Mutable Christ Doctrine the foundation of SDA Theology?

July 4, 2018

Many Christians realize that the early Christian Church anathematized Arianism as a heresy which was contrary to the deposit of Faith however few have taken the time to read what Arius was teaching.

"First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, 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". Synodal Letter [excerpt] Council of Nicea

Arius believed that God [which was understood to be the Father ONLY] was the absolute ULTIMATE of everything & therefore absolutely NOTHING whatsoever could cause God to fail, or loose, cease to exist, etc. Christ, in Arius' understanding was MUTABLE (capable of mutation) and thus, because he possessed the possibility of mutating into a sinner WASN'T God in the sense that the Father was God. The early Christian Church identified this teaching as heretical and condemned it.

William Miller gained many followers when he exposed his belief that he had determined the timing of the 2nd Coming of Christ. Eventually once William Miller realized his error he urged people to return to their Churches which the majority of folks indeed did - leaving ONLY the folks that didn't have a church to return to. The reason THESE people stayed was because they were Anti-Trinitarian and there was no Church for them to go back to. Quickly these remaining Adventists started to squabble over doctrines and began to fracture into separate groups and this is basic history of how the Christadelphians, WWCOG (7the day), the JW's and SDA's came to be.

Each of these groups agreed with Arius in that Christ was MUTABLE and therefore capable of mutating into a life of vice and had that happened God would have smitten Christ and seen to his annihilation after which God would have conceded, in defeat, the universe to Lucifer.

Here are a fraction of the SDA quotes on this essential doctrine.

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."

"Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, June 9th 1898, see also Selected Messages Book 1 page 256)

Review and Herald November 14, 1854

Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that ho alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to havo life in himself." John v, 26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (i. e., is self existent) jusl the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life ? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity ? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; 01 even if it did, 1 would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life

Last week

This month

Select range

From

To

Folders

Inbox

Junk Email

Drafts

Sent Items

Deleted Items

2002 camaro

2006 REFI

accounts

Anti Virus subscription

Archive

Bestbuy Rewards zone

buy.com

Chinese Movers

Condo Parties

Conversation History

CREDIT

Dad

Dealer Ad Pics

DIZON PRA

Documents

DVD FAB

EW

Family and Friends

Family Pics

freecreditreport.com

Grandpa Relates

Hog pictures

IRS

Itunes

KCSO

LUISA CITY ISSUE

Luisa INS

Lyons

Military

Montana oil Project

My Condo

Notes_0

oil montana

personal stuff

All folders

mutated

1 of 1

mutated conditional diety god

GB

Grumpet Brumblecutt

Sun 6/26/2011, 5:51 PM

You;

ssgrumpet@gmail.com

Sent Items

When it's applied to God so that a teaching develops that "God" could self terminate by sinning and ceasing to exist eternally....
...It absolutely is blasphemy, even past that which the demons are said to think up.

Of course Ellen was clear that it wasn't really God that came to save us.....
...But a mutation of God as "The Christ'' was classified as having a CONDITIONAL DIETY which He could LOOSE.
...Something I have NOT found Ellen White to say about the pre-Incarnate Word of God.

Charles S Longacre waxing eloquent on the teachings of Ellen White.
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

Charles S Longacre waxing eloquent on the teachings of Ellen White.
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

The above citations are hardly exhaustive - they are simply representive of the many times the leadership of the SDA Church hammered this teaching into it's members.

If Scripure is explicit that there was ZERO chance of Christ failing and 100% chance of Christ completing His work of Salvation what are we to make of the SDA / Arian teaching that Christ was "mutable" and that it's VITAL that Christians understand that?

Does this adaptation of the primary element of Arianism factor into the Investigative Judgement or other unique Seventh-day Adventist beliefs?

The SDA Church TODAY appears to admit that the Catholic Church was RIGHT about the Trinity question yet still attempts to defend Arius & Ellen's "mutable Christ"? The question I have is WHY is a mutable Chist "VITAL"? Why is it VITAL that I believe that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation & had He done so that God would have smited Christ and seen to his eternal annihilation?

July 6, 2018

"As a member of the human family he was mortal but as A God he was the fountain of life to the world". Ellen White, Review & Herald Sept 4, 1990

"Remember that Christ risked ALL; tempted like as we are, he staked EVEN HIS OWN ETERNAL EXISTENCE upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption". Ellen White, GCB December 1, 1895.

Staked = "gamble or risk: Hazard; staked his week's pay on the horse races".

"For a period of time Christ was on probation. He took humanity on himself to STAND THE TEST & TRIAL which the first Adam failed to endure. HAD HE FAILED IN HIS TEST AND TRIAL HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISOBEDIENT to the voice of God and the world would have been lost". Ellen White, Christ glorified, ST May 10, 1899

To insure there is no misunderstanding here as to Jesus being gifted the power of deity we read below.

"He had infinite power ONLY because he was perfectly obedient to his Father's will". Ellen White, MS99, 1903 & Christian Education in SDA Schools September 1, 1903.

Speaking to the mutable Christ Doctrine of Arius we note that Ellen White taught that Jesus was "the angel of the Lord"- specifically Michael the archangel.

"He [Christ] was revealed to them as the angel of Jehova, the Captain of the Lord's Host, Michael the Archangel". Ellen White Page 761.

Ellen also classified Lucifer as an archangel.

"The fact he [Lucifer] was an archangel glorious and powerful enabled him to exert a mighty influence".... Ellen White ST, Sept 14, 1882

That Christ was NOT the angel of the Lord is easily established by reading Matthew 1,20

"But while he thought on these things, behold THE angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying; ....for that WHICH IS conceived in her, IS of the Holy Ghost".

Thus, because it was possible that Lucifer the archagel could sin and loose his salvation - it followed that it also must be possible that Michael the archangel could sin and loose his salvation.

The ancient Christian Creed [of Nicaea] didn't mince words.

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate; he suffered died and was buried On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the
Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen".

The post William Miller Adventists ( the JW's, Christadelphians, WWCOG 7th day & SDA's ) were very vocal against the Trinitarian portion of the Creed. James White, one of the most vocal against the Doctrine of the Trinity said this about Ellen's writings.

"We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies' of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views. And a hundred more, each holding different views, may come to the same conclusion. But their genuineness can never be tested in this way." James White RH June 13, 1871

Were these teachings in any way outcome determinative of the Investigative Judgement & I'll ask again WHY did the Adventist Church teach it was vital for Christians to believe that it was possible that Christ could have sinned and lost his salvation and had this happened that "God" would have smitten Christ and annihilated him root and stock?

July 6, 2018

On July 4, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Gustave said:

Quickly these remaining Adventists started to squabble over doctrines and began to fracture into separate groups and this is basic history of how the Christadelphians, WWCOG (7the day), the JW's and SDA's came to be.

You may wish to revisit Adventist history. The Adventists after 1844 split into four groups of which two are defunct. Only the Seventh-day Adventists and the Advent Christians remain. Jonas Wendell was a follower of William Miller and one whom I have seen no specific church attributed to. But he influenced Charles Taze Russell and Russell gradually morphed his religious views into the JWs. They have nothing to do with any of the four Adventist groups left from 1844. WWCOG did not originated until the 1930s. So, you cannot say they are of the "disappointment crowd." Other bizarre groups include the Shephards Rods under disfellowshipped SDA Vicgtor Houteff. Shephard's Rods eventually evolved into Branch Davidians. There seems to be a group of Branch Davidians not associated with WACO and I used to get their literature well after the burning of WACO. (FWIW, one of my aunts used to live in the Shephards Rods compound at WACO back in the days of Victor Houteff and I remember their disappointment when their groups did not immigrate in mass to Israel in the 1950s.)

July 7, 2018

19 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

You may wish to revisit Adventist history. The Adventists after 1844 split into four groups of which two are defunct. Only the Seventh-day Adventists and the Advent Christians remain. Jonas Wendell was a follower of William Miller and one whom I have seen no specific church attributed to. But he influenced Charles Taze Russell and Russell gradually morphed his religious views into the JWs. They have nothing to do with any of the four Adventist groups left from 1844. WWCOG did not originated until the 1930s. So, you cannot say they are of the "disappointment crowd." Other bizarre groups include the Shephards Rods under disfellowshipped SDA Vicgtor Houteff. Shephard's Rods eventually evolved into Branch Davidians. There seems to be a group of Branch Davidians not associated with WACO and I used to get their literature well after the burning of WACO. (FWIW, one of my aunts used to live in the Shephards Rods compound at WACO back in the days of Victor Houteff and I remember their disappointment when their groups did not immigrate in mass to Israel in the 1950s.)

Photodude,

Are you saying that George Storrs & Sam Snow ( AKA Incarnation of Elijah ) didn't approach William Miller within the 7th Month Movement with their schema of "The Midnight Cry"?

Are you saying that the following quote by William Miller is speaking of someone other than who is attributed to being the Patriarch of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Storrs mentored Charles Taz Russell did he not?

"Dear Bro. Himes, I see a glory in the seventh month movement which I never saw before. Thank the Lord, O my soul. Let Brother Snow, Brother Storrs and others be blessed for their instrumentality in opening my eyes. I am almost home, Glory! Glory! Glory!!! I see that the time is correct".

Gilberyt Cranmer LEFT the Methodist Church ( because he rejected the Trinity ) and became part of the Christian Connection Church ( rabid anti-Trinitarian ). Gilbert REJECTED Ellen White and separated himself ( and those who agreed with him ) from James and Ellen White.

Glad you were at least interested enough to try and find fault with the history of what I wrote though.

So, why do you think the Adventists believed it was "VITAL" that Christians understand that Christ might have sinned and that had he sinned God would have butchered him out?

July 7, 2018

This may help illustrate it better.

July 8, 2018

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 4:27 PM, B/W Photodude said:

You may wish to revisit Adventist history. The Adventists after 1844 split into four groups of which two are defunct. Only the Seventh-day Adventists and the Advent Christians remain. Jonas Wendell was a follower of William Miller and one whom I have seen no specific church attributed to. But he influenced Charles Taze Russell and Russell gradually morphed his religious views into the JWs. They have nothing to do with any of the four Adventist groups left from 1844. WWCOG did not originated until the 1930s. So, you cannot say they are of the "disappointment crowd." Other bizarre groups include the Shephards Rods under disfellowshipped SDA Vicgtor Houteff. Shephard's Rods eventually evolved into Branch Davidians. There seems to be a group of Branch Davidians not associated with WACO and I used to get their literature well after the burning of WACO. (FWIW, one of my aunts used to live in the Shephards Rods compound at WACO back in the days of Victor Houteff and I remember their disappointment when their groups did not immigrate in mass to Israel in the 1950s.)

There is also the Lord Our Righteousness Church headed by Wayne Bent who claims to possess the "rod of Moses" which he educated young girls and other peoples wife's with. The leader claims to have mutated into "Michael" and uses Ellen White to tutor his flock.

National Geographic did a program about this group.

"Oh my Daddy"!

July 12, 2018

On 7/3/2018 at 11:16 PM, Gustave said:

"First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, 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". Synodal Letter [excerpt] Council of Nicea

What I believe:

He was NOT "from things that are not". He was begotten from God the Father. He said so. "I came forth from the Father."

We do not know WHEN He was begotten from the Father. It was before the creation of all things, because all things were created through the Son of God.

How could there be "a time when He was not"? TIME was created. The Son of God existed before time was created.

The Son of God incarnated to become a human being, with a nature like Abraham. With this nature, He was capable of both sin and obedience. His mission was to obey - perfectly, and by so doing, recover the dominion of earth, which Adam had lost through disobedience.

He BECAME a man. He took the nature of a CREATED human being. Created human beings are NOT "creatures". Creatures have no sentient will to do good or evil.

"God" is not a name. "God" is a type of being. Like human, or mammal, or ape, or lizard. "God" means "divine being". If I - a human - beget an offspring, that offspring will also be human. When a divine being, begets an offspring, that offspring will be a "divine being". Hence the "Son of God" was a divine being.

When "the Son of God" incarnated to become a human being (with the help of His Father), He "emptied Himself" of divine powers, of His divine nature. He assumed the nature of Abraham - mortal, and capable of obedience or disobedience.

My beliefs come from my study of Scripture, not from any church doctrine - including the Catholic Church. Why should I believe doctrine settled by the Roman Emperor Constantine - who murdered his wife and two sons, who continued to worship Mithra until just before His death, who was not baptized until His death bed? AND - He changed His mind about Arius. He brought Him back from exile, and restored him to favor.

There are several studies at my website, on the Trinity Question.

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/44a-Part 1 TR-Intro.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/44b-Part 2 TR-C&C.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/44d-Part 4 TR-2 Div Beings.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/47f-TR-Part5-Show Us the Father.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/46a-Through His Son.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/worthyofworship.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/12-The Mediator.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/44g-Part 7 TR-Diff Pass.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/47j-TR-Part8-Father and Son-NT Review.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/47m-HS-TheHolySpirit-ANTReview.htm

July 12, 2018

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Gustave; I noticed that you have made many attempts here on the forum to associate Adventists with certain beliefs and history, and yet, you continue to use mainly clipped out of context, and partial quotes to "explain" this matter to people. In some cases, you just quote partial sentences and then try to assert these as official Adventist history or doctrine. So far, while asking fair enough questions, your posts have not yet correctly stated Adventist history or beliefs. I believe one of the reasons is because in asking your questions and making your points, you rarely use scriptures to do it. It seems, partial statements with ellipses are adequate for your purposes here, but for many, they are more interested to see what scriptures say about our current beliefs, and also, what scriptures did Adventists use for some of these beliefs that YOU claim we had, or do have? If you do not know what scriptures early Adventists used to describe their doctrines on Christ, then how can you say you understand our past history and where God has led the Advent Movement? Usually, when people make comments consisting of partial quotes and personal opinions, it just confuses the issue even further. I do not really know where you are coming from at all so maybe you could explain the comment i have quoted better for us? IF you could prove by the scriptures, that we actually did have this as an official belief, and why that belief is wrong, then we would be getting somewhere. The Adventist Church does not use Ellen G White's writings to establish any doctrine.

The Synodal letter of Nicaea specifically calls out Arius' teaching that Christ could have sinned and lost his salvation is identical to Ellen White's teaching - I show this to you with quotes from Ellen and scores of SDA Pioneers and you purport I've ; "made many attempts on the forum to associate Adventists with certain beliefs and history" . Also claiming that I'm using out of context and partial quotes to explain this matter to people". That's not an honest assessment of the material I've posted & you know it.

The Creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople & the Apostles systematizes Scripture.

"He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried & the third day he rose again ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES...."

Christ HAD TO "rise again" otherwise it wouldn't have been "according to the Scriptures".

Matthew 16, 20: Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 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".

That is Jesus explicitly identifying Himself AS The Christ. Jesus did this many times.

John 1, 45: Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Jesus says, after His Resurrection, that before He died He told his Apostles that EVERYTHING written about Him HAD TO BE FULFILLED.

John 24, 44: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Now there are 3 Scriptures out of around 100 that I've found in the Bible that say IF Jesus would have sinned he WOULDN'T have been "The Christ" in the 1st place.

IF there is any concept easy to find in the Bible it's that God does not fail, EVER.

Jesus declared himself to be God Almighty when He said what He did to John's Disciples.

Luke 7,20: When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

The Jews who heard that would have been absolute in their understanding that Jesus was claiming to be God.

Isaiah 35,4: Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

Did you watch the Godhead Symposium that Gregory Matthews posted? Let me ask you directly - do you say those SDA's who gave the presentation reflect "current Adventist belief"? Or do you say they don't?

July 12, 2018

9 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

what book and page number is this found in please?

I believe that's George Knight's "Millennial Fever" book, page 203, 204.

George Knight is an SDA Scholar and Professor of Church History at Andrews Univ.

July 12, 2018

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Thanks Gustave. Now I have a better idea what you are saying. I am out of internet time for 2 days or so, but I have copied some of your posts and will start a separate topic on this and other questions that you have asked me. I am looking after a very ill loved one, so I am ON DUTY at home. I must say; it is so nice to have a home where I can truly love and be loved. Its just a really major blessing for me right now. I mention this at this point in this discussion; because, in verity, this is the kind of blessing all of our doctrines should do for us. It should rub off on both others, and ourselves: Rev 10:11-12 Ill be back asap

Good luck and best wishes - my Family just lost someone that we were doing our best to look after both in and out of the hospital.

July 13, 2018

On 7/11/2018 at 8:22 PM, The Wanderer said:

IDT that there is inherently something "wrong" with a doctrine, just because its "from a church," as that would not be fair to those who have also studied and found them to be true. Some "church doctrines" are quite Biblical, and would enrich anyone's walk with God. IMHO. I agree with your Constantine comment. Certainly his thinking is NOT embraced by Adventists, as much as some would like to try to insinuate.

And I would add that holding an extreme minority view, does not identify that view as "wrong". Jesus' disciples were in the extreme minority - in Judea, in the Roman Empire, in the world. But they were right.

July 13, 2018

On 7/11/2018 at 11:07 PM, Gustave said:

Now there are 3 Scriptures out of around 100 that I've found in the Bible that say IF Jesus would have sinned he WOULDN'T have been "The Christ" in the 1st place.

It is true that the prophecies pointed to a perfect offering. The Messiah would be perfectly obedient to God. Yes.

But saying that He would not sin, is not the same as saying that He could not sin.

It goes back to the argument about God's foreknowledge. If God sees the future, does He make the future. Does God manipulate the will of man, to make him do certain things? I do not believe that He does.

July 13, 2018

23 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

IMO its none of our business HOW God did or does some of this.

I disagree Wanderer. We - as created sentient beings, are invited to question our Creator. He even said, "Come now and let us reason together." I don't believe that He tires of our questions. Of course, some things are higher, and beyond our understanding, but I do believe it is reasonable to ask whether God manipulates human beings to bring about His will, or simply predicts how certain humans will act in the future.

When God predicts the wickedness of mankind at the end of the age, does that mean HE brought this about? No! Predicting human behavior, does not mean those humans COULD NOT have chosen other paths.

July 13, 2018

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It is true that the prophecies pointed to a perfect offering. The Messiah would be perfectly obedient to God. Yes.

But saying that He would not sin, is not the same as saying that He could not sin.

It goes back to the argument about God's foreknowledge. If God sees the future, does He make the future. Does God manipulate the will of man, to make him do certain things? I do not believe that He does.

Textbook Cognitive Dissonance.

A Messiah that sinned COULDN'T be the Messiah in the 1st place.

Arius taught Christ was initially a POTENTIAL Messiah in that He (Christ) could have sinned and fallen - because Christ didn't sin He became the Messiah - essentially "the little engine that could". This was the SDA Pioneer's, Ellen White's position & CURRENTLY is the position of the SDA Church.

The Messiah WOULD BE perfectly obedient to the Father - God KNOWS this - which is why all those Scriptures say that success would be ABSOLUTE. It was never a matter IF the Messiah would come and not screw it all up - it was only a matter of WHEN the Messiah would come "and save".

IF God were in a position whereas He had to meddle with things so that what He foresaw as happening would actually happen we're NOT talking about God are we.

July 13, 2018

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

If God sees the future, does He make the future.

Foreknowledge is different than predestination. I know that if I offer you bacon and eggs and champagne after Sunday Mass (If you come to Mass and receive Catholic Communion), you will refuse it (foreknowledge). You still have a free will to accept or refuse it.

July 13, 2018

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

When God predicts the wickedness of mankind at the end of the age, does that mean HE brought this about? No! Predicting human behavior, does not mean those humans COULD NOT have chosen other paths.

God is transcendent of time. He knows our future because He's been there. That doesn't mean He chooses our future; He just knows it cuz He's seen it.

July 14, 2018

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

God is transcendent of time. He knows our future because He's been there. That doesn't mean He chooses our future; He just knows it cuz He's seen it.

Spot on JoeMo!

I think this pairs nicely with what you just said.

Isaiah 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

Sign In

Mutable Christ Doctrine the foundation of SDA Theology?

Recommended Posts

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

B/W Photodude

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

8thdaypriest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

8thdaypriest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

8thdaypriest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

8thdaypriest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JoeMo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JoeMo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gustave

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity