Spirit of Prophecy Writings Coordinator

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Fair enough, all I'm saying is that Ellen White wasn't any better of a theologian than Kellogg was. 

 I'm unaware that Kellogg ever wrote on theology  unless you consider "Living Temple" a book of theology. If you know of any books Kellogg wrote on theology, please inform me. Off hand, I can say EGW wrote Desire of Ages, Ministry of Healing, Christ's Object Lessons, Steps to Christ, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings and others.  She was primarily a devotional writer, urging people to have a saving relationship with Christ and explaining his teachings as she understood them. Her primary emphasis was on sanctification with a lot of legalism and perfectionistic sentiments. Maybe she's right but that doesn't work well for me. She was definitely a more voluminous writer than Kellogg  on Bible topics

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, GHansen said:

 I'm unaware that Kellogg ever wrote on theology  unless you consider "Living Temple" a book of theology. If you know of any books Kellogg wrote on theology, please inform me. Off hand, I can say EGW wrote Desire of Ages, Ministry of Healing, Christ's Object Lessons, Steps to Christ, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings and others.  She was primarily a devotional writer, urging people to have a saving relationship with Christ and explaining his teachings as she understood them. Her primary emphasis was on sanctification with a lot of legalism and perfectionistic sentiments. Maybe she's right but that doesn't work well for me. She was definitely a more voluminous writer than Kellogg  on Bible topics

In the November 25, 1880 Sabbath Herald Dr. Kellogg was leveraged by the SDA Church to provide a lengthy apologetic response to a Pastor of another denomination that had been giving the SDA's a hard time about their doctrines - publicly.

Obviously, given the length of the apologetic, Dr. Kellogg was competent enough with SDA Theology that the SDA Church leveraged him, HARD. Here is a tiny section of Dr. Kellogg's assessment of SDA Theology while he was still considered a friend of the SDA Church and Ellen White. 

"As it stands, it is as wide a departure from the truth as it can be. The only grounds upon which our reviewer could be justified in making such a statement would be the supposition on his part that we believe in the doctrine of the trinity ; but he very well knows, from positions taken and arguments used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject any better than on that of the nature of the soul. We believe in but one Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound 'being. We think the Bible as well as common sense sustains this view. Says Eld. W., "'His trinitarianism ' seems to shackle him much." We repel the charge of " trinitarianism " without the slightest hesitation. We do not believe in a triune God, as before remarked. And we will not, as did our reviewer in a former article, leave the reader in doubt as to our position on this point. We are utterly at a loss to comprehend how our reviewer could have blundered so strangely as to suppose us to share in so gross an error as we believe the orthodox doctrine of the trinity to be. Thus are we able by a word to burst the " shackles " with which he seeks to bind us. The question, " Then who raised him to life'?" is utterly irrelevant ; and wheat Eld. W. adds, " But, according to the Doctor, God was, at, that time, a mere mass of dead human flesh," the un-.. fairness and misrepresentation become so glaring that! we need not offer a word, either by way of explanation or reply".

 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

In the November 25, 1880 Sabbath Herald Dr. Kellogg was leveraged by the SDA Church to provide a lengthy apologetic response to a Pastor of another denomination that had been giving the SDA's a hard time about their doctrines - publicly.

Gustave, Interesting that Kellogg somehow became involved in a theological controversy. I'd like to know how that came to be. In the November 11, 1880 Review, there is an advertisement for theological books, mostly written by SDA authors known for their theological acumen e.g., U. Smith, J White, J.H. Waggoner, J.N. Andrews, and others. Not a single theological book by Kellogg is listed. How much of those articles attributed to Kellogg he actually wrote is an open question. Kellogg was a famous medical doctor. His involvement added prestige to the magazine and discussion. 

As you indicated, he was solid in his rejection of the trinity. Are there other theological discussions he was involved in, beyond the articles you cited. This is all news to me.

[Gustave]

11 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, Interesting that Kellogg somehow became involved in a theological controversy. I'd like to know how that came to be. In the November 11, 1880 Review, there is an advertisement for theological books, mostly written by SDA authors known for their theological acumen e.g., U. Smith, J White, J.H. Waggoner, J.N. Andrews, and others. Not a single theological book by Kellogg is listed. How much of those articles attributed to Kellogg he actually wrote is an open question. Kellogg was a famous medical doctor. His involvement added prestige to the magazine and discussion. 

As you indicated, he was solid in his rejection of the trinity. Are there other theological discussions he was involved in, beyond the articles you cited. This is all news to me.

From memory yes, there are but I think they are mainly around the area of Father God having an actual body with parts. Back when the archives were using a different format I copied off many articles including some from kellogg - they are somewhere in my basement in a box probably inside another box. Unfortunately, all the links I made were directed to the old dejavu so none of them work -they just go to the archive homepage now. 

I don't know how it was that Kellogg got involved like he did - the Whites took a liking to him as a youngster and paid for a good part of his schooling from what I understood. He spent a lot of time around Ellen and James. I've generally thought he was pretty bright and had a good command of SDA beliefs - that and he could hold his own in a debate. I think there was 5 Sabbath Heralds that housed the entire debate Kellogg was in. 

 

[GHansen]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

From memory yes, there are but I think they are mainly around the area of Father God having an actual body with parts. Back when the archives were using a different format I copied off many articles including some from kellogg - they are somewhere in my basement in a box probably inside another box. Unfortunately, all the links I made were directed to the old dejavu so none of them work -they just go to the archive homepage now. 

I don't know how it was that Kellogg got involved like he did - the Whites took a liking to him as a youngster and paid for a good part of his schooling from what I understood. He spent a lot of time around Ellen and James. I've generally thought he was pretty bright and had a good command of SDA beliefs - that and he could hold his own in a debate. I think there was 5 Sabbath Heralds that housed the entire debate Kellogg was in. 

 

Gustave, Regarding the idea that Jesus could not sin, could you explain what was happening when Scripture says that Jesus met Satan in the wilderness to be tempted

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, Regarding the idea that Jesus could not sin, could you explain what was happening when Scripture says that Jesus met Satan in the wilderness to be tempted

There were many Scriptures that Christ "had to fulfill", being born by who and where and a massive list of other things - to include being faultless. 

Matthew 4, 1: Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Luke 4, 1:  And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Jesus, in speaking about Satan to His Disciples said;

John 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

James 1, 13 describes how temptation works, its actual mechanics:

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death".

Consider the following scenario - you are a married man with kids and a loving wife and while out of town for a work related convention a very handsome man asks you if you'd like to back to his hotel room to bugger each other. As a heterosexual man you wouldn't be yearning to participate in that kind of thing - you wouldn't FEEL THE PULL because that particular sin WASN'T IN YOU. Let's switch it up a bit and change the situation - you are at the convention and an incredibly hot woman has taken a serious interest in you and invites you to her hotel room for a night of buggery - well, NOW you feel the pull and if you allow yourself to be drawn away by YOUR OWN LUST, well, you can figure it out from here. 

In scenario 1 you were tempted BY A GAY MAN - you were not tempted within yourself however.

In scenario 2 you were tempted BY A WOMAN - you felt the pull YOU WERE TEMPTED within yourself - YOU were tempted.

What I'm saying is Jesus said Lucifer had NOTHING IN HIM and each temptation OF or BY the Devil would have had the same reaction. The Holy Spirit led Christ into the wilderness so the no sin box could be checked off. Christ was at the point of starvation - He would have been literally dying right there AND on top of that He knew what was coming - He knew it was going to be bad, REALLY REALLY BAD.  

I went to the Passion of the Christ in Seattle , sold out theater - aside from the sobbing from most everyone in there to include me you could have heard a pin drop. I can't fathom what God did for me - I see in Scripture that Christ was eternally the Christ - there was never a possibility of failure. 

There is no doubt the Bible says Jesus was tempted but it clarifies it was BY THE DEVIL - Jesus wasn't tempted within Himself for any sin simply because there WAS NO SIN IN HIM. Sin is in all of us and some of us give birth to sin more than others but in each case the sin that's acted on is that sin the person already LUSTS FOR ALREADY - your not drawn away for something you don't already want. 

 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

 

Gustave,

The word translated as "lust" in James simply means "desire." A modifier is normally required to define what kind of desire it is. The hunger Christ experienced in the wilderness wasn't sinful. It was a natural desire that could have been parlayed into sin had Jesus used his deity to gratify his desire. Jesus had desires. Lk. 22:15: "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer."

You have avoided the question I asked: What was happening in the wilderness when Jesus was "tempted?" Scripture says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are (Heb. 4:15). Hebrews 2:18 says that Jesus experienced temptation so he could help people who are being tempted.

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Gustave,

The word translated as "lust" in James simply means "desire." A modifier is normally required to define what kind of desire it is. The hunger Christ experienced in the wilderness wasn't sinful. It was a natural desire that could have been parlayed into sin had Jesus used his deity to gratify his desire. Jesus had desires. Lk. 22:15: "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer."

You have avoided the question I asked: What was happening in the wilderness when Jesus was "tempted?" Scripture says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are (Heb. 4:15). Hebrews 2:18 says that Jesus experienced temptation so he could help people who are being tempted.

 

As for the part that was just deleted I'd say in answer that:

1st Peter 1, 9-10
he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he PURPOSED in Christ But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, Foreknown indeed BEFORE the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you, Who through him are faithful in God, who raised him up from the dead, and hath given him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God

In Strong's its G4267 / "to have knowledge BEFOREHAND" & "TO FOREKNOW". Christ was already the Christ before God created the earth according to Scripture and when you pair that explicit teaching with Ephesians 1, 10, 2nd Timothy 1, 8, & the very direct statements Jesus Himself made:

Matthew 16,21
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, AND suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, AND be killed, AND be raised again the third day

Mark 8,31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man MUST suffer many things, AND be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, AND scribes, AND be killed, AND after three days rise again

Mark 9,31
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day

Scripture says Jesus was the eternal Christ and that those who ultimately will be saved were written in Him before Planet Earth was even created. There is a cultic mechanism that most cult leaders employ that you should be aware of if you are not already. I'll let Ellen White lay it all out. 

Ellen White
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. THEY gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God” (1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426).

Given the Personality of God was identified as one of the SDA Pillars and within that time-hack of the last 50 years Ellen speaks about how important it is for her adherents to stick with the Pioneers even if some person brings a mass of Scriptures and says the Pioneers position is wrong. I'm offering to bring you approximately 100 Scriptures that maintain Christ could not have sinned. 

You seriously are going to attempt to draw a moral equivalency to Jesus' desire to eat when He was hungry with pounding a prostitute through a wool mattress, stealing, lying or whatever other real sin? Come-on! 

 

Quote

GHansen:

You have avoided the question I asked: What was happening in the wilderness when Jesus was "tempted?" Scripture says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are (Heb. 4:15). Hebrews 2:18 says that Jesus experienced temptation so he could help people who are being tempted.

What was happening in the wilderness was Jesus fulfilling prophecy, He had been tempted BY or OF countless things before Satan himself took a crack at it - Jesus didn't amble off into wild - Scripture says Jesus was LED or DRIVEN by God into the wild so that the Father of Sin could lean all of his dark force against Christ. For anyone who reads and accepts Scripture the Old Testament said God wouldn't fail. 

Isaiah 35,4
Say to the fainthearted: Take courage, and fear not: behold your God WILL bring the revenge of recompense: God himself WILL come and WILL save you.Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be free: for waters are broken out in the desert, and streams in the wilderness.

Seems to me I remember something about Jesus saying Isaiah 35,4 was TALKING ABOUT HIM. Let's rejig this Scripture so it's compliant with the SDA Pioneers and Ellen White. 

Ellen's version of Isaiah 35,4
Say to the fainthearted: Take courage, and fear not: behold your archangel Michael WILL bring the revenge of recompense: Michael himself WILL come and WILL save you IF HE DOESN'T SIN AND LOOSE HIS SALVATION. Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be free: for waters are broken out in the desert, and streams in the wilderness.

Hebrews 4,15 doesn't imply that to treat Aids a doctor needs to contract the disease - Hebrews 4,15 also says that "LIKE AS WE ARE YET WITHOUT SIN"

The Pioneers and Ellen White needed Christ to have concupiscence - I hold Christ had no such thing. 

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian to know that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

Vs.

100 or more Scriptures which says the direct opposite. 

 

 

[GHansen]

Gustave,  The Bible  passages you are quoting have nothing to do with whether Christ could have sinned. There are specific texts that deal with Christ being tempted. If it was impossible for Him to sin, he couldn't be tempted. It was necessary for Him to experience real temptation so that he could help others who are tempted.

You say that there are more than 100 Scriptures that say Christ could not have sinned. So far you haven't produced one.

The passages I offered deal specifically with Christ being tempted. Temptation is a test, to see whether we will love and obey God. If there was no possibility of Jesus yielding to temptation, he couldn't be tempted, since the outcome of the test was predetermined.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

Gustave,  The Bible  passages you are quoting have nothing to do with whether Christ could have sinned. There are specific texts that deal with Christ being tempted. If it was impossible for Him to sin, he couldn't be tempted. It was necessary for Him to experience real temptation so that he could help others who are tempted.

You say that there are more than 100 Scriptures that say Christ could not have sinned. So far you haven't produced one.

The passages I offered deal specifically with Christ being tempted. Temptation is a test, to see whether we will love and obey God. If there was no possibility of Jesus yielding to temptation, he couldn't be tempted, since the outcome of the test was predetermined.

If God tells you He's not going to sin then that precludes the possibility of that happening. 

John 6,50
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world [insert Ellen White's Arianism IF I DON"T SIN AND LOOSE MY SALVATION!].

Take note Jesus He WAS AT THAT TIME the living bread, not that He would be if He didn't screw it all up. This precludes the possibility of Christ not being the bread from heaven. 

Isa 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Whereas what the Christ would do and how it all would come out in the end God absolutely declared the end from the beginning. God would come and God would SAVE. As Scripture tells us this was all sorted out prior to the earth being created this precludes the possibility of Christ sinning. 

ONLY non - Trinitarian groups maintain Christ could have sinned and they all happen to be Adventist: Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, WWCOG 7th day. SDA's claim to be Trinitarian so why do they hold onto one of Arius' primary teachings? 

Matthew 1,21
And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he SHALL SAVE his people from their sins.

According to Ellen White and GHansen that angel of the Lord should have been rebuked because it WASN'T A SURE THING at all - something could-a-gone wrong - Like Christ could have had sex with someone's wife, got into stealing or maybe became a killer, etc. GHansen contrary to your assertion that the texts I posted don't deal specifically with Christ sinning - they in fact do, BY PRECLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF CHRIST SINNING, being envenomated by a Cobra, drowning, becoming the victim of a serial killer or whatever other nonsensical, impossible hypothetical situation you could dream up. I suppose Christ sinning is as good as any impossibility - so go ahead and knock yourself out. 

 

[Gustave]

GHansen, you've asked me some questions and I've done my best to answer them. I'd like to ask you a series of questions now. 

 

Using my Papist logic chain IF Ephesians 1 9-10 & 2nd Timothy 1,8 says that Christ providing Salvation was THE purpose of God AND:

• Job 42, 2 says that NO PURPOSE OF GOD CAN BE THWARTED - what would have happened if Jesus would have been born in Egypt by a heathen prostitute?
• Isaiah 14, 24 says whatever God plans SO IT WILL BE - what would have happened if Jesus would have been killed by a bear while out in the wilderness? 
• Zeph 3, 5 says that the Lord will not do iniquity - what would have happened if Jesus would have sinned?  

I'm saying that ANY departure from what Prophecy said the Christ had to fulfill would have simply meant that Jesus WASN'T the Christ. It would appear that Jesus agrees with me here. 

• Luke 24, 44 has Jesus saying EVERYTHING written about Him in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms HAD TO BE FULFILLED. 

What if Jesus didn't fulfill SOMETHING the Old Testament said He had to fulfill, WHAT would this mean to you? 

 

 

 

[GHansen]

Gustave, I've provided passages that, on their face, show that Jesus was tempted. To be tempted means to be tested as to whether you obey and love God. You've provided passages that have nothing to do with the issue of Jesus being able to sin. If he couldn't have made a wrong choice, he wasn't really tempted. Luke 24, 44 has Jesus saying EVERYTHING written about Him in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms HAD TO BE FULFILLED. In order for the plan of salvation to be fulfilled, the Messianic prophecies had to be fulfilled. I'm not going to speculate on the consequences of Jesus sinning. That's about the best I can do. There's not many passages about Jesus being tempted. Sometimes Scripture says Jesus was tested. He passed those tests.

[Gustave]

Quote

GHansen:

Gustave, I've provided passages that, on their face, show that Jesus was tempted. To be tempted means to be tested as to whether you obey and love God.

Yes, I'm not contesting Jesus was temped (by / of the Devil). Jesus indeed was tempted BY Satan. 

Quote

GHansen:

You've provided passages that have nothing to do with the issue of Jesus being able to sin. If he couldn't have made a wrong choice, he wasn't really tempted.

That's like saying if there wasn't a chance that Jesus could have sunk and drowned when He walked on water then He really didn't walk on water, it was all a farce and a mockery. This IS what the Jehovah's Witnesses say. 

Quote

GHansen:

Luke 24, 44 has Jesus saying EVERYTHING written about Him in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms HAD TO BE FULFILLED. In order for the plan of salvation to be fulfilled, the Messianic prophecies had to be fulfilled. 

Jesus said EVERYTHING written about Him had to be fulfilled. 

Daniel 2, 44 says that it was CERTAIN that the stone cut out of the mountain without hands WOULD set up a Kingdom that would never be destroyed and that it was the Great God of Heaven who revealed this certainty. How would Daniel 2, 44 be fulfilled IF Lucifer could have THWARTED God's purpose? 

Quote

GHansen:

he Messianic prophecies had to be fulfilled. I'm not going to speculate on the consequences of Jesus sinning. That's about the best I can do. There's not many passages about Jesus being tempted. Sometimes Scripture says Jesus was tested. He passed those tests.

Every prophecy Jesus fulfilled was a TEST PASSED, this is why there is something like over 300 mentions of Jesus passing these tests. Had Jesus failed any of them it would have only meant He wasn't the Christ - because God said He would SAVE. If God said He would save there is zero room for hypotheticals that He wouldn't. It would be like saying it would be possible that Lucifer might detonate some type of super bomb during the General Judgement thereby disrupting it and allowing Lucifer's armies to flank God's army. What percentage of possibility do you project into that hypothetical? 

[GHansen]

9 hours ago, Gustave said:

That's like saying if there wasn't a chance that Jesus could have sunk and drowned when He walked on water then He really didn't walk on water, it was all a farce and a mockery. This IS what the Jehovah's Witnesses say. 

No, it's not like that all. The JWs have a lot of good things to say. The fact that Mormons, JWs, EGW said such and such doesn't necessarily negate its value. 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, GHansen said:

No, it's not like that all. The JWs have a lot of good things to say. The fact that Mormons, JWs, EGW said such and such doesn't necessarily negate its value. 

It needed to be demonstrated that Jesus didn't sin just like it needed to be demonstrated that He was born in Bethlehem. In your view what would have happened if Jesus would have been born in Greece? Would that have meant something went wrong OR would it mean that Jesus WASN'T the Christ in the 1st place? 

Trinitarians maintain that had Jesus been born somewhere other than Bethlehem He couldn't have been the Christ anyway - Trinitarians maintain that if Jesus would have sinned - He wouldn't have been the one spoken of in Daniel or Isiah. Arians however suggest Christ was CAPABLE of VICE and thus the very creature God sent that was promised to have victory would have, if it sinned, ended everything in horrible defeat with Lucifer parading the defeat throughout the universe. 

That Part of the Creed
And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, OR subject to change OR conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

the Synodal Letter attached to the documents of the Creed.
investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, AND that the Son of God is by his free will capable of VICE and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear

 

[GHansen]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

In your view what would have happened if Jesus would have been born in Greece? Would that have meant something went wrong OR would it mean that Jesus WASN'T the Christ in the 1st place? 

Not sure what is driving you ,Gustave. I've said about all I have to say on this topic, using passages that specifically refer to the temptation of Christ. If we don't agree, no matter to me or to you.

Heb 2:18  For in that wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them also that are tempted.

Heb 4:15  For we have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, GHansen said:

Not sure what is driving you ,Gustave. I've said about all I have to say on this topic, using passages that specifically refer to the temptation of Christ. If we don't agree, no matter to me or to you.

Heb 2:18  For in that wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them also that are tempted.

Heb 4:15  For we have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.

Hebrews 4, 15 doesn't help your position - it's speaking of the native frailty of the human body in sickness, injury, etc. Here are some examples.

2 Co 11, 30: Paul glorifies his own infirmities? Pretty odd thing for Paul to do IF he means the same thing you are assigning to Christ in Hebrews 4, 15. 

2 Co 12, 10: Paul takes great pleasure in his infirmities - clearly Paul isn't saying he takes great pleasure in his own capacity for wanting to sin -he's talking about his physical ailments. 

Hebrews 4,15 is telling us that our Hight Priest knows exactly what it feels like to get sick, stub his toe, get stung by a bee or bit by an animal - our high priest can really sympathize with our human condition because He was human and tested in all these things "LIKE AS WE ARE YET WITHOUT SIN".

 

Christ was tempted EXTERNALLY, exactly as the Bible describes, He was not tempted within Himself to sin because according to Christ the Devil had NOTHING IN HIM. To project Ellen White you maintain something was inside Christ that caused Him to lust for what He shouldn't lust for. 

James 1, 13:  Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

For Christ to be tempted He would have had to have been "DRAWN AWAY OF HIS OWN LUST AND ENTICED" - He would have WANTED / yearned to steal, have sex, cheat others, murder, dishonor his parents and whatever other sin we as humans have been and are guilty of.  Hebrews 2,18 is along the same lines. 

No one is saying Christ wasn't tempted - I'm saying Christ wasn't tempted WITHIN HIMSELF. 

When God says He CAN'T BE TEMPTED that means God isn't driven by emotions - God is not TEMPTED WITHIN HIMSELF. This however does not mean that someone can't try to tempt God. Ghansen, it would be like if someone came up to you and said they knew a place you could go to molest little kids - if you are not a pedophile you WOULDN'T be tempted within yourself to go with them to that place. If however you like molesting little kids it could be said that YOU (as in internally) were tempted. 

I appreciate the time you spent on this discussion in all seriousness. 

My view is that there should be a spirit of prophecy coordinator stationed at each Church to at least let the members know what she should have condemned. 

 

[Kevin H]

On 7/23/2022 at 11:49 PM, Gustave said:

The teaching that Jesus "could have sinned" and lost His salvation is a gross misrepresentation of Scripture and incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity (which systematizes Scripture). I've spent quite a bit of time on this particular subject (teaching that Christ was peccable) and Scripture is deafening in repudiating it. 

As I understand Mrs. White's view of the trinity, we start with one God who is infinite, outside of time and space. Creatures are limited to time and space. If this infinite God just made life, they could not comprehend this infinite God; so they would naturally be atheists. Since we need a life giving relationship with God to exist, life would just come into life, be unable to comprehend the God they need the relationship with, so they die. Life and death would be sudden like popcorn popping. The infinite God had to reveal God's-self to the creatures. 

One of the things we need to know about this infinite God is that God is great, our creator, a great power. This aspect of God is what we see in who Christians call "God the Father". But if this was the ONLY revelation of the infinite God creatures had, life and death would still be sudden like popcorn popping, as they come to life, see this great awesome being and are quite literally scared to death. The infinite God also needed to reveal God's-self to finite creatures as a friend, approachable. Thus besides God the Father we have God the Son. Now, if the infinite God only revealed God's-self to finite creatures as God the Son, life would have some time. But once someone gets a dangerous idea, and God the Son warns them about the danger in that idea; the creature could reply "I enjoy your friendship, but what makes your ideas any better than mine?" and thus they will do things that would break the life giving relationship and creatures would die. To be able to exist creatures would need to hold a tension between God as this great power, but also as the approachable friend. 

So we find that God the Father was necessary, but insufficient. God the Son was necessary but insufficient. They needed to be both held in tension. But even the two were insufficient as these two were objective revelations of the infinite God. Like God, we are both objective and subjective. The infinite God also needed to reveal God's-self to our subjective existential experience. These three revelations together were both necessary and sufficient. Notice I said "necessary and sufficient" but did not say the word "complete". If the infinite God wanted to he could have revealed himself in enough revelations to make a Hindu's head spin and still not have everything. 

Mrs. White next has Lucifer asking some excellent questions about God. Sadly, and the mystery of iniquity is that despite the questions, Lucifer was not interested in finding the answers. Instead he just congratulated himself for being clever enough and having the intelligence to come up with these questions.  He turned his questions into three deceptions about God. 

The first deception was asking if God was really God, or just a being as the same essence as creatures, who was only higher evolved, and wanted to prevent other creatures from evolving to this perfection by placing upon creatures the law of self sacrificing love. Where I'm too busy caring for you and you are too busy caring for me to bring ourselves to this perfection. Lucifer accused God of not keeping this law. (Headship theology, which has sadly become popular among different subgroups of our church, has God the Father breaking the law of self sacrificing love. The members of the trinity all submit to each other in self sacrificing love, but "headship theology" has God the Father receiving all submissions but submits to no one. If this was true, then Lucifer's first deception would be correct.) This first deception is an attack on God the Father. 

The second and third deceptions are based on how God claims to be both just and merciful. Lucifer says that it is impossible for God to be both, that he can only be one or the other. To be just, if anyone breaks God's law they absolutely need to die (and instead of it being a natural result from separating from the only source of life, Lucifer has God imposing an arbitrary death.)  However, for God to be merciful, then God can't kill sinners but forgive them and let them live despite breaking the law of self-sacrificing love. Since God is a cruel, arbitrary tyrant he will of course side with justice. This attacks God the Son who has the personal relationship with us and who ended up dying for our salvation. After Calvary Satan has put more emphasis on his third deception  that since Jesus died for us, that the law has been done away. Just say the magic words about accepting Jesus' death in our place and the law does not matter. This is an attack on the Holy Spirit who leads us into a deeper relationship with Christ and changes our life into becoming loving and lovable people and placing the law of self-sacrificing love on our hearts. 

As for the possibility of Jesus sinning. We are sinners because we have the sinful nature. I like to define the sinful nature with a quote from Mrs. White and the quote from the poet philosopher Eli Siegel. Mrs. White wrote "There is in man a disposition to esteem himself more highly than his breathern, to serve self to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit" Siege wrote "There is in every person a disposition to think they are for themselves by making less of the outside world."  Jesus was born with human frailties, but he did NOT have this disposition that White and Siegel described. There was not anything of selfishness in him. Thus Satan needed to modify the temptations to his selfless character. 

Lucifer said that creatures could not obey the law of self sacrificing love. God had never been a creature before. Prior to the incarnation he would take the form of creatures, but in the incarnation he actually became a creature. In the crisis of Gethsemane and the passion, Jesus' deepest desire was to be with his beloved Father and Spirit. The Father's and Spirit's deepest desire was to be with their beloved God the Son. They all bore our sin. Jesus bore it in a special way in being a creature experiencing the passion. But allowing our sin to separate them from each other was a horrible burden on them each. This is the same experience that the lost will go through, except that they suffer on a finite level. Being infinite the trinity suffered on an infinite level. 

Would Jesus in all his human weakness continue to be faithful? Would God the Father and God the Spirit submit and allow Jesus to make his choice or will they intervene and force Jesus to do the right thing. Had Jesus, or any member of the trinity failed, it would not merely be the destruction of earth and  demons and Moses, Enoch and Elijah be called to face a divine firing squad while the faithful angels sing the doxology. Had any of these failed, it would have shown that there was something selfish in God. That God was not who he claimed to be. All life would realize that God does not deserve our love. I'm not sure what would have happened to the infinite God but this would have destroyed all created life in the universe. God did not pretend to take a risk, God really did take a risk.     

[Gustave]

Quote

Kevin H:

As I understand Mrs. White's view of the trinity, we start with one God who is infinite, outside of time and space. Creatures are limited to time and space. If this infinite God just made life, they could not comprehend this infinite God; so they would naturally be atheists. Since we need a life giving relationship with God to exist, life would just come into life, be unable to comprehend the God they need the relationship with, so they die. Life and death would be sudden like popcorn popping. The infinite God had to reveal God's-self to the creatures. 

One of the things we need to know about this infinite God is that God is great, our creator, a great power. This aspect of God is what we see in who Christians call "God the Father". But if this was the ONLY revelation of the infinite God creatures had, life and death would still be sudden like popcorn popping, as they come to life, see this great awesome being and are quite literally scared to death. The infinite God also needed to reveal God's-self to finite creatures as a friend, approachable. Thus besides God the Father we have God the Son. Now, if the infinite God only revealed God's-self to finite creatures as God the Son, life would have some time. But once someone gets a dangerous idea, and God the Son warns them about the danger in that idea; the creature could reply "I enjoy your friendship, but what makes your ideas any better than mine?" and thus they will do things that would break the life giving relationship and creatures would die. To be able to exist creatures would need to hold a tension between God as this great power, but also as the approachable friend. 

 

Ellen White always contrasted Christ with "Eternal God" to show a distinct difference between the two - which is what the Pioneers did. As a Shouting Methodist Ellen White would or could have had a view of the Trinity such as you suggested but was required to dump that view in favor of the anti-Trinitarian view of her husband and the other SDA Doctrine creating Pioneers.  The SDA view of the Godhead while Ellen White was alive was like the Mormon view with God being like a Board of Directors who all thought / voted the same way and were only ONE in the sense that a husband and wife were said to be "one". 

I can tell that you put a lot of time into your post and this is something you've obviously thought about a great deal and for far longer than this thread has existed - I'll be honest and say (from my point of veiw) what you are proposing seems to be a categorical rejection of Divine Impassibility. This is a Doctrine Trinitarian Churches accept that non-Trinitarian Churches reject. Could I be blunt and ask you directly if you reject Divine Impassability? 

 

[Kevin H]

I needed to look up Divine Impassability and I don't know if I fully understand from what I read, however a gut first reaction is that I would reject Divine Impassability. Yes, these are things that I have studied for years, starting in College classes in Mrs. White's life and thought; and, outside of Adventism, similarities with what I learned about ancient thinking reflected in the Bible by people such as Methodist archaeologist Jim Fleming (who would have blended in well with my college professors from Atlantic Union College).

What makes me uncomfortable with saying that my gut reaction is a rejection of Divine Impassability is that God tends to be a oneness of opposites: such as on the one hand God [Jesus] did not know when the setting up of the kingdom would be, yet another aspect of God did. I believe that there is a part of God who experiences what has been called "The Openness of God" But people like Richard Rice and others who like this idea tend to see this as the whole of God. I believe that God both experiences "the openness of God" and still yet sees the end from the beginning. Probably more through somehow transcending time and space rather than being limited to now but able to look down the hallway of the future from this current perspective. God is infinite yet finite, we meet opposite after opposite. We will constantly study all of these and still not grasp it all as we study all through eternity. So while I will, as bluntly as I can from where I currently stand, that I reject Divine Impassability, I'm not dogmatic in this rejection and willing to learn more about the topic and how it may or may not, or both, apply to God.