WHO BELIEVES JESUS IS BEGOTTEN?

gillespie9669 · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:34 am Post subject: WHO BELIEVES JESUS IS BEGOTTEN?

Steve wrote:

Heston · hopefully saved by grace Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 15

for God so loved the world he gave his only BEGOTTEN son that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life.

something like that but I forget the reference.

dedication · Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:48 pm Post subject:

What do you mean by
"begotten"?

Define that word for me please.

In basic, everyday language the term means "to give birth to" to "procreate".

Yet you say, and I believe, that Christ had NO BEGINNING.

Steve · pseudo 7th-day Adventist Joined: 09 Jun 2002 Posts: 148

Do you deny the testimony of Scripture?

gillespie9669

gillespie9669 · Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 1:27 am Post subject:

Steve wrote:
Dear Bro. Gillespie,

Sorry I was so long in getting back to you.

You said that you were trinitarian of the pre-Nicene, pre-papal order and I have been trying to see the difference. I haven't commented on this as yet because I don't understand the difference.

While you say you believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father these statements [YOU QUOTED] say otherwise,

Quote:
When he [John] says: ‘what was in the beginning [1 John 1:1]’, he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. [The word] ‘Was’ therefore is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is, the Son, being one with the Father, in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the Word always existed is signified by the saying: ‘ In the beginning was the Word’ [John 1:1]”
- Clement of Alexandria (*190 A.D.), Fragment in Eusebius History, Book 6, Chapter 140

*Thus Origen, 185-254 A.D., who would be just five years old in 190 A.D. when the above quoted was written, is not properly credited by some theologians for first teaching the truth of the co-eternality (“same age”) of Jesus Christ with His Father. It was a Bible truth- *Micah 5:2- being taught by Christians long before him [END OF QUOTE]:

These words do not suggest a father-son relationship. And neither do these,

Quote:
• 100 AD Ignatius of Antioch "Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father] . . . God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, [thus having no beginning as when a speaker begins a speech from the point of getting up from his silence] and who in all things pleased him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6-8) [END OF QUOTE].

If the Father and the Son are the same in age then the Son is not a son because being a father necessitates preceeding one's son. Please explain the difference.

Dear Steve,

I hope you will read this letter THROUGH TO THE END, in a humble spirit, as its content is very crucial towards having a solid foundation of truth. I am never the kind of believer to believe that I "can by searching find out God" (or the nature of Divinity- *See Job 11:7-9). Skeptics refuse to believe the things of God because they cannot understand the power by which He reaveals Himself. Someone once said, "We are well aware that neither the speech of men nor the analogy of human nature can give us a full insight into the things of God. The ineffable cannot submit to the bounds and limits of definition; that which is spiritual is distinct from every class or instance of bodily things. Yet, since our subject is that of heavenly natures, we must employ ordinary natures and ordinary speech as our means of expressing what our mind apprehends; a means no doubt unworthy of the majesty of God, but forced upon us by feebleness of our intellect, which can use only our own circumstances and our own words to convey to others our perceptions and our conclusions."

It is interesting what first took place in Adventism regarding this issue of Jesus' eternality. Note the honest words of, W.W. Prescott, an SDA pioneer below.

“WE [many Adventists] BELIEVED A *LONG TIME THAT CHRIST WAS A CREATED BEING, in spite of what the Scripture says. I say this, that, passing over the experience I have passed over myself
[my limited views] in this matter – this accommodating use of terms which makes Deity without eternity, is not my conception now [in 1919]of the gospel of Christ. I think it falls short of the whole
idea expressed in the Scriptures…the Deity[of Christ] involves [full] eternity. The very expression involves it. You cannot read the Scripture and have the idea of Deity without eternity”
-W.W. Prescott- 1919 [SDA] Bible Conference Transcripts, July 16, 1919, pg. 58

“We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.” —E.G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 37.

As noted above, even the SDA pioneers had the problem of reconciling two awsome truths- Jesus Heavenly sonship and His eternality. I had the problem you are now having regarding the Sonship of Jesus, that is, how his begotten nature, and His literal Sonship reconciles with His "goings out from everelasting" (Micah 5:2), or as Mrs. White puts it, Him existing "as a distinct Person" "from all eternity". However I found freedom in the truth when I decided to believe God's words about Divine nature, OVER MY OWN LOGIC, AND INCLINATION TO WANT TO EXPLAIN GOD! You simply believe that Jesus' literal Divine Sonship must conform in every way to the nature of human Sonship or He is no Son at all. But I challenge you just be humble to believe both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy's testimony as outlined below. LET ME BEGIN WITH THE BIBLE FIRST!

In the Bible the only beings referred to as being "from everlasting" (eternal past) are Jesus and the Father (and of course who are always united with their eternal Spirit- Heb. 9:14. Spirit is never without spirit!!). Which person or, quality, or nature below is limited with a beginning?

Note- Only 11 verses in the Bible uses the expression, "from everlasting", AND THEY ALL REFER TO WHOM THE BIBLE CALLS "THE FIRST AND LAST" (Father and Son)!! Se a sample below from the American Standard Version (ASV)

(1Ch 16:36 ASV) Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, From everlasting even to everlasting. And all the people said, Amen, and praised Jehovah.

(Psa 41:13 ASV) Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, From everlasting and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.

(Psa 90:2 ASV) Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

(Psa 93:2 ASV) [b]Thy throne is established of old: Thou art from everlasting[/b].

(Pro 8:23 ASV) I was set up from everlasting[/b], from the beginning, Before the earth was.

(Isa 63:16 ASV) For thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us: thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer [b]from everlasting is thy name.

(Mic 5:2 ASV) But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.

(Hab 1:12 ASV) Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One?

DO YOU NOTICE THAT THE EXACT SAME EXPRESSION "FROM OLD, EVEN EVERLASTING" DESCRIBES THE "ORIGIN" OR BEGETTING OF JESUS?
Now, if you can say when "from everlasing" began then you would have solved the mystery of the eternity of the Father, and when His Son began to exist. Since Proverbs 8:22-32 clearly equates Jesus' Sonship with God's wisdom, THEN WHEN, O WHEN DID GOD NOT HAVE HIS WISDOM WITH HIM, DESPITE PERSONIFIED WISDOM IS PICTURED AS BEING "POSSESESSED" OR GENERATED BY GOD. See Proverbs 8:1, and compare verses 22-31 with Proverbs 3:19, Pro 3:19, which says: "Jehovah by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding he established the heavens."
Even in the symbolism of wisdom, Jesus is pictured in a way which declares He has no beginning, or is the "Eternal Son" (as even Mrs. White testifies). Note her testimony below, and recognize that Jesus' generation, begetting, or "goings forth" is without beginning, in the same way God being "from everlasting" is also without bveginning.

"There are *MYSTERIES in the life of Christ [“God manifested in the flesh”] that are to be believed, even if they CANNOT BE EXPLAINED”.
-E.G. White, Letter 65,Feb. 13, 1905

“In speaking of His pre-existence Christ takes the mind back through *DATELESS [infinite] AGES [in ‘all eternity’], He assures us that there never was a time [in the ‘dateless ages’ of ‘all eternity’] when He was not in close *FELLOWSHIP [association with another] with the eternal God.” - Mrs. White- Evangelism, pg. 615

“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them (Matt 18:20). Where *Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ’s church, for the presence of the HIGH AND LOFTY ONE WHO INHABITETH ETERNITY [Is. 57:15] can alone constitute a church” [One inhabiting eternity cannot have a beginning, despite He is "begotten"!!]
-E.G. White, Letter 108, October 28, 1886

“If Christ made all things He existed before all things [John 1:1-3]. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was GOD essentially, and in the HIGHEST [nothing-higher] sense. He was *WITH [alongside] God [the Person of the Father] FROM [now notice] *ALL ETERNITY…” [See the words "from" and "all" in any dictionary]
-E.G. White- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 5, pg. 1126

“From everlasting [Micah 5:2/Psalms 93:2] He [Jesus] was the Mediator of the Covenant [Hebrews 7:3]… was *GOD essentially and *IN THE HIGHEST [nothing higher] SENSE… [existing] from *ALL ETERNITY GOD OVER ALL [Rom. 9:5]… a *DISTINCT [separate] Person, yet one [united] with the Father”.
E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906

“ This truth [about Jesus’ eternal pre-existence and distinction] infinitely MYSTERIOUS in itself, explains [Heb.7:3] otherwise unexplainable truths, while enshrined in light unapproachable and INCOMPREHENSIBLE”
E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906

Here it is evidenced, from ‘inspired testimony’, that true Adventism believes that Jesus was “from all eternity” a “distinct” Being, in the sense of ‘separateness’ (as the Oxford dictionary defines ‘distinct’), since that is what “Mediator (‘go between’) of the Covenant”, from “all eternity” also means. But there are those within Adventism who strive to put a limit on these “all eternity” statements of Mrs. White, feeling that at some ‘time’, which can be dated back into the far recesses of eternity, Jesus must have come into existence after the Father, since that is what ‘begetting’ logically suggests – a pre-existing (or antecedent) Father. However, this view, while understandable from the standpoint of logic, has no real support. Why is this view, with its foundation based only on logic, not supported? “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned”!! First of all, such a view, if correct, would automatically turn Mrs. White into a false prophet (even if only by some of her own people). This would happen because, ‘under inspiration’, and from her conviction in what the Bible teaches, she herself also distinctly stated that, quote:

“In speaking of His pre-existence Christ takes the mind back through *DATELESS [infinite] AGES [in ‘all eternity’], He assures us that there never was a time [in the ‘dateless ages’ of ‘all eternity’] when He was not in close *FELLOWSHIP [association with another] with the eternal God.” - Mrs. White- Evangelism, pg. 615

Could Mrs. White be any clearer? What other words could she choose to make it more explicit that Jesus simply had no beginning, in the sense of a point in time? What is an “infinite mystery”? What does “incomprehensible” mean? Clearly there is no mystery involved in saying that Jesus, the Son, came after the Father, at a point in time, which is normal human experience. But there is mystery involved in saying that the divine Son and His Father both existed, distinct, “from all eternity”, despite “begotten” by the Father.
Only one led by the spirit of presumption would want to ‘solve’ this “MYSTERY”, to satisfy his own need for reconciling with logic, and thus unwittingly discredit, not just the ‘servant of the Lord’ (Mrs. White) but even God Himself who said:
“Before me there was *no GOD formed, neither shall there be any *AFTER me” -Isaiah 43:10

Clearly Jesus could not have been “formed” as “GOD” *after the Father, whether in nature or in authority, even by divine birth, because the Father would have no explanation or answer to His own words in Isaiah here! So, how do we reconcile with the two truths that Jesus, as “God”, was both “begotten” from the Father, yet was “distinct” or ‘separate’ as a Person, and “God over all” for “all eternity”? We CANNOT reconcile the two (logically, that is), but must accept both truths by faith, without denying any, since both truths are the unerring word of God! That is what “infinitely mysterious” and “incomprehensible” mean. If logic is applied here, it will fail, because “who by searching can find out God?”(Job 11:7-9). With God all things are possible!! The truth is that Jesus is divinely “begotten”, the “only begotten”, and is the true “Son of God”, but just not so by the laws of human experience.
The truth is that Jesus simply had no beginning, at a point in time, even though He is presented as the Son of God (Heb. 7:3). The truth is that He is fully eternal, as a “distinct” or ‘separate’ Person for “all eternity”, even though He is pictured as being fully related to the Father, who is pictured as ‘giving’ Him “all things”. That is why many Christians believe that the Father and the Son, being both fully and truly “GOD”, being both fully and truly “FROM ALL ETERNITY”, are therefore both
CO-ETERNAL!! That is what the true Adventist believes!! Time would be wasted, and one would be blasphemously arrogant to even begin to think he can explain this “mystery”, which is described by Mrs. White as “ infinitely mysterious” and “incomprehensible”!
With that now understood it must now be said that the belief that the Son existed for “all eternity” as a “distinct” (‘separate’) Person along with His Father, from whom He was “begotten” is the better proposition that fits the Scriptures, and one that is a veritable mystery!
Hear the words of one who saw the truth in vision:

“The name of God [‘I AM’ or ‘Jehovah’], given to Moses to express the idea of ETERNAL PRESENCE, had been claimed as His *OWN [John 8:58,59] by this Galilean Rabbi [Jesus]. He had announced *HIMSELF [not just His Father] to be, the Self-Existent One...” -Mrs. White- Desire of Ages, pgs. 469-470

“I AM means an eternal presence: past, present, future...”
-Mrs. White – S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol.1, pg. 1009

Who will venture to propose that Jesus’ name (“I AM”), does not fully fit His nature, or that He has a false name? This writer will not.
There is very little that need to be said after this on this matter, except to remind you dear Steve that the Father and the Son are both called the “First and the Last”, clearly indicating equality in time or length of existence. Jesus is not the ‘Second’ but also “First”(Rev. 2:8/22:12,13).
Resist not the word of God, or “twist” it, but believe it unto salvation!

Closing Notes- 1. J.M. Stephenson was the first to publish Arian teachings in Adventism in 1854, thus was among those who opposed Jesus' eternal nature. He, however, apostatised from (left) Adventism in 1855 (10 years after the church’s 1844 inception as a movement), but his views were not singular, but REPRESENTATIVE of “many” in Adventism (the “many” alluded to by E.J. Waggoner in 1888, to be believing in a “created” Christ). Other pioneers who evidently shared his (in Stephenson's own words) “Arian hypothesis” and came from (or was associated with) the Christian Connection church (an Arian group) included Bates, White, Himes, Fleming and Cole. Other early supporters of his views were J.H. Waggoner and Uriah Smith, who both later adjusted their views to later reflect Semi-arianism (*the pioneers were progressive in their views on the Godhead, therefore the later ones like Prescott and F.M. Wilcox accepted trinitarianism, uncensored, BEFORE MRS. WHITE'S DEATH). Stephenson earlier wrote that Christ was “created” and is not an “Eternal Son”. He strongly felt that an "eternal Son" is a contradiction in terms. Some, in Adventism today, quote his anti-Trinitarian statements to support their position against the Church’s trinity doctrine, but craftily omit his statements expounding on a “created” Christ. This is evident in Lynnford Beachy’s, “Did They Believe in the Trinity”, (1996), who is an associate of the Smyma (independent) Ministries in the U.S. With so many errors in Stephenson’s writings, it is no wonder that those who quote him, in their support lead others astray. See Selected Messages, Book 1,page 165 (Mrs. White) on “errors in our older literature”.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)