The Temptation of Christ

[phkrause]

The Temptation of Christ, Part 1

Times of desperation can often tempt us to shift our values—make us consider things we’d never consider under any other circumstances. Shawn Boonstra talks about why you can trust Jesus to help you overcome Satan's temptation just like He did.

https://www.voiceofprophecy.com/authentic/episode/s6e04

The Temptation of Christ, Part 2

Doubt can be useful—healthy, even!—but it can also be poisonous. Saints and skeptics alike have wrestled with suspicions about God, His character, and His words and promises. In "The Temptation of Christ, Part 2," Shawn Boonstra looks at the sharp impulse to doubt that confronted Jesus and entraps us today.

https://www.voiceofprophecy.com/authentic/episode/s6e05

The Temptation of Christ, Part 3

In the devil’s final temptation to Jesus, he offers to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world in return for worshipping him. Host Shawn Boonstra highlights the vital message that there are no shortcuts to glory—that is, to a meaningful relationship with God.

https://www.voiceofprophecy.com/authentic/episode/s6e06

[Gustave]

How unfortunate, I watched part one where it's stated that Divinity and Humanity were "BLENDED" and then toward the ending where he said Jesus was REALLY tempted (as in he wanted to go through with it but resisted the urge). Now I'm depressed, I was so impressed with Boonstra with the Trinity video he did years ago - to see him do a cannonball into the Arian Pond is disappointing. I did see some hope when he stated that Jesus HAD TO BE TEMPTED, but alas, he sided with Ellen White and Arius on the blending of natures and ability to mutate. 

[Leroy Myers]

In the first video, Boonstra brought up the incarnation, and correct me if I am wrong, he said that there was only two positions, he was fully human or he was fully divine. I have given this much thought over the years and I would like to suggest a third option. He was a human just as you and I with a genetic lineage all the way back to Adam but he was inhabited by the Son of God who is a spirit being.

In Luke 3 the lineage of Mary goes all the way back to Adam which is one point that leads me to conclude this. Also, Ellen stated that "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life" He had to confront every sin and failing that his ancestors had. In you and I and every other human on the planet he continues to bear the sins of the world. A profound thought. Is it possible that the cross was just a symbol of a much greater reality? 

Then I came across this very telling statement.
"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...." (It struck me that she was speaking of two distinct individuals) "...In Him dwelt all the fulness 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." 19LtMs, Lt 280, 1904

In this last half of the above statement She points out that the son of Mary died on the cross but the Son of God did not die. When I first saw this it took some time of contemplation to grasp. but then I had to ask myself, is it possible to kill God? I don't think so. There is much more to discuss on this aspect of the cross but I will leave it for another time if there is interest.

Scripture clearly states that we were created with the ability of habitation by God, who is a Spirit. If the Son was given to the world I had to come to the belief that the Son is given to all at birth as a seed. We are the ones who surrenders to the growth of that seed. 

Leroy

[Gustave]

Christ was indeed like us in all ways EXCEPT for sin. Jesus was tempted "of or by" the Devil exactly as Scripture attests - Christ was NOT tempted within Himself where He yearned or urged to something classified as sin. All of us have been tempted by someone else to do something classified as sin that we were NOT interested in doing - we were tempted by Bob or Fred to do such and such but because we didn't lust (yearn, desire, etc.) WE were not tempted. This is the way Scripture describes the temptation of Christ. 

Christ never lusted, yearned, etc. to commit sin so that it could be said "HE WAS TEMPTED WITHIN HIMSELF" & resisted "HIS" temptation. Assuredly, contrary to Ellen White and Mr. Boonstra assertion Christ's two natures were never "BLENDED" or "MIXED". 

[Leroy Myers]

Ellen says that he did not have a propensity to sin. I read something that Dennis Prebe wrote on this word propensity, checking every place she used the word. The bottom line was that he had no propensity to sin because he had never sinned before. However one who has sinned would have a propensity to do it again.

In the desire of ages page 48  it says this, "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.

 

Scripture indicates that the sins of the fathers are passed on from generation to generation. I would imagine that in bearing the sins of the world he had to deal with all of the evil in his family line right on back Adam. I am certain that the devil through everything at him that he could.

 

You say he never felt lust. Feeling something does not equate yielding. According to Desire of Ages He actually felt some very bad stuff, page 111.

"The Sinless One must feel the shame of sin. The peace lover must dwell with strife, the truth must abide with falsehood, purity with vileness. Every sin, every discord, every defiling lust that transgression had brought, was torture to His spirit.

 

Alone he must tread the path; alone he must bear the burden. Upon Him who had laid off His glory and accepted the weakness of humanity the redemption of the world must rest. He saw and felt it all, but His purpose remained steadfast. Upon His arm depended the salvation of the fallen race, and He reached out His hand to grasp the hand of Omnipotent Love.

In closing you seem to think that what Ellen was given to write regarding that the two natures were blended, humanity and divinity combined, have no basis in truth. So with that in mind perhaps this post will not be something that you can agree with. 

[Leroy Myers]

I just reread your post and there was something there about what Ellen espoused that Jesus had the ability to mutate.

 

I am curious so let me ask a couple of questions:

Do you believe that we were created for habitation in other words we are temples earthen vessels for the habitation of the godhead? John 14:16-23 and John 17

 

Do you believe that when demons possessed individuals in scripture and they spoke through their mouths and controlled their physical actions that they were not inhabiting that human being? Matt. 8:29

 

Do we have the promise of having a human nature but also partaking of the divine nature? 2 Peter 1:4

 

[Gustave]

Hi Leroy, 

Yes, Ellen was militant that Jesus could mutate. 

I don't know if Adam and Eve were created to live on other planets. Given we don't have gills and other adaptations I'm thinking not. But who knows. 

My thoughts on demon possession are my own musings - I would think the spiritual entity possesses the host and operates, depending on severity, the body of the victim. 

Yes, we have the promise of partaking of the divine nature. 

[phkrause]

On 3/10/2024 at 12:08 AM, Gustave said:

Jesus could mutate

Mutate into what??

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, phkrause said:

Mutate into what??

Into a sinner. 

See below, Council of Nicaea, after the Canons see: "The Synodal Letter". 

CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) (newadvent.org)

"First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest".

 

[Gustave]

PHKrause, I wanted to explain this a little better for Leroy & you about what I meant by mutate. 

 

In Acts 2, 29 we read: 

"Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.  Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne,  he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption".

Saint Paul here tells us that God (that's Father, Son & Holy Spirit AKA the Consubstantial Trinity) swore an oath to King David that Christ Jesus would take over everything - the text plainly says King David foresaw and was referring to the resurrection of Christ. I'm assuming you know what Scripture says about God's word and how certain God's purposes are?? 

For God's oath to end up the opposite of what God said would happen would have required the hypothetical of Arius & Ellen White to come to pass - Christ would have had to mutate from Eternal God to sinner thereby self-destructing and eternally passing out of existence, as if God never existed in the 1st place. 

Given that Jesus possesses the full or whole Divine Essence (not a third) one can readily see just how high on the pecking order Christ would have to be (or not to be) to have the ability to commit suicide. You see what I'm saying here, if the Son imploded so also the Father and Holy Spirit because you can't the others without the one because God is really "ONE" just like the Bible says. 

What I'm trying to say is that I believe our hypothetical ideas about God must be compatible with what's possible and God not being God and God becoming eternally extinct as if God never existed in the first place just isn't possible. Additionally, claiming that God the Son could eternally cease to exist by any reason only serves to prove that the one postulating such doesn't believe God the Son is God like they believe the Father is God. 

 

 

 

 

[phkrause]

On 3/12/2024 at 9:33 PM, Gustave said:

Into a sinner. 

Well that's interesting for sure! I would never consider sinning as being a mutation??

[Gustave]

6 minutes ago, phkrause said:

Well that's interesting for sure! I would never consider sinning as being a mutation??

God the Son became man without ceasing to be God.

Two Natures (Divine & Human)

The Natures were perfectly United (NOT MIXED OR BLENDED).

Therefore Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. 

 

Could God the Father sin? If God the Father could sin AND DID SIN that would definitely be a mutation - a mutation from God to the opposite of His Divine attributes. 

The Divine Substance is ONE, therefore the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are eternally connected as one - this unity cannot be separated otherwise God would have "parts" or "potency" and by default wouldn't be God. 

[phkrause]

On 3/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, Gustave said:

God the Son became man without ceasing to be God.

Two Natures (Divine & Human)

The Natures were perfectly United (NOT MIXED OR BLENDED).

Therefore Jesus was 100% man and 100% God.

Exactly!!

 

On 3/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, Gustave said:

Could God the Father sin?

No!!

[Gustave]

20 minutes ago, phkrause said:

Exactly!!

 

No!!

Now I feel like we are getting somewhere. I'm glad you affirmed what you did. 

Jesus wasn't a hybridization or amalgamation of man & God - Jesus was fully God and Fully man. We agree in total in this. 

God the Father can't sin because He wouldn't be God if He did. 

What I'm saying is that whatever it is that the Father is (the Substance) is the identical thing that the Son and Holy Spirit is (the identical Spiritual Substance). It's not 3 separate spiritual substances residing in the Father, Son & Holy Spirit but ONE single Spiritual Substance that IS Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

This is why Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead "bodily" and why if someone saw Jesus it could be said that they saw the Father as Jesus was / is the Incarnation of God (the One Spiritual Substance that's as much Holy Spirit as Father & Son). It is therefore impossible for God to Mutate into a sinner because the same one Spiritual Substance is always Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

This is why the Creed is so explicit and uses "Consubstantial" and why God can't have "parts" like a pizza or anything else found in nature. God is the 1st Cause - God exists from Himself and therefore couldn't (by any hypothetical) cease to be Father, Son & Holy Spirit. 

This is why I've been so insistent on calling out statements which claim God the Father and God the Son pre-incarnate had hominid bodies of flesh, members, organs and parts. This is the same reason why Lutheran's, Baptists, Orthodox Christians, Methodists, etc. say the exact same thing I'm saying. 

Does this make any sense to you - can you see where I'm coming from? 

 

[phkrause]

16 hours ago, Gustave said:

Now I feel like we are getting somewhere. I'm glad you affirmed what you did. 

Jesus wasn't a hybridization or amalgamation of man & God - Jesus was fully God and Fully man. We agree in total in this. 

God the Father can't sin because He wouldn't be God if He did. 

What I'm saying is that whatever it is that the Father is (the Substance) is the identical thing that the Son and Holy Spirit is (the identical Spiritual Substance). It's not 3 separate spiritual substances residing in the Father, Son & Holy Spirit but ONE single Spiritual Substance that IS Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

This is why Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead "bodily" and why if someone saw Jesus it could be said that they saw the Father as Jesus was / is the Incarnation of God (the One Spiritual Substance that's as much Holy Spirit as Father & Son). It is therefore impossible for God to Mutate into a sinner because the same one Spiritual Substance is always Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

This is why the Creed is so explicit and uses "Consubstantial" and why God can't have "parts" like a pizza or anything else found in nature. God is the 1st Cause - God exists from Himself and therefore couldn't (by any hypothetical) cease to be Father, Son & Holy Spirit. 

This is why I've been so insistent on calling out statements which claim God the Father and God the Son pre-incarnate had hominid bodies of flesh, members, organs and parts. This is the same reason why Lutheran's, Baptists, Orthodox Christians, Methodists, etc. say the exact same thing I'm saying. 

Does this make any sense to you - can you see where I'm coming from?

I'm in agreement with most of what you've said here! My personal thoughts is that these are 3 separate beings, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but of one accord and yes no body parts! But now that one of them has come down and taken the image of a human being, died on the cross and went back to heaven, Jesus is now going to look like us, with an actual body!!

What does this say or mean to you?

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so 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 speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

John 14:8-11

 

Tell me what you think that this verse is saying:

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; Genesis 1:26

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, phkrause said:

I'm in agreement with most of what you've said here! My personal thoughts is that these are 3 separate beings, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but of one accord and yes no body parts! But now that one of them has come down and taken the image of a human being, died on the cross and went back to heaven, Jesus is now going to look like us, with an actual body!!

What does this say or mean to you?

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so 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 speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

John 14:8-11

 

Tell me what you think that this verse is saying:

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; Genesis 1:26

The reason I am unable to believe in 3 separate Beings is because that would mean God is made up of parts and by default would be relative (proportional to something else) and arbitrary.

There is only God and what God created (everything seen and unseen that exists) therefore God is Father, Son & Holy Spirit in eternity. 

If the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are separate beings and are one in the way / sense of "accord" that would mean that the Son is "part" of God, the Father is another part of God. I understand this is what Ellen White taught and is also what is promulgated in the Sabbath Herald Church Paper (i.e. each member is a "part" of God. 

If God the Son failed and ceased to exist "God" would indeed change from 3 Beings who are in accord to 2 Beings who would be in accord - God then becomes relative and arbitrary which is something I can't find in either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition - I see the opposite. God eternally must be Father, Son & Holy Spirit - one what (God) and three Who's (Persons) these three Persons are somehow in one Spiritual Nature or Substance - this is the great mystery according to the Christian Faith. 

Yes, I believe that Jesus has a glorified human body and will eternally possess this glorified body. At the 2nd Coming Jesus will descend from heaven and the dead in Christ will rise at the General Judgement. 

I believe John 14, 8 - 11 is saying: 

"He that seeth me, seeth the Father also:[2] that is, he seeth him, who is not a man only, but who also, by my divine nature, am one and the same with the Father: so that he who believes, and as it were sees, or knows by faith, who I am, cannot but know, that I am one with my eternal Father; not one person, as the Sabellians fancied, but one in nature and substance. The ancient Fathers take notice against the Arians, that these words, and others that follow in this chapter, could not be true, if Christ was no more than a creature, though ever so perfect, there being an infinite distance betwixt God and the highest of his creatures".

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? These words confirm the equality of the Father and the Son: nor can they be expounded of an union of affection only, by what Christ told them before. (John v. 17. and 19.) As the Father worketh till now, so I work: and whatsoever things the Father worketh, these also in like manner the Son doth. (Witham) --- In the Son and in the Father, there is one and the same essence, the same wisdom, the same power; so that what the Son says, he does not say it of himself, and what the Son does, he does not do it of himself; but it is the Father, who abideth in the Son, who both acts and speaks". [Hadock Bible Commentary] 

You also ask me what I think the follow verse means:

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; Genesis 1:26

I'll offer a couple of short videos that would likely do a better job than I could of explaining this great question. 

You will find that Judaism essentially says the same thing, i.e. that image and likeness is definitely NOT meaning that we physically look like God. This has been Judaism's position from the beginning. So to with the Lutheran's, Baptists, Methodists, Orthodox and Reformed Churches. 

Now, Joeseph Smith of the Mormon fame disagrees, Smith vocalized a flesh hominid God with members and parts using identical language to that of the SDA's while Ellen White was alive. Mormonism is a HUGE promulgator of The Personality of God as defined by Ellen White and the SDA Pioneers. 

I think this may be primarily where the difference between what we believe. Please Pk, anything I can do to clarify anything I just said it would be honor to try to explain it better. 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

Here is a Jewish explanation of what "made in the image and likeness of God" has always meant to Jews. 

What Is the “Divine Image” in Man? - Chabad.org

 

You will find this same take on all Christian Churches excepting the Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists who hold to the Personality [flesh hominid body containing all members, organs, bones & parts that a perfect man has] of God. 

 

Jesus is not part of God, The Father is not part of God, The Holy Spirit is not part of God. 

Anything consisting of "Parts" is the kind of thing that depends on something other than itself for its existence. 

 

 

[Gustave]

 

I think a great part of the confusion here comes from the rejection of the Nicaean Creed on the part of the Seventh-day Adventist Founders. During the time of Ellen White's involvement with the SDA Church the in-house periodicals took great pains to explain why they disagreed with and abhorred "the Creeds" , especially when the Creeds pertained to the Trinity (Doctrine of God). The Creeds all maintained that God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) was one Spiritual essence therefore The Father was present in everything and anything the Son did, so also with the Holy Spirit and any other combination of Persons you can think of. God did not possess any "parts" , i.e. the Substance isn't separated so that The Son has His own portion of Substance, The Father His and the Holy Spirit his. It's literally and really ONE SUBSTANCE. 

The Son is "eternally" generated by the Father (that's still one substance not 2) and the Holy Spirit comes through the Father and The Son (Spiration). Still one substance as you can see.

This is why I asked you if you believed it possible that the Father could / would sin - I asked this because if the Son sinned and failed it would default into the Father sinning and failing because it's the Father who eternally generates the Son - the Father is with the Son in the unity of the Holy Spirit each step of the way. 

As Saint Augustine said: “As the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably.”

The Church Fathers were very clear that the Trinity worked inseparably in the creation of the world and in the work of Salvation. 

I don't intend to insult anyone here but I can't help but believe that the SDA Church believes in 3 God's called The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit as at least two of these Persons were said to be flesh, bone and organ bound hominids prior to the Incarnation. The question obviously would arise as to what happened to Michael the archangels' body of flesh, members and parts immediately prior to Incarnation into the Womb of Mary? I cringe at this question and try not to think about it. 

At the end of the day the Sabbath Herald and Ellen White describe each person of the Godhead to be separate Beings and each Being possesses Deity. The oneness they say is understood ONLY in the way of accord - each Being perfectly agrees with the other Beings. Trinitarians would say the Trinity obviously are in perfect agreement but absolutely would not say THAT IS HOW THEY ARE ONE. 

If God is Father, Son & Holy Spirit than that's eternally God. 

If there are 3 Beings who each are a separate God than you have 3 God's. 

If one of those God's fails and by any hypothetical situation permanently ceases to exist now you are down to 2 God's.

I even question this within SDAism because Ellen was very clear that Jesus pre-Incarnation was the ONLY BEING other than the Father who could enter into the councils of God (The Father). Here you clearly have two Beings. 

I want you to know that what I'm saying about God being one Substance and the Father, Son & Holy Spirit being inseparable is no different than you would have heard from Martin Luther and John Calvin and any Baptist, Methodist or Evangelical Christian. 

Also, the teaching that when Sacred Scripture says that we were made in God's image and likeness it NEVER meant we basically looked like God as the Judaism has always been explicit that God has no form (because God is Spirit) and the Christian Church has the same understanding the exception that God incarnated by becoming man without ceasing to be God. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I am attempting to obtain some additional response to the above post. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Reserved for future use.

[Gregory Matthews]

In the above statement by Gustave, he said the following:

Quote

Also, the teaching that when Sacred Scripture says that we were made in God's image and likeness it NEVER meant we basically looked like God as the Judaism has always been explicit that God has no form (because God is Spirit) and the Christian Church has the same understanding the exception that God incarnated by becoming man without ceasing to be God.

 I have total (100%) agreement with that statement.

I also agree with the following statement that Gustave made.  I am not acquainted enough with the Church Fathers to be able to say that all (100%) agreed with it.  I guess that would depend upon how you defined the term "Church Fathers."

. . . 

the Trinity worked inseparably in the creation of the world and in the work of Salvation. 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The most comprehensive statement of Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Biblical teachings is to be found in a 4-volumne set of books authored by Dr. Norman R. Gulley.  In those books, he discusses God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit in several of the books.

His most comprehensive treatment of the Trinity is discussed in a book published in 2011, under the title:  Systematic Theology:  God as Trinity.  That book contains major discussions of the so-called Church Fathers, as well as issues that have been raised in current times.

As that book is 676 pages in length, I find it impossible to sum his conclusions.

NOTE:  The other books in this set are of similar length.

[Gregory Matthews]

The following is what Amazon says about the book that I cited above:

 

What is theology all about? In this long-awaited second volume of a multi-volume comprehensive theological system, Norman R. Gulley addresses the foundational question about theology: Who is God? The author starts with the premise that theology is, ultimately, about the essential character of God. What kind of God is He? Is He a good God or a bad One? Gulley's biblical "cosmic controversy" worldview undergirds his answers to the most fundamental questions of what the Bible teaches about God.

Working steadfastly from the platform of sola scriptura established in his Prolegomena, Gulley takes the serious reader on a wide-ranging and insightful tour of the many facets of the Doctrine of God. His approach first presents his biblical argument on a given topic, and then provides a helpful survey and summary critique of other views throughout the history of theological and philosophical thought.

Beginning with God as relational Trinity, Gulley addresses many other vital questions posed over time, including arguments about timelessness, immutability, and impassability; old and new covenants; God's revelation through the biblical Sanctuary; His ultimate plan of mediation; redemption and restoration; process and openness theology; predestination; and other topics. As in the first volume, Gulley ranges easily over millennia in showing how different concepts and philosophies have affected our understanding of the character of God.

This ambitious work is designed for both the committed student of theology and the general reader who will appreciate each chapter's opening summary, concise conclusion, and helpful set of study questions. This volume provides the fundamental basis of the rest of the system, and is a paradigm shift from many traditional views about God.