A Reply to Brother David Asscherick

Article by Jason Smith, originally published on Facebook on Jan 8, 2018 

This article was a response to a video clip of David Asscherick, answering a question regarding SDA's trinity doctrine. Watch the video below.

Below is the article in its entirety as it was published on Facebook;

Jason Smith wrote:

A few of the brothers have requested that I share the following article here. Before I do though (and there have been slight modifications) I would like to issue the following disclaimers. 

1) Brother Asscherick was replying to a leading question that has a premise that he very likely disagrees with. Probably due to time constraint he did not get into it. We must keep that in mind as we evaluate his answer. 

2) Several individuals, in a different forum, have commented on his spirit and tone in this clip. These comments have been harsh and unfair. While I admit that it could have been better I cannot sanction anyone imputing an evil motivation to him because of this. From my experience brother Asscherick is a very straight forward type of person and while it might rub you the wrong way there is much evidence suggesting that he is a sincere follower of Jesus Christ. Also he has done a great deal for the cause of present truth in many areas and I find it to be unreasonable to disparage him because he is off base in this one area. He may simply be sincerely mistaken. 

3) I wrote this response because I believed his answer was misleading and I would like the saints to be able to see the issue from another perspective. This is not a resource designed to bash our dear brother so please do not use it that way. 

Now the clip in question can be found at the link below.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqa...

In case some are unable to access the video to hear it for themselves I have transcribed brother Asscherick’s quote.

"Question: Did our church make a mistake leaving the position of Ellen White and the pioneers regarding God of adopting the Catholic position of the trinity? Absolutely not! The trinitarian nature of God is not a Catholic position. Okay, if you think it’s Catholic you’re misinformed. It’s a Biblical position and if you think it’s not come talk to me afterward and I’ll sort you out. The really simple question that you have to ask someone that claims to be a non-trinitarian, somebody who says there’s only one God and Jesus is His Son and the holy Spirit is just an effervescent power, you just ask them one question and this is the question. What is the Gospel? That’s it, because in a non-trintiarian world, in a non-trintiarian universe, what is the good news? That God sacrificed His Son? Let me ask you a question, is that good news? We just learned yesterday that God said that child sacrifice didn’t even come into God’s mind, it’s so repulsive, so foreign, so alien to Him. Friends, the good news of the Gospel is not that God gave someone else, it’s that God gave Himself. Greater love has no man than this that a man would lay down his life for his friends. In a non-trintiarian or an unitarian picture of God, God has sacrifi His Son? That’s not good news! That’s child sacrifice! [End Quote]

What can we say in response to this? I find our brother’s answer to this inquiry to be quite bad and, in an effort to help the saints, I would like to respond to it. How I will do so is to share a snippet of the quote and then issue a response underneath. Without further ado, and please say a prayer before you read, let’s examine it.

Brother Asscherick: “Question: Did our church make a mistake leaving the position of Ellen White and the pioneers regarding God [in] adopting the Catholic position of the trinity? Absolutely not! [End Quote]

Actually the correct answer here is absolutely yes! The Catholic position of the trinity is a multifaceted idea that goes well beyond what is written in God’s Word. Its components are as follows:

a.) There is only one God Being –This idea is also the official SDA position today. This can be seen in the fundamental belief which refers to the 3 Persons as an “He” and on the official website which refers to the 3 Persons as an “only Being” and the SDA Bible commentary which references the 3 Persons as one “Being” multiple times.

b.) This one God Being is composed of 3 persons who are inseparably unified – Unfortunately this idea is taught by several leading SDA scholars today and it leads to the heretical idea that even if the incarnated Son of God had sinned He could not have ceased to exist.

c.) The 3 Persons are one God Being through the process of eternal generation (the Father is eternally begetting the Son) and eternal spiration (the Father and Son together are eternally producing the holy Spirit) – This idea is NOT taught in Adventism today but it is a part of the creedal trinitarianism. Thus when SDA scholars and ministers claim that the SDA trinity is the same as (or harmonious with) creedal trintiarianism they leave a false impression that this is the SDA belief too.

d.) God is formless – this idea is not prevalent in Adventism but one leading SDA trintiarian (Max Hatton) openly teaches it and I’ve heard others teach it too.

Hopefully you can see now why any answer in the affirmative that the SDA church did not err in adopting the Catholic trinity is an awful answer. It is a sad truth that the SDA church, after the death of Ellen White, most certainly did adopt orthodox trintiarianism and even today the current doctrine is compatible with it. This is most certainly a very serious error. I believe brother Asscherick did his listeners a disservice by not pointing these things out.

Brother Asscherick: “The trinitarian nature of God is not a Catholic position. Okay, if you think it’s Catholic you’re misinformed. It’s a Biblical position and if you think it’s not come talk to me afterward and I’ll sort you out. [End Quote]

It seems plausible to me that the person who is misinformed here is brother Asscherick. The reality is that the trinitarian nature of God truly is a Catholic position. They originated this doctrine and are the leading perpetuators of it. For SDAs to hijack the term used to express this popular doctrine of Christendom and assign a different meaning to it is not a fair tactic, especially considering that all the while there are multiple statements claiming that the two beliefs are one and the same.  If there was an official statement declaring that the two were not the same then that would be a different matter. One will be very hard pressed to prove this to be a Biblical position, even our Catholic friends are very open that it is an assumed doctrine. Now if one redefines the term “trinity,” to mean that there are 3 Divine Persons– God the Father, His only begotten Son and the omnipresent holy Spirit – then this is a position that you can actually evidence from God’s Word, but to say or imply that the 3 Persons are One God Being or any other point of creedal trintiarianism (see letters a, b, c, d above) is totally impossible from inspiration. You will not find any such doctrine in the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy for that matter.

Brother Asscherick: “The really simple question that you have to ask someone that claims to be a non-trinitarian, somebody who says there’s only one God and Jesus is His Son and the holy Spirit is just an effervescent power… [End Quote]

Let’s just stop here for a moment. The definition being projected onto non-trintiarians here is erroneous. First up, the Bible itself indicates that the “one God” is the Father.

“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:6)

“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he (Mark 12:32)

I believe there has been a very serious failure among the trintiarian brethren to accept this very simple truth. As I have written elsewhere they look at inspiration through only one lens and fail to see the other viewpoint when in reality we need both. However, and here is some good news, this failure is not universal! For example one brother, Eugene Prewitt, has recently come to the light on this matter. I am quoting him now:

My non-trinitarian friends are certainly right that there is only one God, the Father. (See John 17:2-3). The word God is used that way very many times in Scripture. And in those many cases it means “the ultimate executive of the universe.” So there is just one, and that is the Father.

“(There is another sense to the word “God” that means simply “one with the attributes of Divinity.” That sense would include Jesus as you see in John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:8. And the Spirit is the third person of the “godhead” in that sense. That is why our bodies are temples to the Spirit.)

“But we shouldn’t deny to our non-trinitarian friends the pleasure of showing us that there is One True God, again, in that ultimate sense. (Eugene Prewitt “The Godhead for Seventh-day Adventists)

I believe brother Prewitt is correct here. There is only one God in terms of the ultimate executive or the great Source of all and that is God the Father!

The next point, in reply to brother Asscherick, is that God’s Word is equally clear that “Jesus is His [God’s] Son.” This is so apparent from Scripture that I will not even quote the references. And finally with respect to the claim that the “holy Spirit is just an effervescent power,” I would like to clarify that while that might be the idea of Jehovah’s Witnesses or other non-trintarians it is not the doctrine of SDA non-trintiarians. At least that is not what I have found and I have been dialoguing with many of the SDA anti/non-trintiarian brethren for years now. We are very clear that the Spirit is the “third person of the Godhead” and a “distinct personality” but, unlike our trintarian brethren, we do not separate It (or Him) from God and Christ but teach that It is Their actual Spirit and the agency (or means) whereby They are omnipresent.

Brother Asscherick: “…you just ask them one question and this is the question. What is the Gospel? That’s it, because in a non-trintiarian world, in a non-trintiarian universe, what is the good news? That God sacrificed His Son? Let me ask you a question, is that good news? [End Quote]

Here is where the quote from brother Asscherick went down such a divergent path that it was rather hard to stomach, at least for this listener. In response as to what is the good news let us quote God’s Word:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16, 17)

“The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go 14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; 15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (Acts 3:13-15)

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life (Romans 5:8-10)

“What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Romans 8:31, 32)

“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:9, 10)

As the passages above demonstrate the good news, according to the Bible, is that God sent His Son to die for us. And not only that but He, that is the Father, actually sacrificed Him. Turning now to the prophet Isaiah we read:

“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10)

 So who sacrificed Jesus according to Scripture? The answer is God!  This is a very simple Bible truth. I am inclined to believe that brother Asscherick, perhaps in his zeal for unbegottenism, is a bit confused on this point. This will become evident in the next point below. 

Brother Asscherick: “We just learned yesterday that God said that child sacrifice didn’t even come into God’s mind, it’s so repulsive, so foreign, so alien to Him. [End Quote]

I am at a loss as to how our brother has brought up the issue of child sacrifice here. Unfortunately there is a trend among SDA trintiarians that when they seek to refute begotten theology they project the process of human birth onto Deity and thus make the pre-incarnate only begotten Son into a baby who matured. Perhaps that is why brother Asscherick went down this route of child sacrifice. And, arguably, he is actually refuting his own doctrine here in a sense. Let us consider this verse.

“For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (Acts 4:27)

It is indisputable that Jesus was born into this world as an “holy child.” And He grew up to be our sacrifice. So how would brother Asscherick avoid his own charge here? I would be curious to know. Anyhow I digress let’s get back on target.

In the quote above about child sacrifice brother Asscherick is alluding to, presumably, either Jeremiah 19:5 or 32:35 or maybe both. Let’s quote those verses and consider them together.

"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind (Jeremiah 19:5)

"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin (Jeremiah 32:35)

Now what appears to have happened next in brother Asscherick’s argumentation is a very serious conflation. In meeting it let us consider the following points.

Point 1: The acts being done here were done by the Israelites in worship of false gods. To take these verses and then project it back onto God's thoughts regarding the plan of salvation is a major fallacy.

Point 2: According to EGW when the heathen did human sacrifice (and the Israelites were imitating them) it was actually the result of a perversion of the true Gospel. We know this because they had a "dim consciousness" of the truth.

"Among the heathen, the dim consciousness that one was to die for the human race had led to the offering of human sacrifices... {DA 540.2}

As the quote above reveals there was a "dim consciousness" among the heathen that "one was to die for the human race." Where did this "dim consciousness" come from? Obviously from the original Gospel promise that God had given to the human race coupled with the ceremonial sacrificial ritual! Thus what had been passed down from the foundation of the world is that there would be a "seed" from the woman who would give up His life to save the human race. Thus the whole concept of a child who would be born who would grow up to die as the sacrifice for the world was most certainly in God's mind!

Point 3: The next point here, and this is key, is that what the Israelites were doing was without the consent of their children and without any salvific merit. What God the Father did, on the other hand, with His only-begotten Son, was a voluntary act on the part of the Son. Whether we speak about Him in His pre-incarnate existence as God’s only begotten Son when He pledged Himself or we speak about Him during His incarnated existence as the Son of man, it is clear that He volunteered for the mission and He maintained the option not to go through with it along every step of the way. Also it was actually salvific in its impact. Again these are some very key differences that were completely obscured in our brother's reply. I recognize that his time was limited but I believe he very much led his audience down an erroneous path here.

Point 4: The claim that this idea was repulsive, foreign or alien to God is repudiated by the story of Abraham and Isaac. Why didn't God tell father Abraham to offer himself? No, instead He asked him to offer his only-begotten son. Surely all parties can see that this was the object lesson to teach the Gospel. This lesson was not only for Abraham, not only for the human family, but also for the watching angels to help them understand the magnitude of God's great gift in giving up His Son. Sister White explains:

"It had been difficult even for the angels to grasp the mystery of redemption—to comprehend that the Commander of heaven, the Son of God, must die for guilty man. When the command was given to Abraham to offer up his son, the interest of all heavenly beings was enlisted. With intense earnestness they watched each step in the fulfillment of this command. When to Isaac’s question, “Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham made answer, “God will provide Himself a lamb;” and when the father’s hand was stayed as he was about to slay his son, and the ram which God had provided was offered in the place of Isaac—then light was shed upon the mystery of redemption, and even the angels understood more clearly the wonderful provision that God had made for man’s salvation. 1 Peter 1:12. {Patriarchs and Prophets 155.2}

Also let us touch briefly upon the issue of this being repulsive to God. This language was evocative and, unfortunately, probably biased the listeners against the truth of the Gospel. Yet was God repulsed by the idea of offering His Son? If so, then surely He would have adamantly rejected it. But He didn't did He? While certainly the idea was most difficult for Him, God accepted it. You see God had several interests happening all at the same time. He had tremendous love for the fallen human race and incredible love for His beloved Son. We cannot even calculate the measure or intensity of Divine love. These two recipients of His love created a huge conflict within the heart of God. He had His law to maintain and could not do so without either man dying for his sins or His Son dying on humanity's behalf. It was not easy for God the Father to make His Son the offering for sin. It was actually quite contrary to His nature to send His only begotten away from the bosom of His love into such an hostile environment where He would experience awful suffering and eventually take the guilt of sin upon Himself. This would cause God the Father tremendous pain too because He would be spiritually separated from His Son in making this offering yet God wanted to save us so badly and so did His Son that They agreed to execute this plan at such an infinite cost. The result was that God the Father actually loved His Son more as a result! That's mind boggling if you think about it. Sister White explains:

“Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again.” That is, My Father has so loved you, that He even loves Me more for giving My life to redeem you. In becoming your substitute and surety, by surrendering My life, by taking your liabilities, your transgressions, I am endeared to My Father. {DA 483.5}

More on this in a bit.

Brother Asscherick: "Friends, the good news of the Gospel is not that God gave someone else, it’s that God gave Himself. Greater love has no man than this that a man would lay down his life for his friends. In a non-trintiarian or an unitarian picture of God, God has sacrificed His Son? That’s not good news! That’s child sacrifice! [End Quote]

As the points above demonstrate this idea that God giving up His Son would be "child sacrifice" is pure nonsense. It is a gross caricature of the simple Bible truth that God willingly gave up His only begotten Son to be the sacrifice for our sins. And again this was no child sacrifice but the willing, voluntary choice of a Divine Son with the full consent of His Father. Let’s read sister White’s insight into this matter:

“Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, “He is in close converse with His Father.” The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right. {EW 126.1}

Again we read:

“This was a voluntary sacrifice. Jesus might have remained at the Father’s side. He might have retained the glory of heaven, and the homage of the angels. But He chose to give back the scepter into the Father’s hands, and to step down from the throne of the universe, that He might bring light to the benighted, and life to the perishing. {DA 22.4}

And another point is to be made here as well. Brother Asscherick has argued that the good news of the Gospel "is not that God gave someone else, it's that God gave Himself." Now here we need to parse very carefully! In one sense this is true. In speaking of the great love of God sister White wrote this:

“As the disciples comprehended it, as their perception took hold of God’s divine compassion, they realized that there is a sense in which the sufferings of the Son were the sufferings of the Father. From eternity there was a complete unity between the Father and the Son. They were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit, and heart, and character. {YI December 16, 1897, par. 5}

Again we read:

"Who can anticipate the gifts of infinite Love. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16.] God’s love for the world was not manifest because He sent His Son, but because He loved the world He sent His Son into the world that divinity clothed with humanity might touch humanity, while divinity lay hold of infinity. Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf. And what material did He use? A part of Himself. The brightness of the Father’s glory came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, and in His own divine character, in His own divine body, bridged the gulf and opened a channel of communication between God and man. The windows of heaven were opened, and the showers of heavenly grace in healing streams came to our benighted world. O what love, what matchless, inexpressible love! {Lt36a-1890.11}

When we understand the complete unity between Father and Son then we can see that there really "is a sense” in which the sufferings of the Son were the sufferings of the Father. When we understand that He is God’s begotten Son, that His very “material” is “a part of [God] Himself” and that the Two were united “one in spirit, and heart, and character” then we can grasp better the tremendous agony experienced by the Father and Son when, “through the eternal Spirit,” the Son “offered Himself without spot to God” (Heb 9:14). Sister White informs us that “the heart of God yearned with greatest sorrow when His Son, <the Guiltless,> was suffering the penalty of sin. This sundering of the divine powers will never again occur throughout the eternal ages. {Ms93-1899.23}. These things are beyond our comprehension.

So again there is a sense in which God gave Himself but this was in the Person of His Son. And there is a sense that God suffered right along with His Son for He too experienced this sundering. However the claim “that God gave Himself” as brother Asscherick appears to be presenting it is not true. We are dealing with two separate and distinct Beings here. It was not God the Father who died for us. It was His only begotten Son who did. Therefore to say that God did not give "someone else" is to confuse the Divine Persons and make it seem as if God the Father and His Son were one and the same Being. Is that what our brother believes? If so, it is false!

Now let’s touch upon the Bible verse that he used to justify this idea. It is John 15:13

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

This verse is not about God the Father and it is unfortunate that many people reason the way they do based off of it. This is a statement from Jesus to humans about humans. Human beings are, by nature, focused on self-preservation. We are quite selfish and egocentric. If you doubt this then you don't really know people. Lol! Thus for an human being to lay down his life for his friends is an act very contrary to our sinful, selfish instinct. That is why it is exceptional and the greatest love we can display to our friends. Yet is it reasonable to project this same thing onto God? Is that how He has demonstrated His love? By laying down His own life? Is that what the Bible teaches? Let us read the Word for ourselves.

“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

Here we see "love" is that God "sent His Son" to be our sacrifice. And even more so God did this for His enemies! You see the apostle Paul noted that there was a slim chance that someone would dare to die in the place of a good man but then he noted that God's love was displayed by Christ dying for us while were were yet sinners! And this transaction occurred while we were God's enemies! Thus God is way above and beyond the parameters of John 15:13!

"For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:7-10)

I hope you are seeing why it is a fallacy to use John 15:13 the way that brother Asscherick did. God’s love was displayed not in Him sending Himself (that was actually not possible) but in Him sending His Son. When we understand that God is not like us, that He is completely unselfish by nature then we are better enabled to understand why "love" is that He “sent His Son" to be our sacrifice. And this was no easy thing! God loved His Son so very much that it was actually quite the struggle for Him to send His darling Son.

“Said the angel, “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no.” It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them... {EW 127.1}

God the Father could not come to this world to save us (and there are reasons for this explained in the SOP but I cannot get into them now) but when we understand His perfect character then we see why Him sending His only begotten Son, the Son of His bosom, the One who was His beloved, the express image of His Person, was the greatest love He could ever express.

And while I am on this topic let me make another point here too. Please notice something about John 15:13. Who is this about? Jesus was speaking about human beings in relationship to their friends. You see the Son of God was not speaking here about human beings in relationship to their children!

Now why is this important? The answer is because even selfish human beings will oftentimes give up their lives if by doing so it will save their children! Even human love, as tainted as it is, will often cause the parent to value the life of the child above his own. Think about it, parents will run into burning buildings, they will fight with a ferocity and passion unrivaled - we will risk our own lives if that is the means to possibly save our posterity. We would rather die than have them die and this idea is not foreign to Scripture. Look at what David said after his son Absalom was killed.

"And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son! (2 Samuel 18:33)

Here David is wishing that he could have died instead of Absalom and, beyond dispute, that son was horrible and wicked! You see from a loving parent's perspective it is harder to witness the death of a child than for one's own self to die. If you dare go and ask any parent who has lost a child (and I don't recommend it but if you really need to see the point for yourself) ask if it were possible would they exchange their life for their child's. I would be willing to guess that 9 times out of 10, maybe even 10 times out of 10 you will get a yes. Again we look at the life of David but this time we see an insight from the Spirit of prophecy. The context here is the judgment regarding his sin with Bathsheba.

"Yet justice must be maintained. The sentence of death was transferred from David to the child of his sin. Thus the king was given opportunity for repentance; while to him the suffering and death of the child, as a part of his punishment, was far more bitter than his own death could have been. The prophet said, “Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.” {PP 722.2}

David witnessing the death of his child, this innocent little one, even though it was the result of his adulterous affair with Bathsheba, was more bitter to him than his own death.

So what is the point here? If we can see these things even through the lens of imperfect human parental love then we are prepared to ask and correclty answer the following question: What would be harder for the Divine and perfect love of God the Father? To give Himself or to give His Son to suffer? I would suggest to you, dear friends, that it was harder for God to see His Son do this than it would have been for Him to do it Himself! This was the greatest love that could ever be expressed. A Divine Father giving His begotten Son to open the path of salvation for a lost world! May the Lord open the eyes of brother Asscherick to these things.

“The Lord God of heaven collected all the riches of the universe, and laid them down in order to purchase the pearl of lost humanity. The Father gave all his divine resources into the hands of Christ in order that the richest blessings of heaven might be poured out upon a fallen race. God could not express greater love than he has expressed in giving the Son of his bosom to this world. This gift was given to man to convince him that God had left nothing undone that he could do, that there is nothing held in reserve, but that all heaven has been poured out in one vast gift…{YI October 17, 1895, par. 2}

Back to Jason's Articles