The God man - the nature of Christ as understood through the Bible writings.

[Gustave]

15 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I don't do "defenses."  I prefer to share my thoughts and experiences, and to compare and contrast. The things you are talking about are all "what ifs" which the Bible does not deal with.

You seriously need to re-read Luke 24, 44 and realize that saying that Christ "could have sinned" & "could have fallen" IS THE WHAT IF

You will not find one Scripture that even remotely implies "he could have sinned" and "he could have fallen" .

What you will find in the Bible is ALL Scripture which addresses that states absolutely that He COULDN'T fail. 

[Gustave]

13 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I am saying that the biggest mistake you have made, once again, is to try to say what our official beliefs are, while quoting all kinds of sources and opinions not generated by anything we officially believe or teach. The Adventist Church does not make this point to be very important, or as an official belief statement. It was not wrong last time I checked to venture an opinion on what Jesus could have done. The only thing you have convinced me of here is that I cannot reason with you about our beliefs at all. You seem to have your mind made up. Its not even important or Biblical to go on and on about it like this, and say so many what ifs that no one has any way of knowing.

Here is the official belief statement on the nature of Christ:

further commentary on this from the 28 beliefs book:
 

Ill be happy to discuss anything in our official statement with you. I am not into your apologetic snares and religious riddles.

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/church/the-gift-of-prophecy/

That above link is the Official SDA Church website, right? 

Fundamental Belief #18 says:

"The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Num. 12:6; 2 Chron. 20:20; Amos 3:7; Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 22:8, 9.)"

Ellen White wrote EXTENSIVELY on the possibility of Christ sinning and loosing His Salvation - she went as far as to describe what would have happened HAD Christ sinned and lost His Salvation. These are her writings Wanderer - the SDA Fundamental belief says "her writings" and that would appear to mean it's not qualified which of her writings speak with prophetic authority - it's ALL her writings. 

I've asked that Ellen's teaching in this area be tested by the Bible and I've offered my Scriptures for consideration. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, we all acknowledge that Ellen G. White and other early leaders in what became the SDA denomination held to some degree Arian beliefs that were in error.   The degree to which specific individuals may have held such is in debate.  But, it cannot be stated that they did not hold such beliefs to some extent.  That includes Ellen White.

You tell us that we believe that EGWs writings speak with prophetic authority.  O.K.  Let us look at what Ellen White said about her writings.  [NOTE:  In citing her, I will give the reference in the standard SDA form and to a source that is most commonly available to people today.]

Dear Brother . . . In your letter you speak of your early training to have implicit faith in the testimonies and say, "I was led to conclude and most firmly belief that every word that you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under and  all circumstances, was as inspired as the Ten Commandments."  My brother, you have studied my writings diligently, and you have never found that I have made any such claims, neither  will you find that the pioneers in our cause ever made such claims.  1SM24

[and]

Although I am . . . dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views. . . the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, . . .  1SM37.

[and]

In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible.  His word is true and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning.  1SM37

[and]

The information given . . . was given, not as a revelation from the Lord, but simply as a human opinion.  1SM38

[and]

But there are times when common things, must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers.   Such words, such information, are not given  under the special inspiration of the spirit of God.  Questions are asked at times  that are not upon religious subjects at all, and these questions must be answered.  1SM39

[and[

Regarding the testimonies, . . . time and place must be considered.  1SM57

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, you are correct that Ellen White taught that potentially Christ could have sinned in his human nature.  But, this was not a teaching that in his God nature, God could have sinned:

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. . . . But our Saviour  took humanity, with all its liabilities.  He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation.   DA117 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

While all acknowledge that Ellen White in her early years (She was a 16 year old teen in the beginning.) was not a Trinitarian.  Her move to a different understanding took place over time.  The following is an  example of this move:

  In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.  1SM296 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

in an earlier post, Gustave, accurately quoted Fundamental Belief # 18.  [NOTE:  Previously that had been # 17, and in addition, Gustave highlighted the section that he wanted to emphasize.]

I would call attention to the last part of that statement which clearly placed the writings of Ellen White under the authority of the Bible.  [See the quote below.]  IOW, if the Bible contradicts something that EGW wrote,   SDA belief states that the Bible is the authority.  

 

They also make clear  that the Bible is the standard  by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

So, Gustave.  You are absolutely correct in stating that the writings of Ellen White, should be tested by the Bible to see of  the Bible contradicts what she wrote.   If the Bible contradicts something that Ellen White wrote, the Bible is to be the authority.  This is the official teaching of the SDA Church and it is also the teaching of Ellen White.

To expand:  What if Ellen White taught something that is not taught in the Bible?  The Bible did not contradict what Ellen White wrote, but, neither did the Bible teach that.

Very simple, in such a case, such should not be made a requirement to become and continue as a SDA member.  In addition, such should be an individual decision of each person as to whether or not  to accept what EGW wrote.

The Bible is the standard.  The Bible is the authority, to include authority over the writings of Ellen White.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Let me suggest another illustration:

The Roman Catholic Church today in the United States is probably not exactly the same was it was in the 1800s.  The Roman Catholic Church in Europe in time of Martin Luther is probably not exactly the same as it is in the U.S. today.  By which standard should we, in the U.S., judge the Roman Catholic Church today?

The Seventh-day Adventist Church in the United States today, is not exactly the same as it was in 1874.  It has changed, whether one believes for the better or for the worse.  By what standard should it be judged today?

 

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, you are correct that Ellen White taught that potentially Christ could have sinned in his human nature.  But, this was not a teaching that in his God nature, God could have sinned:

 

 

 

She believed the God nature had become "blended" ( mixed or confused )with the Human nature. 

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Below comes from the book by Ellen White called "LIFT HIM UP" 76.

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus".

I obviously need to figure out how these quote boxes work! I clearly don't LOL.

[Gustave:  I wanted to see if I could help you out by correcting the quoting error.  I do not understand exactly what you wanted to say (quote), so I have left it alone and not done anything, other than to make this statement--GM.]

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

While all acknowledge that Ellen White in her early years (She was a 16 year old teen in the beginning.) was not a Trinitarian.  Her move to a different understanding took place over time.  The following is an  example of this move:

 

 

 

If Ellen said, in speaking of Christ, that "in him was life original, unborrowed, underived"....

...With the caveat / qualifier that the power wasn't native, it was on loan: 

Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4
He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will

Ellen White, Seventh Day Adventist Bible commentary.
Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost while He stood faithful and true to His loyalty.

How does this factor into things? 

[Gregory Matthews]

The following quote contain your reference to what she  wrote in Lift Him Up.

*  A major issue here relates to what she meant by the term "mysteriously blended."  She goes on to comment on a human nature that died and a divine nature for which it would have been impossible to have died.

*  This indicates to me that she was more orthodox in her thinking that you have surmised from her use of the word  "blended."  The bottom line is that I do not think she advocated a confusion of the divine and the human natures of Christ.

*  She is clearly stating that this nature would not be fully understood in this life and only later in eternity.  So, I can not believe that EGW was writing as you understand her.

*  However,  if I were to assume that you were correct, I would simply respond that no informed Adventist today will argue that EGW, in her earlier years was correct in her understanding of the nature of Christ in the incarnation. She was not.  She, to some extent was in error.

 

Quote

Two Natures Blended in One, March 3

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren. Hebrews 2:16, 17. { LHU 76.1} 
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood. { LHU 76.2} 
This is a great mystery, a mystery that will not be fully, completely understood in all its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take place. Then the power and greatness and efficacy of the gift of God to man will be understood. But the enemy is determined that this gift shall be so mystified that it will become as nothingness ( The S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, vol. 5, 1113). { LHU 76.3}

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As to your other references to    statements of hers, I will have to spend a bit more time is attempting to locate them than I have given at the moment.

I do find the following statement from the 1980 edition of 5SDABC1113 to be of interest:

  Humanity died:  divinity did not die.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

She believed the God nature had become "blended" ( mixed or confused )with the Human nature. 

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus".

I obviously need to figure out how these quote boxes work! I clearly don't LOL.

[Gustave:  I wanted to see if I could help you out by correcting the quoting error.  I do not understand exactly what you wanted to say (quote), so I have left it alone and not done anything, other than to make this statement--GM.]

I meant for the box to indicate that the quote was from Ellen White and that she said that instead of there being two natures that were united in Jesus she said that the two natures were blended into ONE nature.

Blended = “to combine or mix different substances so that the constituent parts are indistinguishable from one another”.

ill post more on the ramifications on this when I have time and access to my pc - I’m on a cell phone now and that just doesn’t quite get the job done.

[Gregory Matthews]

In my previous post, I suggested that her use of the term "blended" might not mean exactly what you and I might think of it today.  So, your understanding  might be worthy of consideration, yet it might not be accurate.

I clearly indicated that EGW believed that there was a human nature that died and a divine nature that did not/could not die.  I will suggest that this is a clear statement that EGW did not see a blended, one nature in Christ as a mixture of divine and human into one nature.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The following quote contain your reference to what she  wrote in Lift Him Up.

*  A major issue here relates to what she meant by the term "mysteriously blended."  She goes on to comment on a human nature that died and a divine nature for which it would have been impossible to have died.

*  This indicates to me that she was more orthodox in her thinking that you have surmised from her use of the word  "blended."  The bottom line is that I do not think she advocated a confusion of the divine and the human natures of Christ.

*  She is clearly stating that this nature would not be fully understood in this life and only later in eternity.  So, I can not believe that EGW was writing as you understand her.

*  However,  if I were to assume that you were correct, I would simply respond that no informed Adventist today will argue that EGW, in her earlier years was correct in her understanding of the nature of Christ in the incarnation. She was not.  She, to some extent was in error.

 

 

 

I initially thought of this ( that she was more Orthodox than I thought ) but found she had wrote other things that would cause one to question that.

"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

"Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss" Ellen White Desire of Ages

Ellen is saying that Jesus ( prior to the Incarnation ) LEFT HEAVEN ( I agree with this ) and in so doing "RISKED' or "STAKED" His FUTURE or eternal existence on the outcome of the conflict ( I don't agree with this ). Thus, when Christ died on the Cross Divinity would not die because that would be impossible. However, Ellen is equally as clear that IF Christ had sinned His Divinity would have been revoked because Divinity was only Christ's AS LONG AS or PROVIDED THAT "He remained loyal to His Loyalty" & "was perfectly obedient to His Father".

Once that distinction is made clear Ellen's statement appears ( and I could be wrong here ) to be in perfect alignment with:

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." Review & Herald November 14, 1854

If it can be said that Jesus was in heaven and risked his FUTURE eternal existence by coming to earth than the Divinity Christ possessed prior to leaving heaven wasn't by Nature His own OR the Divine Nature became contaminated with human nature & was mixed or confused with it and thus a fraction of the Godhead would be eternally lost?

i.e. "Christ's humanity COULD NOT BE SEPARATED from His Divinity" Ellen White, Signs of the Times 14 April 1898, Christ and the Law

Therefore, if Christ succeeded in His mission Divinity would not die because it would be impossible BUT IF CHRIST SINNED then heaven itself would suffer the eternal loss of a fraction of God. Either way this can only work IF God was three Beings with each Being only possessing /  accounting for 1/3 plus of the total Divinity.

I'm not shooting from the hip here, I've really thought about these things.

[JoeMo]

On 8/18/2018 at 6:23 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

all the stories in the Apocryphal books about Jesus performing miracles as a child.   How would Jesus have controlled that power - as a young child??? 

These stories are apocryphal. Maybe true, maybe not.  The only thing Biblical is that Jesus was aware of who He was by age 12 when He was preaching in the Temple.

On 8/18/2018 at 6:23 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

He was tempted more powerfully than we are tempted - but the temptations were of the same "kind".   He was tempted to do those things which were against His Father's will

Not all His temptations were the same "kind".  Satan would be stupid to tempt us to use our divine powers for ourselves; or by our own free will.  We don't have divine power.  Jesus did; hence a different level of temptation.  satan couldn't tempt us to jump down off the cross to save ourselves, because we don't have the ability to do so. Jesus did.  We don't have the ability to call down a legion of angels to protect us when we are under attack.  Jesus did.

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

You will not find one Scripture that even remotely implies "he could have sinned" and "he could have fallen" .

I think you are mistaken.

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.  Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." (Heb. 2:17-18)

If Jesus could not have possibly sinned, I infer that He would be immune from temptation.  This verse says explicitly that Jesus was subject to temptation; and suffered because of it.

[JoeMo]

Gustave,

Either I don't appreciate how strict and detailed we Adventists are to some of the stuff our pioneers wrote, or you don't appreciate how much "wiggle room" Adventism allows (at least my perception of it).  In my experience, I can believe a lot of stuff that "good" SDA's aren't "supposed" to believe; and I don't have to believe everything that SDA's are "supposed to "believe"; and still be a member in good standing; as long as I don't cause major disruptions.  It's kinda like Catholics are supposed to be excommunicated if they practice birth control or have a abortion; but that rarely (if ever) happens.  Look at some of the stuff I've posted on here - it flies in the face of conventional Adventism!  On the other hand, there are some SDA's on here who agree with me or are at least open-minded enough to consider what I post.  I haven't been disfellowshipped or kicked off this Adventist forum yet.

[Gustave]

10 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I think you are mistaken.

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.  Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." (Heb. 2:17-18)

If Jesus could not have possibly sinned, I infer that He would be immune from temptation.  This verse says explicitly that Jesus was subject to temptation; and suffered because of it.

Jesus WAS tempted, "by" or "of" the Devil exactly like Scripture says He was. Jesus was NOT tempted within Himself because Satan didn't have anything in Him, according to Jesus.

See: John 14, 30 ( Satan had nothing in Christ ).

See: James 1, 13 ( a man can be tempted BUT ISN'T tempted unless he is drawn by his own lust / evil desire ).

A person or situation can solicit you ( offer a temptation ) - You indeed were tempted "by so and so"  HOWEVER, you yourself are NOT tempted UNLESS it's something you have a desire for. If you like sex outside of marriage Satan has that "in you", if it's stealing, lying, fantasizing about other people's property, whatever, Satan has that in you. The Prophets said the Christ would be killed for the People as a Sacrifice and that He would be pure and guilty of no sin when He would be killed. Jesus confirms this when Satan came to test him with temptations - Jesus told His Disciples not to worry because Satan had NOTHING in Him.

Therefore, Jesus was tempted by Satan YET not tempted within Himself because Jesus didn't yearn or desire to commit any sins .

[Gustave]

10 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Gustave,

Either I don't appreciate how strict and detailed we Adventists are to some of the stuff our pioneers wrote, or you don't appreciate how much "wiggle room" Adventism allows (at least my perception of it).  In my experience, I can believe a lot of stuff that "good" SDA's aren't "supposed" to believe; and I don't have to believe everything that SDA's are "supposed to "believe"; and still be a member in good standing; as long as I don't cause major disruptions.  It's kinda like Catholics are supposed to be excommunicated if they practice birth control or have a abortion; but that rarely (if ever) happens.  Look at some of the stuff I've posted on here - it flies in the face of conventional Adventism!  On the other hand, there are some SDA's on here who agree with me or are at least open-minded enough to consider what I post.  I haven't been disfellowshipped or kicked off this Adventist forum yet.

I'm still trying to get my head around that - my difficulty is that there isn't a codebook or rulebook that defines what SDA's believe.

[Gregory Matthews]

 

I read the shortened quote below several hours ago.  I have been stunned.  Gustave, is more an Adventist, than I have understood.  I shall explain here.  First, let me give some background.

It is common when two people/groups are discussing an issue for each to be talking over the heads of the other  people.  Neither group may understand the other side.  Each may be using language and phrases which are not well  understood by the other side.  I have seen Gustave doing that.   I have also believed that we have often done the same, with the result that Gustave has not always understood us. I include in this his  reading of SDA published works just as we may have not understood well what we have read in Catholic works.

There are two groups that exist in Adventism to the present day, as related to this issue.  It should be noted that the SDA denomination has not taken a position as to which group is correct.   Frankly, I do believe that I can state which is a majority group and to what extent the other group exists.  I will also say that as I explain these two groups, Gustave may very well come back with a statement that I have either confused the situation more or that regardless, I have increased his belief that the SDA denomination, as it exists today, is not really orthodox.  

Not withstanding the above, in the interests of transparency and openness, I am responding in this manner.

One group in Adventism believes that in the incarnation, Christ took on the same nature as that which Adam had back in Eden.  The statement from Gustave that I have quoted below, clearly aligns with this group of people.  It is on this basis that I have said that Gustave is more Adventist than I had realized.  I am stunned by my failure to recognize this before now.

The second group in Adventism believes that in the incarnation, Christ took on the same nature as that which people had in the time of Christ.   This opens up for discussion the Catholic understanding of original sin.  I am not wanting to go off on that tangent.

It should be noted that for many Adventists, the correctness of the above is not thought to be critical to salvation.  Rather, it is thought that with either God in Christ could have effected the salvation of humanity.  I say that in acknowledging that, 
Gustave would probably disagree and tell us that in only the first position could God effect the salvation of humanity.

By the way Gustave, feel free to correct me.  I am not attempting to either set you up or to entrap you.  Correct me in any way that I have misrepresented you.  Also, feel free to respond to what I am saying.

I do not say that in every detail, the view that Gustave has been presenting her is  in accord with what I have presented in this post as a view held by some Adventists.   I do not think that  there is total agreement.   But, I do think that there is some. 

Both of these groups within Adventism do not believe that Ellen  White contradicts their position.  So, this is not the place for a brief as to what Ellen White taught on this subject.  The consensus is probably that it can not be demonstrated that she clearly held to either position.

I consider Gustave to be a brother in Christ who does not believe exactly as I believe.  I appreciate his conduct here to include his challenges to what he thinks we believe and  the discussion that then results.  I am pleased that as a result  of the post that I have briefly quoted here, it has given me additional insight into a shared common belief that we may have with him, even if it is not total agreement.

Quote

Jesus WAS tempted, "by" or "of" the Devil exactly like Scripture says He was. Jesus was NOT tempted within Himself because Satan didn't have anything in Him, according to Jesus. . . . Jesus was tempted by Satan YET not tempted within Himself because Jesus didn't yearn or desire to commit any sins .

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

I read the shortened quote below several hours ago.  I have been stunned.  Gustave, is more an Adventist, than I have understood.  I shall explain here.  First, let me give some background.

It is common when two people/groups are discussing an issue for each to be talking over the heads of the other  people.  Neither group may understand the other side.  Each may be using language and phrases which are not well  understood by the other side.  I have seen Gustave doing that.   I have also believed that we have often done the same, with the result that Gustave has not always understood us. I include in this his  reading of SDA published works just as we may have not understood well what we have read in Catholic works.

There are two groups that exist in Adventism to the present day, as related to this issue.  It should be noted that the SDA denomination has not taken a position as to which group is correct.   Frankly, I do believe that I can state which is a majority group and to what extent the other group exists.  I will also say that as I explain these two groups, Gustave may very well come back with a statement that I have either confused the situation more or that regardless, I have increased his belief that the SDA denomination, as it exists today, is not really orthodox.  

Not withstanding the above, in the interests of transparency and openness, I am responding in this manner.

One group in Adventism believes that in the incarnation, Christ took on the same nature as that which Adam had back in Eden.  The statement from Gustave that I have quoted below, clearly aligns with this group of people.  It is on this basis that I have said that Gustave is more Adventist than I had realized.  I am stunned by my failure to recognize this before now.

The second group in Adventism believes that in the incarnation, Christ took on the same nature as that which people had in the time of Christ.   This opens up for discussion the Catholic understanding of original sin.  I am not wanting to go off on that tangent.

It should be noted that for many Adventists, the correctness of the above is not thought to be critical to salvation.  Rather, it is thought that with either God in Christ could have effected the salvation of humanity.  I say that in acknowledging that, 
Gustave would probably disagree and tell us that in only the first position could God effect the salvation of humanity.

By the way Gustave, feel free to correct me.  I am not attempting to either set you up or to entrap you.  Correct me in any way that I have misrepresented you.  Also, feel free to respond to what I am saying.

I do not say that in every detail, the view that Gustave has been presenting her is  in accord with what I have presented in this post as a view held by some Adventists.   I do not think that  there is total agreement.   But, I do think that there is some. 

Both of these groups within Adventism do not believe that Ellen  White contradicts their position.  So, this is not the place for a brief as to what Ellen White taught on this subject.  The consensus is probably that it can not be demonstrated that she clearly held to either position.

I consider Gustave to be a brother in Christ who does not believe exactly as I believe.  I appreciate his conduct here to include his challenges to what he thinks we believe and  the discussion that then results.  I am pleased that as a result  of the post that I have briefly quoted here, it has given me additional insight into a shared common belief that we may have with him, even if it is not total agreement.

You're a likeable fellow Gregory! 

Original sin is rather straightforward.

Adam and Eve transgressed God's commandment and this "Original Sin" has been passed down through the act of procreation ever since.

"For behold I was conceived in iniquities and in sins did my mother conceive me". Psalm 50, 7

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned". Romans 5, 12

Jesus was not "conceived in iniquities" nor "in sins" did Mary conceive of Jesus. 

Luke 1, 35: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God".

The reason I focused on the temptation of Christ by the devil is because the primary pleading argument that Jesus could have sinned & could have fallen reasons that IF Christ couldn't be tempted why would Satan bother tempting Him,  & secondarily that if Christ couldn't really be tempted than it was all a farce and a mockery.  I've maintained that Jesus was tempted  not to see if He would buckle to temptation but TO SHOW that He wouldn't buckle under temptation.

Like the Gospels show that Jesus was born in the place the Old Testament Prophet said He would be born in - the Gospel also showed Jesus didn't sin because the Old Testament Prophets said He couldn't sin. Jesus being tempted was just another check mark off the running list of things that had to be checked off IF Jesus could legitimately be considered to be the Christ. 

I'd like to think that I don't split hairs hard enough to say that the SDA understanding of Original sin has to be like the CC's. One could simply say that because God said that HAD TO BE THE WAY IT WAS GOING TO BE the individual could just accept it. Evidently a group within Adventism affirm that Christ was born ( God incarnated ) in Original Sin? 

[Gustave]

9 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Gregory; I see many problems within your last post. The only part I agree with is that "Gustave is a brother in Christ;" however that is not really the point of this topic either. I do not see a single Bible text above that would support this quote which you claim "we may have in common" and I think that that idea lifted out of context and being made as a "potential" point of truth whereby other points can be subjugated to is simply wrong. It would be more right IF the idea of Jesus "not being tempted within Himself;" was reconciled with other statements that would definitely question it. Some of the topics here, similar to this one; it would seem we labor endlessly to fine-tune the definitions or doctrines thereof, we seem to run our fastest to also deny that any of this stuff is "essential to salvation." So why is anyone even going to all this trouble? IF its not "salvational," then what is? What ideas or doctrines about Jesus, as contained in The Bible, (and some would say also within SOP) The thing I like about Gustave's posts is that he is obviously serious about investigating not just what the Bible says, but what it means. In a similar vein; I would like to ask you, what do we HAVE to understand about Jesus and His tenure as "Incarnate?"

This might sound great at first to some who feel that we need to somehow "defend" Jesus, but I feel there is much more to it and that this idea, alone and apart from what the rest of Scripture tells us about Jesus, OUR GOD far out-weighs the merit of this one idea. We keep wanting to "explain" Jesus and say that we understand Him, when we dont.

Either Heb 4:15 and other texts are not true, or it challenges what you have stated.

Also, for those who insist on using Ellen White's writings in this topic, there is MUCH more to the story:

So, YES; He could have BUT He didn't:

 

Jesus WAS tempted His whole life like any boy, man would be tempted - the difference between Jesus and us is that Satan definitely has "things" in us that respond to temptation. I'm sure you have been offered to participate by someone to participate in a sin you had no interest in or that actually sickened you to even think about. It was this way  each time for Jesus. Unlike us Jesus didn't long or yearn to indulge sin - Satan REALLY didn't have anything "in Him" - just like the text says. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I think that there seems to be some agreement we and Gustave have been talking over each other's heads, at least in part.

To continue on:

Let us compare the two denominations a bit:  

The Catholic Church dates itself back for about 2,000 years.  The SDA denomination dates itself to about 155 years of age.

The council at Nicea, when theologians (and others) got together to discuss the nature of Christ occurred about 300 years into the age of the Catholic origin.  The SDA  denomination was not formed from (by) theologians.  At about 155 years of age, we are beginning to have theologians and historians. We are far less along in  our development than were the people at Nicea.  This is probably one of the reasons that   such a wide spread of belief exists within the SDA denomination today. It is probably one of the reasons that Gustave can complain as to why he can not discover a clear statement of belief.

Just by  way of interest:  As a result of this discussion with Gustave, I have learned something about Catholic belief.

We SDAs currently have a President who is clearly attempting to reduce the spectrum of SDA belief and to clarify in greater detail what SDAs believe.  In actual fact, he is attempting to return to what he believes was a more conservative time in our development.  To be clear, I can not say that he is attempting to  return to a more Arian focus on belief.  But, I will suggest that in other areas of doctrine, he is attempting to center on what he considers to be more in accord with the beliefs of our early pioneers.

In actual fact, in some areas of his focus, I believe that in the future, SDA historians will be able to say that he did more to bring  this denomination to a position 180 degrees different from what he wanted than any other person  could have done.  But, that is a matter for speculation and conjecture.

Both Gustave and I have made limited references to the Church Councils that took place many years ago.  As I recall, I listed seven (7) beginning with Nicea.  But, neither of us has said much about them.   In actual fact, they were often deeply divided on issues.  In some cases  they ended with the Eastern Church going off in one direction and the Western Church, which Gustave represents, going off in a different direction.  Personally, I do not consider that to be much different from the fact that the SDA denomination exists with a wider range of belief than many understand.  

From one perspective there are considerable differences within the overall Church within which the Roman Catholic Church exists.  Yes, in can be said that all within this group has fundamental agreement on core beliefs.  To be clear, I am including in the group both Eastern and Western branches of the Catholic faith as well as the Orthodox groups.  And, I could include other groups which would likely invite discussion.   But, the one major difference between these groups (there would be other minor differences) would likely be as to whether or not the Bishop of Rome was the head of  the Christian Church.

I understand that Gustave would likely point to some doctrinal issues and say that they are not minor.  I am simply attempting to make a point as to the reality of ranges of belief that exist within larger Christian groups.

Well enough for now.

 

 

 

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I see in your "quote" you have edited out the Bible texts that I was basing the quote upon.  I have agreed that "nothing was found in Him;" but it appears that we disagree on the nature of His temptation, likely due to differing views on The Nature Of Christ. We are surprisingly close on certain aspects, others, miles apart. To me, if Heb 4:15 says "He was tempted upon ALL POINTS just as we are;" then we also have to factor that into this equation. It doesnt really matter to me if you believe that God is in the stones at the park, I am simply trying to explain my current understanding. I will come back when I have more time and energy my friend. Appreciate ALL of your questions.

Hebrews 4, 15 places "tempted" in the context of the human body's weakness and frailty. 

Our High Priest (Jesus) experienced the feelings of what it was like to have a weak, frail, and sick body. In this way Jesus was JUST LIKE US. Hebrews 4, 15 would appear to me to be speaking of the trials Jesus went through when He was led ( NOT BY  HIMSELF ) but by God the Holy Spirit into the desert to be tempted "by" the devil himself. Imagine it, going without food that long, not getting much good sleep, getting bitten by bugs for week after week after week after week and when you are at nearly the point of death THAT is when the Lord of evil comes to mess with you. 

I'm  sure Hebrews 4, 15 isn't talking about Jesus being tempted within Himself so that He had to resist the urge to do sexual stuff to the cute Jewish girl that lived a few houses down from Him, to steal, to lie, to perform homosexual acts, murder and everything else that's sin. Put yourself in the place of a person afflicted with urges to conduct bestiality - what would give that person more faith and hope - that the Messiah also wanted to have sex with a camel and He was able to resist the temptation OR that Christ was purposely manifested to destroy the works of the devil. 

I guess my point is that a Medical Doctor does not need to contract HIV to be able to treat AIDS - Nor did Christ have to be in such a state whereas He lusted, yearned, etc. for whatever temptation He was offered. He was tempted absolutely by the person offering the temptation - He wasn't tempted within Himself - He wasn't DRAWN or PULLED in the direction of the temptation.