Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[Gustave]

The reason Adventist Denominations do not read the creed or accept it....

...Is because the Creed affirms that it was impossible for Christ to mutate.

...Aside from that one rather large issue the SDA body appears to agree with everything else.

Does anyone within the SDA Church believe at a future time....

...The SDA Denomination will reject the teaching that it would have been possible for Christ to mutate?

...And affirm the Creed?

If this could be possible what effect would it have on the prophetic schema(s) uttered by Ellen White?

...And how would such a change in theology take place?

[John317]

Here's the creed:

Quote:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The original creed ended with the words, "And we believe in the Holy Spirit." The rest was added by a later church council.

For me personally and for the SDA church as a whole, the creed has absolutely no authority. It must be judged by the Bible. There's no reason to be concerned with whether the SDA church will affirm the creed. It is based on church tradition, and the only measuring stick of truth for the SDA church is the Bible, not tradition or any creed. (It's true that Ellen White's writings are an authority, but they are subject to comparison with, and judgment by, the Holy Scripture.)

I don't believe that Jesus Christ was "begotten of the Father before all worlds." The pre-incarnate Christ is infinite and eternal and in Him is life, original, unborrowed, underived. There was never a time when Christ, the Word, was not.

Could you explain what you mean by "mutate"? I've never seen anyone use that term in reference to Jesus Christ before, nor does the creed use it.

[Gustave]

For me personally and for the SDA church as a whole, the creed has absolutely no authority.

[Igakusei]

The reason Adventist Denominations do not read the creed or accept it....

...Is because the Creed affirms that it was impossible for Christ to mutate.

...Aside from that one rather large issue the SDA body appears to agree with everything else.

Does anyone within the SDA Church believe at a future time....

...The SDA Denomination will reject the teaching that it would have been possible for Christ to mutate?

...And affirm the Creed?

If this could be possible what effect would it have on the prophetic schema(s) uttered by Ellen White?

...And how would such a change in theology take place?

I also have no idea what you mean by mutate. I don't see anything in there that disagrees with what I was taught about the trinity.

Are you referring to the idea that Christ was incarnated with a "post-fall" nature, and thus his ability to live a sinless life affirms our ability to do the same?

[Gustave]

Adventisms theological construct requires that it was possible for Christ to sin and loose His Salvation...

...Had this taken place Adventists affirm that Christ would have continued to sleep in the tomb.

...Then forever cease to exist.

For Christ ( known by all Adventist groups as Michael the archangel ) to cease to exist...

...Or to go from "God" to sinner.

...Absolutely requires mutation.

[skyblue888]

Gustave, What in the world do you mean by "mutation"?

[Gustave]

Gustave, What in the world do you mean by "mutation"?

Mutation, according to Ellen White, was a real possibility for Christ....

...In otherwords Ellen White taught Christ "could have mutated".

...This is why the SDA Church does not affirm the Nicene Creed.

...Simply because the Creed and Council it came from.

...Classify the mutation of Christ as heretical.

You do realize that Ellen White made multiple affirmations that Christ could have mutated, right?

[Guest]

Why don't you show us some of them?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

For me personally and for the SDA church as a whole, the creed has absolutely no authority.

I was thinking someone here would say something to that effect...

...No argument from me that your affirmation reflects the denominations stance in this area.

Could you please explain why you believe the Nicene Creed should have authority? Can you base such an explanation on the Bible's teaching?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

It must be judged by the Bible. There's no reason to be concerned with whether the SDA church will affirm the creed.

Would you mind if we judged the Adventist postion on the Creed...

...By the Bible?

Not at all. The Bible does not support the idea of a Creed apart from Scripture. Our only creed should be the Bible. It is one thing to have a list of doctrinal positions that describe or summarize a denominatation's views on Scripture, but it is something altogether different to require all Christians to agree with statements written by uninspired men, some of which are not supported by the word of God.

2 Tim. 3:14-17

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it [15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Isaiah 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

[John317]

You do realize that Ellen White made multiple affirmations that Christ could have mutated, right?

Neither the Bible nor Ellen White ever once used the term "mutate," so your use of it is both irrelevent & disconcerting to SDAs in the context in which you're using it.

Why don't you used biblical expressions or terms that Ellen white used?

Please quote the statements that you have reference to, in which Ellen White made these "multiple affirmations."

It's possible that you misunderstand her meaning.

[John317]

...In otherwords Ellen White taught Christ "could have mutated".

Please quote this statement and give the reference.

[John317]

...In otherwords Ellen White taught Christ "could have mutated".

...This is why the SDA Church does not affirm the Nicene Creed.

...Simply because the Creed and Council it came from.

...Classify the mutation of Christ as heretical.

The SDA Church would not affirm the Nicene Creed even if an SDA wrote it. We don't believe in, or submit, to any creed, no matter who wrote or even if we agree with it. We simply are opposed to the whole concept of a Creed, apart from the Bible. Many SDAs are even opposed to having a list of Fundamental Beliefs which has been affirmed by the SDA world church in General Conference.

[aldona]

Quote:

The Bible does not support the idea of a Creed apart from Scripture. Our only creed should be the Bible.

That sounds very good in theory. But we do have a creed - and it is much longer than the Nicene creed. It is called the 28 Fundamentals.

I am sure everyone will now try to explain that it is based on the Bible. But our fellow Christians will also say that about the Nicene creed.

May I remind everyone of the well-known statement by Adventist pioneer J.N. Loughborough (Review & Herald, October 8, 1861):

Quote:

"The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such."

We are up to the fourth step (as a denomination). Keep up the good work! Not far to go!

AJ

[John317]

Quote:

The Bible does not support the idea of a Creed apart from Scripture. Our only creed should be the Bible.

That sounds very good in theory. But we do have a creed - and it is much longer than the Nicene creed. It is called the 28 Fundamentals.

The FB 28, a statement of belief, is a creed only in the loosest sense of the term. In this way of using "creed," we have had a "creed" since the 1870s. However, that is far different from such Creeds as the Nicene Creed, the Apsotles Creed, etc. Those creeds don't change. On the other hand, our Fundamental Beliefs are subject to change, and indeed have changed, and even those lists of beliefs must be tested by the Bible.

The wikipedia:

Quote:

A creed is a statement of belief—usually religious belief or faith—often recited as part of a religious service. The word derives from the Latin: credo for "I believe" (because the Latin translation of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed both begin with this word). A creed is sometimes referred to as a symbol, signifying a "token" by which persons of like beliefs might recognize each other.

One of the most widely used creeds in Christianity is the Nicene Creed, first formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. It was based on Christian understanding of the Canonical gospels, the letters of the New Testament and to a lesser extent the Old Testament. Affirmation of this creed, which describes the Trinity, is generally taken as a fundamental test of orthodoxy for most Christian denominations.[1] The Apostles' Creed is also broadly accepted. Some Christian denominations and other groups have rejected the authority of those creeds.

[John317]

May I remind everyone of the well-known statement by Adventist pioneer J.N. Loughborough (Review & Herald, October 8, 1861):

Quote:

"The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such."

We are up to the fourth step (as a denomination). Keep up the good work! Not far to go!

What Loughborough said here is true and is something we should always remember.

Loughborough wrote this before the SDA Church was organized and at a time when very many Adventists were still opposed to any organization. But they were wrong because organization was part of God's plan for our church. This became clear in a few years and the church did choose to organize.

By the way, Loughborough was opposed to the Trinity doctrine. But if you study his beliefs on this topic, you will see that he had some misunderstandings of the Trinity. He did not oppose the Trinity doctrine as modern SDAs understand it. That is the case with many of the early Adventists.

The more I look at the SDA church during its formative years, the more convicned I am that God was behind their rejection of the Trinity doctrine at THAT time. They rightly rejected the false ideas of the Trinity doctrine as popularly understood by the mainline denominations. They contained many false teachings, such as the Methodist belief that God has no body and no parts. Others taught that the Holy Spirit is generated by the love between the Father and the Son.

Therefore, if our church had accepted the Trinity doctrine at that time, before thoroughly studying it, we would have accepted false doctrines along with the true. This is precisely what occurred in the first centuries of the Christian Church. We can be thankful to God that He didn't allow this to happen to the Seventh-day Adventist Church when it came time for them to accept the truth of the Trinity. We only accepted the Bible's teachings on it and nothing more.

[John317]

Adventisms theological construct requires that it was possible for Christ to sin and loose His Salvation...

This statement is absolutely correct.

The Bible itself clearly implies this. What is a "test" if the person tested cannot possibly fail the test? In that case, a test would not be a genuine test.

Jesus of Nazareth was a free moral agent, and as such, He was free to obey or disobey God. He had REAL choices to make. If the first Adam was free to chose to disobey God, the last Adam also must be free to disobey. Otherwise the "test" is only a make-believe test. A make-believe test is a deception. It looks like something it isn't. That is not how our honest, trustworthy God-- who cannot lie-- operates.

[John317]

Perhaps we could see, judge or test Ellen's premise by the Holy Scriptures...

...In order to determine if the ancient Christian Liturgical Traditions.

...Pass or fail the test then contrast the result with the prophetic utterances of Ellen White.

Sounds reasonable. Let's do it.

But first please produce those statements by Ellen White which you claim teach Christ could "mutate."

[John317]

The Creed is explicit in affirmation that Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever...

...To simplify or condense it; "the Creed systematizes Sacred Scripture".

Yes, I and the SDA church agree wholeheartedly with Hebrews 13: 8.

Of course that does not contradict John 1: 14; Romans 8: 3 or Phil. 2: 6-8.

There's nothing wrong with systematizing the doctrines found in Sacred Scripture. That is good to do. It is done in Systematic Theologies, of which there are many.

But it is not good to set it in stone and compel all Christians to agree with it or to say that if someone does not agree with it, they are not Christians.

I disagree with Arians, but I believe they are Christians if they truly accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.

I think we need to let God judge whether someone is or is not a follower of Christ. Our bsiness is to teach and preach and practice the truth and leave it up to God to decide who is saved in His kingdom. God knows the heart and we obviously do not. We can judge words and actions but not motives or the heart.

[John317]

...The Holy Scriptures attest that there was never a time when the 2nd Person of the Trinity...

...Wasn't "The Christ" / to say the same thing another way our Salvation was assured via Him.

...Prior to the world being created.

1 Peter 1,20

Christ was "ordained" as "The Christ" before the foundation of the world.

This truth was proclaimed in the 1st Book of the Holy Scriptures...

...In the Protoevangelium.

Genesis 3,15

It ( Christ ) will bruise your ( Satan's ) head.

Isaiah 35,4

Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God [color:#FF0000]will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.

I think we agree on this part. SDAs do not deny that Christ was and is God. Christ is our God and our Lord, just as the Father is. We agree wholeheartedly with Thomas in John 20: 28.

[John317]

...I'm familiar with a minimum of 28 explicit cases in Scripture in which the Arian concept of Christ loosing His salvation...

...Is classified as heresy.

Please provide all 28.

[Bravus]

From context I think Gustave is using 'mutate' with the (non-standard) meaning 'change his fundamental form'. That is, hsi claim is that Christ could not change from being fully God to being fully man. The argument is that in the Incarnation Jesus was *both* fully God and fully human, but if he had chosen to sin he would have been subject to death, and the divine part would have fled or died.

It's an interesting point to make (and I hope I've made it a little clearer), and just goes to show how the Incarnation is an on-going mystery. Given that we've been told it will be our study in eternity, we're not going to solve it here today... but it's interesting to talk about.

[John317]

...The Creed was formulated to combat Arianism which promulgated that there was a time when Christ didn't exist...

...Arianism also promulgated that Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation.

...Both of these Arian concepts Ellen White taught with velocity.

...And yes, I've got solid documentation to back it up.

Please show us. I am particularly interested in seeing where Ellen G White taught "with velocity" that there was a time when Christ didn't exist.

If you have the book, Evangelism, please first study pages 614-617.

Be sure and include the following statements by Ellen G. White:

Quote:

The Pre-existent, Self-existent Son of God.--Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. {Ev 615.2}

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, self-existent Son.--Manuscript 101, 1897. {Ev 615.3}

[John317]

From context I think Gustave is using 'mutate' with the (non-standard) meaning 'change his fundamental form'. That is, hsi claim is that Christ could not change from being fully God to being fully man. The argument is that in the Incarnation Jesus was *both* fully God and fully human, ...

As SDAs, we certainly agree that the Bible teaches Christ was fully God and fully man. He was and is today the God-man. SDAs believe fully in the incarnation as it is described in the Nicene Creed.

The Creed says that Christ was "God of God, Light of Light, Very God.... being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man,.."

NOTE: This part we totally agree on. Christ changed his form, but not His divine nature. He was deity the whole time He was on the earth.

Christ didn't change from being fully God to being fully man. God became man but in doing this, He did not cease to be God.

I wouldn't use the word "mutate" in talking about these things. I think it's best to stay with standard language that is used in referring to these topics.

[wayfinder]

When the righteous are sealed and go to the "marriage feast" they will be one with God and as such will become as their older Brother Jesus, sons and daughters of God. They will sit on God's throne as God's. This group is not all that are saved, but are the priests and kingdom, which are sealed prior to the beginning of the great tribulation.

Revelation 3:21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.