A RESPONSE TO: WAS JESUS EXALTED TO BE MADE EQUAL WITH THE FATHER?
by Edwin M. Cotto, Advent Defense League
It never fails to amaze me that critics, in their attempts to make the SDA Church or Ellen White look bad, often argue in ways that undermine their reasonings and beliefs. This is my impression after having studied this article by critic Myles Ketelsen of Answering Adventism. In this response, I will post screenshots of his article as I go down the list of arguments, inserting my refutations in between. You will note that the specific sections I am responding to are boxed in with an arrow pointing to it. If you thought he was convincing, read on and let us know what you think in the end.
OUR VIDEO RESPONSE
We created a live public video on YouTube critiquing this article, and incidentally while doing it live we noticed the critic’s webpage was down. And what seems like no coincidence at all, it was later republished after we ended our livestream with minor edits. But, we’re always one step ahead of the critics, so thank God for the wisdom of saving screenshots of the webpage. Here is the video, and afterward our written response.
WRITTEN RESPONSE
We begin now with our written response. You’ll notice that Myles begins with an attack on what he calls the Adventist “Great Controversy Theme” or GCT. To him, this is not a biblical concept, and he will try to prove this by saying Ellen White made statements that aren’t in scripture and lower the status of deity of Jesus. Let’s begin with the first screenshot.
THE GREAT CONTROVERSY AND INSPIRED BACKSTORY
The Great Controversy “theme” (or GCT) is not an “extra-biblical” paradigm that belongs to Seventh-day Adventists. It is, however, a lens by which every believer should view the scriptures and that is because it is a theme running through it from Genesis to Revelation. Any additional information that a prophet gives about this Biblical theme, such as when Ellen White speaks about the Father in communion with the Son about how to deal with the sin problem, is incorrectly termed “extra-biblical” by Myles because SDAs do not view it as “biblical” in the first place. That information is not meant to be a part of the Bible, but is rather inspired backstory which is a typical thing to do by prophets, particularly non-canonical prophets. I will discuss the concept of inspired backstory in a moment, but suffice it to say for now that visions, dreams, and even books written by prophets that aren’t canonical, such as Nathan, Iddo, Gad, or Micaiah the son of Imla, are never considered “biblical” and yet they reveal true data about biblical characters and in some cases what took place behind the scenes of certain biblical narratives.
SUPPORTING THE CHURCH’S STATEMENT WITH SCRIPTURE
The statement at the link provided says:
“We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.”
The two portions highlighted by our critic are, “divinely inspired” and “corrects inaccurate interpretations of scripture.” Is there biblical support for these two statements?
First, all prophets are “divinely inspired.” It is true that the Holy Spirit will inspire prophets in various ways, whether by visions and dreams, of the guests of tongues, or with wisdom and discernment, etc., yet there is no evidence in scripture that one prophet would be more or less inspired than other prophets. Meaning, a non-canonical prophet like Nathan would not have less of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration than a canonical prophet like Jeremiah. The only question would be if a prophet passes the test of a true prophet. If Ellen White passes the true test of a prophet, which is another conversation altogether, she would be “inspired” in the same way prophets typically are as we can see throughout scripture
As for the second statement, all prophets “correct inaccurate interpretations” of scripture. This is normal for the office of a prophet, including non-canonical prophets which we consider Ellen White to be. Two Bible examples of non-canonical prophets doing this are Phillip and Huldah. In Acts 8, Philip the deacon is instructed by the Holy Spirit to explain Isaiah 53 to an Ethiopian man. Quite literally, the man inquires for help understanding the passage, asking, “of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” And before he interprets incorrectly, Philip gives him the true interpretation, and says it points to Christ (verses 26-35).
Similarly, the prophetess Huldah, after king Josiah is frightened by the words of the Book of the Law which was recently found under the rubbish of a torn down Temple, interprets the passages in Deuteronomy which pertain to the curses that would come upon the nation due to their disobedience (2 Chron. 34:22-28).
Incidentally, the King purposely sends for the prophetess to help him understand the words of the Book of the Law. She acknowledges this in verse 23, which reads, “Then she answered them, ‘Thus says the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man who sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will bring calamity on this place…” Therefore, we have a biblical basis for prophets, in this case non-canonical prophets, helping to teach, explain, and “correct inaccurate interpretations of scripture.”
CONTEXT IS KING?
Myles began his organization with a sign behind him which read, “context is king.” Not long ago he removed it and replaced it with a different slogan. Regardless of the personal reason why he made that change, I believe the change is a symbol of the lack of contextual consideration he has when it comes to the writings of the prophetess Ellen G. White. I will now demonstrate this carefully with each of the quotes he cited above.
FIRST QUOTATION
The first one comes from Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, page 17.2, and the section in question says that in a meeting with heavenly angels (there is nothing strange about meetings in heaven, see Job 1:6, Isa. 14:13) the Father ordained that Jesus “should be equal with himself.” Of course, Myles cites this to claim, as he will write shortly, that Jesus was not actually “God almighty.” But what does the context say?
The previous paragraph says that the Son was “one with the Father before the angels were created.” This is an obvious claim to divinity and places Christ before the creation of angels. However, critics typically claim that the Son was exalted to a God-like status, or made into a god. But more into the context reveals this is also not the case. Three paragraphs later we read:
“Angels that were loyal and true sought to reconcile this mighty, rebellious angel to the will of his Creator. They justified the act of God in conferring honor upon Jesus Christ, and with forcible reasoning sought to convince Satan that no less honor was his now than before the Father had proclaimed the honor which he had conferred upon his Son. They clearly set forth that Jesus was the Son of God, existing with him before the angels were created; and that he had ever stood at the right hand of God, and his mild, loving authority had not heretofore been questioned; and that he had given no commands but what it was joy for the heavenly host to execute.” Ibid, 19.1.
The adverb “ever” means “at all times.” Meaning there was NEVER a time the Son did not exist, and that He ALWAYS stood by the Father in His divine position. But why did she write that the Son “should be made equal” with the Father? Let’s read the entire paragraph along with the previous paragraph to help make sense of this:
“Satan in Heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God’s dear Son. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing a powerful intellect. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. A special light beamed in his countenance, and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels; yet Jesus, God’s dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone.
The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host.” Ibid, 17.1-2.
Contextually, the reason for the Father’s proclamation that Jesus “should be equal with himself” was due to the spreading of misinformation that was being done by Lucifer (we see in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 a glimpse of Lucifer’s “trafficking” in heaven), not because the Son did not already possesses this position. In case critics think this isn’t possible, consider the following biblical examples.
BIBLE EXAMPLE 1
At the mount of transfiguration, it seems like the apostle Peter unwittingly tried to place Jesus at the same level of Moses and Elijah, saying they should build three tabernacles for each. But the Father’s proclamation set’s Christ apart, saying, “this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matt. 17:4-5). Yet, Jesus was already the Son of God, as was proclaimed by the Father beforehand at the Lord’s baptism (Matt. 3:16-17). But the Father has to instruct Peter to “hear ye him” because, apparently, He didn’t get, or forgot, the memo of who Jesus actually was. As you can see, one can have a position already, and yet a circumstance may make it necessary to proclaim it again, whatever circumstance that may be.
BIBLE EXAMPLE 2
John the Baptist proclaims in the hearing of his own audience that Jesus is “the lamb of God.” But was not this a position the Lord already had? Yes, for John speaks of Him as “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 5). Nevertheless, His position as the lamb had to be proclaimed in the hearing of those who followed and listened to John’s messages.
BIBLE EXAMPLE 3
A third example is found in Gal. 4:1-2. This one is different in that Paul does not speak of a proclamation here, however, the principle remains the same. We read:
“Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.” Gal. 4:1-2.
As an example of how we have been transitioned from slaves of sin to freedom in Christ, Paul uses the status of a Father’s son who, at the point of maturity, can take on more fully a position he already had as a child. The son was always “master of all” (verse 1) even while a child, and yet the Father had an appointed time when his son would no longer be under guardians and stewards. Again, although this example does not explicitly speak to the idea of having to proclaim the Son’s position again, the point remains the same, that one can already have a position prior.
There are more examples, but let’s first continue with Myles’ next point. He wrote.
SECOND QUOTATION
Myles is quoting from Testimonies to the Church volume 8, page 268.3. Here’s the context:
“The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each.
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 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; 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; being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 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?” Hebrews 1:1-5.
God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son.
Jesus said to the Jews: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work…. The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth.” John 5:17-20.
Here again is brought to view the personality of the Father and the Son, showing the unity that exists between them.” (8T 268-269.1).
Here Ellen White is using multiple scriptures to explain that while the Father and the Son each have a “personality and individuality,” yet they are both united as one (a few paragraphs earlier she also quotes John 10:30, “I and the Father are one,” see page 265.3). What’s interesting, however, are the specific verses she chose to use in Hebrews to substantiate her comment about Christ being given an exalted position. When was He given His exalted position according to Hebrews 1? As soon as Paul expresses Jesus’ full divinity in saying He is the “express image of His person,” he wrote:
“… when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (verses 3-4).
When did Jesus sit down at the right hand of the Father and made better than angels? Obviously, after His crucifixion and ascension. It was at THAT moment when the Son was exalted above angels after having spent 3.5 years in the world as a human being. Paul makes this clearer in the next chapter:
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” (Heb. 2:9).
After being made lower than angels, He was reinstated to His true position above them. In other words, in order to prove that “to Christ has been given an exalted position,” she quotes a verse that says that very thing, that He was given an exalted position. However, it’s in the context of a time after His ascension back to heaven!
THIRD QUOTATION
The third quote is taken from Patriarchs and Prophets page 37.1, and says that “the exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor.” Does this mean that Jesus did not have this position prior? Could this be similar to the first quote we examined, where circumstances made a declaration necessary? Let’s examine the context there.
A few paragraphs earlier on page 36.2 we read that the Father “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.” As you can see, Jesus was not acquiring an exalted position He did not have prior, but rather He was being exalted in the view of the heavenly hosts to His “true position” which apparently was blurred by the insinuations of Lucifer. This is also what Ellen White wrote on the very next paragraph of the one Myles brought into question. Here is the immediate context, once more, of the quotation:
“The exaltation of the Son of God 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 but attain to 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 they had hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute Ruler had been appointed them, and to His authority all must pay homage. Such were the subtle deceptions that through the wiles of Lucifer were fast obtaining in the heavenly courts. There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer’s deceptions.” (PP 37-38.1)
Here the idea is even clearer. There was no new position being given to Christ. As the first quotation stated, He “ever stood at the right hand of God…” The Son was not being turned into a god, or god-like status. He was not being made equal with the Father due to not being equal with Him prior. No, this was only a public declaration to everyone who was involved in the controversy who the Son always was in order to silence the lies and insinuations being spread around by Lucifer.
Below you will read Myles’ response to this, and we will refute it upon arrival. For now, let’s summarize the explanation given on the three quotes.
CONCLUSION OF THREE QUOTES
All three quotes do speak about Christ being exalted, but context needs to be considered as well noting any Bible examples. The first and the third quotes take place in heaven while the second one is speaking of Christ being exalted once again after His crucifixion and ascension.
THE PLAGIARISM CHARGE
Our response today will not be able to deal with the plagiarism charge. However, these accusations have been refuted multiple times, the church taking the step of even hiring an unbiased, Catholic lawyer to investigate the matter. The Advent Defense League has produced multiple materials on this as well and will leave it for readers to study on a separate occasion. Now, let us examine Myles’ so-called comparison and see if they hold up to investigation.
FALLACIOUS REASONING
Myles here commits the fallacy of False Analogy, which “consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect” (source). The irony is Myles’ attempt at trying to accuse us of the False Equivalence Fallacy, as you will soon see below.
THE MORMON VIEW OF MICHAEL VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE SDA VIEW
For example, just because we share the idea that Lucifer rebelled against God’s authority and Law, doesn’t mean we share the idea that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. First, Adventists do not believe Jesus is a created being, but merely bears the name Michael as He did with the name Emmanuel. On the other hand, Mormons believe Michael was Adam, a created being (see also their entry on Michael, along with D&C 107:42, 128:21).
MORMONS, LIKE MYLES, BELIEVE IN THE NATURAL IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL
The differences are much bigger than the similarities, which again renders the comparison illogical. In addition to the difference between our understanding of Michael the Archangel and theirs, we can look, for example, to point number 1. The “narrative” of the Mormons says that humans had a life prior to the earth, and will continue to have life after it. They call it “your eternal existence” and divide it into three parts: premortal life, mortal life, and life after death” (source).
By contrast, Adventists do not believe neither in a premortal life, nor in life after death for the lost. Adventists clearly believe that at the second death the lost will not continue to exist. Thus, even though a narrative is being provided by two individuals believed to have the prophetic gift, the narratives themselves are quite different.
HOW INSPIRATION WORKS
Myles’ claim that her narrative is “not found in the Bible” fails to understand how inspiration works according to scripture, and therefore evinces that Myles is lacking knowledge in this area of theology. A prophet’s very role, in this case a non-canonical prophet, is to give prophetic insight that may be a result of visions and dreams (Joel 2:28). When a particular detail is not found in the Bible, that does not make them a false prophet, nor does it mean they are adding to scripture because those details are not canonical.
BIBLE EXAMPLE: THE PROPHET MACAIAH’S VISION
For example, the prophet Macaiah claimed to have had a vision of a scene in heaven where God asks a multitude of beings, “who will persuade Ahab king of Israel to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?” The narrative says a lying Spirit would persuade Ahab’s false prophets to convince him, and God tells it to do it (2 Chron. 18:18-22). However, this was a vision Micaiah had, and not something found written in the “book of the Law of the Lord” (2 Chron. 17:9). Although this narrative was outside the canonical scriptures of his times, would a critic claim, if he is to be consistent in his arguments, that Micaiah was a false prophet? Of course not.
MORE BIBLE EXAMPLES: THE PROPHETS HULDAH AND AGABUS
There are other similar examples. Huldah the prophetess gives King Josiah both a warning from the “book of the Law” and a personal revelation she received directly from God (2 Chron. 34:23-24, 26-28 respectively). Agabus in the New Testament predicts a coming famine over Jerusalem and the world (Acts 11:27-28). None of this calls into question their prophetic roles. Evidently, visions and dreams that cannot be found in the scriptures do not prove a prophet false when there are at least biblical principles supporting them. The principle is that prophets can give information to elaborate, teach, warn, etc, and a prophet, like Agabus, remains true, even though nowhere in the canonical scriptures of his times does it predict the famine.
BUT COULDN’T THIS APPLY TO JOSEPH SMITH ALSO?
In this case, one can claim that Joseph Smith was a true prophet if he is also operating under this principle. The problem is that he does not meet the criteria outlined among God’s remnant church in Revelation 12:17, 14:12, and 19:10. The prophet must have both the “commandments of God” and the “spirit of prophecy.” Although Smith believed in obedience to the Ten Commandments, he taught that Sunday was the Sabbath day and urged his followers to observe Sunday instead of the seventh day Sabbath (source), placing him in direct opposition to the scriptures and disqualifying him from meeting the criteria. See for yourself:
MORE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MYLES KETELSEN AND JOSEPH SMITH
Interestingly, Myles also teaches that Sunday is the Sabbath day under the New Covenant. He claims that the first day of the week has “historically been called the Christian Sabbath,” and that “the Christian Sabbath is the first day instead of the seventh day.”
OUR OWN CHART OF SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MYLES AND SMITH
Let us now find more similarities between Myles and Joseph Smith of the Mormon Church:
STRIKING SIMILARITIES!
Notice how strikingly similar to the teachings of Joseph Smith! Nevermind the major differences, though… this is enough to equate Myles to Smith, right? (sarcasm intended). Let’s move scrolling down to the next section.
RESPONDING TO EACH CLAIM ONE BY ONE
CLAIM 1: “Mrs. White stated that this exaltation included Jesus being given authority He did not previously possess…”
RESPONSE: This was not an authority Jesus “did not previously possess.” Three paragraphs later, she wrote, “They clearly set forth that Jesus was the Son of God, existing with him before the angels were created; and that he had ever stood at the right hand of God, and his mild, loving authority had not heretofore been questioned.” (1SP 19.1). If His “authority” had not been previously questioned until this point, then obviously He had this authority prior. Jesus “ever stood at the right hand of God” and always had authority. But why then did she write that God had “invested” His Son “with authority to command the heavenly host?” Because in context, she is describing the seeds of doubt that Lucifer was spreading among the angels, saying that he was “envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone” (1SP 17.1). Therefore, the authority God was investing upon His Son was simply to make clear to all the heavenly host who He truly was and what His true position was, in order to settle the confusion wrought about by the enemy. Myles should get into the habit of reading things in context, since, according to him, “context is king.”
CLAIM 2: “Mrs. White stated that this exaltation included Jesus being given authority He did not previously possess, newfound access to the counsels of God…”
RESPONSE: Here is the quote to which Myles is referring to: “Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.” (GC 493.1). Note that it does not state that that access to the counsels of God was “newfound.” More importantly, the context reveals Jesus always had access to the Father’s counsels. A few paragraphs after this one, we read:
“The high honors conferred upon Lucifer were not appreciated as the gift of God and called forth no gratitude to the Creator. He gloried 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 the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father. In all the counsels of God, Christ was a participant, while Lucifer was not permitted thus to enter into the divine purposes.” (GC 495.1).
By “all,” she obviously meant every counsel ever, meaning, of course, that Christ was always involved in every one of the Father’s counsels. This fits well with her statement in Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, page 19.1, which is from where the Great Controversy derived much of its material. There she wrote that the Son “ever stood at the right hand of God.” That clearly means that Jesus was always with the Father, by His side, and involved in ALL His counsels. I believe it’s quite obvious why Myles will not read these statements in context. He would not have an argument if he did.
CLAIM 3: “… and his presence being equal to that of God the Father. She referred to the Son as being “next in authority to the Great Lawgiver.”
RESPONSE: We’re not sure what is the problem with these two statements. Does Myles not agree that Jesus was equal to the Father? Isn’t it true that the Son was next in authority to Him? As far as I see, these statements place Jesus right next to the Father on an equality with Him. But if Myles is using it again to claim Jesus was not previously equal to the Father, we already refuted that with the context and bible examples of why, sometimes, certain circumstances make it necessary to proclaim something that already is, just for clarification’s sake.
Myles ends this section with the statement, “This is to say that Jesus is not God Almighty (Yahweh) in this system of theology.” One wonders, after having examined carefully the context of each statement, if our critic is being purposefully deceitful. Incidentally, the claim that Ellen White said Jesus was not God almighty is also taken out of context. See our response here: Ellen White’s MOST Controversial Statement. Response To Answering Adventism.
JUST MYLES’ OPINION
The idea that “Mrs. White has a regular track record of contradicting herself” is totally opinionated and we can simply respond by saying Myles THINKS there are contradictions when there actually aren’t. Skeptics treat the Bible this way too. They will claim that one Gospel author will contradict another Gospel author, when it’s usually the case that they aren’t considering the context, certain principles, or committing certain fallacies like the False Dichotomy. Myles’ claim is a sweeping statement that offers no examples, and the context of Ellen White’s statement is not an example either. As we already examined previously, it is perfectly legitimate to declare a position one already had when circumstances make it necessary, such as in the case of the false insinuations of Lucifer regarding Christ among the angels.
CAN CHRIST BE GIVEN SOMETHING HE HAD PREVIOUSLY?
Myles seems unaware of the biblical examples we gave above. Again, just because Christ is given authority or made equal with God doesn’t mean He did not have that authority nor that He wasn’t equal with God prior. Under the circumstances Ellen White is describing in the context of those books cited above, Lucifer was jealousy misrepresenting Christ’s position and therefore, a reintegration of Christ’s true position became necessary. There is nothing wrong or illogical about this as we have demonstrated already with some Bible texts. As an additional example, Peter proclaimed that Christ was “exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour” in Acts 5:31, and yet Christ was already a savour before this (Luke 2:17, Isa. 43:3, cf. Acts 2:27).
ANOTHER BIBLE EXAMPLE
Notice what Jesus said:
“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” (John 5:26-27).
Would Myles conclude that Jesus did not have life in Himself prior to this? Or that Jesus did not have authority to judge prior to this (Hab. 1:12 says the “Holy One,” that is, Jesus, appoints judgment)? Of course not. Under the current circumstance within the context of Jesus’ words, God bestows upon His Son life and authority and Jesus has to declare this in the hearing of His followers. But that does not mean He did not have these prior.
With the way Myles reasons, one could attack these scriptures as well. And in fact, some do, such as anti-trinitarians, who think this text proves Jesus was literally born in eternity past when He was begotten, and that’s why it reads He was “given… to have life in Himself.” If only Myles could see how illogical his arguments are, and how they may be used by others against his own positions, he may, hopefully, cease using them to further his agenda against Ellen White and the SDA Church.
MORE FALLACIES BY MYLES
First, how ironic of Myles to accuse us of a False Equivalency while trying to equate SDAs with Mormons over some minor similarities! Not only does he himself commit this fallacy, but he demonstrates as usual his double standard.
Second, the timing of when Jesus is declared to have received a position is quite irrelevant. That Jesus was exalted for a particular reason after His ascension doesn’t remove the possibility that He can be exalted for another reason prior to His ascension. For example, Matt. 17:5 refers to a time before His ascension, where Jesus is declared by the Father to be His beloved Son. That is itself an exaltation by the Father of His Son in front of the Lord’s three apostles, though that was already declared by the Father previously under a separate circumstance (at the baptism of the Lord, see Matt. 3:17).
OBFUSCATION AT ITS FINEST
We agree for the most part with Myle’s assessment here, except with his misunderstanding regarding the exaltation of the Son of God. Recall that the statement Ellen White made, that the Father, “made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself” is in the same context where she also wrote that the Son “had ever stood at the right hand of God.” Lucifer had caused such confusion that a statement of the Son’s true position became necessary, but this did not mean He did not possess that status prior. Before Lucifer’s spreading of confusions, the Son’s “loving authority had not heretofore been questioned” (See 1SP 17.2-19.1). In other words, the Son was ALWAYS equal to the Father, ALWAYS stood by the Father’s side, and ALWAYS had authority over the angels. Myles is merely obfuscating the matter when the context is very clear about what she meant.
SCRIPTURE WARNS OF FALSE TEACHERS, TOO
We agree, and scripture also says there would be false teachers in the world:
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1).
Sadly, Myles has proven himself unworthy of any serious scholarly consideration. He cannot read statements in context, is totally unaware of any biblical principles or examples that can back up such statements, and often commits the same fallacies he is accusing others of committing. Therefore I’d say to Myles the same thing he says to us, “simply using the name Jesus is not enough—the details matter.” Yes Myles, the details DO matter.
Unfortunately, Myles contradicts both himself when he does what he accuses others of doing, along with contradicting the Word of God. DOES THAT MEAN HIS TEACHINGS PROCEED FROM SATAN? We’ll let YOU connect the dots.
