Jump to content
ClubAdventist is back!

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


8thdaypriest

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

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.

:)

 

 

 

I think you said that well for the most part. It's my understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Christians ( Greek Orthodox, Russian, etc. ) is that they readily agree that the Pope was always understood to have Primacy - then quickly add that the Primacy didn't include SUPREMACY. Of all the groups out there the Orthodox are to me the most difficult to debate with - their history goes back as long as ours. 

What is the chance that the SDA Church will eventually make a series of findings and say in the case of A, B, C, etc. that Ellen White was not speaking in the capacity of a prophet because she couldn't be because she contradicted the Scriptures? I think that would be reasonable - to claim Ellen's Charism was active in every article or book she wrote, there could be a place in a book where the Charism active then wasn't. 

What about that idea? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The key to your question is:  "What is the chance that the SDA Church will make a series of findings. . ."  The issue here is, what does it mean to officially make a finding.

In a strict sense, that could only happen by a vote at a meeting which is held every five (5) years and has a very large number of delegates, who are coming from every country in the  world that has SDA members in that country.   Those delegates would be primarily SDA clergy who are not congregational pastors.  It would have a small number of lay members.  Many of those clergy would come from places where debate as to SDA teachings and the role of Ellen White has not occurred to the extent that has happened in North America, Europe and some other places.  From this perspective, it is doubtful that such a series of findings would be voted in the lifetime of either you or I.  I will not speculate beyond our lifetimes.

In recent decades, and in my understanding of what is happening in the SDA Church, I will suggest that the following is taking place in North America, Europe and in some other places:

*  Increasingly SDAs are taking note of the multiple statements of EGW to the effect that she was not without error and that all, to include her writings were subject to the authority of the Bible.

*  As a side note to the above, what I have stated above, was generally the case during the time that EGW was alive. The viewpoint above was opposed following EGWs death.  In later times (perhaps the 1960s?)  the denomination began a swing back to what I have stated above.   That swing continues to this day.

*  Increasing understanding is due in part to the increasing knowledge of the amount of material published under the name of EGW, that was actually copied from other writers, to include people living during the time she was alive and people who were not alive during the time she was alive. NOTE: Extensive scholarship has been devoted to this as applied to the books The Great Controversy (GC) and The Desire of Ages (DA).  This has been acknowledged as related to GC for many years.   An understanding of DA has occurred since the 1980s.

*  An increasing willingness to acknowledge her role in the developing SDA denomination as primarily that of administrative guidance to include a belief that the administrative guidance she gave did come from God, in some manner.

So, my prediction is:  In the coming years SDA leaders and scholars will become more public in their proposal that EGW was not without doctrinal error and should not be considered to have authority over that Bible, along with increasing focus on the administrative guidance that she gave to this developing denomination.

But, this will be on an individual basis and not by official pronouncement by a 5-year meeting.

 

 

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Gustave:  Primacy vs. Supremacy.  You  are correct on that point.  I was not thinking that deeply and did not even think of it when I wrote.

 

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 12:44 PM, Gustave said:

My interest would be her reason that it "couldn't" start over at some point after it ends.

Not "couldn't" start over.  

I won't start over.  

REASON:   Everyone who is "saved" and given eternal life, will have endured THE PAIN that sin causes.   They will not even consider sinning again, because they KNOW that would take all of God's creation down another black hole of pain.  

The REASON that we now have to endure all this pain, is to inoculate us against sin - once given eternal life.  

The reason why the child does not touch the hot stove again, is because he got burned - the first time.  

But that leads directly into my belief that EVERY PERSON ultimately given eternal life - will have been tested, and will have suffered from the pain that sin causes, and will understand that cause and effect relationship.  It is the only way to ensure perfect obedience and harmony for eternity - short of God using the easy button (instantly changing our brains/minds).   I do NOT believe God will manipulate our minds.  If He was going to do that,  He should have done it in the first place and skipped all this suffering!  

Which leads directly into my belief that all children,  and all those who live and die in ignorance, (including those with intelligence disabilities) will be resurrected as "the rest of the dead" at the 8th millennium, to learn the ways of the LORD, to then be tested, and to choose whom they will serve.    

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2018 at 11:14 PM, Gustave said:

Someone or even a situation CAN TEMPT YOU 8thDayPriest however IF someone tempts you to do something that repulses you - you are NOT TEMPTED within yourself to do it.

I cannot be tempted to watch football.  lol

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2018 at 4:42 PM, JoeMo said:

If there was no possibility of Christ failing - if salvation was a "slam dunk", satan could very well be justified in crying "foul!"  It could have also resulted in heavenly beings who may have still been "on the fence" concerning the justice of God's rule to go to the dark side to protest God "rigging" the game.

The humanity of God's Son,  becomes of paramount importance in  winning back the DOMINION of earth (and of mankind).   I personally believe this is the primary reason that God's Son incarnated.   

Dominion over the earth and all creatures on the earth, was given to mankind in the person of Adam, upon condition of obedience towards the Creator.  

When Eve/Adam disobeyed,  God's protection of their dominion status was withdrawn.   God had to do this , or appear unjust.  

Satan tempted them for EXACTLY this purpose.   Without the special PROTECTION of God,  the humans would be subject to Satan and his evil ones.   The minds of evil angels are much stronger than human minds.   They can communicate mind to mind.   Human's cannot do that.   Satan took over the dominion that was given to Adam.  

How to get it back - FOR mankind.   

The original covenant - gave dominion TO mankind.   In order to win it back FOR humankind,  the Son of God became a perfectly obedient human - thus fulfilling the TERMS of the original covenant.   This is why - in the judgment of Daniel 7, we see dominion taken from Satan (acting through the little horn) , and given to the Son of Man, who then immediately shares His dominion with the human beings who serve Him. 

Christ is judge because dominion of earth and all humans on the earth - is given to Him. 

If the Son of God - in His incarnated state - had some great advantage, making it impossible for Him to sin - then certainly Satan would have cried loudly, that the game was rigged, and phony - that this guy - who looked just like humans - was  not really a human at all.   He was still more God than human.  

Christ could NOT have any powers (or proclivities towards temptation) that humans do not have.   If He had such powers , the contest was rigged.  

Christ overcame by the indwelling of His Father.   This is power that any human being may access.  

 

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 10:09 PM, The Wanderer said:

tempted like as we are

When I am tempted, I am presented with something I really want to do, that I know I shouldn't do.  

I love Coffee Nips.  (They are addicting.)   I know they are unhealthy (almost pure corn sugar syrup), bad for my teeth, bad for weight, bad for . . . .   But I REALLY like to eat them.  What to do?   I keep them OUT of my house!!   Same for mini-ice cream drumsticks.  

I am also tempted to skip my exercise - something I know I should do.   My body after all, is a temple for the Holy Spirit.  I'm supposed to take care of my health. 

Jonah was tempted NOT to do something that God wanted him to do.   He hid.  He objected.  In the end he went, but reluctantly.   And then he whined that it was useless to give a prophecy of doom, if it was going to happen anyway.  And he whined about the vine that died.   What a whiner.  I think whining is a sin.  

Jesus - like Jonah - was tempted NOT to do something that God had appointed Him to do - die by crucifixion, while at the same time being tortured in mind by unrestrained demons.     

In the Garden, Jesus sweat blood and begged to be excused from this horrible torture.  I personally believe He was more afraid of failing in His mission, than of the torture itself.  He was afraid He might sin, under the pain of it all.  God's response was to tell Him that He WOULD succeed.   Christ went forward into that horrible death, for one reason - He believed His Father - that He would succeed.   

The mind of Christ was tortured by powerful demons, WHILE His body was physically tortured.   No human martyr has ever been called upon to endure such a death.  

The temptations of Christ went as far beyond those we regular humans experience, as His spiritual gifts exceeded ours.  

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 10:55 PM, Gustave said:

Had Jesus been born from a Prostitute after she serviced a Roman soldier in your view THAT wouldn't have precluded Jesus from being the Christ?  Matthew 1, 22 is now not worth it's weight in fish wrap according to what you just said. 

Had Jesus been born in Greece next to the temple of Delphi in your view THAT wouldn't have precluded Jesus from being the Christ? Matthew 2, 23 is now not worth it's weight in fish wrap according to what you just said. 

I could continue on but each text that informed the Jews of what to watch out for pertaining to the Christ wouldn't be worth it's weight in fish wrap if something other than what was said had to happen ended up happing. This includes the Christ being sinless. 

I'm waiting for your defense. 

Gustave,  

I see what you are arguing.  I just don't believe your argument proves your premise.   

You argue that Christ COULD NOT sin because the prophecies said that He WOULD NOT sin.   

One has to do with the nature and the capacity of Jesus.  The other has to do with God's vision of the future.    Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.   

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 2:27 PM, Gustave said:

I went through the archives of the General Conference and collected each statement I could find from both Ellen White and other writers where they affirmed Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation and how this understanding was VITAL for Christians to understand. I did the same thing with this that I did with the Personality of God Doctrine. In compiling all of that material it became clear what they meant. You asked for me not to go into all of that so I've given you a few reasons from the Bible that show Christ couldn't have sinned. I have much more where the above Scriptures came from so please, if you want to dig deeper into this  don't hesitate to challenge my understanding. I appreciate the discussion

Please Gustave - NO Ellen White quotations, or references to those quotations in this thread.  This thread is for Bible only.  Thanks.

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 11:25 PM, Gustave said:

My point is that "GOD" is NOT CONDITIONAL. 

Job 42, 2: "no purpose of yours can be thwarted". 

We are told, if we can accept it, THAT Jesus was the express purpose of The Father.

Ephesians 1, 9

Where is conditionality in that? 

God's purpose (in sending His Son) was to save human beings.   OK.  God wanted to save all humans.   But God will NOT save all human beings.  Why?  Because God wants real, freely given love.   God will "save" all those He can win, but that winning cannot be done through His divine power alone.   The humans must consent.  

God is all powerful.  That which He can accomplish by His power WILL be done.  

There are some things which God CANNOT accomplish by His power.     We CAN refuse.  And should we refuse, then God - even for all His power - cannot "save" us, because He has limited His own power, to give us FREE WILL.  He can provide an invitation, and assistance, but He will not overwhelm our minds to compel the choice.  

Once again - we have "will not" vs "cannot".    God CAN overwhelm to compel salvation, but He WILL not.  

If God were to overwhelm our minds to save all of us,  that salvation would not be real.    It would be staged - rigged - faked.   It was the same for Christ's victory over temptation.

Real salvation requires that God convince us that He is good, and right, and just -  worthy of obedience and worship.   

 

 

 

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2018 at 2:48 PM, Gustave said:

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

I respectfully disagree.  If Jesus was born with a broken human nature, He "suffered" in temptation, just like the verse in Hebrews states.  He just never succumbed.

On 8/20/2018 at 2:51 PM, Gustave said:

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.

LOL!  If you ever find one, let me know.

Seriously, that's what I mean about SDA's having considerable "wiggle room" (i.e., freedom) in what they must or must not believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,  

I see what you are arguing.  I just don't believe your argument proves your premise.   

You argue that Christ COULD NOT sin because the prophecies said that He WOULD NOT sin.   

One has to do with the nature and the capacity of Jesus.  The other has to do with God's vision of the future.    Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.   

The hypothetical of Christ sinning would invalidate what God knew and told the prophets  would happen.

The outcome God witnessed  Was transmitted to Isaiah, Daniel, Joeseph and Mary, Jesus, Simeon, etc.

Claiming Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation is like claiming it was possible that God could have failed to deliver the flood after He instructed Noah to build the Boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

Claiming Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation is like claiming it was possible that God could have failed to deliver the flood after He instructed Noah to build the Boat.

No.  One is about God's power (to "deliver the flood"), the other is about the Son of God having FREE WILL to choose.  

Two different things

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Please Gustave - NO Ellen White quotations, or references to those quotations in this thread.  This thread is for Bible only.  Thanks.

I can accommodate that request. This says that whereas God Himself is concerned what He said he will do is accomplished.

Isaiah 55, 11: For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, SO SHALL MY WORD BE THAT GOES FORTH FROM MY MOUTH; IT SHALL NOT RETURN TO ME EMPTY, BUT IT SHALL ACCOMPLISH THAT WHICH I PURPOSE AND PROSPER IN THE THING FOR WHICH I SENT IT. 

Scripture identifies Jesus as "The Word".

John 1, 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made, IN HIM WAS LIFE, AND WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN."

Notice that the Father is IN CHRIST, just as Christ is IN the Father. There was never a time when the Father wasn't with the Son in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. The Father ( who is in Christ is 'DOING HIS WORKS')

John 14, 9: "Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father, how can you say, 'show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I AM IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IN ME? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; BUT THE FATHER WHO DWELLS IN ME DOES HIS WORKS. BELIEVE ME THAT I AM IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IN ME; OR ELSE BELIEVE ME FOR TH SAKE OF THE WORKS THEMSELVES." 

We are told that Christ Jesus WAS the "eternal" purpose of God. Notice that Christ is a "title" and Jesus a name of a Person - the title here comes BEFORE the name. 

Ephesians 3, 10: "This was according to the ETERNAL PORPOSE WHICH HE HAS REALIZED in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in Him."

Below we see it again, Jesus didn't BECOME the Christ, Jesus WAS ALREADY The Christ before the world began. 

2 Timothy 1, 9: "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own PURPOSE AND GRACE, which WAS GIVEN US IN CHRIST JESUS BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN". 

Consider the way key scriptures read with the ODD rubric of Jesus sinning and loosing added ( I will bold this brown ). 

Matthew 1, 21: Thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins IF HE DOESN'T SIN AND LOOSE HIS OWN SALVATION.

Luke 2, 29: Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, IF HE DOESN'T SIN AND LOOSE HIS OWN SALVATION.

Daniel 2, 44: And in the days of these kings shall THE GOD OF HEAVEN set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, provided He doesn't sin and LOOSE HIS OWN SALVATION

Matthew 16, 21: From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many thing from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be kill, and on the third day be raised AS LONG AS HE DIDN'T SIN AND LOOSE HIS SALVATION.

John 14, 8: Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you [IF I DON'T SIN AND LOOSE MY OWN SALVATION]. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe [ if I don't sin ]. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me [ that I know of so I think I'll be ok ].

This same process could be repeated over a 100 times in the Bible and each time the assurance was given that God would for sure save us we could add the CAVEAT to what Scripture says to make sure the reader understood that despite what God said was going to happen we could introduce the hypothetical that it MIGHT NOT HAVE HAPPEND THAT WAY after all. 

I am thankful that there is a significant group of Seventh-day Adventists who reject the idea that Jesus "could have sinned" and "could have fallen" I was unclear on this before so this post is directed at those Adventists that believe despite Scripture saying He ( a specific Person - a one and only holy Thing ) couldn't sin ( because He wouldn't ) that it was possible that He could have sinned. I'm still waiting on a Biblical answer for that. 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

No.  One is about God's power (to "deliver the flood"), the other is about the Son of God having FREE WILL to choose.  

Two different things

Isaiah said it would be "God Himself" coming to save us. 

Jesus said that God was in Him "doing His works".

Salvation was a work planed and executed  by "God" - just like the flood was a work planed and executed by "God". 

You've yet to provide a Biblical mechanism that Christ had free will to do things other than "always please the Father". 

I know Ellen White wrote extensively on this concept as Arius did before her so can we please keep Ellen and Arius out of this and just stick with the Bible and if there is a place in it that allows for God to not be God? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I respectfully disagree.  If Jesus was born with a broken human nature, He "suffered" in temptation, just like the verse in Hebrews states.  He just never succumbed.

LOL!  If you ever find one, let me know.

Seriously, that's what I mean about SDA's having considerable "wiggle room" (i.e., freedom) in what they must or must not believe.

We might be waiting for a while for an official book. 

Now, the Hebrews Scripture is speaking of Bodily infirmities like getting exhausted, sick, starving from lack of food, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:  Primacy vs. Supremacy.  You  are correct on that point.  I was not thinking that deeply and did not even think of it when I wrote.

 

Yes, the Orthodox readily admit the Pope was there all along and that he had primacy, they claimed when he added to the Creed without the Council he elevated himself to a position of supremacy which the Orthodox claim was alien. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

YOU are the one who keeps quoting her even when we say that we would prefer not to here.

Other than Arius and Ellen White where in Scripture do you find justification for believing Christ could have sinned and lost his salvation? I believe I've addressed each text that folks have used to support it and I don't think anyone has challenged my parsing of those Scriptures. 

We can't blame it on a difference of belief or rejection of Original Sin because I'm not claiming that as the reason - I'm saying that God said how it was going to end up and also claiming that any hypothetical which would prevent the outcome God promised is obviously an impossible possibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gustave said:

You've yet to provide a Biblical mechanism that Christ had free will to do things other than "always please the Father". 

"Yet not what I will, but what You will" (Mat 26:39).  

Two separate wills.   

Christ's had FREE WILL, and could have resisted the indwelling - and thus His Father's spirit.   

You seem to be saying that the Father dwelling in Christ, made it impossible for Jesus to exercise His own will, or to resist the will of God.   

He consented to do it His Father's way.   His consent was freely given - not coerced.  

8thdaypriest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

"Yet not what I will, but what You will" (Mat 26:39).  

Two separate wills.   

Christ's had FREE WILL, and could have resisted the indwelling - and thus His Father's spirit.   

You seem to be saying that the Father dwelling in Christ, made it impossible for Jesus to exercise His own will, or to resist the will of God.   

He consented to do it His Father's way.   His consent was freely given - not coerced.  

Christ verbally affirming on earth what He is said to have affirmed in eternity. 

Philippines 2, 4: "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men".

i.e. 

John 4, 34: "Jesus saith unto them, my meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work". 

John 6, 38: "For I came down from heaven NOT to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me". 

Christ ALWAYS, did the will of the Father, that's why He came to earth & as Philippines says He didn't use as an excuse that He was as much God as the Father was God to not do the will of the Father. We, as Christians are called to have the same mind in us. So, Christ had his own will but eternally always did those things that pleased the Father. This is a reason Trinitarians call Jesus the Eternal Son, He always (eternally) did the Will of His Father. 

To be clear I'm saying that a hypothetical situation which invalidates what God said was going to happen long prior to it happening is suggesting an impossible possibility. Your chance of being eaten by a Great White Shark while standing in the middle of a desert dying of thirst is zero. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one Gustave.

 I understand.

thanks for giving it a good go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gustave,

In your quote of Phillipians above, you left out the part"

"Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!"
 (Phil. 2:6-8)

He humbled HIMSELF - no one else humbled Him.  He CHOSE to be obedient; which I infer means He could have chosen to NOT obey.  I'm not trying to hold or defend the SDA line here; it just makes sense if Redemption is going to be declared valid and complete.  I will submit that Jesus may not have had the same inclination to sin as we do; but neither did Adam; and he sinned.  It makes sense to me that if Jesus is indeed the second Adam, that He could choose to sin as well.  I believed this way before I became an Adventist (e.g., while I was still a Catholic).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Gustave,

In your quote of Phillipians above, you left out the part"

"Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!"
 (Phil. 2:6-8)

He humbled HIMSELF - no one else humbled Him.  He CHOSE to be obedient; which I infer means He could have chosen to NOT obey.  I'm not trying to hold or defend the SDA line here; it just makes sense if Redemption is going to be declared valid and complete.  I will submit that Jesus may not have had the same inclination to sin as we do; but neither did Adam; and he sinned.  It makes sense to me that if Jesus is indeed the second Adam, that He could choose to sin as well.  I believed this way before I became an Adventist (e.g., while I was still a Catholic).

Christ always had that mind in Him - it was an eternal mindset - He is the eternal Son. This seem to be a very odd way to look at it, it's like saying God the Father CHOSE to be obedient to Divine Law but He could have flubbed up. 

Jesus is the second Adam in that through Jesus all have life opposed to Adam who transmitted Original Sin and death to all. Think about it for a minute, the 1st Adam got married and had many Children, for Christ to be a valid 2nd Adam do you believe He should have done that? 

Scripture & theology can at times complicated enough without claiming that what God said was going to happen could have not happened

You may have believed as a Catholic all sorts of things - but can you honestly say that you devoted as much time in study or knowing what the Catholic Church taught on X,Y & Z as you devoted in the study of the Adventism - which has such a big tent spectrum of belief that members can hold beliefs apart from and exclusive from other member in the same Church? 

If I could ask you, when you joined the SDA Church, were you required to agree that Ellen White was a prophet? Or, as others have said here in the forum are you allowed to say you reject the notion that Ellen White was a prophet  and still be able to join? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...