Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[Sonny]

Yet we are told-- and I do believe it-- that it was a struggle for the Father to give up His only Son to die for the world. It was not an easy decision.

I'll need to see the Bible on this one, John.

[miz3]

John317,

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord."

1Corinthians 1:18-31.

Apparently, it is also a stumbling block to SDA, as well.

Without the Cross nothing else matters! What is it about that, that is impossible for you to grasp?

I don't think you understand Paul!

[John317]

The evidence that Christ's work of redemption was perfect & complete was His resurrection.

His sacrifice was complete and full and perfect, yes.

But to say that was the whole of the work of redemption is false. That would be like saying the atonement was made in the Old Testament sanctuary merely by slaying the lamb or goat. There was more to it than that. If all the priest did was slay the animal and then walk away, the atonement would not have been completed. The same with Christ's death. There was more to be done than die on the cross.

[miz3]

John317,

The "Sanctuary Doctrine" will not save you; the "Investigative Judgment Doctrine" will not save you, the "2300 days Doctrine" will not save you, the Doctrine of the "Sabbath" will not save you, etc.!

The only Doctrine that brings SALVATION TO LOST SOULS is:

JESUS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED!

That is why it, and it alone is the Gospel.

It appears that such things are too simple for SDA. Paul was correct in his assessment in 1Corinthians 1:18-31 quoted in previous post.

[John317]

...Apparently, it is also a stumbling block to SDA, as well.

Without the Cross nothing else matters! What is it about that, that is impossible for you to grasp?

I don't think you understand Paul!

But Paul also says that without the resurrection, nothing else matters. He says that if Jesus had not been raised, even Christ's death would not matter.

1 Cor. 15:14

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

[miz3]

John317,

The Resurrection is not a separate Doctrine from the Cross. These are not two separate Doctrines or concepts. They are ONE DOCTRINE!

However, the same cannot be said for:

the sanctuary, the 2300 days, the investigative judgment, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, etc. These things are not the Gospel!

[John317]

..That is why it, and it alone is the Gospel.

It appears that such things are too simple for SDA. Paul was correct in his assessment in 1Corinthians 1:18-31 quoted in previous post.

The good news of Jesus Christ includes more than Christ's death on the cross 2,000 year ago. That is a static gospel if that is all it is. Christ is a living Savior, not a dead one. The gospel includes His resurrection, His ascension, and His mediation for us.

The gospel is found in the creation and in the heavenly sanctuary where Christ ministers for us before the Father.

Here is the way Paul preached the gospel:

Quote:

Acts 17:22-31

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. [23] For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. [24] The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, [25] nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. [26] And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, [27] that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, [28] for

" 'In him we live and move and have our being';

as even some of your own poets have said,

" 'For we are indeed his offspring.'

[29] Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. [30] The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, [31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

[miz3]

John317,

Even Ellen White agrees with me.

"The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary. I present before you the great, grand monument of mercy and regeneration, salvation and redemption--the Son of God uplifted on the cross" (Gospel Workers, p. 315.)

Either it is or it isn't.

No one IS saying there are not other things about Truth to know.

What I am saying is that the Cross of Jesus Christ is the center around which everything else revolves!

I am also saying that SDA don't follow this STANDARD!

SDA make the sanctuary doctrine, the 2300 days, the investigative judgment, their status as the remnant of the remnant their gospel. As such they attempt to make the whole world SDA.

To SDA anything less than making one SDA is a failure. That to me is STUNNING ARROGANCE!

[miz3]

The good news of Jesus Christ includes more than Christ's death on the cross 2,000 year ago. That is a static gospel if that is all it is. Christ is a living Savior, not a dead one. The gospel includes His resurrection, His ascension, and His mediation for us.

Your own quote indicts you. You are adding to the Gospel when you add, "the ascension" and the "mediation" etc.

Paul never added such things to the Gospel.

Does that mean we are to never mention those other items.

Of course not!

But lets be clear "The Cross" only is the Gospel. No additions or take a ways.

Yes, John317, that is all the Gospel is! God did not make it complicated, yet the Cross alone is indeed very dynamic in the lives of those who know it without takeaways or additions. This is precisely why Paul says that it is foolishness to those who do not "believe" that, that it is all there is!

This why SDA have missed it!

[John317]

BobRyan,

Revelation chapter 14 and Daniel chapter 7 say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the investigative judgment!

You are imposing something on the Word of God.

Are you then saying that Ellen White was imposing something on the word of God?

Rev. 14: 7 clearly shows that a world-wide message of judgment is preached prior to the Second Coming of Christ. This message is not that the judgment will come soon, but that the judgment has already commenced. Judgment "is come." That means that this is a judgment that occurs some time after the time of Paul and before the Second Coming.

Daniel 7: 9-10 is definitely portraying a judgment scene, in which books are opened. Many thousands are involved in this judgment. Something is being studied or investigated. Daniel 7: 8, 11 shows us that this judgment is taking place while the little-horn power is still active on the earth, proving that it takes place prior to the second coming of Christ.

Notice in verses 9 and 10 that there's a throne, and this throne has wheels. Wheels obviously imply movement. Whatever has wheels is intended to move. So God's throne moves from one location to another. AS we are given a view of the court scene, it is obvious that God's throne has just moved and the Ancient of Days (the Father) is waiting for something or someone before the court proceeds. Verse 13 says that then the prophet saw "one like the Son of Man" (Christ] come to the Ancient of Days (the Father). V. 14 says that the court scene results in a judgment in favor of the Son of Man. Verse 23-27 show that the judgment is given in favor of the Son of Man as well as the people of God and against the little-horn power. Verses 23-25 help identify the little horn power.

To see the location of this court scene, compare Rev. 4 and 5 and 11 & 15. It is obvious that the court scene takes place in the heavenly sanctuary, or temple.

[John317]

But lets be clear "The Cross" only is the Gospel. No additions or take a ways.

Yes, John317, that is all the Gospel is! God did not make it complicated, yet the Cross alone is indeed very dynamic in the lives of those who know it without takeaways or additions. This is precisely why Paul says that it is foolishness to those who do not "believe" that, that it is all there is!

This why SDA have missed it!

AS I said before, the cross is central to the gospel but the cross does not exhaust the gospel. The Good News includes Christ's resurrection, ascension, and mediation in the Most Holy Place. The Good News is really Jesus Christ.

Rev. 14: 6 speaks of the message of the "everlasting gospel" which is given to the whole world.

Rev. 14:6

Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yet we are told-- and I do believe it-- that it was a struggle for the Father to give up His only Son to die for the world. It was not an easy decision.

I'll need to see the Bible on this one, John.

OK, so you think that the Father was tickled pink (as it were) at the thought of giving up His one and only Son for a rebellious world?

Ellen White describes the scene in heaven, and she makes it clear that God did not enjoy giving up His one and only Son. Similarly, Christ did not enjoy His time spent on the cross. Remember that in the Garden, Jesus prayed that the Father would find some way to allow Christ to avoid the cross. You can be sure the Father wished there had been some other way to save humanity apart of Christ's incarnation and death.

[Sonny]

Quote:

I'll need to see the Bible on this one, John.

Ellen White describes....

"I'll need to see the Bible on this one, John."

[Sonny]

OK, so you think that the Father was tickled pink (as it were) at the thought of giving up His one and only Son for a rebellious world?

Agape loves its enemies...The Father doesn't have selfish, human emotions. Christ, as the Son of God, was willing to lay His life down forever so that His enemies could have heaven in His place. When the church starts loving as Christ loved then one can say "Here are they that keep the commandments".

[miz3]

John317,

Just for the record my NIV in Revelation 14:7 says, "has come". Regardless, they both mean the same thing. The first angel announces that judgment is here right now.

The question is, "when is right now"?

When the Bible speaks of the right now, does it mean at the moment when the reader reads it? If that were the case then judgment already took place when Martin Luther read the text. Next week when my neighbor for the first time reads this text then that is also when the judgment takes place.

So which is it?

1. Has the event already taken place (Martin Luther).

2. Is the event yet to take place (my neighbor).

It would be proper to state that this text meets its fulfillment when the reader of the text reads the text and hears God's message. Thus, judgment would be when the reader reads this text. Therefore, judgment has been happening all along and will continue going on. NOT 1844! NO INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT! NO SANCTUARY MOVEMENT!

Another way to look at this text would be to see that all three Angels are giving a Present message. That means all three messages are happening almost, if not exactly, at the same time.

That means for instance, that judgment comes when Babylon falls and the third angels prediction of punishment will happen.

The question then is, "When did Babylon fall?

Is the falling of Babylon, a past event, a present event, or a future event?

Depending on your answer to Babylon's fall that will also be the time of judgment stated by the first Angel.

You see the first and second Angel happen at the same time and the third Angel predicts the punishment of those who do not heed the first and second Angels.

Its all very simple, John317.

NO INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT! NO 1844! NO SANCTUARY MOVEMENT!

It is just a judgment which God has said all along He will do.

The Three Angels and their message is the same message that has existed since Genesis 3:15. It is not some "NEW" Gospel given to some "last" day Church.

You are reading into the text things are not present in the text itself.

Unless there is some "outside" of the Bible "source" that tells us otherwise this text does not say what you say it does.

In that case such an "outside source" would then be the basis for such a new Doctrine and this "New Doctrine" would not be the Bible and the Bible only!

It would be [the "outside source" and the Bible] because using the Bible and the Bible only would never lead one to conclude what you have concluded.

[Gustave]

How does the Greek help you there, Gustave? Please parse it and show us your exegesis.

[Gustave]

While there is obviously Arianism within the Jehvoah's Witnesses theology, there is none within SDA theology. None of our basic theology had to change because of Arianism. That aspect didn't affect any of our fundamental beliefs or any of the so-called "foundational pillars of our faith."

[miz3]

Gustave,

I am not sure that I agree with everything you have posted on this topic.

However, your post #441536 above is definitely spot on!

SDA are technically split on the Nature of Jesus Christ. Some believe that Christ was born with a "sinful" nature. Others, believe Christ was born like Adam (before the fall) in Nature.

However, SDA agree that physically Jesus Christ had the body of infirmity that all His Jewish contemporaries had. That means Christ was susceptible to colds, hunger, thirst, tiredness, sweating like a pig, etc.

For the record, in debates I have heard on this issue between SDA persons, apart from the clear Biblical record (which you correctly cited) Ellen White seems to be of two minds on the issue.

I have heard these SDA give each other dueling quotes from Ellen White as to which Nature Christ really had.

SDA want to have it both ways. They want to be able to say that they are a Bible and Bible ONLY, people while at the same maintaining that they have a Prophet:

They have two positions on this Prophet depending on who they are talking to:

1. Public audience-----Ellen White is the lesser light and not on a par with Scripture.

2. Private audience-----Ellen White is the "last word" in any argument on Truth.

Even though these two positions cannot coexist truthfully, SDA still stubbornly hold to this no matter how inconsistent it may be.

The best anyone can hope for is to convince individuals of this dichotomous error. The SDA Church will never, ever, change any more than the Romans Catholic Church will ever change on its inconsistent positions with the Bible and the Bible only.

[Gustave]

A most ridiculous idea, and it goes to show what some people will try to dig up in order to attack Ellen White and the SDA church. It's a sign the Devil is working overtime and is getting very desperate indeed.

I find it odd that Miz3 doesn't say Gustave's idea is "strange" or "amazing," etc.

[John317]

While there is obviously Arianism within the Jehvoah's Witnesses theology, there is none within SDA theology. None of our basic theology had to change because of Arianism. That aspect didn't affect any of our fundamental beliefs or any of the so-called "foundational pillars of our faith."

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Jehovah's Witness theology IS Adventist theology John...

Show the connection historically and theologically. Otherwise all you've done is make a foolish allegation. It has to be more than merely their belief in Christ's return. Virtually all churches have some belief in the return of Christ, but that doesn't make them "Adventist."

Russell did study the writings of a former Millerite preacher, but that Millereaite preacher was never a Sabbath-keeping Adventist. There is no connection between SDAs and Jehovah's Witnesses. If there was, I would be proud of it because I personally like Jehovah's Witnesses. I know them and their beliefs very well. They have many false beliefs but they also have many true ones.

But if you're going to make claims, please show the evidence that your claims are true. Post your documented references, please.

[John317]

SDA are technically split on the Nature of Jesus Christ. Some believe that Christ was born with a "sinful" nature. Others, believe Christ was born like Adam (before the fall) in Nature.

However, SDA agree that physically Jesus Christ had the body of infirmity that all His Jewish contemporaries had. That means Christ was susceptible to colds, hunger, thirst, tiredness, sweating ...

You are right here. Before about 1950, SDAs generally believed Christ's nature was fallen. There are millions who still believe this, including pastors, writers, administrators, and teachers.

Here is how the Bible Readings for the Home (1914 edition) read when Ellen White was alive and continued to read up to about 1940, when it was changed by Elder Rebok.

Quote:

A Sinless Life

1. WHAT testimony is borne concerning Christ's life on earth?

"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth." 1 Peter 2:22.

2. What is true of all other members of the human family?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Rom. 3:23.

3. With what question did Christ challenge His enemies?

"Which of you convinceth Me of sin?" John 8:46.

4. To what extent was Christ tempted?

"[He] was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15.

5. In His humanity, of what nature did Christ partake?

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Heb. 2:14.

Page 174

6. How fully did Christ share our common humanity?

"Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Verse 17.

NOTE.- In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not "made like unto His brethren," was not "in all points tempted like as we are," did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits,- a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage-ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every one who is "born of the Spirit" may gain like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. Rev. 3:21. Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7.

7. Where did God, in Christ, condemn sin, and gain the victory for us over temptation and sin?

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Rom. 8:3.

NOTE.-God, in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgment-seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh.8.

By whose power did Christ live the perfect life?

"I can of Mine own self do nothing." John 5:30. "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself: but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." John 14:10.

NOTE.-In His humanity Christ was as dependent upon divine power to do the works of God as is any man to do the same thing. He employed no means to live a holy life that are not available to every human being. Through Him, everyone may have God dwelling in him and working in him "to will and to do of His good pleasure." 1 John 4:15; Phil. 2:13.

9. What unselfish purpose did Jesus ever have before Him?

"For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me." John 6:38.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAVE I need of aught, O Saviour!

Aught on earth but Thee?

Have I any in the heavens,

Anyone but Thee?

Though I have of friends so many,

Love, and gold, and health,

If I have not Thee, my Saviour,

Hold I any wealth?

CORIE F. DAVIS.

I believe all of the above.

[John317]

I gave you 28+ direct quotes from the Scriptures that said a mutating Christ was IMPOSSIBLE...

...I next quote Ellen White where she said Christ could mutate.

...Yet here again you ask for more evidence?

[

Ellen White never taught or wrote about a "mutating Christ."

You're as confused about this as you were about the other things you alleged.

Your 28+ texts prove nothing of what you claim. The fact that they promise Christ would come and die to save the world is no evidence that the man Jesus did not have a choice whether to obey or disobey the Father.

Do you have a friend you know really well named B. Humble?

[John317]

....Ellen White:

"I entreat every one to be clear and firm regarding the certain truths that we have heard and received and advocated. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phase of error, even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, which denies the personality of God and of Christ. {RH, August 31, 1905 par. 11}"

Ellen White:

"You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the Lord God Himself.--Letter 300, 1903". {5BIO 292.4}

Originally Posted By: Same Adventist Review, page 9

THEREFORE WE [ Seventh day Adventists say ] REPEAT what WE previously said, "To deny the personality of God, IS TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE SANCTUARY IN THE HEAVENS; For there God dwells.

What is the historical and theological context of the above statements?

It had to do with the false teachings of John H. Kellogg, which confused the personality of God.

Where you have been confused is that you think God's personality and "parts" mean that Ellen White was teaching God's body is identical man's body, and this simply is not true. There are obvious differences, and we don't need to go into all those differences.

But yes, it is true that God's personality is extremely imporant, because without it, God is not a person but a thing, an impersonal force, etc. None of that, however, means that God's body is identical to our own human bodies. His is a glorified body.

[John317]

...Something is NOT right here however it's NOT my problem...

...Or odd teaching, it's the SDA's teaching.

...And I can demonstarte this SDA understanding well past the death of Ellen and long prior

I certainly agree something is not rirght. You are not quite right in your thinking, Gustave.

You're confusing the SDa belief that God has a body and a personality with the idea that God's body is in every way identical with the human body. That is where you have gone wrong. Nowhere in any writings by an SDA will you find this notion expressed or upheld.

All you will find in the SDA understanding well past the death of Ellen White and before, is that we believe God has a body and that Chrsit has a body. But their bodies are different.

To be perfectly frank with you, we don't know much at all about what God is like in Himself. All we know is what the Father has revealed of Himself through Christ. In this context, silence is always Golden, as Mrs.White said.

[John317]

...A) We have discussed this text previously - I've shown FROM THE GREEK...

...That the INFIRMITIES Christ experienced were those of the body due to it's weakness or INFIRMITY.

...The text does not mean Christ wanted to do sexual stuff to the cute Jewish girl who lived a few door down from Him.

...This is exactly where this alien concept goes John.

...It's a natural by product of Arianism.

This is a false argument because I have never said that Christ wanted to do sexual stuff to the cute Jewish girl living next door.

The fact is that whenever any such temptation occurred to him, Christ immediately rejected it. He never cherished the thought.

The Bible teaches that most of man's temptations come from within. If Christ knew no temptations from within, therefore, He NEVER had temptations like those of humanity. But yet the word of God says that He did.

The temptations we humans have go far beyond the infirmities of the body. The Bible says clearly that Christ was tempted in every way as we are.

I think the problem is that people often conclude that if Jesus ever experienceed temptations from within, it would mean He was a sinner and therefore condemned. But that is not true. Sin is a choice, and Christ never chose to sin. Quite the contrary, Jesus always chose to obey the Father. It is not a sin to be tempted.