Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Gustave]

What do you mean "sacred tradition?" You must be a Roman Catholic? Or, atleast favorable to their views.

[Overaged]

Gustave; thanks for your reply. I kind of figured you were Roman Catholic; and I am glad that you are here. I will enjoy discussing things with you. I will be back.

[Overaged]

Does Adventism "define" what Arian is or is not....

...Or does the Church which existed at the same time and fought against Arianism?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Sounds like you believe the Father, Son and HS are one Being, in which case if Christ had sinned then "God" would have ceased to exist, not just Christ,in your view

Yes, THAT'S the MYSTERY Sacred Scripture and the witness of Sacred Tradition teaches us...

...There is ONE ETERNAL GOD 'WHO' exists as a mutual indwelling of Three Persons.

...Since that's the way God has "always been" - tamper with that & you NO LONGER HAVE GOD.

According to the trinity doctrine, which is why you believe "God" would cease to exist if Christ had sinned, and appears to make it impossible, in your mind, that there could have been a possibility of that.

But you do not appear to be consistent in your beliefs since in one post you say "God" would cease to exist, but in another post you say "God" would annihilate Christ....leaves me confused as to what you believe, one or the other, or both.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Where exactly did they claim God had a "BODY of FLESH"? You haven't provided any source. They-and I-believe that the Father does indeed have a body, form, but made of what we do not know, nor has the bible stated.

...

I've quoted it numerous times teresaq - simply go back and take your pick of the quotes...

...Are you now saying God gave Lucifer "flesh" after Christ's Incarnation?

...

This is another place I get confused with your posts...Are you saying Lucifer was "God" in some sense?

I see Lucifer as an angel who has fallen and now become Satan, as did Ellen White. For her to say that Lucifer had "flesh" can not be construed to mean that she was saying that God had "flesh", at least not to my way of thinking. :)

[Gustave]

According to the trinity doctrine, which is why you believe "God" would cease to exist if Christ had sinned, and appears to make it impossible, in your mind, that there could have been a possibility of that.

But you do not appear to be consistent in your beliefs since in one post you say "God" would cease to exist, but in another post you say "God" would annihilate Christ....leaves me confused as to what you believe, one or the other, or both.

That's why I put quotation marks around "God"....

...It was to illustrate the theological impossibility of Adventisms premise.

If "God" would have annihilated Christ if Christ would have sinned and fallen....

....It defaults into Christ NOT being "God" in the same way God ( The Father ) is God.

....This is the point I've demonstrated over and over again here.

The reason I posted the multiple articles from Adventist publications which explicitly stated...

...That Jesus was NOT "God" in the ultimate sense even though THOSE S.D. Adventists called Jesus God.

...It proves that SDA Arians had zero problems calling Jesus God.

...And also proves the multiple statements people use to say Ellen brought in the Trinity.

...Is total BUNK.

In Orthodox Christianity Jesus is God IN THE SAME IDENTICAL WAY....

...That the Father and the Holy Spirit is God.

...Therefore the twisted hypothetical premise that Christ could have fallen and sinned.

...Then "GOD" would have annihilated Christ PERMENANTLY defaults into the permanent destruction of "GOD".

That's exactly what I mean by that.

[teresaq]

It is common knowledge that in the early days of our formation as a church, some individuals did have Arian beliefs and tendencies:

Quote:

Uriah Smith taught the semi-Arian view held by Joseph Bates, James White, and certain others, and denied the personality of the Holy Spirit. ...The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. 2002. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

I have to disagree with this, Overaged. On my cd, in 1865, the Holy Spirit was referred to as the Representative of God. I, personally, have not seen where the HS was not considered a person by the pioneers, nor have I seen any direct quotes to prove they didn't regard the HS as a distinct Person. I have heard/read the "accusation" by both the "trinity side" and antitrinity side in the SDA church, but I haven't seen anywhere in the pioneer writings where they state such.

They didn't believe in the trinity doctrine, a point of which Gustave has presented here-and which the current SDA church does not believe either. We do not believe that Father, Son and HS would have ceased to exist if Christ had sinned, because they are one "being" and inseparable.

[teresaq]

.....Or does the Church which existed at the same time and fought against Arianism?

CREED of Nicaea

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten , not made, being of one substance with the Father. ...And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not or that before he was begotten he was not,

So, basically you believe Christ was "begotten", just as SDA pioneers did.

The difference being that SDA pioneers believed that He was "begotten" at some point so far back in time...and your belief, as I understand it, is that Christ is "eternally begotten", somehow. A concept I cannot comprehend I must admit. :)

[teresaq]

...And also proves the multiple statements people use to say Ellen brought in the Trinity.

...Is total BUNK.

We are in perfect agreement with this statement.

I was pretty sure you knew exactly what the traditional trinity doctrine is and what it means.

Welcome to our board. I pray that you might study the pioneers yourself and see if they did, maybe, have some good points.

Perhaps you already have and prefer to stay with what you have been taught.

Either way, welcome, and God bless you. But I assure you I can live with being "anathematized" by the Roman Catholic Church, and I say that quite respectfully. :)

[Gustave]

This is another place I get confused with your posts...Are you saying Lucifer was "God" in some sense?

I see Lucifer as an angel who has fallen and now become Satan, as did Ellen White. For her to say that Lucifer had "flesh" can not be construed to mean that she was saying that God had "flesh", at least not to my way of thinking.

Not at all, I'm showing you how that's the Adventist view...

...We would both agree that "God" could permanently annihilate Satan.

...Adventist's affirm that God COULD HAVE permanently annihilated Christ.

...Had Christ sinned and fallen!

...Therefore Lucifer was no less than Christ where the rubber mets the road.

Ellen White and the early Adventists belived that God begat Christ, in TIME, out of God's own substance...

...Ellen White and the early Adventists believed that God created Lucifer out of nothing.

...And created Lucifer to be as "close as possible" to God.

...Herein lies the rubrics for the Great Controversy.

This is HOW and WHY the Arian Adventists ( to include Ellen ) had ZERO problems in calling Jesus God...

...Because God was LITERALLY Christ's Father.

...And because Christ was begat in time OF the Father.

...In Him ( Christ ) WAS life eternal, unborrowed, etc. The "life" was the life of THE FATHER.

The Sanctuary doctrine "hinged" on God having "flesh"....

...Therefore since God begat Christ in time Christ also had flesh.

...Therefore since God created Lucifer to be as close as possible to Himself Lucifer also had flesh.

...The early SDA publications up to the time of Kellogg's departure were saturated with such statements.

[Gustave]

So, basically you believe Christ was "begotten", just as SDA pioneers did.

[Overaged]

quote=Overaged]It is common knowledge that in the early days of our formation as a church, some individuals did have Arian beliefs and tendencies:

quote]Uriah Smith taught the semi-Arian view held by Joseph Bates, James White, and certain others, and denied the personality of the Holy Spirit. ...The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. 2002. Review and Herald Publishing Association./quote] /quote]I have to disagree with this, Overaged. On my cd, in 1865, the Holy Spirit was referred to as the Representative of God. I, personally, have not seen where the HS was not considered a person by the pioneers, nor have I seen any direct quotes to prove they didn't regard the HS as a distinct Person. I have heard/read the "accusation" by both the "trinity side" and antitrinity side in the SDA church, but I haven't seen anywhere in the pioneer writings where they state such.

They didn't believe in the trinity doctrine, a point of which Gustave has presented here-and which the current SDA church does not believe either. We do not believe that Father, Son and HS would have ceased to exist if Christ had sinned, because they are one "being" and inseparable.

I don't understand why you would "disagree" with this; for atleast 2 reasons:

1/ you only quoted half what I posted in that paragraph; thereby giving it a much different meaning than what I was intending to show. The paragraph you quoted also tells us that Uriah Smith changed his mind on his Arian styled beliefs.

2/ you concede that you can find nothing in writing to prove what you say; yet you "disagree" with it...hmmm. Well I definitely don't understand that. History shows, as I think you are alluding to, that some Pioneers did not believe in the "trinity" doctrine, but some did.

The paragraph I referred to shows this, as well as the fact that most who held Arian styled beliefs saw how wrong they were and changed their thinking on it. The whole point was to show Gustave that he is wrong for stating the Arian-held beliefs by some individuals were representing the official beliefs of the current; or the past Seventh-day Adventist Church. Gustave misquoted our writings and did not state our beliefs or history correctly.

[Overaged]

Ellen White and the early Adventists belived that God begat Christ, in TIME, out of God's own substance...

...Ellen White and the early Adventists believed that God created Lucifer out of nothing.

...And created Lucifer to be as "close as possible" to God.

...Herein lies the rubrics for the Great Controversy.

This is HOW and WHY the Arian Adventists ( to include Ellen ) had ZERO problems in calling Jesus God...

I would like to see your references from our official beliefs and history sources that what you say here is true.

[Gustave]

It appears that you see The Nicene Creed as something which gives the Roman Catholic Church the right to "anathemetize" any church which teaches "arianism. And then you seem to be directing this point re "anathemetize" towards Adventists. But your own Church does not teach this about us, so I think you had better do a little more study on that point. Your own Church would not support your assertion here

[Gustave]

I would like to see your references from our official beliefs and history sources that what you say here is true

Ok,

Ellen White

God made him [Lucifer] good and beautiful, as near as possible like Himself.--RH Sept. 24, 1901. {TA 26.4}

There are more such statements if you need them to confirm what I said is accurate.

[Gustave]

They didn't believe in the trinity doctrine, a point of which Gustave has presented here-and which the current SDA church does not believe either. We do not believe that Father, Son and HS would have ceased to exist if Christ had sinned, because they are one "being" and inseparable.

Bingo! Thank you for being upfront about that Teresaq.

[Overaged]

...I can assure you both your Church and mine do NOT see eye to eye on the Trinity.

My purpose was to show that Adventists generally believe as Catholicism does whereas the Trinity is concerned...

[Gustave]

These kinds of seemingly contradictory statements in your posts do raise questions; but I do want to welcome you to this forum. I am always glad for challenges to what I believe, they are how one can understand things better. You did misquote from page 26 of our fundamental beliefs a few posts ago; and in my last post I included the entire page to show that. I would like to see you comment on that.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

This is another place I get confused with your posts...Are you saying Lucifer was "God" in some sense?

I see Lucifer as an angel who has fallen and now become Satan, as did Ellen White. For her to say that Lucifer had "flesh" can not be construed to mean that she was saying that God had "flesh", at least not to my way of thinking.

...

The Sanctuary doctrine "hinged" on God having "flesh"....

...Therefore since God begat Christ in time Christ also had flesh.

...Therefore since God created Lucifer to be as close as possible to Himself Lucifer also had flesh.

...The early SDA publications up to the time of Kellogg's departure were saturated with such statements.

I think I see where the difficulty lies, we appear to be reading what they are theying in quite different ways.

I don't read them to be saying that but you do.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

quote=Overaged]It is common knowledge that in the early days of our formation as a church, some individuals did have Arian beliefs and tendencies:

quote]Uriah Smith taught the semi-Arian view held by Joseph Bates, James White, and certain others, and denied the personality of the Holy Spirit. ...The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. 2002. Review and Herald Publishing Association./quote] /quote]I have to disagree with this, Overaged. On my cd, in 1865, the Holy Spirit was referred to as the Representative of God. I, personally, have not seen where the HS was not considered a person by the pioneers, nor have I seen any direct quotes to prove they didn't regard the HS as a distinct Person.. I have heard/read the "accusation" by both the "trinity side" and antitrinity side in the SDA church, but I haven't seen anywhere in the pioneer writings where they state such.

They didn't believe in the trinity doctrine, a point of which Gustave has presented here-and which the current SDA church does not believe either. We do not believe that Father, Son and HS would have ceased to exist if Christ had sinned, because they are one "being" and inseparable.

I don't understand why you would "disagree" with this; for atleast 2 reasons:

1/ you only quoted half what I posted in that paragraph; thereby giving it a much different meaning than what I was intending to show. The paragraph you quoted also tells us that Uriah Smith changed his mind on his Arian styled beliefs.

2/ you concede that you can find nothing in writing to prove what you say; yet you "disagree" with it...hmmm. Well I definitely don't understand that. History shows, as I think you are alluding to, that some Pioneers did not believe in the "trinity" doctrine, but some did.

The paragraph I referred to shows this, as well as the fact that most who held Arian styled beliefs saw how wrong they were and changed their thinking on it. The whole point was to show Gustave that he is wrong for stating the Arian-held beliefs by some individuals were representing the official beliefs of the current; or the past Seventh-day Adventist Church. Gustave misquoted our writings and did not state our beliefs or history correctly.

I bolded the point I was referring to, maybe you didn't realize that.

If, in rereading my post, you do not see where you misunderstood what I was saying I do not believe further explanations will help. :)

[teresaq]

I'll be back later with some "documentation" for you on how the Arian Pioneers had no problem calling Jesus "God" while at the same time making sure it was understood Jesus was NOT God in the ultimate sense.

I read them to say that Jesus was not the Father, that there was a difference between the Father and Jesus.

But you are coming from a "3 persons in 1 being" position so we may have trouble "connecting" so-to-speak.

While I'm at it, tho, I can understand the pioneers seeing person=being. I can't for the life of me see any difference.

person=being

3 persons in 1 being

3 beings in 1 person

3 persons in 1 person

3 beings in 1 being

All four of those statements say the same thing to me. (shrug)

[Gerr]

Here are some EGW quotes RE: deity of Christ.

1. 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.

White, E. G. (1946; 2002). Evangelism (615). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

2. Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.

3. The world was made by him, "and without him was not anything made that was made." If Christ made all things, he existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

According to the trinity doctrine, which is why you believe "God" would cease to exist if Christ had sinned, and appears to make it impossible, in your mind, that there could have been a possibility of that.

But you do not appear to be consistent in your beliefs since in one post you say "God" would cease to exist, but in another post you say "God" would annihilate Christ....leaves me confused as to what you believe, one or the other, or both.

In Orthodox Christianity Jesus is God IN THE SAME IDENTICAL WAY....

...That the Father and the Holy Spirit is God.

...Therefore the twisted hypothetical premise that Christ could have fallen and sinned.

...Then "GOD" would have annihilated Christ PERMENANTLY defaults into the permanent destruction of "GOD".

That's exactly what I mean by that.

I'm trying to make sense of this. Keep in mind, please, that I see all three as separate individuals and not as a single being.

First, if Christ had given into temptation and sinned, I do not believe the Father would have annihilated Christ. I believe sin itself eventually kills us one way or another.

Second, if Christ had given into temptation and sinned, He and only He would not have risen from the grave. The Father and HS would still be here.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

The difference being that SDA pioneers believed that He was "begotten" at some point so far back in time...and your belief, as I understand it, is that Christ is "eternally begotten", somehow. A concept I cannot comprehend I must admit.

Don't feel bad, I can't comprehend it either Teresaq....

...It is what it is.

..."EVERY" Heresy about God comes from human works to REMOVE this mystery.

I believe the traditional trinity doctrine as it has been developed over time is man's vain attempt to explain what, perhaps, we should wait til we get to heaven to try to understand. In other words, the traditional trinity doctrine is "human works"

Therefore I have no qualms about questioning the validity of such an understanding. I do respect that that position could rattle someone who fully believes in such doctrine.

I am not absolutely clear tho, on the "eternal generation" point. To me it means that Jesus is being begotten even today, an ongoing "event". Otherwise it would mean that Jesus was "begotten" at one point in time, but since the Father, as we understand it, has always been....mind boggling to say the least! Is this something you are clear on, or just take by faith? :)

[miz3]

teresaq(sda),

In that case Jesus Christ, both His Divine nature and Human nature as a combined unity in a single individual would have been destroyed.

This is interesting because by your logic Divinity is not eternal but is finite like us, because there is some circumstance in which the Divine could die. That means that all "persons" of the Godhead are in jeopardy of ceasing to exist under some circumstance. How then can we count on a God and His promises if He cannot deliver as He promised?

I do not believe the Bible teaches such a Doctrine. If it does, show me from the Bible where Divinity could die.