names J.) And who in our day for instance would choose to call their son Zerubabel ?!! Christ the eternal begotten Son of His Fatherʼs love also had a number of family names (Jehovah, everlasting Father, Alpha and Omega, I Am, and the ones we listed) and several given names. His given names were “Wisdom”, “The Word” (or “Word of God”), “Michael” meaning “one who is like God” all three pertaining to His pre-existence, and “Jesus” – the name referring to His incarnation and humanity. Today Jesus has an undisclosed “new name” and He promises to write this name, along with their own new name and His Fatherʼs name, upon overcomers that enter the city of God. Interestingly, the sealed 144,000 were seen in vision by John as having their Fatherʼs name (character) written in their foreheads. (Rev 2:17; 3:12; 14:1) Commenting on Heb. 1:1-8, E. J. Waggoner describes the way in which Christ possessed His Fatherʼs divine name, nature and likeness simultaneously – just like a human son, to some degree, is a “reproduction” of his father.

“A son always rightfully takes the name of the father; and Christ, as the only begotten Son of God, has rightfully the same name. A son, also, is, to a greater or less degree, a reproduction of the father; he has to some extent the features and personal characteristics of his father; not perfectly, because there is no perfect reproduction among mankind. But there is no imperfection in God . . . . . and so Christ is the express image of the Father's person. Heb.1:3. As the Son of the self- existent God, He has by nature all the attributes of Deity.” – E.J. Waggoner, Christ and His righteousness p. 11,12

Now lets go back again to the Old Testament and consider the pre-existent Christʼs name from a character perspective. Now that we understand a name represents character we can see how Moses indicated in Exodus that the Fatherʼs personality was dwelling in His Son when He manifested Himself in an angelic form.

“Behold, I send an Angel [messenger Michael] before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [character] is in him.” - Ex 23: 20-22 (Bracketed comments added)

The Fatherʼs name, or character, was manifest in Michael Son of God in His various pre-incarnate disguised or veiled transformations. He is said to have “followed” and gone before the Israelites during their exodus journey from years of Egyptian bondage.

“And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Cor. 10:4

Here Michael is signified as a rock from which flowed out living refreshing water signifying the divine fountain of Christʼs spiritual life.

16

The Incarnation: The name Yeshua (Jesus) was the God-inspired name given to Christ by Mary and Joseph when He was born in Bethlehem (Matt 1:21). The very reason for the name is contained in the name itself. It means Savior and that was the whole object of Christʼs life reflected in His character. “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Matt 1:21. Another three major differences between Jesus and the angels exist not only because He is Co-Creator with the Father but also because He is Godʼs everlasting “ONLY begotten Son” and humanities Redeemer (Heb. 1:3). He “purged our sins” and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb. 1:10). During Christʼs exemplarity life on earth, the Father was “by” Him (Acts 2:22), “with” Him (John 8:29) and dwelt IN Him (John 17:21; 14:20) as Christ was “filled with ALL the fullness of the Godhead” bodily (Col 2:9). Therefore Jesus could say unequivocally “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” John 14:9; “I and the Father are one” and so forth. (See 1 John 1:2). This is highly significant in that it is almost like the Bible writers blended the two identities of the Father and Son together. However, in recognizing the very close unity between Father and Son it is easy to sometimes blur the eternal distinctiveness of either identity at the expense diminishing their individuality. Yet we need to be careful not to loose sight of the submissive role of the Son to the Father and the clear distinction of authority in that relationship. (John 14:28; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 11:3; 15: 1 Cor. 8:6; 11:3; 15:28) Jesus inherited His Fatherʼs name “Jehovah”, “I AM” (John 8:58) and other names simply because these were His acquired family names that the angels were not privileged to have. (Compare Heb. 1:4 with Heb. 1:8) He didnʼt earn that name by anything He did - it was not the result of power, position or performance. It was His naturally by inheritance just as we all inherited the name of our human father. The “Emanuel; God With Us” Principle: Here is an example of the “oneness” or the inseparable “Us-ness” of the Father and Son.

"God was IN Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." - 2 Corinthians 5:19.

Or we could say, God [the “Alpha and Omega”, “Jehovah”, that “I AM”, “the Almighty”, the Sovereign “Creator” of the Universe] was IN Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. The apostle John also described this indwelling Father in His Son so that the two were spiritually “one”. Christ desires to share this oneness with His followers.

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” - John 17:21 “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” - John 14:20. And . . . . “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” - John 14:9

Jesusʼ Highly Exalted Given Name Jesus and His Father, and the created angels are family. Thatʼs what makes our God an awesome God that EVERYONE who chooses to “feel after Him, and find Him” can identify with and relate to, and thatʼs what makes our God different to ALL other numerous false impersonal pagan gods. The Father and Son are harmonious in character, united in purpose and one in this sense, yet still two distinct Beings. All the Bible prophets and writers were careful to purposely make these distinctions between the two almost identical personalities of these closely united supreme Beings.

From eternity there was a complete unity between the Father and Son. They were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit, in heart, and character” Youthʼs Instructor, Dec 16, 1897 (Emphasis added)

Consider the apostle Paulʼs comprehensive description of Christ in Hebrews the first chapter.

17

1 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” Heb. 1: 1-5 (Bracketed comments added)

Here the apostle brings out a number of significant and wonderful points we need to pay attention to. In verse 3, he describes Christ as the “brightness of His [Godʼs] glory” and “express image” of His person. The words express image is translated from the original Greek meaning ʻcharacterʼ - an almost exact copy of the original. Christ is the divine embodiment of the Father and a divine reflection or copy of His character. After Christʼs sacrifice for the sins of the world, He was received up into heaven to be glorified (John 7:39, 16:7; 17:1; Phil. 2:9; Psm. 24; Dan. 7:13,14). Hebrews 1:3 also says Christ “obtained a more excellent [Hebrew] name [“Yeshua” (Jesus) or “Savior”] than they” v. 10. According to the context of this text, the word “they” seems to refer to the heavenly angels And in Phil 2:8,9 Paul echoes this thought - that Christ was “highly exalted” and “given” a name “which is above every name” – and in this instance it would have to include the angels. We should note here that the passage in Philippians is suggestive of two things that reoccur over and over in Scripture. There is a definite bestowal from one divine being to another, which in turn clearly indicates there is a distinction in divine authority. This is particularly brought out in the Gospel of John. Next time you read through John you might want to look for these areas of divine bestowal and note Christʼs complete dependence upon the Father. There is “one only true God” and Scripture says He “is [still presently] the head of Christ”. (See John 5:26,27; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 11:3; 15:28; see also D.A. p. 21 Bracketed comments added) Now, here are the reasons why the Son of God was “given” a more “excellent name” than the angelic occupants. 1. Because to begin with He was Godʼs “only begotten” beloved, highly valued and anointed/blessed Son (John 3:16). He received His Fatherʼs very nature! (Heb. 1:5) 2. Because, although Lucifer “son of the morning” (the first of the created angels Isa 14:12), was highly honored as the “anointed cherub” far beyond this, the divine Son was the “only” begotten pre-existent (ʻmono-genesʼ G. # 3439) of the Father (John 1:14,18; 3:18; Heb. 1:5; 1 John 4:9; 5:1). The Son of God shared His Fatherʼs throne and shared a relational equality with the Father (Phil 2:6) and this enthronement and natural equality was not something He had to try and grasp by force like Lucifer sought to do, but failed. (It is important to recognize there are two ways at looking at equality and only one of these fits in the context of the Godhead. It was not the power-based equality or performance-based equality but rather relational equality that gave Christ His exalted position. In the Trinity, Christʼs equality is seen purely in terms of inherently power-based rather than something bestowed.) Christ the “Messiah the prince” inherited all things from the Sovereign of the universe and shared His throne and like His Father He is also described as a king. 3. Christ was not only willing to subject Himself to our human nature but prepared undergo an “Infinite sacrifice” of Epic proportion by risking His eternal existence for our Redemption! Therefore for all these reasons the Father highly exalted Him and drew the angelic hostʼs attention to His more “excellent name”. (Heb. 1:3; Phil 2:8,9; Gal 4:4; Acts 2:32,33; 3:13.) So far we have discussed how the Son is the express image of the Father not necessarily in physical resemblance but in divine purpose and character. Another truth needs to be recognized. Aside from the angels, who the Apostle Paul refers to as “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. 1:14), Christ was “the ONLY medium of communication between God and man” (STC p. 20), and furthermore, the “only mediator [intercessor] between God and man” (1 Tim 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). That means of communication is

18

made possible through “another” glorified side to Him – His “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45; John 6:63; Rom 8:10; Gal. 4:6; 1 Cor. 6:17) or as John says, “another” (John 14:16) Comforter (Gk. ʻParakletosʼ or advocate) in the sense of His non-physical presence.

A Priest Forever Upon the commencement of Christ’s ministry on earth He was anointed with the power of the Spirit of His Father (Isa 61:1 - 3; Matt 3: 16-17). Jesus on earth was the antitypical lamb – and although He could certainly qualify as a priest, He was not at that time made a priest. (The earth, where He served and sacrificed, represents the outer court, or the “altar”). In fact as long as Christ was “on earth” He could not be anointed as a priest” (See Heb. 8:4). And furthermore He had no intention or interest in ministering in a “worldly sanctuary” (Heb. 9:1). As a “son”, Christ needed to learn “obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8) before being “made a high priest” (Heb. 6:20) after “the power of an endless life” (Heb. 7:16.) In entering upon His closing work in heaven, Jesus was “made” both a Priest and King. (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-16; 5:4,5; 9:1,11; 8:8; Rev. 6:2; 14:14) In the Old covenant, both kings and priests of Israel were anointed with “holy oil” (signifying a blessing of approval and bestowal of honor) before commencing their work: (Ex 40:13; 1 Kings 1:39 KJV; Lev 4:3; 5,16; 8;12; Num. 35:25. Psalm 89:20 KJV; 1 Sam 15:17; 2 Sam 5:3; 1 Kin 1:39; 2 Kin 23:30) No man could appoint himself to the priesthood and even Christ did not glorify or elect Himself for this office.

“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.” – Heb. 5: 4,5

A King’s work is to govern and rule over and serve his subjects in a particular regional territory. Christ’s kingdom is in heaven and His subjects are His redeemed people on earth. After His victory and ascension He received a kingdom as the “King of glory” (Psm. 24; Dan 7:13,14) A priest’s work was to “offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins”: . . . . . . and “have compassion on the ignorant” (Heb. 5:1; 7:26,27) Jesus could not present His own sacrifice “for [the] sins” of the world until after the event of Calvary. Only then could He minister as a priest to offer the gift of Himself in His new unprecedented human/divine life (possessing an incorruptible body with immortal flesh and bones in a literal glorified form Heb. 7: 26,27; 8:3) Jesus in His humanity demonstrated a perfect holy character by the fact that He “loved righteousness, and hated iniquity” (Heb. 1:9; 7:26; John 8:46;) Then He entered His work as our human/divine High Priest-King and to offer the gift of His Spirit “in its fullness” upon His church (John 7:39, 16:7; Phil 2:9;). His priesthood is a continual priesthood. Christ “the Son of God” “abideth a priest continually” in “an unchangeable priesthood” after “the power of an endless life” and “ever liveth to make intercession for them” and “is consecrated for evermore.” (Heb. 7:3, 24, 16, 25, 28) 40 days after Christʼs sacrifice as Passover Lamb and His victorious resurrection He entered the courts of heaven to meet the adoration of heavenly hosts (Psm. 24:7-10). During what seems to be a 10-day coronation in the heavenly courts, the special anointing as Priest and coronation as King occurred (See Acts 1:1-8, 2:1-3, 32,33; 3:13; Heb. 1:9; Matt 28:18; Psm. 24:7-10). The Father God anointed, blessed and glorified Him with the “oil of gladness” above His fellows.” Heb.1: 9. (Christ is a channel of the Fatherʼs Spirit although He Himself, like His Father is a fountain of living water and able to impart physical life and spiritual life to the believer.)

“When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, [day 40] He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, [day 50] the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. AA 39

19

“The Pentecostal outpouring was Heaven's communication that the Redeemer's inauguration was accomplished. According to His promise He had sent the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers as a token that He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over His people.” AA 39

Jesus was “perfected” (Luke 13:32) and glorified as the resurrected eternal divine/human Son of God (Acts 2:32,33; 3:13) and “everlasting Father” to His redeemed “sons of glory” (See Isa. 8:16-18). He was anointed with the Spirit of His Father as priest-king above His “fellows” [close friend angels.] They share a unity of Spirit and life. Christ is a “quickening [life giving] Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor. 3:17) and a channel for His Fatherʼs life and power. (See the plurality of the Holy Spirit as described in John 14:23). He was able to pour out His Spirit, as signified by “a mighty rushing wind” and tongues of fire, upon His Apostolic church-body during Pentecost (1 Cor. 15:45-48). His character and self-emptying in sacrifice precipitated this event. The following inspired quotation refers to the PERSONAL measureless degree of the infilling of the Spirit of God that was bestowed to Christ during His incarnation.

“For He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him." Christ could say, "I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent Me." John 5:30. To Him it is declared, "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." Heb.1:9. The Father "giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him." DA 180

Christʼs self-emptying leading up to the cross was the promise assuring us of His approaching work and ministry as our sympathetic High Priest. At that point, unlike before, He could pour out the Spirit in its fullness

“His meekness and patience exalt Jesus above humanity, and prove His kinship to God. His abasement was the pledge of His exaltation. The blood drops of agony that from His wounded temples flowed down His face and beard were the pledge of His anointing with "the oil of gladness" (Heb. 1:9.) as our great high priest.” DA 734

A significant difference We need to recognize that while Jesus received many, and perhaps most, of Godʼs names (Jehovah, mighty God, everlasting Father) by divine bestowal and “inheritance”, He presently willingly honors and subjects Himself to His Father. His divine nature and core divine identity is unchangeable. He will forever be the Son of God and, although glorified, He will forever be the “Son of man” retaining His divine/glorified human nature (1 Cor. 11:3; 8:6.). (Note: On earth the divine Christ possessed a corruptible human nature, but after His resurrection He possessed a new divine/human nature that became a channel for the out pouring of His Spirit in a large measure.)

It is important to recognize that although Jesus is our “mighty God” (Isa 9:6) He is not the “Ancient of days” (Dan 7:13), or “the Almighty” (Rev 1:8) and certainly not the Father of His God. Jesus said, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (See Matt 23:9). The problem with the orthodox trinity doctrine is that at the very least it has the potential to diminish, distort and blur the relational distinctions between the Father and Son within the Godhead by spiritualizing away their identities. I have covered this in more depth Epic Sacrifice. In fact the Father will always be Jesusʼ God and Jesus forever chooses to voluntarily submit to the Him. (1 Cor. 8:6; 11:3; 15:28)

“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript 140, 1903, see also Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 5 page 1129)

20

Why then in view of all this does Isaiah call Jesus the “everlasting father”? Other Scriptural texts provide answers. Through the incarnation, Christ, the Son of His Father became the “Everlasting Father”, “the last Adam” and “that heavenly man” of the redeemed “sons of glory” (Isa 9:6; 1 Cor. 15:45-48; Heb. 2: 10.)

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” - Isa 9:6

Because Isa 9:6 is sometimes quoted as an objection in defense of the “Christ is God Almighty” assumption (assumed randomly interchangeable identities), we need to carefully reexamine this verse and see what it is really saying. Firstly, upon studying the original Hebrew word for “everlasting” (the word is ad, Strongʼs # 5703). The Hebrew for “everlasting” is different to ALL the 66 other usages of the word! I personally feel it is highly significant to our study that ad is unique and exclusive to Isa 9:6 in that it is the only time it is used in the Old Testament. The word actually means ʻduration in the sense of advance or perpetuityʼ. This is suggestive of a particular starting point to this redemptive role of Christ. This is supported by the fact that the passage in Isaiah is a prophecy pointing forward to the time of His incarnation. It says, “his name shall [future tense] be called the everlasting father” Yet in what sense then is Christ “the everlasting Father”? Is He the Father of His “Father”? (When you think about it, it would be rather preposterous to make such a claim). Is Christ the Father of the Angels or the Father of the un-fallen worlds? Isa 8: 18; 22:21 and Heb. 2:10,13 clearly answer these questions. When Isaiah and the apostle Paul under inspiration wrote these passages they were careful to retain the individuality and separate identities between the Almighty Father Sovereign of the universe and His beloved Son. Notice,

“And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I [God the Father] lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.” Isaiah 22:21-23 (Bracketed comments added)

Christʼs Dual Nature: As indicated in Revelation 3:7, there can be absolutely no question that the above verses are referring to Christ the messiah. In Heb. 2:10 Christ is depicted as “bringing many sons [born again Christians] to glory”. And in Heb. 2:13 Christ is depicted as a recipient of “children” which implies He is a Father of some kind. In fact it seems Hebrews 2 is key for correctly understanding the nature of Christ. The topic of the nature of Christ is generally a very misunderstood one - especially among well-intentioned conservative Adventists. Generally, it appears people either take the position that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall or Christ took on the nature of Adam after the fall. But is it that simple, is it merely a matter of either or, or is there more many have not discovered yet or correctly factored into this apparent paradox? Firstly, we must recognize Christ had two natures. 1. He had a physical fallen flesh nature just as EVERY single person who has ever lived received from the fallen Adam. (See Rom 8:3; Phil 2: 7, 8; Rom 1:3; Heb. 2:14; Gal. 4:4.) And this fallen physical aspect is usually what is usually emphasized by sincere “conservative” SDAʼs. 2. However, Christʼs other nature was a spiritual nature and this is the part those more “liberal” in their theology tend to focus upon often to a lop-sided or limited degree. However, Heb. 2:11 tells us what kind of spiritual nature that Christ possessed. It was a sanctified spiritual nature “like unto His brethren” and NOT a carnal nature or “mind” which is enmity against God and NOT subject to His law. And unfortunately and surprisingly many well-intentioned Adventists do not comprehend this. Heb. 2: 11 links Christ, the “last Adam”, with born again truehearted believers. They become sons of God through the spiritual life (life-giving Spirit) of the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45; Gal. 4:6; Rom 8:10; John

21

6:63; John 20:22.) A variety of translations, some of which are quoted below, help make this truth clearer.

“For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters,” Heb. 2:11 NRS

“He [Jesus] purifies people from their sins, and both he and those who are made pure all have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his family.” Heb. 2:11 GNT

“So now Jesus and the ones he makes holy have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters.” Heb. 2:11 GW

By taking the nature of man Christ has linked Himself to every son and daughter of Adam. He has joined Himself with the great web of humanity. However, the Spirit of Prophecy in harmony with Heb. 2:11 clearly indicates that the “sanctified” (the people who BECOME the sons and daughters of God) are the ones He is not ashamed to call His brothers and sisters.

"Through Jesus the fallen sons of Adam become 'sons of God.' 'Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.' - Heb. 2:11." GC 477 "The true Christian, . . . is a living representative of the truth which he professes. Of these true-hearted followers, Jesus declares that He is not ashamed to call them brethren." - ST 3-9-1882

These quotations imply that Christ would be ashamed to call the ungodly and unregenerate His brethren. People either have God as their spiritual Father or the devil as their spiritual father (John 8:44). Born again Christians are in a special sense the brethren of the Lord. They grow up to be His spiritual brothers and sisters through the process of sanctification. Christ is not ashamed to call these people His brethren.

"Jesus Christ is our example in all things. He began life, passed through its experiences, and ended its record, with a sanctified human will. He was tempted in all points like as we are, and yet . . . . . . . He kept His will surrendered and sanctified……..." ST 10-19-1894

Christʼs spiritual children were given to Him from the Father.

“And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.” Heb. 2:13 (See John 6:37,39;

The phrase “I and the children which God hath given me” which Paul employs, actually comes from the book of Isaiah and is a Messianic prophecy concerning Christ the “rock of offence” (See Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:8)

“And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, . . . . . Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples . . . . .Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel.” Isa 8: 16-18

So we need not be confused when we read Isa 9:6. It simply refers to Christ being a Father in a purely redemptive context. The fallen sons of Adam become His children through the new birth. They are “created in Christ Jesus” through His Holy Spirit. In addition to this, the pre-existent Christ and His Father created the universe, including the angels, our first parents of the whole human race. (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2; Col 1:14-16; Gen. 1:26,27; 2:7,21,22).

22

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me: and him that commeth to me I will in no wise cast out”…And this is the Fatherʼs will that sent me, that of all which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. John 6: 37, 39

The Heavenly Man: Over and over it is repeated in Scripture that the Father was the One who gave children to His Son to redeem. That is why the Apostle Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam”, “the second man”, ”the Lord from heaven” the “heavenly” man which was the divine channel for His Fatherʼs Spirit which became His own “quickening” or “life giving Spirit”. (See 1 Cor. 15:45-49). Scripture states, “he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” (1 Cor. 6:17). The first Adam is the great, great, great . . . grandfather of “they who are earthy”, “natural” and those who have “borne the image of the earthy”. From the natural inheritance of the first Adam we receive nothing but condemnation (not guilt) and eventual death. (Rom 5:14-16). But Christ the second “Adam” who has given EVERYBODY probationary “justification of life” (Rom 5:18) but more than this He is a Father of those who He has made “heavenly” and “spiritual” in character through His “quickening [life giving] spirit”, “Words” (“spirit and life”) and the “free gift of righteousness” (1 Cor. 15:45-48; John 6:63). Hallelujah, glory and praise to the Almighty eternal Father for sending the second Adam to become the “everlasting Father” of the redeemed!!! (Isa 8:16-18; John 6: 37, 39) The next four verses reiterate the profound truth of Christ as Father of the redeemed. But even here we need to realize the Father alone made it possible for His Son to take on this position.

“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.” - John 10:29 NKJV

“Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.” - John 17:11 NKJV

“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am,

that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me.” - John 17:24,25 NKJV (See John 17:21)

“Whose Son is He?” The Pivotal Question in the Ongoing Controversy: Christ the Divine Son pre-existed before He or God made anything

“Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation.” - Col 1:15 NLT “No one can see God, but Jesus Christ is exactly like him. He ranks higher than everything that has been made.” - Col 1:15 NCV

“Michael” the pre-existent Son of God existed long before His incarnation in Bethlehem.

“He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” - Dan 3:25

Again Michael existed before the virgin birth and was Lord over king David “And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.” - Mark 12: 35-37 Repeated in Psm 110:1

23

“Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying . . . . . ” - Matt 22: 42, 43

Notice: Christʼs disciple Matthew, who was so meticulous in his genealogy of Christ in Matthew chapter 1:1-25, adds the question that Luke and Mark didnʼt ask - “whose son is He?” Whose son then is He? – Why did Jesus ask a question that has an answer that seems so obvious? Or, is it? Maybe He intended for this question concerning His identity to sink deep into our minds. Was Jesus trying to shift the peoplesʼ attention away from Himself as being the Son of David (one mortal being) to merely being the son of Joseph – another mortal - when in actual fact He had no human father!? Or, was Jesusʼ purpose to awaken people to the fact His Sonship pre-dated His incarnation? (Keep in mind Ellen White stated during Christʼs human/divine birth He “became a Son in a new sense” and in “the very highest sense.” (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald 5th March 1901, ʻLessons from the Christ-Lifeʼ).) Therefore all these passages above are in the context of Sonship. Here Jesus is drawing the “common people[s]” attention away from his physical genealogy to His Spiritual identity and origin as pre-existent Son of the Most High God. Jesus thought it was important for His disciples to understand His identity as the pre-existent Son of God pre-dating His lowly birth. On one occasion during a conversation with His disciples, who at that particular point were confused as to His identity, He told them “plainly” concerning His identity (See John 16:25-31). Without His usual usage of a parable or proverb He explained “plainly” “in no proverb” or what we would say today “in no uncertain terms” who He was, where He came from and who sent Him into the world. (See John 16:25-31) In fact, this Divinely inspired truth concerning His Sonship was the basis upon which He would build His true church!

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood [human wisdom] hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt 16: 13-18 (bracketed comments supplied)

Christ is forever in subjection to His Father as indicated by the fact dominion, glory and the kingdom was “GIVEN” to Him from His Father. (See 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Cor. 8:6)

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days [the Father], and they brought him near before him. And there was GIVEN HIM dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed Dan 7: 13,14 (bracketed comments supplied)

Earlier we considered the Son of God controversy over His identity and position way back in heaven before the creation of this world. Now we will turn briefly to the controversy over Jesusʼ Sonship and divine equality, among the Pharisees. We will now consider these points that Hill writes about in the following italicised section.

“Jesus claimed equal rights with God in doing a work equally sacred, and of the same character with that which engaged the Father in heaven. But the Pharisees were still more incensed. He had not only broken the law, according to their understanding, but in calling God "His own Father" had declared Himself equal with God.” - John 5:18, R. V. DA 208

24

Note something here that is rather significant. To be specific and in keeping with her own comments, Ellen White did not quote the KJV but the Revised Version of the Scriptures - thus she quoted Jesus as calling God “His own Father”. She would not have been so specific if she had quoted the KJV which simply says, “God was His Father”. She followed this by saying

“The whole nation of the Jews called God their Father, therefore they would not have been so enraged if Christ had represented Himself as standing in the same relation to God. But they accused Him of blasphemy, showing that they understood Him as making this claim in the highest sense.” (DA 208)

(In other words the Jewish nation claimed to be the spiritual sons of God but Jesus claimed to be the literal Son of God (a claim of Sonship in the highest sense!!)) Basis of Worship: It is ironic when you think about it that many SDAʼs have no problem with the idea of Jesus being born the Son of God through Mary for the first time in Bethlehem, yet many have real problems with Jesus being born of the Father from the days of eternity. Why is it some would rather He be merely born divine of a mortal human than be born (begotten) divine of the infinite God when it is not any length of time (His assumed Co-eternal nature) that determines His exalted position, nature, authority and relational equality but rather His divine inheritance, identity and character! And it might be worthwhile asking yourself, ʻWhat is my real reason and inner motive for worshipping Christ?ʼ Is it because according to my belief and value system He is co-eternal without beginning? Or is it simply because He is Godʼs literal Son inheriting all things from His Father, honoured and blessed by Him and sharing His throne. And lastly on what basis does the Father call me to worship His Son? We should try to be honest in our answers. In calling God His Father, the Jews knew exactly what Jesus was claiming. Note particularly that Ellen White said that by calling God His Father, the Jews understood Jesus as “making this claim in the highest sense.” Three years later when commenting again on this same event, Ellen White phrased her words a little bit differently. This time she said

“The whole nation called God their Father, and if Jesus had done this in the same sense in which they did, the Pharisees would not have been so enraged. But they accused Jesus of blasphemy, showing that they understood that Christ claimed God as His Father in the very highest sense.” (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald 5th March 1901, ʻLessons from the Christ-Lifeʼ)

Adam was called “the son of God” yet he was not the Son of God in the “highest sense” In the latter statement, Ellen White adds more emphasis than she did previously. In ʻThe Desire of Agesʼ she says that Christ claimed God as His Father in the ʻhighest senseʼ whilst three years later in the Review and Herald she says in the ʻvery highest senseʼ. Returning our thoughts to John 5:18, there are a number of versions that say “own father”. The Weymouth New Testament translates this verse this way

“On this account then the Jews were all the more eager to put Him to death -- because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also spoke of God as being in a special sense His Father, thus putting Himself on a level with God.” John 5:18 Weymouth translation

Another translation which is interesting is the Daniel Mace New Testament. This one says

25

“therefore the Jews were the more eager to kill him, because he had not only violated the sabbath, but likewise, because he had said that God was his proper father, making himself equal with God.” - John 5:18 Daniel Mace translation. -- Written and compiled by Terry Hill

The above-italicised points made here by Terry Hill cause us to seriously consider the context and literalness of Christʼs Sonship. Up to here we resolved a number of things concerning the sometimes-confusing names of Christ. As we have seen, Lucifer initiated “war” against Michael in heaven. Centuries afterwards, as “Satan” disguised as an angel of light, he aimed his cruel psychological blows upon Christ and through human agents he physically hurt, misrepresented, denied abused and accused Him. While it is impossible for Satan to war directly against the glorified priestly Son of God or His life giving Spirit today, he attacks by subtle theological arguments distortions and misrepresentations of the Father and Son as well as their character, government and true divine identities. A primary characteristic of the antichrist is that it spiritualizes away or “denies the Father and the Son” and the “flesh and blood” (physically and morally weakened human) nature of Christ (1 John 2:22; 2 John 7). We will note that through the Greek and Hebrew language of various Bible translations that the families of earth, with the parent-child relationship actually reflect “the family in heaven” (DA 26,49, Micah 5:2). We note what astonishing lengths Christ was prepared to go to in order to link earth with heaven. Godʼs divine and holy yet parental nature makes Him extraordinarily unique personal and approachable unlike any other. We read in The Desire of Ages that –

“In Christ the family of earth and the family of heaven are bound together. Christ glorified is our brother. Heaven is enshrined in humanity, and humanity is enfolded in the bosom of Infinite Love” -- DA p. 25, 26

There is a popular Christian song about God entitled “Indescribable”. I agree God is indescribable however He has made Himself known to us in many ways and most of all there is no god so personal as our God. He is an awesome God that has gone to extraordinary lengths by manifesting Himself in a way we can relate to. Another profound quotation from the pen of inspiration correlating the struggle of a human father feels about the thought of his sonʼs vulnerability on this evil planet and the risk God faced in sending His only begotten into our fallen world.

“The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God [the heavenly Father] gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! DA 49

Christ indeed at an infinite cost to Himself has made the path of life sure for us. He has gained the victory and in the knowledge and power of Him through the Spirit we too can be conquerors and reign with Him in glory for eternity. And in view of all this there is nothing greater we could desire more than Christ because we know and understand in our hearts that “Truly our fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ” 1 John 1: 3 AMEN! In the next section of our study we will examine the origin of the SDA Church and things that shaped the early Advent movement and also consider how this contrasted with something Ellen G. White termed as the “omega of apostasy”. In this section you will begin to see that the omega of apostasy subtly denies Christʼs true relational identity, and denies His humanity as our “everlasting father” of redemption in the fullest sense.

26

The “Omega” Over the years there are a number of differing opinions concerning the E.G. White phrase “omega of apostasy”. (See Testimonies, vol. 8, 91; and 1 SM p. 204, 205.) Many expressed opinions I have heard concerning the meaning of the omega of apostasy seemed either vague or to lack credibility or significance. However, recently one of the possibilities that seems likely to qualify with all the characteristics of the omega is the suggestion of it being not merely one single heresy or distortion of truth but rather a principle consisting of an over spiritualising away of a number of vital truths and most particularly the truth concerning the Godhead. We have seen this occur over recent decades after the introduction and wide acceptance of the book Questions on Doctrine (1957). Since 1844 and the rejection of the message of Christ and His righteousness in 1888 as given by A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner, the SDA church has experienced a gradual decline in spirituality largely due to a spiritualisation of truth. For example this has occurred with the doctrine of Christʼs priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, the Sabbath, the investigative judgement, the 2300 hundred-day prophecy, and the doctrine of righteousness by faith after the introduction of “new theology” into our movement. Although it is true some of these doctrines mentioned are presented in Scripture couched in a semi-symbolic imagery, it doesnʼt change the fact that these truths point to real literal events and experiences relating to God and the Christian life. Is it possible that the omega of apostasy, like antichrist, includes the spiritualising away the literal Sonship of Christ by the suggestion the phrase “Son of God” is only a title, a metaphor – a mere role-play (See Appendix B p.p. 52-53) within the Godhead? Is it possible the omega denies Jesus Christ came in the flesh and therefore denies Him as a complete Saviour and an “everlasting Father” of redemption? Whether we feel these issues could be related to the omega of apostasy or not will not alter the fact that there are serious questions concerning the Godhead (whether it consists of any REAL authentic relationally intrinsic quality or not) that we need to ponder. In short, the Godhead either consists of three co-eternal charade-like play-acting dignitaries, OR it consists of a profound and literal non-fictional reality of Father, Son and their medium of communication – the Holy Spirit (the non-physical personal omnipresence of either). Why this is most important is because it relates directly to the authenticity and nature of Christʼs “infinite sacrifice” and atonement. This aspect is covered more fully in Epic Sacrifice and The Great Arian Controversy studies. Before we further examine the specific attributes to the alpha and the omega of deadly heresies it might be helpful for us to first examine a little Advent history starting with William Millar and how his model of Bible study helped both define and serve as a protective safeguard for the new born developing Advent movement. If you were to analyze the many various denominations you would find that none of them hold a consistent literal view of Biblical doctrines. This is where the early SDA church differed widely. SDAʼs read the Bible in its plain simple language and unless there were obvious symbols used in the text they took it literally. We were counseled by Ellen G White to follow William Millerʼs “rules of interpretation” as brought out in the meaning of his allegorical dream. Millerʼs Dream

“I dreamed that God, by an unseen hand, sent me a curiously wrought casket* about ten inches long by six square, made of ebony and pearls curiously inlaid. To the casket there was a key+ attached. I immediately took the key and opened the casket, when to my wonder and surprise, I found it filled with all sorts and sizes of jewels and diamonds, precious stones, and gold and silver coin of every dimension and value, beautifully arranged in their several places in the casket; and thus arranged they reflected a light and glory equaled only to the sun” (Early Writings, p. 81)

*The “casket” represents the great truths of the Bible, relative to the second advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, which were given Bro. Miller to publish to the world.

27

+ The “key attached” was his manner of interpreting the prophetic Word—comparing scripture with scripture—the Bible its own interpreter. With this key Bro. Miller opened the “casket,” or the great truth of the advent world. (James White, The Present Truth, no 10, May 1850) “Those who are engaged in the proclaiming the third angelʼs message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted. In the little book entitled “Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology,” Father Miller gives the following but simple but intelligent and important rules for Bible study and interpretation:” (I will not here list all these points, but will present the eleventh one.)

11. How to know when a word is used figuratively. If it makes good sense as it stands . . . . . then it must be understood literally, if not figuratively. Rev 12:1, 2. 17:3-7.”

(The Review and Herald, Nov 25, 1884, emphasis added. See also GC p. 598) Dan 7:9,13: The Key that “Opened to view a Complete System of Truth” (GC p. 424) In contrast to mainstream protestant beliefs, the Seventh-day Adventist movement (including Miller) gave particular attention to the prophecies in Daniel concerning the shift in the ministry of Jesus from the Holy place to the most Holy place in the New Covenant Heavenly Sanctuary (Dan 8:14). (It not my intention to go into detail here. I have already written extensively about the sanctuary in relation to the gospel and the investigative judgment in another study not of this series). The point that needs to made here relevant to the Godhead is that according to Daniel 7:9,13 the Adventists believed in a literal Jesus (one with a real physical body consisting of immortal flesh and bones) ministering in a literal sanctuary consisting of two apartments - the MHP containing a literal ark with the ten commandments (from where we get the literal Sabbath truth) and they believed Christ was a literal priest who entered upon a literal judgment. Now what is really important in relation to this study is this. The understanding of a literal sanctuary was a key that opened to view “a complete system of [literal] truth.” G.C. p. 424 (The sanctuary, and the two great divine immortal Beings that dwelt and officiated in it, was the “compacted gospel”.) The fact that the early Adventists understood both the Father and His Son Jesus as divine physical beings consisting of literal bodies and literal parts, and passions (Dan 7:9,13) and not metaphorical spiritual beings like other denominations of Babylon taught, this led them to believe in and accept all the other literal truths of Scripture. These truths were the literal Sabbath, the non-immortality of the soul, the health message as related to literal physical health, literal creation, literal age of the earth, a literal flood, a literal heaven, literal devil, the literal nature of Christ, the literal death of Christ, a literal resurrection, literal faith of Jesus (the means for character perfection and complete victory over sin) and a literal second coming, to name a few, all of which unfolded to them after 1844. This made the Advent movement distinct from Babylon and its confusing intoxicating spiritualized doctrines such as the immortality of the soul etc. Another thing that is vitally important to recognize is that Advent history over the last 100 years has shown that the gradual and progressive shifting away from the true personality of God and Christ has made us vulnerable to accept the false Trinity god, which is, a denial and rejection of the two literal distinct, immortal, separate, yet closely united, physical beings of Father and Son. This has correspondingly resulted in a rejection, or a spiritualizing away, of many, if not all, of the above truths. Hence we have witnessed the tragic undermining of these truths as a consequence of the corrupt seeds of New Theology. The widespread apathy, the watering down of truth, the doctrinal confusion, the careless spiritual indifference and declination is greatly negatively impacting our church and concerns many sincere true-hearted SDAʼs among both the general membership and amidst our leadership many who would do well to recognize the true nature and origin of the “Omega” of apostasy. Identifying the “Omega” In the context of the alpha crisis, Ellen White describes her vision about the soon coming omega

28

apostasy among Adventists. Note the table after the following quotation.

"The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure." Selected Messages, vol. 1, 204, 205, written in 1904 (See EW 258,259)

This quotation indicates the established God-approved fundamental principles of the SDA Church existed from 1854 through to 1904. Yet today, some well-intentioned individuals in Adventism are suggesting we advanced in doctrinal understanding AFTER this period!

Unlike many protestant denominations, for years Seventh-day Adventists held a plain reading of Scripture along with a consistent literal view. See 19 examples below.

Doctrine Original SDA Belief (1855 - 1905)

Heaven Literal place

Creation The earth was created in six literal days

The Devil A literal devil exists to tempt us

Mankind’s Nature Death is inevitable and literal

Age of the Earth A literal 6,000 years according to O.T. genealogy

The Flood The flood covered the earth after 40 days of rain

Old Testament Stories All considered true

The Ten Commandments The law is spiritual yet to be literally followed

The Sabbath A literal weekly physical and spiritual rest as a memorial of creation and deliverance from bondage

Nature of Christ Christ was a literal man

The virgin Birth Mary was a real Christ’s flesh and blood biological half parent. (Christ was literally took our nature)

29

Miracles of Jesus Were not magic but real

Death of Christ Christ underwent a literal complete death

Resurrection Literally raised by His Father from literal death

Heavenly Sanctuary The heavenly Sanctuary is of a literal nature

Christian Character Perfection A reality through the grace and power of Christ

Investigative Judgment God’s judgment is literal

Second Coming A literal event

*Father and Son *What do you think? Literal or metaphorical? _________________

Unfortunately today, the majority of the above doctrines have been questioned as to their literalness and have been replaced by more spiritualistic views as will be documented further on. Adventists stood on the solid platform of literal Bible truth. To modify any part of this platform would be to open the floodgate of spiritualized views. Ellen White foresaw this happening and wrote,

“I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, and would give no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation. I was shown three steps - one, two and three – the first, the second and the third angelsʼ messages. Said the angel, Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin in these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received. (1 S.G. p. 168)

“I was brought down to these messages, and saw how dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. God had led them along step-by-step, until had placed them upon a solid immovable platform. I saw individuals approach the platform and examine the foundation. Some with rejoicing immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the foundation [this has to do with the person of Jesus]. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be made more perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform and declared that it had been laid wrong.” (1 S.G. p 169; EW p. 259, emphasis and comment added)

Both Kellogg and Froom have stirred pins and moved blocks in the Advent foundation.

30

Open Floodgates to Spiritualistic Theories Within Adventism: (1844, 1905,1888, 60ʼs – Today!) In the book The Return of Elijah, by Adrian Ebens we read

“The key thrust of Satanʼs attack against Godʼs people after 1844 was trying to introduce spiritualized views. The rejection of the 1888 message by the church left the church more vulnerable to Satanic attack, combined with a dying off of some of the other pioneers, and opened a door to these theories coming in. Kellogg was the first obvious case. In dealing with the Kellogg crisis, Ellen White makes the critical point that the errors of Kellogg were the same as that she met after 1844.” (The Return of Elijah, Adrian Ebens, 2010, p.164) “After the passing of time [1844], we were opposed and cruelly falsified. Erroneous theories were pressed in upon us by men and women who had gone into fanaticism. I was directed to go to the places where these people were advocating these erroneous theories, and as I went, the power of the spirit was wonderfully displayed in rebuking errors that were creeping in. Satan himself, in the person of a man [Kellogg], was working to make of no effect my testimony regarding the position that we now know to be substantiated by Scripture. Just such theories that you have presented in the living temple were presented then. These subtle, deceiving sophistries have again and again sought to find place among us. But I have ever had the same testimony to bear which I now bear regarding the personality of God. …… “ (Manuscript Releases, vol. 4, p. 57, bracketed comment supplied and italics, emphasis added)

What is also disturbing is that along with elders Conradi, Ballenger, Daniels and Prescott who remained in the church, and surprisingly even Jones and Waggoner, all fell under the spell of spiritualized views. Notice what Ellen White has to say regarding two prominent leaders elder Daniels and Prescott.

“I was shown that Brother Daniels and Brother Prescott were weaving into their experience sentiments of a spiritualistic appearance and drawing our people to beautiful sentiments that would deceive, if possible, the very elect” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 20, p. 17-21, emphasis added)

On the following page with table, notice the shift in the spiritualization of truth showing a blatant attack and denial of God-ordained authorities - even a denial of the Father and Son. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ The above chart was adapted from the Adrian Ebens’ as featured in the Return of Elijah p. 159. *And, yes, the early Adventist’s also believed in a literal Father and Son consistent with the other truths.

31

Correlations concerning the Alpha and Omega

LUCIFER The Original Rebellion

KORAH A Small Scale Replica of Luciferʼs rebellion

J. H. KELLOGG IN 1903 & LEROY FROOM IN 1957 A Subtle Theological Rebellion

“Alpha followed by “the Omega”

Lucifer and his followers rebelled against the Father and Son. They questioned the government of God and Christʼs exalted position

Korah & his associates rebelled against Moses (a type of the Father) and Aaron the priest (a type of Christ) questioning their appointed holy office

J. H. Kellogg, and later Leroy Froom, rejected Godʼs messenger Ellen G. White. Kellogg introduced “dangerous pantheistic heresies” that spiritualized away the personal identity of the Holy Spirit within the Godhead

Were first mercifully warned of God through His spokesperson Christ

Were mercifully warned of God through His spokes-person Aaron

Were first mercifully warned of God through His messenger and spokes-person Ellen G White

Refused to repent

Refused to repent

Refused to repent

Their rebellion was connected with the two governing Holiest Beings upon their throne within the heavenly Sanctuary

Their rebellion was connected with the representatives of the Ruler of the universe and His Son (Moses and Aaron) and the Old Covenant sanctuary

Kelloggʼs rebellion (refusal to listen to the servant of the Lord E.G. White), was related to his book regarding the Father, Son, identity of the Holy Spirit and the New Covenant sanctuary message.

Coveted more honor while claiming to be reformers

“Lucifer claimed to claimed was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could attain to this his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven for it was his object to secure freedom for all” - PP 37

Coveted more honor while claiming to be reformers

Korah laid claim to the reverence and honor given to Moses and Aaron. He claimed he would improve the government of Israel and the priestly order of the sanctuary “Korah's success with the people increased his confidence and confirmed him

New Advent movement is claiming to reform the fundamental principle doctrines within the church! (1904 warning)

"The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this

John H. Kellogg

32

“While claiming for himself perfect loyalty to God, he urged that changes in the order and laws of heaven were necessary for the stability of the divine government” - PP 37

* * * * * * * *

in his belief that the usurpation of authority by Moses, if unchecked, would be fatal to the liberties of Israel; he also claimed that God had opened the matter to him, and had authorized him to make a change in the government before it should be too late”. – PP 398

reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced.” – (1 S.M. p. 204, 205 Written in 1904)

He and his followers will be burned to the ground by fire at the last day. (Isa 14:19; Mal 4:1; Eze. 28:18,19) Satan and his demons received a partial judgment at the cross. “In this way, God disarmed the evil rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross of Christ.” – Col 2:15 NLT (See John 12:31; 16:11)

* * * * * * * *

Korah and his associates in rebellion were swallowed up in the earth’s pit and the 250 men with censers were consumed with fire (Num. 16 31-36) NOTE: In all 3 cases, as presented in the 3 columns, it can be seen there was 1) questioning, 2) a warning, 3) a refusal to repent 4) rebellion 4) coveting more while claiming to reform 5) and finally a judgment marked by supernatural fire.

The R&H publishing house that printed J.H. Kellogg’s book “The Living Temple” was burned to the ground by fire in 1902. The Sanitarium, which Kellogg founded for was also burned down The book Questions on Doctrines was introduced into the Adventist church in 1957. It also spiritualized away the truth. It seems likely this was the beginning of the “Omega” “Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure." Selected Messages, vol. 1, 204, 205.

Sin and rebellion against the Father and Son was exposed by Christ at the cross and will be banished in the future.

Sin and rebellion against the Father and Son’s delegated authorities was removed from the camp of Israel.

Sin and rebellion against the Father & the Son and their government will be exposed and eventually banish. (Rev 20:10, 14; 21:7; Mal 4:1)

The errors contained in the deadly omega of heresy presents a Christ that cannot qualify to be our “everlasting Father” of redemption. As an assumed indivisible part of the Trinity He could not truly offer the gift of Himself as an “infinite sacrifice”. It was merely a finite sacrifice because as the second indivisible (inherently co-eternal, co-equal changeless) member of the Trinity, even while in the likeness of men, He was unconditionally God-immortal. (See Epic Sacrifice study). The following framed/boxed section is directly taken from the recent 2010 version of The Return of Elijah by Adrian Ebens. What is presented here is astonishing and shocking, and perhaps unbelievable to some readers but it provides some extra background, and maybe seen to substantiate my earlier proposition concerning the erosion of truth within the SDA church.

33

Seeds of Spiritualized Views Springing Up In Q.O.D. “Only a completely ignorant person would suggest that Adventism has not been attacked with spiritualized views of Scripture. It is the chief weapon in Satanʼs arsenal to undermine truth. We have been attacked again and again. Inn 1971 Newsweek wrote an article on the movements within the Adventist church to “rid itself of the exaggerated Biblical literalism.” The article stated that according to the liberals “you will find few seminary professors who admit to the 6000 year theory, and many Adventists no longer believe that the days of creation were each 24 hours long.” The liberals also charge that that Adventists traditionally have placed too literal an interpretation on the second coming – thinking it was just around the corner- and failed to recognize the power of that doctrine to motivate Christians to change the world around them In my theological studies at Avondale, a literal six-day creation was ridiculed, as was Christian perfection. The literal human nature of Christ, an emphasis on the nearness of Christʼs coming, references to the remnant and Babylon, and the significance to the investigative judgment were ridiculed, undermined, and in some cases debunked. I know this to be fact because I was there, and I witnessed it. Every last doctrine was attacked in some way. Conservative Adventists look with horror at how liberalism is trying to pull out every pin of our faith. Yet it is conservative Adventism that set the precedent for the spiritualized methodology and opened the floodgates. It is foolish for conservative Adventists to point to the finger at liberals when conservative Adventism started the rot. Notice Froomʼs spiritualized methodology in the following statement:

In their zeal to reject everything not found in the Bible, the “Christians” were betrayed by over literalism into interpreting the Godhead in terms of the human relationships suggested by the words “Son,” “Father,” and “begotten,” that is, into a tendency to disparage the non-Biblical word “Trinity” and to contend that the Son must have had a beginning in the remote past (Questions on Doctrine, p. 47).

The book Questions on Doctrine opened the floodgate of spiritualized views, both with the Godhead and the nature of Christ. Once this door opened, there could be no stopping it. And it has not been stopped. I witnessed the overwhelming levels of spiritualism of Adventism in my training at Avondale College.” (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah, Chapter 25 – Building a Solid Platform, p. 167)

Sadly the inroads of spiritualism have gained momentum within our denomination in a manner that most conservatives are oblivious to. Yet many conservative Adventists tend to feel it is the liberals who are responsible for the degenerating condition of the larger body of Adventism today. Yet most conservatives fail to recognize, or even be partially aware, that in subscribing to the doctrine of the Trinity they themselves have opened the door to Satanic spiritualistic theories of a VERY subtle nature leaving themselves in a most vulnerable position. While conservative Adventists firmly resist MOST of the “New Theology” presented in Leroy Froomʼs book Questions and Doctrines, they inadvertently embrace part of it – the Trinity. Little do many realize in subscribing to the doctrine of the Trinity they are in great danger of receiving other coming strong delusions. This spiritualized form of Adventism that denies William Millerʼs God-ordained rules of Biblical interpretation will not stand the coming crisis. In his book Modern Spiritualism, Uriah Smith makes a very important point about why so much confusion abounds and false doctrines exists. It all comes full circle back to a simple principle – the rejection of a literal interpretation of Scripture. This is not trivial matter. It is what produces the doctrine of devils: Spiritualising of the Bible text under the influence of or communication with evil spirits.

34

There are some with us who formerly run into the deceptive fog of spiritualism, and gave up the literal Jesus, and made his glorious appearing only spiritual. It is evident that they never would have been delivered from the snare of the devil, had they not heard our views of present truth. Nothing can be so well calculated to dispel mischievous mists of spiritualism, as the clear, literal view of the heavenly sanctuary. (The Review and Herald, February 17, 1852)

James White clearly states that the literal sanctuary in heaven is our protection against spiritualized views. But now let us examine what Uriah Smith says about how Babylon falls.

The term “Babylon” is not intended nor used as a term of reproach, but rather as a descriptive word setting forth the very undesirable condition of “mixture” and “confusion” in the religious world. It is not the Lordʼs will, who prayed that all his people should be one, that scores or hundreds of divisions and sects should exist in his church . . . . . . To say nothing of those errors that would be corrected, suppose all Christendom stood together on those four simple truths [the literal/true Sabbath, the perpetuity of the literal law of God, the literal nature of death, and the literal nature of the second coming and Godʼs kingdom], how much division could there have been in the Christian world? A second denomination could not have existed. And what would have been the condition of things? – As different from the present condition . . . . – no paganism, no Roman Catholicism, no Protestantism, no multiplied sects, no Spiritualism, -- but Christianity, broad united, free, and glorious. Some are taking their stand on these truths, and will be shielded from the delusions of these last days, for which the way, by ages of superstition and error has been artfully prepared. Every one must stand upon them who is governed by the literal rule of interpretation; for they are read in so many words of the sacred volume itself. But the churches generally reject them, often with bitterness, scorn and contempt, and some even with persecution. And this is why Babylon has fallen. (Uriah Smith, modern Spiritualism, pp. 141,142. Italics supplied and bracketed comments added.

Note: Ellen White was accused of espousing “views peculiar to Spiritualism”. For whatever reason, aside from this she clearly defines Spiritualism as not something merely we associate with “the mysterious rappings”, communication with the dead, séances, Harry Potter or the occult rock- culture but something FAR more subtle existing in the domain of where it is least expected. It is the removal or departure from the literal interpretation of Scripture as occurring in the realms of Christianity! An example of this can be seen in her warning against views of Jesusʼ, and His Fatherʼs personality opposite to the cornerstone view of Scripture that revealed them both as divine literal beings with actual forms (See also EW p. 54).

I have frequently been falsely charged with teaching views peculiar to Spiritualism. But before the editor of the Day-Star ran into delusion, the Lord gave me a view of the sad and desolating effects that would be produced upon the flock by him and others teaching spiritual views. I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, “I am the express image of My Fatherʼs person” I have often seen the spiritual view took away all the glory of heaven, and that in many minds the throne of David and the lovely person of Jesus have been burned up in the fire of Spiritualism. I have seen that some who have been deceived and led into this error will be brought out into the light of truth, but it will be almost impossible for them to get rid of the deceptive power of Spiritualism. Such should make thorough work in confessing their errors and leaving them forever. I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice.” (Early Writings, pp. 77,78)

35

From the following quotation of Arthur White, it can be seen that Ellen Whiteʼs firm resistance and spiritual fight against the inroads of spiritualization of Christ and His kingdom saved the church from total ruin.

The spiritualization of heaven, God, Christ, and the coming of Christ lay at the foundation of much fanatical teaching that 17-year old Ellen Harmon was called upon by God to meet in those formative days. The visions firmly established the personality of God and Christ, the reality of heaven and the reward of the faithful, and the resurrection. The sound guidance saved the emerging church. (Arthur White, Ellen G. White: The Early Years Vol. 1 p. 81. Emphasis added.)

The Original SDA Doctrines – A Solid Immovable Platform

After the passing of time in 1844 we searched the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, “We can do nothing more,” the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the Scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me (The Review and Herald, May 25, 1905, par. 24, emphasis added).

1855 Fundamental principles laid 1905 Line of truth extending to the 2nd Coming End

l A solid “Immovable platform” l personality of Christ, His mission and Priesthood l

There is something at this point we really need to think about. Scripture declares that the foundation upon which Godʼs true church will be built upon is Jesus Christ. Now here is a principle. If the foundation is wrong the entire system is wrong! We cannot afford to ignore this.

If that view hammered out by our pioneers gave a view of Christ that was essentially not who He was, then the whole system in infected by the wrong framework. The entire system must be re-laid, renovated and changed. A new order of books would need to be written, a new system of education would need to be engaged to recover from such a tragic mistake (The Return of Elijah, p. 175)

Light concerning the New Covenant heavenly Sanctuary provided a key in understanding the personalities of the Father and Son and their relationship. Given that the heavenly Sanctuary is literal in nature and provided a pattern for Moses to build and earthly, the Father and Son are literal personalities in nothing less than a inseparable divine Family relationship and NOT that of a spiritualistic Trinity. James White wrote,

As the great offering for the world, made on Calvary was literal, and as our great high Priest, Jesus the Son of God, is a real and literal personage, so must He have a literal sanctuary in heaven, in which to perform his priestly office (The Review and Herald, August 18, 1863)

36

Ellen White was in perfect harmony of the early pioneers views concerning the sanctuary priestly system. She expressed her views about those who were opposed to the God-inspired established truths. In the book Early Writings Ellen White specifies doctrines that she referred to as present truth or “the pillars” of our faith.

“But such subjects as the sanctuary, in connection with the 2300 days, the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, are perfectly calculated to explain the past Advent movement and show what our present position is, establish the faith of the doubting, and give certainty to the glorious future These, I have frequently seen, were the principal subjects on which the messengers should dwell.” (EW p. 63).

Unfortunately some Adventists use this statement as a weapon in defense of the Trinity suggesting that the Godhead doctrine does not measure up and fit within this criteria. They are mistaken. Letʼs examine this quotation for a moment. There are three subjects mentioned. 1 The sanctuary in connection with the 2300 hundred days. 2. The commandments of God. 3 The faith of Jesus. Now, it is important to recognize that these truths are all literal and made way for all the other unique truths of the Advent movement. The words “the pillars of faith” is a phrase used interchangeably with, or in connection with, the “platform” and “foundation” cornerstone of the Advent faith. And she chose this phrase to describe the doctrine of the personality of God.

Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of or faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor (Manuscript Release, no. 760, p. 9, emphasis added).

What Platform are you standing on and what foundation is your house built upon? Approaching His death Jesus asked His disciples the following question as to His identity. “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?” Peter brushing over the simplistic answer as to the human side of His nature, answered correctly, saying, “thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.” When genealogies or Sonship is mentioned in Scripture the emphasis is almost always on the side of the childʼs father and not the mother. Jesus did not have a human father. Mary was His part biological parent – not Joseph, therefore Jesus did not have a human biological father. In Lukeʼs genealogy Jesus is mentioned “(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of . . . .” all the way down the first Adam (Luke 3:23). Yet according to the marginal note, Joseph is NOT the son of Heli but the son-in-law of Heli. Heli was Josephʼs father-in-law – the biological father of Mary, and Mary was the biological mother of Christ. Yet in Peterʼs answer to Christʼs question he did not refer to Matthewʼs family tree (Josephʼs blood line) of Christ, or, even Dr. Lukeʼs family tree (“his mother” Maryʼs line). Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Peter referred to Christʼs DIVINE non-human originating Sonship. Christ commended Peter for his answer and followed this by saying something we need to really ponder and take seriously. “Flesh and blood had not revealed this unto thee but my Father in heaven.” (Matt 16:17) In other words, this truth concerning Christʼs Sonship is not something that can be understood in the flesh, by any amount of human wisdom, reasoning or theological training. Only God can reveal this truth to people and it can only be believed by child-like faith. But what is even more profound is that the Master said that upon this rock (the rock of Peterʼs confession concerning Christʼs Sonship/primary identity) He would “build [His] church the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18.) No other foundation can be laid than on Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). This is the immovable platform; it is the divine foundation upon which Christʼs living body of believers would plant their feet. They stand upon the truth of Christʼs true divine identity – Son of the living God - which is based on the literal interpretation of Scripture.

37

A sobering fact is that the Catholic Church has a very different foundation. Their foundation, according to their own admission, is the Trinity doctrine. As noted earlier, spiritualism can be something as seemingly minor as the denial of plain literal Bible truth. When closely examined the Trinity doctrine spiritualizes away the literal Sonship of Christ with pure *role-play conjecture (*See Appendix B p. 52-54 for further evidence of this claim). That is why the system of Catholicism is referred to in Scripture as “Antichrist” The message is clear. Placing the two doctrines side-by-side it is not too difficult to see the nature of the opposites and to see that they are as incompatible as is Sunday observance from Sabbath observance. (Sunday observance in place of Sabbath observance is seen to be a thing of minor importance to numerous Protestants - but not to Seventh-day Adventists! Yet surprisingly many of the latter see the issues concerning Christʼs very identity of little consequence. Not so with Christ. He knew the contrast between the two is clear and distinct. When He referred to the topic of His divine identity, or as Ellen White stated “the personality of Christ” (Peterʼs confession of Chrisʼs divine identity and Sonship) He went on further to say it would be the very “rock”, or you could say foundation, upon which He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Now notice the foundation the antichrist Catholic Church system (Not people) is built on. It is not the sure foundation of Christʼs Sonship. It is built on a mystery!

The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church. . . . . The church studied this mystery with great care and, after four centuries of clarifications, decided to state the doctrine in this way: In the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, truly distinct from one another. Thus the words of the Athanasian Creed: ʻThe Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three gods but one God” (Handbook for todayʼs Catholic, 1977, p. 12).

Foundation of Antichrist In Scripture there are three identifying characteristics of “antichrist”. Antichrist: - 1) Denies Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Antichrist denies Christʼs humanity. (A Co- eternal God-being in the indivisible Trinity cannot assume humanity, be tempted with risk factors at stake, or truly die. Neither can He be qualify as ones high Priest. In order to empathize with humanity and the feelings of our infirmities” (Heb. 4:15) a “Priest must be taken from among men” (Heb. 5:1). According to the orthodox Trinity doctrine, Christ was indivisible to the *role-playing Father and beyond spiritual trial and temptation. (See Appendix B p. 52-54 for role-play theology existence within Adventism.) He cannot truly understand us in our sufferings and difficulties. And that is why antichrist set up its own counterfeit priest system with its confessional. Therefore antichrist denies Jesus as “everlasting Father” of redemption. (See 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). 2) Denies the Father and the Son. (The Trinity destroys any intrinsic relational family quality of the Godhead. 1 John 2:22; P.P. 686.1) 3) Denies Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah and anointed one). Jesus cannot be a complete Saviour because salvation involves not only pardon of sin but it consists of someone who gained complete victory over sin IN OUR FALLEN NATURE and offers to impart that very victorious life to us through His New Covenant priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. (1John 2:22; Rom 5:10) These are the characteristics that define antichrist and they are ALL related to distortion of the true identity of the Father and Son. But what about SDAʼs? Was the original view of the pioneers, which was opposite to the above also wrong?

38

The bible clearly teaches that no other foundation can be laid than on Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). If Adventism built an interlocking system of beliefs upon a view of Christ that was essentially incorrect, then the foundation is wrong and the entire system is wrong. This point cannot be sidelined or overlooked. (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah, p. 174.9)

I think more than enough evidence has been presented to contrast two opposing apparent truths – yet only one of these measures up to the test of Scripture. There remains one question. Which platform, which foundation are you going to plant your feet upon? Are you building your house (life) on – the solid rock of Christ and His Word? Or are you building your house on the shifting sands of human tradition to be swept away under coming storm and tempest?

In the book The Return of Elijah by Adrian Ebens the following significant point is made that is very much worth considering.

IF THE FOUNDATION WAS WRONG CONCERNING CHRIST, THEN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WAS AND IS WRONG.

Christ is the center and circumference of all truth. If that view hammered out by our pioneers gave a view of Christ that was essentially not who He was, then the whole system is infected by the wrong framework. The entire system must be re-laid, renovated and changed. A new order of books would need to be written, a new system of education would need to be engaged to recover from a tragic mistake. (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah, p.p. 174.8, 175)

Well, unfortunately we saw earlier a new order of books under Kellogg and Froom were written all because they were given over to spiritualistic theories and made fault of the platform of truth. The harvest of the seeds they have sown can be seen today in our churches and educational institutions. Like Daniel the prophet who identified himself with the sins of the people of his day, may the Father give us the spirit of true cooperate repentance. And may God help us to endure the shaking that the “strait testimony” of the third angel concerning the Father and Son and their everlasting gospel is bound to bring about. This is the Elijah message.

Comparing the two tables on the following two pages one can readily see each attribute is a direct opposite contrasted as night and day.

Christ Our Everlasting Father Cornerstone

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (1 Peter 2:6,7)

“There is a solid immovable platform for us to stand upon. We must believe and teach the truth as it is in Jesus” (2 SM 29)

(See also 1 Cor. 3: 9-13; 10:4; Zec. 4:10/Rev 5:6; Dan. 2:34; Matt 16:18; 21:42; 22:42-45)

39

FIGURE 2: Godʼs Immovable Platform/Cornerstone (Support ing the pi l lars of the Seventh-Day Advent ist Fa i th)

• Based on the solid basis of Godʼs Word that Christ is literally the Son of the Living God.

• Unlike the Trinity this is based on the literal interpretation of Scripture 100% authentic (Non-role play)

• Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh and underwent conditional

immortality, and unlike His pre-existence there were tremendous risk factors involved in our salvation. He condemned sin in the flesh. He overcame through submission and faith. We are to have “the faith of Jesus” to keep the literal commandments of God

• Christ was qualified to become our High Priest because He “was taken from among men” to become our “everlasting Father” of redemption (Isa 9:6: 8:18; 22:21,22.) In His divine/human form He literally understands us and is qualified to judge us according to the commandments of God

• Christ underwent not merely a finite (human) sacrifice but an “infinite sacrifice” (a total unconscious death and separation from His Father as a our divine sin-bearer). This was not a charade! (See Epic Sacrifice, the third of the series, for more details)

• This is the solid platform that the early Adventists stood upon. In summary, Jesus is the literal Son of God, and became our Savior, Priest and Judge.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

The Father and Son THE WORSHIP OF A RELATIONAL GOD. BASED ON THE SOLID “IMMOVABLE

PLATFORM” – THE SURE FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE OF SCRIPTURE CONCERNING GODʼS IDENTITY (MATT 16:13-18; 22:42-45; 1 Cor. 3:11; 8:6; 3)

40

FIGURE 1: The indivisible Trinity Foundation

• A religion of based on a “mystery” “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Rev 17:5)

• Babylon the great, the mother of harlots” (has made the “Protestant churches spiritually drunk with her false doctrines)

• Christʼs Sonship within the Godhead is a Role-play. (In this way “antichrist” “denies the intrinsic family relationship of the Father and the Son”)

• Christ came from the “immaculate conception” (sinless Mary) and possessed sinless flesh therefore there was zero risk factors involved in our salvation. (In this way “antichrist” denies Christ is come in the flesh)

• Human Priest System was devised because Christ did not possess a real human nature. (In this way “antichrist” denies Jesus is the Christ)

• As an indivisible part of the Trinity Christ was merely subjected to a pseudo human sacrifice and therefore could not *truly (completely) die. (Jesus is God unchangeable “who only hath immortality” and therefore could not die. The doctrine of the non-immortality of the soul is connected to this)

• Christ is not truly the Son of God but took on the title Son of God

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

The Tr in i ty “Mystery” THE WORSHIP OF A METAPHORICAL GOD. LIKE SUNDAY OBSERVANCE,

THE TRINITY IS BASED ON A 321 AD HUMAN TRADTION AS EXPRESSED IN THE ATHANASIAN CREED

41

Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no rain; and thou hadst a whoreʼs forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed” (Jer. 3:3)

The Latter Rain “Withholden” According to Scripture the whore of Babylon is clearly the Roman Catholic Church – “the Mother of harlots” (Rev 17:5) and she has a name on her forehead that defines her god. It is the Trinity “MYSTERY” (Rev. 17:5) as described in their Athansian creed. Those with the mark of the beast have characters in harmony with Satan. In contrast, the 144,000 have the character of God in harmony with Godʼs law of liberty in their foreheads. Yet according to Scripture, the spiritual Philadelphian overcomers, the only church of the 7 that Christ has no reproof against, will have the name of God, the “new” name of Christ and the name of the city of their God - New Jerusalem - in their foreheads (Rev 3:12.) The character traits, figures and various attributes in Revelation work in opposites – the dragon, the Lamb, commandment keepers, commandment violators, life, death, light, darkness, error, truth, force, freedom, water of life, lake of fire/second death, spiritual fornication, spiritual purity, Sabbath, Sunday etc. To know what truth is one only needs to go to the opposite end of error, and to know what error is, one only needs to go to the opposite end of truth.) John saw the 144,000 as having the Lambʼs Fatherʼs name in their foreheads (Rev 14:1; 7:1). This defines the God they worship. Aside from possessing the character of evil, could it be that those who receive the mark of the beast have “a whoreʼs forehead” because of the God they worship? Or is it just a coincidence the whore has the very name on her forehead, “MYSTERY”, that defines her metaphorical god? Many of her protestant daughters (Babylon) also worship this same god. Many in our Church are longing for the glorious Second Advent of Christ. More and more Advent leaders (Pastor Ivor Myers and his pastoral colleagues, our Church President, and no doubt others) are appealing to the world-church to prepare their hearts and ascend up their prayers for the latter rain so the great Controversy will come to an end. I believe these dear precious people are very sincere and Godly men that have a heart after God and His truth. (See appeal to our leaders on p. 45-49). And appealing for consecration and prayer and a preparedness to receive the latter rain is a very noble objective indeed - and vitally necessary! Yet, could it be, aside form the lack of true conversion and holy consecration, that because of the wide acceptance of Romeʼs doctrine, we are inadvertently preventing the Pentecostal showers from falling for “power for a finished work”? These are serious questions I donʼt pose to be critical or demeaning but I ask these questions in view of the bigger picture, in view that we are in a world-CRISIS and we all want this Controversy to end. When it comes to the final crisis we usually think of Sunday versus Sabbath and either day represents a different experience – one representing the faith of Jesus and the other of representing sin, rebellion and/or the attempt of works-based salvation. But maybe we need to ALSO factor into the Sabbath-Sunday crisis the Babylonian metaphorical god versus the “only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent” (John 17:3). When we have had no opportunity and knowledge of the true seventh-day Sabbath we are not responsible. But when light and truth comes our way we are then accountable with how we respond. The same goes for the light on the personality of God. The latter rain comes in the form of a very specific message (“doctrine” Duet 32:2) and it is the same message of righteousness that brought the former rain, the message of Christ as the risen enthroned Son of the living God, our justification, sanctification and our complete glorified divine/human Savior from sin (John 3:16). This is brought out in more detail in my 3rd and 4th study in the series. This was the message the Apostle Paul heralded everywhere after he was converted. (Acts 9:20). This “straight testimony” brought persecution to the apostolic Jewish Church and it will bring what Ellen White called a “shaking”, and accompanied persecution to our Church. From the evidence I see it is my conviction this has already commenced. Doctrinal Refinement or a Doctrinal Shift? There is one more point I would like to make in view of all this. In my discussions on the Godhead over the years, in defense for the Trinity doctrine I have heard over and over that historically the Seventh-day Adventist church was started on a wrong footing, that it was a growing and maturing

42

church that made huge doctrinal mistakes and that Ellen White was tolerant in that period and not until in later years did she start to come out with her views advocating the Trinity and introduce these concepts in the book The Desire of Ages. Yet I have seen zero evidence for this. In fact as I read Desire of Ages I see the very opposite. There is a vital principle that needs to be noted here and that is to differentiate between a doctrinal refinement and an entire doctrinal shift. Adrian Ebens thoughts concur with my own disclaimer toward the above reasoning.

It has been suggested in several places that Seventh-day Adventists grew in their understanding of the Godhead and that in the refinement process we were led in understanding of a coeternal Trinity. Examples are used in terms of the development of the Sabbath start and end times, the health message, and the tithing system. All of these are indeed examples of the refinement principle, but it can never be stated that a change in the view that Christ was indeed the Son of God in identity but only in function. This is a complete shift that cannot be categorized as a refining process. (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah, p. 177.8) It would seem natural for those who view the equality of Christ in intrinsic terms rather than inherited terms could view the shift of emphasis on the role Christ in an expanded Deity as the beginning of a shift to Trinatarianism. Such a view though must ignore the platform that Adventism was laid upon, and it must be called a complete reversal on the person of Christ, not simply a refinement. Such leaps in logic are easy to understand in the light of the urgency with which Adventism has struggled to embrace the relational view of the centrality of Christ and also the growing desire to avoid the cult label from other Protestants. (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah, pp. 180.9, 181) (Note: The book Questions on Doctrines was written largely for this reason)

The inspired quotation presented earlier contained the strong warning: “Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin in these messages” (1 S.G. p. 168.). In other words, as Seventh-day Adventists, we should be particularly careful not to lightly regard “firmly established” truth which has been the result of a great deal of “earnest prayer”, searching the Scriptures as hidden treasure and affirmed by the visions of Ellen White. We should avoid being wiser than that which is written or accept teachings differing from foundational truths no matter how popular they are. What we see today is not just a stirring of a pin (the introduction of small changes to the third angels messages) but we see people stepping off the platform and moving entire foundational pillars and blocks!!! The 2 tables on the following page contain contrasting summarizations of what has been presented Figure 3: Relational-based Godhead Paradigm

Christʼs Changeless Core-Identity

2) “Michael” “The Prince of the Covenant” (Creator/ Christ of The

Old Testament with a literal immortal angelic-like physical form)

Identity: Son of God

3) Christ Incarnate (Jesus the only begotten eternal Son of God in a physical form subject to mortality)

Identity: Son of God

4) The ascended Christ

(Priest-King-Judge with literal form consisting of immortal glorified flesh and bones)

Identity: Son of God

As a non-figurative Son Christ has chosen to forever willingly subject Himself to His Father. He is the giver of moral law; Lord of the literal Sabbath; took upon His nature our literal human nature; died a literal death; experienced a literal resurrection; ascended to literal heavenly sanctuary; through His Spiritual life and power enables us to experience literal victory; and, as our literal high priest, He ministers in our behalf before HIS LITERAL FATHER! Christʼs core identity (Son of God) is the ONLY thing that makes sense of His eternal natural subjection to the Father.

43

Figure 4: Trinity-based Paradigm

Presenting Concerns With The Trinitarian Perception of Christʼs Core-Identity

2) “Michael” Angel /Prince of the Covenant (Creator; Christ

of The Old Testament)

Identity: A self-originating (unbegotten) being

3) The Incarnate Christ (Literal Son of Mary only)

Pseudo human

Identity: In the Godhead context: - An assumed ʻrole-playingʼ Son

4) The ascended Christ

(Priest-King-Judge)

Identity: Symbolic work/roles: Part of a Trinity

Christʼs Sonship has been diluted through embracing Trinitarianism over the last 50 years or so. Evidently, ever since, many have witnessed the following ramifications of “new theology” within Adventism – the result of a spiritualization of truth. Christʼs Father is not really His Father; His Sonship is exclusively assumed (figurative) for no other reason than temporary redemptive purposes. The inherent relational/family dynamic within the Godhead is entirely diminished. Christʼs equality is power-based rather than relational. The law and the Sabbath are lightly regarded; Christʼs priestly ministry loses its power and significance; victory over sin IN Christ is less understood and appreciated; the sanctuary is spiritualized away; it is assumed Christʼs suffering in death was merely physical (A co-eternal self-originating being cannot die); Danielʼs 2300 day/year prophecy is rejected and finally the investigative judgment has been questioned and undermined. Of course, fortunately, there are exceptions to the above; however, few can deny these advances and consequences of new theology.

Summary: In this study we saw that the attack upon the Son of God is far from a recent occurrence. It is not something merely of human origin. Lucifer was, and still is to this day, the driving force behind spiritually attacking Christ’s identity in His Sonship. This was in one sense the original “alpha” of apostasy. This attack began in heaven and where Lucifer was unsuccessful in his attempts to usurp “Michael’s” divinely bestowed position. However, he was successful in persuading one third of the angels to side with him. The same rebellion against God’s Son has been carried on in earth and was particularly marked during Christ’s advent by 1) the hard-hearted, unrepentant, spiritually blind religious leaders who wanted to stone him for His claim to Sonship. 2) Satan himself questioning Christ’s Sonship in the wilderness of temptation. 3) Persecution against Christ’s apostolic church who defended His claim of Sonship to the Father. We saw the events at the time of Korah and his followers against Moses and his spokesperson Aaron strikingly reflected the rebellion of Lucifer and his associates against God and His Son. During Christ’s incarnation we saw that the identity of God’s Son was something He Himself deliberately and decidedly drew attention to. Jesus purposed the disciples to more fully comprehend who He was as implied by certain questions such as “What think ye of Christ, whose Son is He?” and He did not settle for their limited answers pertaining to Joseph (“supposed” father) or even His half- biological mother Mary. He later commended Peter for acknowledging His true higher original identity from His heavenly family tree (Micah 5:2). Christ new that His divine origin as Son of the living God was so important that He said that it would be the very foundation upon which His church would be built upon. We saw that because of Christ’s decision to assume humanity and live among men He was qualified to become our eternal High Priest and our everlasting Father of redemption. The attack did not end during that era. Amazingly, the attack in the form of denying Christ’s

44

Sonship and true identity has been carried on to this day, and what is perhaps even more startling is that it has made its way into God’s remnant church! J. H. Kellogg was one of the most prominent figures in the newly formed church that started to introduce dangerous heresies that spiritualized away the true nature of the Godhead. We saw God worked through the Advent movement to re-lay the foundation and set the cornerstone back in its rightful place, We saw the Advent movement and its “fundamental principles” [doctrinal truths] were the result of much “earnest prayer” and faithful study for truth as for hidden treasure. We saw they had a literal understanding of the heavenly sanctuary, God the Father and Jesus our high Priest and that the sanctuary was “the key which opened to view a complete system of truth” and that this included light concerning the two distinct harmonious relational identities between the Father and the Son. We saw that spiritualism is more than communicating with the spirit world – it can be simply twisting (spiritualizing) clear God-intended literal truths. We saw that Ellen G White confronted Kellogg’s heresy and the consequences that occurred because of his refusal to repent. We saw also how God’s prophet described William Millar’s specific and clear rules of Biblical interpretation formed a safeguard against the needless spiritualization of truth. Later in the 60’s, after Ellen White and other defenders of the SDA’s original foundational doctrinal views were dead, we saw that Leroy Froom introduced the book Questions on Doctrine. This book, like The living temple, was another “book of a new order” written that also spiritualized the Godhead which essentially denied Christ’s literal Sonship inferring it was nothing more than a role-play for redemptive purposes (See Appendix B for the existence of role-play theology in Adventism). New theology is not much different to this very day. In closing, I will state something of an appeal I said earlier, that I feel bears repeating: Although it is true some doctrines presented in Scripture are couched in a semi-symbolic imagery, it doesnʼt change the fact that these truths point to real literal events and experiences relating to God and the Christian life. Whether we feel these issues could be related to the omega of apostasy or not will not alter the fact that there are serious questions concerning the Godhead (whether it consists of any REAL authentic relationally intrinsic quality or not) that we need to ponder. In short, the Godhead either consists of three co-eternal charade-like play-acting dignitaries, OR it consists of a profound and literal non-fictional reality of Father, Son and their medium of communication – the Holy Spirit (the non-physical personal omnipresence of either). Why this is most important is because it relates directly to the authenticity and nature of Christʼs “infinite sacrifice” and atonement. Once one are settled and convinced of these truths and when challenged with these issues, it will be hard for him or her to remain quiet, apathetic or indifferent. Especially in view that we are in a world-CRISIS and there has been a delay in the oft prayed for latter rain. May our heavenly Father guide us into all truth concerning these matters as in our own time and own way we reflect and continue to prayerfully explore these vital issues concerning the begotten Son controversy always exalting and defending the Father and His eternal exalted Son so that the showers of blessing will fall upon us and the message of Christ and His righteousness can be preached again with Pentecostal power bathed in the lightening of heaven to finally bring the great Controversy to a close. My final prayer and appeal to all is that we truly repent from worshipping Romeʼs abominable metaphorical Trinity god. God is the great Father and sovereign of the Universe. Christ through His “infinite sacrifice” is our great everlasting Father of redemption May we forever in all eternity worship and adore these two great everlasting Fathers for their infinite sacrifice in our redemption so we could to be with them in glory. Amen. In closing, for those who have not read The Return of Elijah by Adrian Ebens, the following selected sections taken from this book explains the best way non-Trinitarians can behave and respond to leadership about their convictions in a humble submissive spirit in order to retain the blessing of God

45

Blessing Received Through Submission to Headship

By Adrian Ebens “It is exactly on this point where many people fail to receive a blessing. When as church members, we see leaders doing the wrong thing, we usually forget the position of authority they hold and present our complaints in the spirit of accusation and defiance. Such lack of submission to authority places members outside of the channel of blessing and evil will always result. At this present time we see our church is terribly fractured with in-fighting and disunity. I believe much of this disunity could have been avoided if both leadership and membership had more fully understood their respective roles of seed and nurture. If we are to have a remnant of believers that are in unity and love together, we must recognise that church structures of authority must be recognised and followed. This is especially true in regard to the contention over the issue of the Godhead. Amongst non-Trinitarians there is a prevalent spirit of disrespect for authority and lack of submission. Such lack of submission often completely negates the effect of whatever they are trying to say and sad to say it completely negates the principle of submission we see demonstrated in the life of Jesus. I would appeal to all that while we surrender of conscience to no man, it is vital to work with God’s established structures to receive a full blessing. But what if a leader is clearly doing the wrong thing? The key is to remind such a leader, through the submission process, that he is a source of blessing to the church and we urgently need the blessing that he has been granted power to bestow. Through the process of submission we remind our leader of his obligation to care for the flock. A spirit of defiance and rebellion will only create the possibility to stir up frustration or anger in our leader and guarantee we will not obtain what we are seeking. As church members we must pray for our leaders. They are instruments of God to bless us, they are the spring of the church to give it life in an orderly fashion. 1Th 5:12-13 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. Do we esteem our leaders highly in love? Do we pray for them or do we murmur and complain and spread reports about their faults and weaknesses? As a church we must come to terms with this issue. Performance-based-thinking with its emphasis on the self-powered individual, feels no need nor can ever grasp the importance of such a structure. Structures are for exploiting for our own advancement, and become a means of control rather than blessing. I am often asked but what happens if after you follow the process of submission, a leader continues to follow a course contrary to Scripture? We must remain in the channel of blessing and plead for patience, until the Lord addresses the issue either by correction or removal. It’s easy to pray for the latter but if we truly love the brethren we must pray for the former and let God decide what will occur.

46

What if we have been removed from the church by leadership that have erred? Firstly examine our hearts to see if our faults and weaknesses contributed to the discipline. Ask God to show us where we can go to find a structure of authority to continue to be blessed. This is a difficult issue and requires much prayer and wisdom, but God will not remove from us the channel of blessing if we are humble in heart and seek to preserve the principles of God’s kingdom. (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah p. 240)

When Leaders Fail

But what if a leader is clearly doing the wrong thing? The key is to remind such a leader, through the submission process, that he is a source of blessing to the church and we urgently need the blessing that he has been granted power to bestow. Through the process of submission we remind our leader of his obligation to care for the flock. A spirit of defiance and rebellion will only create the possibility to stir up frustration or anger in our leader and guarantee we will not obtain what we are seeking. The principle of submission to God’s delegated leaders will create a desire to pray for our leaders rather than immediately reject their authority and act on our own authority. This principle is very difficult to carry out because all of us are stamped with the lie “You not surely die” It is natural that when someone in authority over us seems to contradict the Scriptures that we should immediately act independently off them so that we are free to do as we believe is right. But recognition of Biblical authority through channels of blessing remember that a leader has been granted the power to bless and that we who are under such authority must do everything we can to ask God to open that channel again through that leader. As church members we must pray for our leaders. They are instruments of God to bless us, they are the spring of the church to give it life in an orderly fashion. 1Th 5:12-13 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. Do we esteem our leaders highly in love? Do we pray for them or do we murmur and complain and spread reports about their faults and weaknesses? As a church we must come to terms with this issue. Performance-based-thinking with its emphasis on the self-powered individual, feels no need nor can ever grasp the importance of such a structure. Structures are for exploiting for our own advancement, and become a means of control rather than blessing. I am often asked but what happens if after you follow the process of submission, a leader continues to follow a course contrary to Scripture? Firstly, it must be determined if God still regards the channel structure or institution that is being appealed to. If this is clear then, we must remain in the channel of blessing and plead for patience, until the Lord addresses the issue either by correction or removal. It’s easy to pray for the latter but if we truly love the brethren we must pray for the former and let God decide what will occur. We spoke earlier about the paradox of the family and the individual. This paradox

47

is widened between the individual and the church. No man can be conscience for another nor can any church leader be responsible for the salvation of another. No person can allow another person to decide what they read and believe, who they associate with and where a person worships. These are all matters of conscience. At the same time we must submit our findings in Scripture God’s appointed leaders and pray that God will bless their counsel to us.. Holding this paradox requires a lot of wisdom and patience and most of all trust in our Heavenly Father. Sadly, some believers will take the principles of submission of authority to an extreme and choose to remain quiet and say nothing for fear of loss of reputation or standing in the church. Submission principles do not mean silence, they mean appeal for a Biblical explanation and a continual and earnest prayer to be blessed through God’s appointed channel. On the other hand, others take the individual element of the paradox to extreme and leave the church, thinking only of their individual channel and ignoring the family connection they have with the church. Leaving the church without regard for church family considerations is the same as a wife divorcing a husband she no longer agrees with nor can convince of her position. . (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah p. 241) For over three years Jesus prayed for and reached out to the Jewish leadership. At any point he could have taken their position and removed them but He did not. He continued to tell the people to report to the priest’s when healed, He commended the woman for putting her two mites into the plate and he still attended their religious gathers and feasts while on earth. After His death he gave the leaders a little more time to acknowledge his death and resurrection. They had fifty days. . (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah p. 242)

The tarrying time ensures that God’s people wait for His direction. If every man felt at liberty to present to the church what he felt was the truth, there would be a perfect Babylon. Such a spirit of independence, self sufficiency and resistance is in complete contradiction to the person of Christ who is the complete example of submission and dependence upon His Father. Christ does nothing but what the Father directs. We would do well to do likewise. Many people ask, but why are things being revealed to many people. I would answer, so that we can submit them to our leaders and pray for them. The gift of truth is a test for the one who receives it. The temptation is to act independently and not follow through on the duty to appeal to our leaders and prayerfully ask for them to open the channel of blessing. Those who fail to wait and pray are in great danger of falling into error and rejecting the very heart of what Christ teaches us – a person under authority. If we step out from under an established authority structure in a spirit of defiance and anger towards leadership, we will carry this spirit into any organization we become a part of. This spirit is then passed onto everyone that comes under its influence. Secondly, if we step out without the direct blessing of the Lord we become susceptible to a spirit of self-justification for our existence which manifests in proving the organization we have left is in apostasy. This process leads to self righteousness – “we are better than you” While it may never be intended, it will always be the inevitable result. We do well to remember the psalm which says Psa 127:1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it:

48

except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. The Lord must build the house and lay the foundation in leadership that understands the vital principle of submission, love for leadership and the appeal process. Without these things “they labour in vain that build it. (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah p.p. 243, 244)

A Suggested Process for Church Members

If after our appeals have not met with scriptural answers and we have given sufficient time to listen and make sure we are not in error and we are engaged in a process of fervent prayer and love for our leaders, then it must be considered fair to declare our position, not by trying to win people to our view, but by stating the leadership that our conscience is bound by the Word of God and we cannot forsake it. It is my suggestion that those who hold membership advise the leadership of their position and that appeal be made to the leaders to act in the best interest of the congregation. This appeal is an invitation for leadership to make sure they are right by praying and carefully rereading your proposals. It is also a submission to them that if they wish to use their god given authority to dismiss you then you will accept it as God’s will. All the while you will be praying for a blessing through the leaders, pleading that God will bless you through those that you have come to love so dearly through your prayers for them. I believe that this places us in the best position for God to act on our behalf. If God’s appointed leaders refuse to bless us while we are asking for a blessing from God, then our dear Father in heaven will certainly intervene. Either the leadership will respond to the Spirit and their eyes will be opened to the truth or God will remove them. Failing this if the leaders do remove you from membership, then they will have aroused the wrath of God and will face judgment for mishandling their flock. I would fear for any leader in that position and would pray that God have mercy on them. I personally believe that a process of submission will actually hasten a change in the current church situation. If we remain submissive to leadership and pray for a blessing, the need for leadership reform or change comes more powerfully before the Lord. But if we remove ourselves from the established channel and begin our own work then no pressure is brought to bear on the leadership and God’s arm cannot be raised to act. . (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah p. 244) For those who have left the church in disappointment and bitterness, I would appeal to you to consider that these feelings are seed that will be passed onto all that you teach and influence. As far as I can see the only cure is to ask for forgiveness of church leadership for any wrong attitudes manifested. This process itself opens a chance for potential dialog. It is very hard for a leader to dismiss a person who is gracious and submissive. It allows the spirit of Christ to speak to them in the night season. I would also ask those who have left the church to renew your prayers for the church leadership. Pray for them in love and pray for their families that God will be merciful to them. This spirit of love and grace protects the soul from pride and self-sufficiency. I would also strongly appeal to any in this case not to hand out material to members on church

49

property or seek people out to present your view. If people ask what you believe you have a right to answer, but seek to be transparent with church leadership in all matters. This is a difficult issue and requires much prayer and wisdom, but God will not remove from us the channel of blessing if we are humble in heart and seek to preserve the principles of God’s kingdom.” (Adrian Ebens, The Return of Elijah p. 245)

This about concludes this study. On the following page under Appendix A is a list of 14 Spirit of Prophecy quotations referring to the identity of the Holy Spirit. (The next study of the series is Epic Sacrifice featuring this “infinite sacrifice” of Christ in relation to the Father-Son relationship, and the Holy Spirit within the Godhead)

50

APPENDIX A

14 Unequivocal

Quotat ions

“Cumbered with humanity Christ could not be in every place….The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit as the omnipresent” MR, 1084

Did you catch that? The Holy Spirit is “Himself”. Who is this “Himself” referring to? It is easy to answer when we comprehend what the disciples had difficulty comprehending - that the resurrected Christ is no longer limited to His human form. Notice:

“The Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative, but divested with the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Spirit to be His successor on earth……By the Spirit the Saviour would be accessible to all. In this sense He would be nearer to them than if He had not ascended on high” (The Desire of Ages p. 669, 1898 edition) “That Christ should manifest Himself, to them, and yet be invisible to the world, was a mystery to the disciples. They could not understand the words of Christ in their spiritual sense. They were thinking of the outward, visible manifestation. They could not take in the fact that they could have the presence of Christ with them, and yet He be unseen by the world. They did not understand the meaning of a spiritual manifestation” (SW, Sep 13, 1898. See also DA p. 670) “Christ declared that after his ascension, he would send to his church, as his crowning gift, the comforter who was to take his place. This Comforter is the Holy Spirit, - the soul of his life, the efficacy of his church, the light and life of the world. With his Spirit Christ sends a reconciling influence and power that takes away sin”. - Review & Herald, November 29, 1904.

“The impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of the life of Christ. It imbues the reciever with the attributes of Christ” - DA 805.3 Year 1906 “All professions of Christianity are but lifeless expressions of faith until Jesus imbues the believers with His spiritual life which is the Holy Ghost” - 3 SP 242

51

“Christ Himself calls our attention to the growth of the vegetable world as an illustration of the agency of His Spirit in sustaining spiritual life. The sap of the vine, ascending from the root, is diffused to the branches sustaining growth and producing blossoms and fruit, so the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Savior, pervades the soul.” (Acts of the Apostles p. 284, (1911)) “The abiding comfort of His own presence”(DA p. 367)

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

“By the Spirit, the Saviour would be accessible to all. In this sense He would be nearer to them than if He had not ascended on high” DA p. 669

“As by faith we look to Jesus, our faith pierces the shadow, and we adore God for His wondrous love in giving Jesus the comforter” (Manuscript Releases Vol 19, pp. 297,298).

* * * * * * * * * * * *

“Christ declared that after his ascension, he would send to his church, as his crowning gift, the comforter who was to take his place. This Comforter is the Holy Spirit, - the soul of his life, the efficacy of his church, the light and life of the world. With his Spirit Christ sends a reconciling influence and power that takes away sin” (Review & Herald, November 29, 1904).

“The work of the holy Spirit is immeasurably great……and the holy Spirit is the comforter, as the personal presence of Christ to the soul.” (Review & Herald, November 29, 1892)

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Saviour is our Comforter This I have proved him to be” (Manuscript Releases Vol. 8. p. 49) “….when on the day of Pentecost the promised Comforter descended and the power from on high was given and the souls of believers thrilled with the conscious presence of their ascended Lord….” (The Great Controversy, p.351

The Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the only-begotten Son of God RH April 5, 1906

52

APPENDIX B

SDA Role-Play Admission Quotes

“A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son.” “The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven.” By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father." (Gordon Jenson, Adventist Review, October 31, 1996, p.12 Week of Prayer readings, ‘article ‘Jesus the Heavenly Intercessor’) “Entirely through Their own initiative, the Godhead arranged for One among Them to become a human being. They did so in order to (1) provide us with our Substitute and Surety, (2) make God's ways plain, (3) restore us to our pre-sin perfection, and (4) settle the debate about God's Justice. At precisely the right time and in the right way, the three Members of the Godhead put into operation a plan They had devised before the world was created. They surrendered a portion of Themselves—the Divine Son—to become the Saviour of the world.” (Our Wonderful God, Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, 4th Quarter 1998, Principal Contributor: Edwin R. Thiele.) It may be inferred from the Scriptures that when the Godhead laid out the plan of salvation at some point in eternity past, They took certain positions or roles to carry out the provisions of the plan (The Signs of the Times, July 1985). “A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son.” “The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven.” By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father." (Gordon Jenson, Adventist Review, October 31, 1996, p.12 Week of Prayer readings, ‘article ‘Jesus the Heavenly Intercessor’) "We are left with no alternative than to accept that Jesus could not have become a literal son of God in eternity – He could not be His own son. He clearly accepted that role for the purposes of the Plan of Redemption. Some anti-Trinitarian objectors have claimed that we accuse God of only pretending to be the Father and that Jesus was only pretending to be the Son. Those who make such accusations have obviously blinded themselves from the evidence. Pretending implies deception and God should not be accused of such a practice. Why retreat from the concept that the Members of the Trinity participate in role-playing? Role-playing is not deception. Jesus for example performs many roles in the plan of redemption. Was He really the Angel of the Lord, Michael the Archangel, the Lamb, a Lion, a High Priest, the Rock, and so on? Yes, but not literally so, He fulfilled these roles and it would be absolute foolishness to accuse Him of pretence or deception in doing so." "His Sonship can only be figurative. Correspondingly, the Father has not always been the Father. These must have been adopted titles suitable for the parts the Two played in the Plan of

53

Redemption." (The-Trinity-Doctrine-for-SDA-Division-CD) Max Hatton, “The Trinity Doctrine for Seventh-Day Adventists.”

“While God the Father didn’t have a baby boy named God the Son, we use those terms to help understand that the parts of the Godhead are separate yet closely linked, the way a father and son bond together. When sin entered the world, the Trinity already had a plan in place to save humans. They didn’t flip a coin to see who would have to go to earth to clean up the mess… I don’t know how the Trinity decided that it would be Jesus who would come to earth, but I do know that all Three Members of the Godhead have been involved in our salvation from the beginning! The full Trinity made Itself known at the baptism of Jesus: (Matt. 3:16,17 quoted).” (Steve Case, “why was it Jesus?", Signs of the Times, March 2011)

“Jesus had to lower himself into human flesh to be able to die for our sins – but “Eternal” Beings cannot die, especially a GOD who pre-existed the creation of the universe ! So how did GOD arrange it so that GOD could die for us? One of Him decided to lower Himself into human flesh, into a body that could die.” (Emphasis in original) (2007 Amazing Facts cartoon book “What About The Trinity?” by Jim Pinkoski with Doug Batchelor and Pastor Anderson, page 46.)

“But imagine a situation in which the Being we have come to know as God the Father came to die for us, and the One we have come to know as Jesus stayed back in heaven (we are speaking in human terms to make a point).”“Nothing would have changed, except that we would have been calling Each by the name we now use for the Other.” “That is what equality in the Deity means.” (Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath School Quarterly, page 19, Thursday April 10th 2008, ‘The Mystery of His Deity) “A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son.” (Gordon Jenson, Adventist Review, October 31, 1996, p.12 Week of Prayer readings, ‘article ‘Jesus the Heavenly Intercessor) “Pastor Doug, I wonder if anyone has considered what would happen if GOD was really only ONE BEING, and it had to be GOD THE FATHER who would have come to earth and DIE for lost humanity? What are your thoughts on this? Hmmmmm – First of all, God the Father couldn’t do it in His present form, His glory would KILL US ALL . . . So let’s imagine GOD THE FATHER somehow managed to work that out, so He comes to earth and “Lets” people PUT HIM ON A CROSS and KILL HIM – Ah, then we would have a really BIG problem on our hands ! THIS ONE GOD SUSTAINS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE ! IF HE WERE TO “DIE” FOR EVEN ONE MOMENT, THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE WOULD COME APART AND CEASE TO EXIST ! . . . YOU’RE RIGHT ! And that is undoubtably (spelling in original) “Why” God decided that He would need to be 3 SEPARATE BEINGS ! God has always known the END from the BEGINNING – And because of His unlimited LOVE, He decided to do it by being a TRINITY !” (Emphasis in original) (2007 Amazing Facts cartoon book “What About The Trinity?” by Jim Pinkoski with Doug Batchelor and Pastor Anderson, page 47.) In our case both Trinitarians and Father Son believers would see that to be love or merciful we need His Spirit, but if the argument is accepted that the Father needed another person to be love then for consistency God would need sinners to be merciful. The Trinitarian argument for love only focuses on the display of an attribute rather than the internal nature or quality. It is another visible versus invisible situation (Non-Trinity believer Corey McCain, blog comment) “Is it not quite apparent that the problem texts become problems only when one assumes an exclusively literalistic interpretation of such expressions as “Father,”

54

“Son,” “Firstborn,” “Only Begotten,” “Begotten,” and so forth? Does not such literalism go against the mainly figurative or metaphorical meaning that the Bible writers use when referring to the persons of the Godhead? Can one really say that the Bible writers meant such expressions as “the only true God” and “one God the Father” to exclude the full deity of the Son, Christ Jesus?” (Woodrow Whidden, The Trinity, ‘Biblical objections to the trinity’ page 106, 2002) “Is it not quite apparent that the problem texts become problems only when one assumes an exclusively literalistic interpretation of such expressions as “Father,” “Son,” “Firstborn,” “Only Begotten,” “Begotten,” and so forth? Does not such literalism go against the mainly figurative or metaphorical meaning that the Bible writers use when referring to the persons of the Godhead? Can one really say that the Bible writers meant such expressions as “the only true God” and “one God the Father” to exclude the full deity of the Son, Christ Jesus?” (Woodrow Whidden, The Trinity, ‘Biblical objections to the trinity’ page 106, 2002)

“Some Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, J. Oliver Buswell, and the late Walter Martin, have been abandoning the Trinitarian faith as defined by the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). This abandonment of orthodox Trinitarianism consists in denying the Eternal Sonship of Christ, the doctrine that the Second Person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity. Instead, they claim that the Second Person of the Trinity became the Son of God only at his Incarnation. Apart from the Incarnation he was still God, but not the Son, just the Second Person.” (This Rock, Roman Catholic Magazine September 1998)

The article in the Roman Catholic magazine continued its remarks concerning the teaching that says that Christ is not begotten

“This teaching destroys the internal relationships within the Trinity, because if the Son was not eternally begotten by the Father then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. It also destroys the Fatherhood of the First Person, since without a Son there is no Father.” (Ibid)

It then says

“Thus the fundamental relations among the Persons of the Godhead are destroyed and replaced by mere social relationships, a bare existence of three Persons in the Godhead. Prior to the Incarnation, there is no longer the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but simply Number One, Number Two, and Number Three - the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation.” (Ibid) "The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father, the Son is one and the same God." (Ibid)

“There is, therefore, no ground within the biblical understanding of the Godhead for the idea of a generation of the Son from the Father.” (Fernando Canale, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopaedia, Volume 12, page 125, ‘The doctrine of God’)

“The Scriptures teaches and the Christian faith sustains, that there were three persons in heaven and that by the decision of the holy trinity, the second person of the Godhead, elected by His own choice (He was not drafted, Paul said He volunteered), he came down into this world and was born in the womb of the blessed virgin at Bethlehem. The only person who was born into this world without an earthly father, is our Lord Jesus Christ” (J. R. Hoffman, ABC Cassette tape, ‘Is Jesus Jehovah God?’)

55

Hoffman then asks his listeners if they are ready for a conclusion.

He follows this by saying

“The second person is the Son of the first person only because of what happened in Bethlehem. The second person is the Son of the first person only because of what happened here in this world. Only person born without an earthly father. He was a child of the Heavenly Father. This applies to his earthly nature, but it has no context whatsoever with His eternal nature.” (Ibid)

Hoffman concludes

“In His eternal nature, the second person was not the child of the first person. He is the child of the first person only because of what happened at Bethlehem. How many understand what I am saying here?” (Ibid)

Another important point involves how we interpret the Bible. Here the issue pertains to whether we should interpret some passages literally or whether we may treat them more figuratively. Maybe we could illustrate this way. While we often refer to Jesus as the Son and frequently call the first person of the Godhead Father, do we really want to take such expressions in a totally literal way? Or would it be more appropriate to interpret them in a more metaphorical way that draws selective aspects of sonship and fatherhood (Whidden, Moon and Reeve, The Trinity, p. 94)

My question is what is it that drives an individual to take these things metaphorically? And what is it that causes, or gives license to, these authors to take the liberty to classify the relational aspects of the Godhead as not real?

It is not quite apparent that the problem texts become problems only when one assumes an exclusively literalistic interpretation of such expressions as “Father,” “Son,” “Firstborn,” “Only Begotten,” figurative or metaphorical meaning that the Bible writers use when referring to the persons of the Godhead (Ibid., p. 106)

The difficulty is evident enough. A doctrine that affirms that God is one, and yet there are three persons in God, must often bewilder the mind in its attempt to find a relevant and intelligible frame work in which that seeming contradiction can be expressed and at the same time meet the average person’s religious needs. No wonder the reference to the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible has encouraged sardonic remarks to the effect that the whole doctrine is incomprehensible (Raoul Dederen, Reflections on the doctrine of the Trinity [Andrews University, 1970]

This quotation clearly shows that even those theologians who espouse the Trinity doctrine admit that God is incomprehensible and mysterious to them.

Gerhard Pfandl expresses

God Himself is a mystery, how much more the incarnation or the Trinity. However that should not trouble us as long as the different aspects of these mysteries are clearly taught in Scripture. Even though we may not be able to comprehend logically the various aspects of the trinity, we need to try and understand as best we can the Scriptural teaching regarding it. All attempts to explain the Trinity will fall short, “especially when we reflect on the relation of the three persons to the divine essence . . . all analogies fail us and we become deeply conscious of the fact that the Trinity is a mystery far beyond our comprehension. It is the incomprehensible glory of the Godhead.” Therefore we do well to admit that “man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of manifestations, but unintelligible in its essential nature” (The Trinity in Scripture, 1999)

56

The following statement is one of the best examples of identity destruction

But imagine a situation in which the being we have come to know as God the Father came to die for us, and the one we have come to know as Jesus stayed back in heaven (we are speaking in human terms to make a point). Nothing would have changed, except that we would have been calling each by the name we now use for the other. That is what equality in the Deity means (Sabbath School Lesson Guide, April 10 2008, Roy Adams)

This is done at the expense of an “assumed fact” paradox admission

While no single scriptural passage states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is assumed as a fact by Bible writers and mentioned several times. Only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity (Adventist Review, vol. 158, no. 31, 1981, p. 4, italics supplied)

Here following is a more conservative version of the assumed role-play within the Godhead that perceives the names Father and the Son as a “problem”!

People confuse the nature of the Godhead with their work. Learning about the individual mission of each member to save mankind, we are attempted to imagine that Their individual activities and work for mankind explain the nature and inner attributes of each of Them. Yet we are limited by our language. So in identifying each member of the Godhead, in this book we will speak of Them as the Father, the Son or Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The problem here is that these names identify Their work, not Their nature (Defending the Godhead, p. 7, Vance Ferrell)

So far we have noted that although a number of Seventh-day Adventists subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, some recognized SDA authors and theologians freely admit it is: 1) “Infinitely mysterious” (Erwin Gane, dialogue, as quoted in The Return of Elijah p 194) 2) “Unintelligible” (The Trinity in Scripture, 1999) 3) “Incomprehensible” (Raoul Dederen, Reflections on the doctrine of the Trinity (Andrews University, 1970) 4) “Assumed as a fact”. (Adventist Review, vol. 158, no. 31, 1981, p. 4, italics supplied) And furthermore, any remaining hope of the Godhead making sense in a relational Father-Son context is destroyed by the assumption that these terms ONLY denote Their 5) “Roles” or “work” and are not to be taken literally. (Defending the Godhead, p. 7, Vance Ferrell) This stands in vivid contrast to the words of our Lord Jesus Himself. On earth, during “the days of His flesh” He spoke of His God as His "Father" and "our Father" so often in fact, right to His very last breath (Luke 23:46;) and even after His resurrection (Luke 20:17), that we cannot afford to limit this term to mere figurative language or a notion of the Father acting in a ‘role’ or ‘work’. One could ask the question, ‘when will God ever cease to be His Father?’ Jesus said “And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3. See also Matt. 3:17; 27:46) Additionally, up until Christ brought attention to His identity, He said “These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs [margin: figurative language] but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak to you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25). The words He spoke preceding this statement, the disciples “plainly” understood as describing His non-figurative relational identity and Sonship. They knew He “came forth [out] from the Father” which Christ repeated in His prayer in John 17:8; He cameinto the world to save it at an infinite risk and cost, (see John 16:29). It is true this aspect of the sacrificial love within the relational Godhead, and one could add the incarnation, certainly do contain an element of wonder and “mystery”, after all, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh . . . ” (1 Tim 3:16). However, overall, both scripture and Ellen White testify that the Godhead, consisting of the Father and His Son and the Holy Spirit is far from “unintelligible”,

57

“incomprehensible” or the supposition of 2 or 3 infinite, co-eternal, indivisible Beings merely play-acting. This idea diminishes the value of the sacrifice and eclipses the natural relationship between the infinite Father and Son. Yet God intended the nature of “His eternal power and Godhead” to be “clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made [us]” “so that they” [those who had opportunity to know the truth] “are without excuse.” (Rom 1: 18,20,21)