SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Gregory Matthews]

Commenting on SDA education and my understanding of the Trinity:

*   When I was young, I thought that Trinity could be compared to an egg which had yolk, white and shell.  I knew nothing about Arianism and did not understand that my thinking of the Trinity as an egg was a false comparison.

*  As my understanding develop I compared the Trinity to a rope that consisted of three (3) strands.  This comparison lacks the Arian elements that my egg had and  was a much better comparison.

*  In my college education, I was taught the standard definition of the Trinity that is believed by Christians today.  This also was true for my Seminary education.

*  However, in all of the above, references to Arianism were superficial in a sense and not in depth as it was considered better to teach the truth than to specialize in what was false.  

 

I am quote willing to admit that early leaders in the developing SDA denomination had some Arian beliefs.  For some it may not have been full-fledged Arian beliefs, but may have been semi-Arianism.  For some it may have been a rejection of a false understanding of what the teaching of Trinity actually was.  So, I do not believe that all may be put in the exact same box.  But, the details of this may be a subject of debate among scholars.

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/18/2019 at 9:02 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

In a previous post, Gustave asked Rachel a question that I am quoting below:

My education through Seminary was totally in the SDA system.  Only later did I have education outside the SDA system.

I was never taught what Gustave has stated below.

I had never heard of what Gustave has stated until I was an adult.

 

 

Rachel says, Me too.  Never heard such a thing.

[8thdaypriest]

I spent more time in public schools than in SDA schools.  Doubt I spent a lot of time thinking about God as a Trinity.  My Mom read us the Bible Stories by Maxwell.  But my parents were in turmoil.  My Dad was a depressed drunk, and my Mom bi-polar.  She ended up hospitalized with a nervous breakdown when I was 12.  I had a supernatural experience that confirmed the existence of God to me.  I began to read the Bible voraciously.  I discovered the 7th Day Sabbath, and ended up at the local SDA church, because they were the only ones honoring the Sabbath, while recognizing Jesus as God's Son.  

I began reading Ellen White.  Her books like PP and GC, present Father and Son.  Not much about the "third person of the godhead" in there.  Only as I continued to attend did I become more and more uncomfortable with worship of three divine persons.    EGW did confirm it, so I accepted it because I accepted her "gift". 

That's a brief on my belief in God as "three persons".   I came to believe in the "one God" as "God our Father" back in 1986.  Have never doubted since then. 

God's Son IS in one sense "our Father".  He created mankind.  The Hebrew has no word for "grandfather" - meaning our father's father.  If it did, the Being we call "God our Father" would be called "God our Grandfather". 

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

God's Son IS in one sense "our Father"

In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called God and Father:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

[JoeMo]

On 7/19/2019 at 2:03 AM, Gustave said:

Where is it that SDA's get that Jesus lost His power? 

I don't think Jesus ever lost His power.  He voluntarily put it aside in order to submit to His Father like a man; not like a divine being.

[8thdaypriest]

Gustave is correct that "God" would not/could not act contrary to Himself.  Jesus was divine/human.  Some assume that the divine part of His nature would always dominate His human nature, to such a degree that the human nature hardly mattered.  As if the human was just a sort of shell - for appearance.  I don't believe that was the case.  I believe Jesus human nature was just as strong within Him, as His "divine nature".  They were in balance.  Which means that Jesus' mind had to keep that balance.  He could have allowed His human nature to dominate, with it's appetites and weaknesses.  

We know He was fearful and full of dread in anticipation of His execution by torture.   We know He was mocked and ridiculed because His mother was pregnant before the wedding feast, and because His family was poor and from the "wrong side of the tracks".  We know that Jesus got thirsty and hungry and tired.   Satan thought those things were possible weak points.  He tempted Jesus to skip the torture.  He tempted Him to prove His divine son-ship.   He tempted Jesus to test His Father.

Why was Satan tempting Jesus.  Didn't Satan know that Jesus could not sin?   

I think the obvious fact that Satan tempted Him, shows that Satan thought Jesus capable of a sin against His Father's will.

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think the obvious fact that Satan tempted Him, shows that Satan thought Jesus capable of a sin against His Father's will.

An alternative -

The Greek word translated as "tempted" can also mean "tested".  Is it possible that satan was not quite sure yet that Jesus was indeed the prophesied Messiah; so he was testing Jesus to make sure?  Or could he have been trying to prove to Jesus that He indeed did not have a free will - brcause if the tried to commit suicide by jumping off of the Temple, angels would prevent Him from doing so?

I don't think satan and his evil angels even realized what they were doing when they moved Judas and the Satucees to crucify Jesus.

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor. 2:7-8)

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

An alternative -

The Greek word translated as "tempted" can also mean "tested".  Is it possible that satan was not quite sure yet that Jesus was indeed the prophesied Messiah; so he was testing Jesus to make sure?  Or could he have been trying to prove to Jesus that He indeed did not have a free will - brcause if the tried to commit suicide by jumping off of the Temple, angels would prevent Him from doing so?

I don't think satan and his evil angels even realized what they were doing when they moved Judas and the Satucees to crucify Jesus.

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor. 2:7-8)

Interesting thought.  But had not Satan witnessed the Father's anointing of His Son, at the baptism?  Would that not have told Satan who this man was.  The Father said, "This is my beloved Son." 

Satan has spies everywhere.  He would have focused attention on Nazareth, and on Mary because of the miracle for Elizabeth and the prophecy concerning her child John.  Satan knew the prophecies.   He saw the heavenly celebration at Christ's birth.  He stirred up Herod to kill all the male infants in Bethlehem. 

I think Satan knew who Christ was.  He was desperate to break Him.

You believe "the princes of this world" to be Satan and his fellow angel rebels.   Jesus did call Satan "the prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11).  So that does fit. 

The verse says that God "ordained" the plan "before the world", but it was hidden.  None of the princes of this world understood (in Heaven - before their rebellion) what the cost of their rebellion would be, or what God would do to preserve some part of His creation.

 

[phkrause]

23 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think Satan knew who Christ was.  He was desperate to break Him.

I agree 100%. Don't see any reason why he would not have known who he was!!

[JoeMo]

On 7/22/2019 at 12:17 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Interesting thought.  But had not Satan witnessed the Father's anointing of His Son, at the baptism?

So true.  So let's say satan knew who Jesus was (The Messiah) after His baptism. Was he still under the impression that by killing Jesus, he could prevent the establishment of His Kingdom?  The Jews (even the disciples) did not expect a suffering Messiah.  Maybe satan wasn't expecting one either.

Scripture tells us that satan entered Judas at the Last Supper.  It's easy to infer that Judas was possessed by satan, and not in control of himself.  After Jesus was arrested, maybe satan left Judas; and - realizing what he had done under satan's influence, tried in vain to return the money to the priests rather than betray his Savior (a little too late I might add). When they refused to take the money back, out of despair, Judas killed himself. 

[8thdaypriest]

Satan had already witnessed the Son of God resurrect human beings.  Moses, the widow's son, Lazarus.  He probably assumed the Father could resurrect His Son, but maybe (Satan thought) only IF that Son had not sinned.  If Christ had sinned - in any degree - then the Father would not be able to protect Him from dominion by Satan.  Satan would be able to claim Christ as one of his subjects - just as he did with Adam and Eve. 

I don't believe it was about killing Him.  I believe it was about breaking Him - breaking His resolve to go through with it - getting Him to bail on the Father's will.  He could have begged for rescue from Satan and his forces.  He could have somehow cursed His Father (as Job was tempted to do by his wife).  He could have cursed the men who were torturing Him.  

If Satan could break Christ before He died, then Satan would win.  Christ would not fulfill every requirement of the covenant, and could not therefore claim the promise of that covenant - dominion.   Christ would become one of Satan's own subjects.  If the Father resurrected Him, then Satan would cry "Foul!" - loudly!

The story of Job provides the best clue.   Next to Christ, Job was tested to the greatest degree.  But God set a limit on Satan, in the case of Job.  He did not allow Satan to kill Job.   There may have been other limits - especially when it came to the mind of Job.  

If you've ever been harassed by demons, you know they can cloud your mind to where you can't feel anything heavenly.  You feel it's just you, and the smothering darkness.  Add severe physical pain on top of that mental torment.  I believe Satan did this to Christ.  He clouded Christ's mind to the point where Christ could not feel the presence of His Father.  That is why He cried out, "Why have you forsaken me?"  

God the Father allowed Satan to torment Christ in every conceivable way, so that - for all eternity - there could be no question of Christ's victory. 

I believe that Christ Himself is the one to be "judged" - Daniel Cpt 7 judgment.  Two questions are considered. 

1.  Did Christ remain fully loyal?  Did He fulfill every requirement of God's Law?

2.  Has Christ demonstrated that He can rehabilitate fallen human beings?   Will the plan work?  Or will they just mess things up again? 

The answer to both will be "Yes!"   Unfallen beings already know the answer is "Yes!"   They are just waiting for the end of this age.   Father and Son want to win as many as they can, because they will need "priests of God and of Christ" - from every nation and language group - to govern and teach "the rest" when they are raised at the 8th millennium. 

[APL]

On 7/22/2019 at 11:17 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

I think Satan knew who Christ was.  He was desperate to break Him.

EGW:  Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This fact the angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ. One angel began the controversy and carried it on until there was rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels. They were lifted up because of their beauty. {Lt42-1910}

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, APL said:

They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted.

They also fell from their high estate to breed with human women.

"the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose ... Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." (Gen. 6:2-4 NIV)

"some divine beings noticed how attractive human women were, so they took wives for themselves from a selection that pleased them ... Nephilim were on the earth at that time (and also immediately afterward), when those divine beings were having sexual relations with those human women, who gave birth to children for them. These children became the heroes and legendary figures of ancient times." (Gen. 6:2-4 ISV)

[8thdaypriest]

It is my opinion that all things reproduce "after their kind".  I believe that human kind is a different kind from spirit kind.  I personally do not believe that spirit beings can produce offspring with human beings. 

I do believe that spirit beings can appear in human form. 

[8thdaypriest]

How did we go from Christ being able to sin, to fallen angels having sex with human women? 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

How did we go from Christ being able to sin, to fallen angels having sex with human women.

In response to APL's comment about fallen angels wanting to exalt themselves.  One way they sought to do so was by starting their own family dynasties.

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I personally do not believe that spirit beings can produce offspring with human beings.

So do most Christians.  I understand that my view is in the minority.  Nonetheless, it is my view, given my literal reading of the scripture. True, there are only a few verses explicitly stating this; but the NT has many statements alluding to it (e.g., Jude 1:6, 1 Peter 3:19 - 20), 2 Peter 2:4).  There are NO verses explicitly alluding to a Trinity, yet most Christians solidly accept the Trinity (I know you don't).  Over 500 cultures all around the globe have myths associated with the "gods" and the giant super-hero offspring they had with human women; and how these beings were destroyed by a great flood.  Are they all wrong?  Much mythology is based on stuff that was once fact.

I also believe that these fallen angels and the spirits of their offspring are the "locusts" released from the abyss at the Fifth Trumpet.

[Aliensanctuary]

I think that during Christ's baptism in the Jordan by the Spirit of YHVH, his sense of Self was eliminated and the Laws of the Kingdom were downloaded into his mind. I don't believe that it would have been at all possible for Christ to transgress the Laws of the Kingdom after that. That's exactly what will happen to us when we are baptized by Water and Spirit in the River of Life.

Now, is the Spirit a composite of 7, or are there 7 separate Spirits? Perhaps YHVH is a composite of 7 beings, not made of flesh and blood, but of something that emits massive amounts of energy, deadly to any humans trying to approach.

Spirit is the force used to create, heal, resurrect (clone), and destroy. Spirit is not a being, but the force used by YHVH to do this.

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/24/2019 at 1:26 PM, JoeMo said:

I also believe that these fallen angels and the spirits of their offspring are the "locusts" released from the abyss at the Fifth Trumpet.

I was going to ask why this subject is important to us, or to the LORD.  Guess you last sentence answered. 

[Gustave]

On 7/21/2019 at 8:59 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave is correct that "God" would not/could not act contrary to Himself.  Jesus was divine/human.  Some assume that the divine part of His nature would always dominate His human nature, to such a degree that the human nature hardly mattered.  As if the human was just a sort of shell - for appearance.  I don't believe that was the case.  I believe Jesus human nature was just as strong within Him, as His "divine nature".  They were in balance.  Which means that Jesus' mind had to keep that balance.  He could have allowed His human nature to dominate, with it's appetites and weaknesses.  

We know He was fearful and full of dread in anticipation of His execution by torture.   We know He was mocked and ridiculed because His mother was pregnant before the wedding feast, and because His family was poor and from the "wrong side of the tracks".  We know that Jesus got thirsty and hungry and tired.   Satan thought those things were possible weak points.  He tempted Jesus to skip the torture.  He tempted Him to prove His divine son-ship.   He tempted Jesus to test His Father.

Why was Satan tempting Jesus.  Didn't Satan know that Jesus could not sin?   

I think the obvious fact that Satan tempted Him, shows that Satan thought Jesus capable of a sin against His Father's will.

Jesus was tempted by the Devil to prove that He COULDN'T SIN. 

Matthew 4,1:  "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."

Mark 1, 12: "And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness".

Luke 4, 1: "And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil."

The above took place for the same reason that Jesus was born where He was and by WHO He was. 

The above took place for the same reason that Jesus grew up in the City He did.

Everything foretold about the Christ by the Law & the Prophets HAD TO BE FULFILLED. 

Had Jesus been born by "The Oracle of Delphi" it would have only meant that Jesus wasn't the Christ in the 1st place.

The same thing can be said IF JESUS sinned - the Law & the Prophets said the Christ wouldn't sin - this is why Scripture is so explicit that Jesus indeed fulfilled the Law & the Prophets by how it came to be that Jesus was born, where He grew up and that He was absolutely sinless. What better way to PROVE the Christ "COULDN'T SIN" by having the author of sin test Jesus himself?

 

PS,

I've had literally ALL my extra time eaten up the last 3 weeks by a matter that's requiring more time than I have access to. Hopefully this matter will be remedied soon and I can get back to these great discussions with all of you. Until then, I wish everyone the best.

 

 

[JoeMo]

5 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Jesus was tempted by the Devil to prove that He COULDN'T SIN. 

If Jesus was incapable of sinning, it would also be impossible for Him to be tempted. The very fact that someone is tempted means they are capable of putting their temptation into action.  I am incapable of flying by flapping my arms.  I'm not even tempted a little bit to try.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

If Jesus was incapable of sinning, it would also be impossible for Him to be tempted. The very fact that someone is tempted means they are capable of putting their temptation into action.  I am incapable of flying by flapping my arms.  I'm not even tempted a little bit to try.

No, it wouldn't be impossible, at all.

If a pedophile came up to you and said they had a kid hidden away somewhere that was all doped up & asked if you wanted do some sexual stuff to him / her - THE FACT IS that you were tempted "by" or "of" the pedophile.  If the thought of molesting little kids disgusts you than YOU (within yourself) wouldn't be tempted HOWEVER it's already been established that you were tempted by or of the pedophile. 

Let's say you were GAY and an incredibly attractive man came up to you and after a drink or two asked you to go to the hotel! If you're really gay you will fee the PULL toward going through with that act. In this case you were tempted by the gay guy AND you yourself WERE TEMPTED to go through with it. 

If you are not gay than a queer coming up to you offering queer sexual acts would likely repulse and disgust you, while you were tempted by the individual offering those things YOU YOURSELF WERE NOT TEMPTED. 

 

This is how Scripture says sin works. 

James 1, 14:  "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed".

To be tempted within yourself to do a thing you 1st have to DESIRE OR LUST for the thing being offered. 

I'm afraid your logic chain doesn't stand up to the Bible Alone in this case. 

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

As Ive said before, if it was imposiible for Christ to sin, satan would have a legitimate gripe that Jesus did not overcome as a human.  If He is indeed the second Adam, then Hw would have to have the capacity to sin.

All that being said, I understand why you believe like you do.  I believed the same way when I was a Catholic.

[Gustave]

19 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

 As Ive said before, if it was imposiible for Christ to sin, satan would have a legitimate gripe that Jesus did not overcome as a human.  If He is indeed the second Adam, then Hw would have to have the capacity to sin.

All that being said, I understand why you believe like you do.  I believed the same way when I was a Catholic.

Where is it that you read that Satan had an allodial right for Jesus to overcome sin as a human? I've heard this several times before and seriously would like someone to direct me to where they get this idea. 

As far as this subject matter is concerned (that Jesus COULDN'T SIN);

Baptists believe this

Methodists believe this

Lutherans believe this

Evangelicals believe this. 

Eastern Orthodox believe this

Catholics believe this

The only groups who do not believe this are the JW's, Christadelphians, SDA'S & WWCOG 7th day. 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I strongly suspect that the majority of people reading this thread do not understand wahat Gustave is proposing.

The following website will explain it:

https://www.gotquestions.org/could-Jesus-have-sinned.html

The following  is a brief quite from the above website.   Please read it in full on the website.

Seventh-day Adventists would agree with much that in in the quote below, and    on thje above website.  However, Gustave has correctly identified  the idea that that SDAs do believe that Jesus could have sinned.  So, to be clear, SDAs do have substantial disagreement with part of what is in the above website.

I will suggest that one additional disagreement with the above website is that SDAs would not agree that God could have sinned and therefore do not agree with this statement   (in the quote below): "To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin."

 

 

Answer: There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do; therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.

To be tempted is not, in and of itself, sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as committing murder or participating in sexual perversions. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for the word “tempted”:

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I have been challenges in this respect by Gustave.  Norman Gulley (A well-known SDA theologian.)has written a multi-volumn work on Theology.  In my quotes that follow, I will be citing from:

Gulley, Norman. .  Systematic Theology, Vol III; Creation, Christ, Salvation.  2012. 871 pages.

Quoting Raoul Dederen:  "His humanity did not correspond to Adam's humanity before the Fall , nor in every respect to Adam's humanity the Fall."  then in Gulley's words:  Christ was like us in every way except for sin.  . . . in him is no sin."  Page 433

"He [Christ] had to be free from sin in His nature (not just external acts) in order to save humans from their sinful natures.. . . It is the broken relationship between God and humans that is the chasm Christ crossed, not to enter the broken relationship Himself, but to bridge the gap, to join divinity and humanity within Himself, and then in Himself and then in His life, death, and post-resurrectiion  ministry to same humans so that they might be fit to belong to a sinless society, on God's side of the chasm."

I will suggest that in the above passages Gulley may be approaching what Gustave has said.  This is probably a new idea to many.