Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[John317]

...The Arian Rubric affirms Christ really wasn't the Christ UNTIL the atonement took place.

...According to Scripture this is 100% heretical.

The belief that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't the Christ until the atonement is certainly mistaken and opposed to Bible teachings.

Not sure why you brought this up, since SDAs don't agree with Arians on this position. This is made abundanntly clear in the writings of Ellen White.The Bible teaches clearly that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ, from the very moment of His conception.

[Gustave]

How then do we reconcile His unfallen human nature with being 'in all points tested as we are'?

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...The Arian Rubric affirms Christ really wasn't the Christ UNTIL the atonement took place.

...According to Scripture this is 100% heretical.

The belief that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't the Christ until the atonement is certainly mistaken and opposed to Bible teachings.

Not sure why you brought this up, since SDAs don't agree with Arians on this position. This is made abundanntly clear in the writings of Ellen White.The Bible teaches clearly that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ, from the very moment of His conception.

That's exactly what you've been affirming John....

...I've been saying it was IMPOSSIBLE that Christ could have failed because He was ALWAYS the CHRIST.

...YOU HAVE been claiming it was fully possible for Christ to sin and loose His salvation.

...You've just demonstrated what Ellen White and the SDA Pioneers taught with great vigor.

...That being the teaching that Jesus was NOT God in the ultimate sense.

Zeph 3:5

The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will [color:#CC0000]NOT do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame

Christ means "SAVIOUR" and if there is a possibility of FAILURE then Jesus could not have been the Christ....

...Until such time the possibility of failure terminated.

...You are the one affirming this so you need to tell me.

[John317]

...Because Adventism was built on the foundation of Arianism and Ellen had already provided prophetic utterance on this issue...

...SDAism was required to keep this concept as part of it's theology to protect Ellen's status as a "prophet".

...This is why the Nicene Creed is rejected within SDA or any other Adventist body of belivers.

Here are some SDA examples:

Originally Posted By: Adventis Review and Herald April 17 1883

*Question to the Editor:

Will you please favor me with those scriptures which plainly say that

Christ is a created being ? J. c.

*ANSWER :

You are mistaken in supposing that S. D. Adventists teach that Christ was ever created. They believe, on the contrary, that he was "begotten" of the Father, and that he can properly be called God and worshiped as such. They believe, also, that the worlds, and everything which is, was created by Christ in conjunction with the Father. They believe, however, that somewhere in the eternal ages of the past there was a point at which Christ came into existence. They think that it is necessary that God should have antedated Christ in his being, in order that Christ could have been begotten of him, and sustain to him the relation of son*. They hold to the distinct personality of the Father and Son, *rejecting as absurd that feature of Trinitarianisna which insists that God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three persons, and yet but one person. S. D Adventists hold that God and Christ are one in the sense that Christ prayed that his disciples might be one *; i. e.,* one in spirit, purpose, and labor*. See " Fundamental Principles of S. D.Adventists," published at this Office. Price, 4 cts.

There is a truckload of such statements to be found in the Sabbath School lesson study...

...And even more within the SDA publications such as the Review and others.

Yes, it is widely known that the SDA church in general at one time held to an Arian or semi-Arian position. In fact, our co-founders, Joseph Bates and James White were both non-Trinitarians. This is not something our church is ashamed of or has tried to hide. It is actually in virtually all books about the early years of our church. But it was never an official position. In other words, the world church in General Conference never approved a statement of beliefs that was anti-Trinitarian. The fact is that the SDA church had members and ministers in the 1800s who believed in the Trinity.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...You will notice the last couple sentences of that quote IS a direct quote from Ellen White.

...Who promulgated that man could have the same keeping power which allowed Christ to "not sin".

Yes, and the part that is quoted is true and does not say anything about Christ's being created or having a beginning of His existence. The fact that they used her quote at the end doesn't mean Ellen White believed the rest of the statement. You have to remember that Ellen White's clearest statements on the Godhead weere written from 1890 to 1910.

Ellen White is correct in saying that the same power that Christ used in obeying His Father, we also may have. Christ obeyed the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit and the angels. Believers also have access to the same power. Christ is our example in obeying God and in resisting and overcoming sin.

[John317]

Please John, if you have any questions about how Jesus could have tempted please ask me...

...I believe I have a good grasp of this issue and I can offer many more Scriptures.

You may, but you do not appear to have a very good grasp of SDA history or of the life and prophetic ministry and writings of Ellen G. White.

Since we are discussing her views of the Godhead, how many books by her or about her have you read?

There are some very good books that discuss this very issue. One is called The Trinity and it goes into great detail concerning Ellen White's views of the Godhead, tracing her beliefs on this topic from her earliest writings to her last.

I ask you about your knowledge of SDA history because it seems plain to me that if you understood our church, you wouldn't quote non-EGW articles in the Review and Herald about Christ as if they express the views of Ellen White. To get what Ellen White taught, one must read Ellen White.

As I said before, our church at that time had quite a variety of beliefs concerning the Godhead and the nature of Chrsit and the Holy Spirit. There was no real agreement among our leaders on this topic. You will see this if you closely examine the writings of Uriah Smith and James White, for instance. Most of them wrote very little on the topic and the church never held meetings where the Godhead was the primary topic of study or discusion. It was something individuals studied, but there was not much organized discussion about it. The interest of the church was in the major issues, such as the Second Coming, the Sabbath, the Third Angels Messages, the state of the dead, etc.

[Bravus]

There's a whole lot of quotin' goin' on, but the issue seems pretty simple to me.

One of the purposes of Jesus' life, in addition to teaching and his sacrifice, was to demonstrate the godly life and the possibility of living without sin through God's power. If we believe he was completely unlike us in his essential nature, and did not really go through any of the same temptations we do, that purpose was fake and a lie. I don't believe that. Jesus was fully human, and since the Fall, being fully human means having a fallen nature.

[John317]

Not sure why you brought this up, since SDAs don't agree with Arians on this position. This is made abundanntly clear in the writings of Ellen White.The Bible teaches clearly that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ, from the very moment of His conception.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

That's exactly what you've been affirming John....

...I've been saying it was IMPOSSIBLE that Christ could have failed because He was ALWAYS the CHRIST.

Explain from the Bible why Jesus' always being the Messiah, the Son of God, made it impossible for Him to sin.

I don't see why this would necessarily follow.

Was not the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, a free moral agent, who faced REAL moral choices?

Do you believe the Bible teaches that Christ had no choice but to obey His Father? The tests were real tests, weren't they-- just as real as the test God gave to Adam?

[John317]

If we believe he was completely unlike us in his essential nature, and did not really go through any of the same temptations we do, that purpose was fake and a lie. I don't believe that. Jesus was fully human, and since the Fall, being fully human means having a fallen nature.

I agree, Bravus. You make what I think is an excellent point, one that often seems to be missed. It goes to the very heart of the great controvery between Christ and Satan. Were the temptations of Christ just a lot of play-acting?

[Gustave]

Yes, it is widely known that the SDA church in general at one time held to an Arian or semi-Arian position. In fact, our co-founders, Joseph Bates and James White were both non-Trinitarians. This is not something our church is ashamed of or has tried to hide. It is actually in virtually all books about the early years of our church. But it was never an official position. In other words, the world church in General Conference never approved a statement of beliefs that was anti-Trinitarian. The fact is that the SDA church had members and ministers in the 1800s who believed in the Trinity.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, it is widely known that the SDA church in general at one time held to an Arian or semi-Arian position. In fact, our co-founders, Joseph Bates and James White were both non-Trinitarians. This is not something our church is ashamed of or has tried to hide. It is actually in virtually all books about the early years of our church. But it was never an official position. In other words, the world church in General Conference never approved a statement of beliefs that was anti-Trinitarian. The fact is that the SDA church had members and ministers in the 1800s who believed in the Trinity.

I'm not saying they did try to hide it - what happened is that these beliefs were held until Ellen White died...

...Subsequent to Ellen's death the magisterium of SDA initiated some "changes".

...That is well documented.

I'm afraid you are badly misinformed. The changes began about 1888 and were a direct result of Ellen White's writings, which caused the church to begin re-examining its teaching on the Godhead. It was also caused by the teachings on righteouesness by faith that were preached at the 1888 General Conference and in subsequent years.

You seem to forget or not to know that the editor of the Review and Herald wrote in that paper in 1913 that the SDA church believed in the Trinity. This was two years before Ellen White's death.

I suggest that you study all the statements of Ellen White on the Godhead and the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is the only way to understand what she believed and taught. You can get a pretty good idea just by looking at the statements in Ev. 614-617. However, there are hundreds more of important statements she made on the topic.

[John317]

I may have read more of her works and SDA publications then you think I have.

Wonderful! Keep reading.

Get the CD-ROM and do a search of the word "Godhead," "trio," "Holy Spirit," "deity," etc. That will show that she believed in the Trinity as the SDA Church understands it today.

She never had to go back and change her earlier writings in order to bring them into conformity with her current beliefs. She continued to hold the same beliefs found in Early Writings, for example.

[skyblue888]

John said, Sky, where in the Scriptures does it say that man become God? Who ever claimed such a thing? Do you see how it is easy to misconstrue the words of others. The Scriptures teach that man can become one with God, not God, but one with God, just as Christ is one with the Father.

Man may partake of Christ's nature, a nature FAR ABOVE that which Adam forfeited in the garden of Eden when he fell, a nature that elevates him even above the angels who have never sinned, that elevates him, in the scales of moral value, with God.

sky

When Christ became man it was no make-believe. As we partake of Christ's nature it is no make-belief either. Man and God become one. The two natures are mysteriously blended. Divinity and humanity are combined.

[John317]

...If the article states there was a time where Jesus didn't exist the article is saying that...

...Adventist theology maintained Jesus was not "created", they maintain He was BEGAT.

...I'll help you understand this from historical Adventistism.

Not all SDAs agreed on this topic. (That is what I have said before but you don't appear to be listening.) There was no official "Adventist theology" on the Godhead. Uriah Smith believed Christ was "the first created being," whereas James White did not. James White believed Christ was equal with the Father, earlier than some of the other Adventists.

Ellen White was about 10 years ahead of James White in terms of their theology concerning the Godhead. He died in 1881, and when he died he was in the process of changing. Ellen Whtie would go on to write the statements found in Evangelism 614-617.

But it is kind of useles to talk about what early SDAs believed on this topic in 1860-1888, because it has nothing to do with Ellen White's teachings. The notion that Ellen White merely confirmed what other SDAs were teaching can be easily disproven.

In 1890 there were no other SDAs teaching what she wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets concerning the pre-existent Christ. Nor did other SDAs teach in 1898 what Ellen White wrote in The Desire of Ages about Christ. In the 1890s, she was telling people that there are three living persons, or beings, in the heavenly trio and that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. These are clearly not the words of someone who believes the Arian view of God.

[John317]

John said, Sky, where in the Scriptures does it say that man become God? Who ever claimed such a thing? Do you see how it is easy to misconstrue the words of others. The Scriptures teach that man can become one with God, not God, but one with God, just as Christ is one with the Father.

Yes, exactly. I am talking about being God-- the Trinity. You're talking about men becoming like God. Can you see the difference? That's the same thing you did on the discussion about the Trinity. You wanted to talk about how people can become like God. That is a totally different topic altogether. That is a topic that comes up in discussions about the church and about sanctification and heaven. It is true that the saved will become more and more like God and share God's nature, but again that is not the same as being one of the three holiest persons of the eternal Godhead. We can share God's nature now, but that doesn't mean humans will ever be God.

[Guest]

Yep... That's right.

[John317]

Glad to see you, Richard. :-)

[Guest]

Good to see YOU :-)

[skyblue888]

You know John, no offense but I really believe something or someone is blinding you. In the discussion over the Trinity the same thing happened. You are the one who is talking about becoming like God, having His characteristics, which is okay as far as it goes, (Adam and Eve would have become more and more like God had they not fallen) but this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about man becoming one with God, man possessing Christ's nature, a nature FAR ABOVE that which Adam possessed in the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had a perfect human nature in the Garden of Eden but Mrs. White clearly says that through the plan of redemption man through the merits of Christ may possess Christ's nature and thus be elevated even above the angels who have never sinned, elevated in the scales of moral value with God!

Again you are insinuating that I am teaching that man is God. Like i have asked you in the other discussion, Where did I ever claim such a thing but you won't address that because you can't find any evidence that I ever said that. I repeat, what I have said is that through the plan of salvation man and God become one in Christ and that is the "unfathomable gift" to the fallen race and to the heavenly host this is a marvel and their great joy.

I don't know what else to tell you to make this any clearer.

sky

And yes, that means the redeemed become one with the trinity for they are one with God. I gave you plenty of statements from inspiration on this. I think we need to read John 17 again and again like we have never read it before.

[Gustave]

There's a whole lot of quotin' goin' on, but the issue seems pretty simple to me.

One of the purposes of Jesus' life, in addition to teaching and his sacrifice, was to demonstrate the godly life and the possibility of living without sin through God's power. If we believe he was completely unlike us in his essential nature, and did not really go through any of the same temptations we do, that purpose was fake and a lie. I don't believe that. Jesus was fully human, and since the Fall, being fully human means having a fallen nature.

Thus the arian concept of Jesus being more of an example and less of a Saviour....

...Again, a dead ringer of the Jehovah's Witnesses

The issue at hand is IF the SDA teaching in this area can't be supported from Scripture...

...What sort of Tradition other than Arianism and Ellen White can you appeal to?

So far I've been asked to provide Scriptures to back up what I've said...

...I provided 29 Scriptures which confirmed what I said.

I've been asked how the Greek supports what I've said.....

...I then provided the Greek support for what I've said.

...And demonstrated from the Greek how it was impossible that Christ could have lost His Salvation.

Seriously, why do SDA's claim sola scriptura when it's this easy to demonstrate they are anything but.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

There's a whole lot of quotin' goin' on, but the issue seems pretty simple to me.

One of the purposes of Jesus' life, in addition to teaching and his sacrifice, was to demonstrate the godly life and the possibility of living without sin through God's power. If we believe he was completely unlike us in his essential nature, and did not really go through any of the same temptations we do, that purpose was fake and a lie. I don't believe that. Jesus was fully human, and since the Fall, being fully human means having a fallen nature.

Thus the arian concept of Jesus being more of an example and less of a Saviour....

...Again, a dead ringer of the Jehovah's Witnesses

I don't know where you get th idea that Jesus' being our example is a Jehovahs Witness idea. That simply is not true. It's actually the Bible's idea. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not emphasize Christ as our example. They emphasize Christ as the ransom-- that He paid the price to take the place of Adam's Fall.

Seventh-day Adventist emphasize both Christ as our Lord and as our exaple. There is no biblcial reason that He should not be both to us. In fact, the Bible definitely teaches both.

[John317]

The issue at hand is IF the SDA teaching in this area can't be supported from Scripture...

...What sort of Tradition other than Arianism and Ellen White can you appeal to?

First off, you have not shown that SDAs got from Arianism the idea that Christ could have sinned. Nor have you shown that it is not taught in the Bible.

Third, you have not yet answered my question: Was Christ on earth a free moral agent, faced with genuine choices; or did Christ obey God merely because he had no other choice?

[Gustave]

First off, you have not shown that SDAs got from Arianism the idea that Christ could have sinned. Nor have you shown that it is not taught in the Bible.

[John317]

You know John, no offense but I really believe something or someone is blinding you.

No offense taken, sky. :-) Could be the sun's rays glaring through my window and onto my computer screen. It's that time of day here on the West coast.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

First off, you have not shown that SDAs got from Arianism the idea that Christ could have sinned. Nor have you shown that it is not taught in the Bible.

What I did was show "multiple Scriptures" that proved your idea is not reconcilable with them...

...Instead of pointing out how I was reading them wrong or that the Greek meaning was off.

I have not yet seen your 29 Scriptures that you say you've posted. That would explain why I said nothing about them. I shall go in search of them now.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

You know John, no offense but I really believe something or someone is blinding you.

No offense taken, sky. :-) Could be the sun's rays glaring through my window and onto my computer screen. It's that time of day here on the West coast.

That's it. I knew there had to be something!