Important Statements to Refer to on Father-Son

Recently, Ben Kramlich has been discussing these quotes with some elders in the hopes that they will shed new light on their position. It is sad to exclude fellow Christians from fellowship, and if we are going to do that, we should really know why we are doing it and whether it is what God and the leadership want, especially in the light of history.

SDA Biblical Research Institute "A Question of Sonship". Angel Manuel Rodriguez. November 30th, 2015. https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/a-question-of-sonship/

Eternal Sonship of Christ: Christ is the eternal Son of God. Paul wrote that “when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). Christ was the Son of God before He was born of a woman. Through the preexistent Son, God “made the universe” (Heb. 1:2). However, the sonship of Christ is unique. Believers are spiritually born of God as children of God, but the Son is never described as being spiritually born of God; He is the Son, who came directly from the Father (John 16:28). He has life in Himself and is one with the Father in will (John 14:31; 15:10), character (John 14:8-11), purpose (John 15:16; 16:15; 17:4-8), and nature (John 8:58). Yet He is a different person. We are dealing with a metaphorical use of the word “son.”

Metaphorical Significance: In our humanity the image of a child conveys some obvious ideas. First, it indicates that a child is of the same nature as that of the parents; they are human beings. When Christ is called “Son of God,” we are being told that He, like the Father, is a divine being (John 5:18). Second, a child is distinguishable from their parents. The metaphor of sonship means that although Christ and the Father have the same nature, they are different persons, implying a plurality of persons within the Godhead. Third, the relationship between parents and children is unique. Their union is practically indissoluble. The metaphor is therefore a good symbol for the deep unity that exists within the members of the Godhead (John 17:5). Fourth, a human child comes from its parents through natural birth. In the case of the Godhead, however, the Son proceeded from the Father, not as a divine emanation or through natural birth, but to perform a work of creation and redemption (John 8:42; 16:28). There is no biblical support for the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The Son came from God but was not generated by Him. Fifth, the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead. It conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship.

Why are the terms 'Father' and 'Son' used to convey an eternal, loving relationship, if that isn't what they are? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they are two close friends? You would think that God could have created the world and humankind in a way that would better reflect their image rather than this fuzzy analogy that isn't what they actually are.

Furthermore, this goes against the Nicene Creed, which distinctly has the Son being begotten from the Father.

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father..." (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed)

The reason I suggest mentioning the Nicene Creed is because we don't want to come across like we are defying the Divine Pattern and raising ourselves up like Satan against the church. This is how people see us, as somehow thinking we have light in ourselves and we have come as teachers. But we just want to point out the inconsistencies and contradictions that have existed since the very beginning of this doctrine known as the Trinity. In the Nicene Creed it seems to say Jesus is begotten, and yet it says He isn't at the same time (see the footnote of the creed). Later, we have the Athanasian Creed that many churches declare we are all required to follow, but it has a dubious origin. Is this right to live in the shadow of documents generated in an era of force, coercion, and imperial Church-State Christianity?

And furthermore, what is the heart of the issue? Is Christ less than God because He is begotten? Am I less human than my dad because he begot me? Is Eve less human than Adam because she came after him from his rib? All these are good questions that God wants us to think about, not to destroy each other over but to ponder over. These are near the heart of the mystery of God and His Righteousness, told us to help us know Him and His Son better, which is eternal life (John 17:3). These questions have to do with identity and relationship, and strike at the heart of our sinful human natureand its obsession with power and what makes one worthy in God's eyes. 

About that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?”

Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven."

(Matthew 18:1-4)

There is so much fear on this issue that it makes it so we can't even think about it. It wasn't easy for people to rationally discuss the Bible doctrine when the specter of hell, the inquisition, torture, and exile were hanging over the Bible student. Is this the atmosphere that we want to have? It surely wasn't what the 7th Day Adventist Church wanted when they voted in the Fundamental Beliefs in 1980. Here is a quote on the purpose of having the Fundamental Beliefs that is important for us to share to people, so they know they are not a creed to be used "as a club to batter someone over the head":

SDA President Neal C. Wilson April 23, 1980 issue of the Adventist Review was published detailing the discussions surrounding the formulation of the new Fundamental Beliefs.

“NEAL C. WILSON: For some time we have been considering a refinement of our Statement on Fundamental Beliefs. I think you have that document in your hands. No doubt you have done both some studying and some praying. We have heard a variety of interesting rumors. Some, it is said, understand that the church leaders want to destroy completely the foundations of the church and set the church on a course that would be un-Biblical, contrary to the tradition of the past and to historical Adventism. My fellow delegates, there is nothing that is further from the truth. We have also heard that any time we touch the Statement on Fundamental Beliefs we would be introducing the Omega, the final confusion of theological and doctrinal positions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I suggest to you that this is also a very unfortunate statement.” — Excerpt from Adventist Review, April 23, 1980 — Seventh Business Meeting, Fifty-third General Conference Session, April 21, 1980, 3:15 P.M.

Wilson continues, “There are others who think they know why this is being done. They believe it is being prepared as a club to batter someone over the head, to try to get people into a narrow concept of theology, not leaving any opportunity for individual interpretation of prophecy, or any individual views with respect to theology or certain areas of doctrine. This also is unfortunate, because this never has been and is not the intention of any study that has been given to the Statement on Fundamental Beliefs. Some academicians, theologians, and others have expressed the fear that this statement was being developed so that the church could confront them with a checklist to determine whether they should be disqualified from teaching in one of our institutions of higher education. It is very, very tragic when these kinds of rumors begin to develop.” — ibid Click here for the full issue: Adventist Review, April 23, 1980 (General Conference Bulletin No. 5)

That is the reason why the early Adventist church was so averse to creeds, for they historically had always been used in Christianity to enforce conformity and end free thought. With a creed in place, it is exceedingly difficult to walk in increasing light. Having a creed shows that there is a profound misunderstanding of the position man is in; it means he thinks that he has more light than he actually does - not realizing how much darkness he is in due to Satan misrepresenting God.

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government... (Desire of Ages 22)

That misapprehension of God is not only in the outside world; it is in the church. It has always been so and continues to be so today. If it were not so, then the message would have gone to the whole world already, great revival and persecution would have happened, and Jesus would have returned. That has not happened yet, and thus it means that there are many things we still have wrong about God.

Some in the church recognize this. It is to these people that we appeal to:

This book was published by the North American Division of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in 1992 titled: Issues: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries (1992), p. 50

“If Adventism is to meet the needs of all people around the world, the landmarks must remain simple and straightforward. The Bible will be our only creed. Complex theological definitions, the Trinity, for example, may serve the church well in general but cannot be imposed as a test for all Adventists everywhere.

Adventism can expect fresh insights into truth, 'present truth' that will enhance the appreciation of old landmarks. Such an expectation has always been a part of historic Adventism and is reaffirmed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted in 1980. When 'present truth' is of a complex nature, however, it may be more helpful for some in the church than for others. In such a case it cannot be imposed on the church as a whole. Remembering our non-Trinitarian past as well as the simplicity of our landmarks should encourage a certain humility in the church and lead us to resist any attempt by one segment of the church to impose its views on the rest.”

The fact that the whole early church was non-Trinitarian should cause Trinitarians to pause, especially those who are persecuting their brethren who believe like our forefathers did. Where is the sense of respect for our pioneers? Are they to be dismissed as deluded, Satanic, and lost? 

Some would say, well, the Trinity is new light, and we need to keep walking in the light. But is it new light? The Trinity has been a cornerstone of the papacy for thousands of years. Roman Emperors enforced it. Thousands of books have been written on it. This was literature and history the Adventist pioneers were aware of...and rejected.

"The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous, measures by which it was forced upon the church which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush." — J.N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855, vol. 6, no. 24, page 185

We read books written by Sunday church theologians, as we are able to accept the parts that we like and reject the parts we don't like. But when an Adventist we consider in error writes a book, all of it is to be disregarded. We dare not even open it, lest we are defiled. Why this harsh double standard on our own people? Where is the fear coming from? Is it right that this is so?

Let us who believe in the begotten son not forget our own sinfulness. We, too, have a need for understanding and wisdom in how we approach our brethren. Especially regarding disagreement with those in authority above us, let us never forget the Divine Pattern and the power of submission. We have the precious relationship of Father-Son to guide us; let us not hurt the truth by sharing it in the spirit of Satan. Remember what happened to Paul when he was taken to be judged in front of the Jewish high priest:

Gazing intently at the high council, Paul began: “Brothers, I have always lived before God with a clear conscience!”

Instantly Ananias the high priest commanded those close to Paul to slap him on the mouth. But Paul said to him, “God will slap you, you corrupt hypocrite!b What kind of judge are you to break the law yourself by ordering me struck like that?”

Those standing near Paul said to him, “Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?”

“I’m sorry, brothers. I didn’t realize he was the high priest,” Paul replied, “for the Scriptures say, ‘You must not speak evil of any of your rulers.'

Acts 18:1-5

Let us all study these things and use them for growth. The Adventist History Podcast gives 9 episodes, around 9 hours, to Desmond Ford to give him a fair hearing as he demolishes the Investigate Judgment. But then why so dismissive of Judson Washburn and others on this issue? Did they get a fair hearing?

Adrian Eben's idea of creation not being possible for God to do without begetting a Son has never been brought into the eye of the public. Even Non-Trinitarians and those who believe in the begotten Son have yet to really consider the full implications of why God begot a Son. The Father had to beget a Son so the whole universe could be held together through the Son's perfect submission ("the government shall be upon his [Christ's] shoulder" - Isaiah 9:6). Has that ever really been given a hearing? I don't believe so. It seems like everything is pushing away from allowing men to reach that very thought. But could it be that it is the most important idea in the entire universe?

Let all men in the spirit of liberty of conscience investigate this matter:

fatheroflove.info/book/view/wisdom-of-god