Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Gerr]

Of course! We can agree to disagree, and still love each other as brothers "in Christ". Paul & Barnabas disagreed & even had to part, but still worked for the same Lord.

[miz3]

GerryCabalo,

The reason I say that is because I believe neither one of us will at this time convince the other and we will just romp around and bore everyone to death repeating the same again and again.

I don't see how you can't see my view and you think your view is so clear that I should easily see your view. However, like Paul and Barnabas as you say we both still work for the same God and Jesus Christ.

[Overaged]

Romping around can be fun too. Just wear this badge whenever you do it.

[miz3]

Overaged,

HA! HA! LOL!

[Sonny]

Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh", but did not have a body that was indwelt by sin!

This is utterly false and I wish those who present this heresy would stop it!!!

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh....

Did you get that? Where was this sin? In the flesh. In the humanity of Christ as the Son of Man. He defeated sin in two ways:

1] He never submitted to our bent-to-self (sin in the flesh)

2] His assumed humanity, indwelt with sin, died forever.

Ellen White:

Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him [as God] was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity, He sought to regain for man that which, by disobedience, Adam had lost for himself and for the world. In His own character He displayed to the world the character of God.—The Review and Herald, December 15, 1896.

[Gerr]

Does the quote say, "condemned sin in HIS flesh?" You're so quick to stamp everything you disagree with as "heresy" when you're so full of it. And since you only quote the writings of EGW that suit you and ignore those that contradict you, you would be more credible if you don't quote her at all.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

So why do we need an advocate/mediator/priest in the heavenly sanctuary? And if Jesus had nothing more to do after His resurrection, does that mean ALL will be saved? (At least all those that came after His resurrection.)

If Jesus paid the full price for sin, why does anyone have to still do anything after that? Nobody will be saved who does not actively accept Jesus's payment for his sins and whose life does not testify to that fact.

Yes, without creation nothing would be here and nothing would have mattered. The first fact is creation, as far as we're concerned. God is the Creator, first and foremost. People often downplay the creation. Strange for a SDA member whose church's main distinguishing feature is strict adherence to the seventh day, a day with strong connections to creation. Why, this day is even in the name of the church.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

No Christ had no choice! He was what He was because of what He was!

That means Jesus couldn't commit sin, he was hard-wired to follow a certain course. Why then does the Bible say he was tempted? I mean, if he couldn't sin, why tempt him? Is Satan stupid?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

ESV | Ge 1:1 In the beginning, God [Elohim -plural] created the heavens and the earth. 2 ...And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

ESV | Ge 1:26 Then God [Elohim - plural] said, “Let us [plural] make man in our [plural] image, after our likeness.

Do you know of the royal plural? Single people often speak of themselves in plural. This doesn't even come near creating a plurality of gods.

Quote:

ESV | Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

First of all, there is a "the" missing in most translations - and the word was with (the) God. Secondly, there's a myriad of translations for John 1:1. Some even have it as "the word was divine." John 1:1 is a very problematic verse, unlike John 17:3. John 1:1 is neither clear nor unambiguous. Let's see what happens if we do this: In the beginning was A and A was with B and A was B. Doesn't make sense, does it?

What do you want to do with John 17:3? You can't just ignore it? And even a politician can't change its meaning. A black felt tip pen?

[miz3]

That means Jesus couldn't commit sin, he was hard-wired to follow a certain course. Why then does the Bible say he was tempted? I mean, if he couldn't sin, why tempt him? Is Satan stupid?

1. Yes, Jesus Christ couldn't commit sin.

2. Yes, He was "hard wired" in His connection to the Father and to the "mission" or "course". The Bible states that is what God wants us to eventually become (a process religious people call Sanctification). When that process is finished in you and I we will be like Jesus Christ. The means the character of Jesus Christ "will be reproduced in us"!

3. The Bible sent Christ into the Wilderness so to be tempted.

4. Yes, Satan is stupid. Satan is now hard wired to evil. As such that means Satan can't help but be stupid because the very essence and nature of sin is stupidity. What entity in their right mind would actually decide to defy God knowing they are going to lose and suffer immense punishment. Only an entity hard wired to sin would do such a stupid thing. We tend to give Satan more credit then he deserves.

5. Two possibilities enter my thoughts as to why Satan would tempt Jesus Christ knowing it would be a "fools errand".

A. He is stupid as stated above and is hard wired to stupid.

B. God gave Satan no choice just like God boxed Satan in, in the Job incident.

[miz3]

Let's see what happens if we do this: In the beginning was A and A was with B and A was B. Doesn't make sense, does it?

You are correct that in the human sphere of reality that does not make sense. However we are not talking about human reality.

The Bible states:

"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"

Matthew 19:26

"For nothing is impossible with God."

Luke 1:37.

"Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God"

Luke 18:27.

Thus, in God's reality, "In the beginning was A and A was with B and A was B" is possible.

So what may not make sense to you makes sense to God and is possible. After all God is the Ultimate Reality.

The major problem with Biblical "interpretations" is that the vast majority of humans see the Bible from a "human" perspective instead of seeing the Bible from a God perspective. This why humans are often baffled. This is why so many reject the Word of God because to them it is silly.

The Bible cannot be unlocked from a merely "human" point of view. Or by simply applying "human logic" to it. The Bible is a Spiritual Book and the only way to unlock it is to have a Spiritual interpreter, 1Corinthians 2:6-16 states that this Spiritual Interpreter is the Holy Spirit! (because of length I won't quote it fully here).

Many Christians, as well as, nonChristians, make this fatal mistake of trying to interpret the Scripture through "human" perspectives, when you need to see the Scriptures through God perspectives as stated in the 1Corinthians chapter 2 text cited above.

Although, no human even those who look at Scripture through the proper lens, (God's perspective), can answer everything because as sinners we are growing and learning from God more and more. Only God knows it all.

In addition, mathematics mimics this reality:

A = B thus, regardless of whether you use A or you use B you are getting the same "value". They are interchangeable in any other equation. A and B can exist simultaneously.

[i didn't know how to make the "congruency" sign or I would have used that instead of the equals sign. However, the equals sign works too.)

[Overaged]

Does the quote say, "condemned sin in HIS flesh?" You're so quick to stamp everything you disagree with as "heresy" when you're so full of it.

Easy there Doctor. Lets be patient with this fellow and answer his questions. Misquoting Ellen G White's writings may not be as bad a diagnoses as our own failure to use them and explain them correctly; and thereby prevent such things.

There are some specific reasons why Adventists reject the "historic" creeds, and I may have missed it but I have not seen anyone talk about The Nicean Creed which states that Jesus went to hell for a quick trip to preach to whoever was there, before He went to heaven after His crucifiction. That alone is a good reason for Adventists to reject some modern creeds which would concurr with this idea. I will dig up the exact quote for you from that creed later; but lets get this subject back on track. I am genuinely interested.

[Overaged]

Everyone is saved the same way. But God will not force it on us, otherwise it would be *OSAS* You are right about creation. It is a wonderful Bible doctrine; and shows us the promise of *new life* in Christ. (2 Cor 5:17).

[Overaged]

The major problem with Biblical "interpretations" is that the vast majority of humans see the Bible from a "human" perspective instead of seeing the Bible from a God perspective. This why humans are often baffled. This is why so many reject the Word of God because to them it is silly.

In addition, mathematics mimics this reality:

A = B thus, regardless of whether you use A or you use B you are getting the same "value". They are interchangeable in any other equation. A and B can exist simultaneously.

[i didn't know how to make the "congruency" sign or I would have used that instead of the equals sign. However, the equals sign works too.)

Ya; I like that equal sign. 1 + 1 = 3. Even if it's black; and I say it's white; then it's white! We see this all the time in "Bible study."

[Overaged]

quote]No Christ had no choice! He was what He was because of what He was!/quote]

That means Jesus couldn't commit sin, he was hard-wired to follow a certain course. Why then does the Bible say he was tempted? I mean, if he couldn't sin, why tempt him? Is Satan stupid?

Christ had no choice because He made the choice to "live by every word of God" (Mat 4:4). We have no choice either, if we make the same choice as Jesus. Yes, Satan is stupid. He actually thinks that tempting Jesus will work. The *tempt* does not denote Jesus' character or physical makeup in any way. It merely states the obvious; how that it describes what was done to Him.

For eg, we had a hamster escape a while ago. I tempted him with a carrot. But he resisted that and I had to put some heavy gloves on to go under the dresser to get the little fool.

I was the one that did the tempting there, the hamster did not desire that temptation in any way because to him freedom was more important. Our freedom in Christ is more important than any temptation from Satan. Being tempted by someone is not the sin here.

[Gustave]

Again it seems to me that you are reading something into it more than what may have been intended. Just because EGW gave an interpretation on some text that therefore there are no other possibilities is ridiculous. God's words are far richer in meaning than we think. The only thing that I would rule out is that, if God was speaking through EGW (which I believe to be true), another interpretation of the same text that CONTRADICTS what God revealed already to be true cannot be true! So any other interpretation that does not contradict God-revealed truth is fair game.

[Gerr]

Quote:

So why do we need an advocate/mediator/priest in the heavenly sanctuary? And if Jesus had nothing more to do after His resurrection, does that mean ALL will be saved? (At least all those that came after His resurrection.)

If Jesus paid the full price for sin, why does anyone have to still do anything after that? Nobody will be saved who does not actively accept Jesus's payment for his sins and whose life does not testify to that fact.

Yes, without creation nothing would be here and nothing would have mattered. The first fact is creation, as far as we're concerned. God is the Creator, first and foremost. People often downplay the creation. Strange for a SDA member whose church's main distinguishing feature is strict adherence to the seventh day, a day with strong connections to creation. Why, this day is even in the name of the church.

I would appreciate if you answer the question.

[Gustave]

Who Gerry, epaminondas?

[miz3]

Ya; I like that equal sign. 1 + 1 = 3. Even if it's black; and I say it's white; then it's white! We see this all the time in "Bible study."

It looks like you disagree with Scripture.

Is the Bible wrong when it says that all things are possible with God?

You don't believe this to be true?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Again it seems to me that you are reading something into it more than what may have been intended. Just because EGW gave an interpretation on some text that therefore there are no other possibilities is ridiculous. God's words are far richer in meaning than we think. The only thing that I would rule out is that, if God was speaking through EGW (which I believe to be true), another interpretation of the same text that CONTRADICTS what God revealed already to be true cannot be true! So any other interpretation that does not contradict God-revealed truth is fair game.

Perhaps you could shed some light on this then.

Ellen White, Great Controversy, p. 408The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: 'Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.' Daniel 8:14

You said; "Just because EGW gave an interpretation on some text that therefore there are no other possibilities is ridiculous".

What about a "possibility" that Daniel 8:14 didn't indicate that the sanctuary in heaven...

...Would be cleansed in 1844?

Gerry, did you mean to say there "can be other interpretations" on texts Ellen wrote about...

...PROVIDED that those interpretations don't suggest Ellen was wrong?

...Is this what you mean?

OR, did you mean that an individual within SDAism can interpret a text....

...Whereas THAT interpretation is EXCLUSIVE from the interpretation EGW gave it?

Looks like you are posting some "Lets nail Ellen White theology" here; but you should be aware that you are using her writings in ways she never would have approved of, and in ways that contradict the offical Adventist teachings.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: overaged

Ya; I like that equal sign. 1 + 1 = 3. Even if it's black; and I say it's white; then it's white! We see this all the time in "Bible study."

It looks like you disagree with Scripture.

Is the Bible wrong when it says that all things are possible with God?

You don't believe this to be true?

LOL; please pardon me for my dry humor here. I was just making fun of the way some people are. of course; I have seen the Bible to be "true" many times, and in many ways.

[miz3]

LOL; please pardon me for my dry humor here. I was just making fun of the way some people are. of course; I have seen the Bible to be "true" many times, and in many ways.

I am glad you found some levity at my expense.

I do have a serious question for you. When you say that you find the Bible to be true many times, does that mean you find the Bible to be "false" sometimes?

If so can you give me an example?

[Overaged]

Instead of "many times" I should have said "over and over again."

[Gerr]

Do you know of the royal plural? Single people often speak of themselves in plural. This doesn't even come near creating a plurality of gods.

Pluralis majestatis is a human invention. According to the Wikipedia, the first use of the "royal we" was by King Henry II in 1169, many millennia AFTER Genesis.

Quote:

Quote:

ESV | Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

First of all, there is a "the" missing in most translations - and the word was with (the) God. Secondly, there's a myriad of translations for John 1:1. Some even have it as "the word was divine." John 1:1 is a very problematic verse, unlike John 17:3. John 1:1 is neither clear nor unambiguous. Let's see what happens if we do this: In the beginning was A and A was with B and A was B. Doesn't make sense, does it?

You won't find a major translation rendering theos into divine. The ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NKJV, KJV, NLT, NCV, HCSB(Holman), YLT, all render it that the Word was God. The only one that I know of that translate it into "divine" is "The New World Translation" by the Jehovah's Witnesses, and for obvious reasons - they don't believe that Jesus is God in the fullest sense. There may be another paraphrase that renders it "divine", but I can't remember which one. [/color

Quote:

What do you want to do with John 17:3? You can't just ignore it? And even a politician can't change its meaning. A black felt tip pen?

[color:blue]

It is dangerous to build a whole theological structure on ONE text alone. Here is what Jn 17:3 says:

ESV | Jn 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

NASB95 | Jn 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

NIV84 | Jn 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

You are banking your position on this one text? Consider that the word and is a conjunction. A conjunction according to Webster is: used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type; used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function

This means then that whatever the first item is, i.e. "you, the only true God", then it must also be true for Jesus Christ, the second item that was connected to the first by the conjunction "and". So then, instead of Jn 17:3 proving your case, it actually destroys it!!!

[Gustave]

Looks like you are posting some "Lets nail Ellen White theology" here; but you should be aware that you are using her writings in ways she never would have approved of, and in ways that contradict the offical Adventist teachings

I think it's safe to say I'm using Ellen's writings which contradict the CURRENT SDA teachings...

...Prior to EGW's death what I've been saying would have been met.

...With a nod of approval from Ellen.