Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[miz3]

To all,

God does not have a body. God is not flesh and blood.

God is a Spirit! The Bible does not define what "Spirit" is or means. No one has seen God except the Son! Thus, no one knows the substance (if there is a substance) that makes God. I am having trouble describing God in terms that we describe each other because God is not like human beings in terms of physical make up.

So what does Genesis mean when it states "in our image"?

This is a great question, but the Bible is "SILENT" on the specifics of what this means. All we know is God made us and there is some connection to us and God but we do not specifically know what that exact connection is!

It is stupid and blasphemous to talk of body parts and God in the same way we refer to our own body parts.

Now in regard to Christ's Nature, John317 has the wrong view. Like I said, SDA are of two minds on this issue and so is Ellen White. I believe the Bible supports your (Gustave) view of Christ's Nature as being "sinless" like that of Adam before the fall.

SDA like the Jews of old are so entrenched in their views and they believe (regardless of what they say) that they have no more "Light" to learn. Thus like Jesus Christ of old we fight and uphill battle. This is nothing new because Truth has for the most part always been rejected.

[John317]

God does not have a body. God is not flesh and blood.

God is a Spirit! The Bible does not define what "Spirit" is or means. No one has seen God except the Son!

God certainly has a spiritual body and a form. See Daniel 7: 9, 10, 13.

But you are right that God the Father is not flesh and blood. No one says he is.

God's having a spiritual body does not at all contradict the statement that God is Spirit.

The Bible clearly portrays God the Father as having a body or a form.

Seventh-day Adventists accept Ellen White as a prophet of God. Her statements on this topic are in agreement with the Bible. See EW 54,55--

Quote:

End of the 2300 Days

I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist." Before the throne I saw the Advent people--the church and the world. I saw two companies, one bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the other stood uninterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then He would look to His Father, and appear to be pleading

55

with Him. A light would come from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them. Some cherished it, and went and bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light and rejoiced in it, and their countenances shone with its glory. {EW 54.2}

I saw the Father rise from the throne, [sEE PAGE 92.] and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who arose when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little way. Then He raised His right arm, and we heard His lovely voice saying, "Wait here; I am going to My Father to receive the kingdom; keep your garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive you to Myself." Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. On the hem of His garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest, and pray, "My Father, give us Thy Spirit." Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father, give us Thy Spirit." Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satan's object was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God's children.

[John317]

It is stupid and blasphemous to talk of body parts and God in the same way we refer to our own body parts.

Really? Honestly? Are you kidding?

The God's inspired word itself speaks of God's body parts. In fact Himself spoke of His own body parts.

Exodus 33:21-23

And the Lord said, "Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, [22] and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. [23] Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen."

Is God lying and being deceptive? Of course not.

I prefer to believe God and God's prophet. Ellen White's writings are in agreement with the Bible, whereas your views on this matter are clearly not.

[John317]

...Now in regard to Christ's Nature, John317 has the wrong view.

Uh, don't you think you should at least show your reasoning and the Bible evidence and not merely state your opinion as if it's a fact?

[miz3]

In regards to Christ's Nature, that has already been done.

I am sorry that you missed it.

You (John317) believe Christ has a sinful nature like us.

I believe Christ had a sinless Nature like Adam before the fall.

[miz3]

John317,

If God is not flesh and blood then how does He have a "hand", a "face", a "back" that you assert is like our hand, face, and back?

Just what did Moses see when God passed in front of Moses and removed His "hand":

"Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

19 And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

21 Then the LORD said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

Exodus 33:18-23.

A careful reading is necessary.

1. Moses asked to see God's "glory". He did not ask to God's form.

2. God agreed to let His "goodness" pass in front of Moses. Again, not form.

3. God would also proclaim His name.

4. God refuses to show His "face". Yet in the same chapter 33 God tells us that He, God, will speak to Moses "face to face" as one speaks to a friend (see verse 11).

5. Verse 23 states that God will let Moses see His "glory" but only the back end of His glory. Again, no form. Nothing is asserted in this text about having a face, a hand, a back like ours. It is God's glory and then only the back end (whatever that means).

6. God's glory has a front (or face) and God's glory has a back as well. Making these things in one to one correspondence with our anatomy is never, ever asserted here. Such assertions are the figments of human imagination.

7. Whether God has a form or no form is never settled in Scripture. God is only spoken of as a Spirit. God is beyond infinity. Infinity is within God. How then can one actually see God exactly? Surely you are bringing God down to our level by asserting that God is some kind of super human form etc. I find such logic blasphemous. You cannot compartmentalize God into some kind of form with bounded features.

8. What Moses saw was a small portion of God's glory. Nothing else. Face and back are merely terms used by God so that Moses would know that God was not releasing all His glory. Like God said that would have killed Moses.

[Gordon1]

There are now two threads running with similar or identical titles.

Could a moderator or Administrator please modify one title to make a clear distinction and end the confusion, i.e. Babylon.

[Dr. Waite]

John you state: "Do you still maintain that Ellen White taught that Christ is not God and that the Holy Spirit is not a divine person, the third person of the Godhead, one of the three great powers of heaven??"

Depends on who or what you define as "God". Jesus Christ who is the "true and faithful witness" always referred to "God" as his Father. He never referred to "God" as a unity of three co-eternal persons. John, you teach that "God" is a unity of three co-eternal persons and therefore it appears that you are teaching something different than what Jesus Christ the "true and faithful witness" taught and what Ellen White taught. Jesus Christ stated that his Father is the "only true God". John 17:3. Ellen White taught that Jesus Christ is NOT "God" in personality. "The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, is truly God in infinity, but not in personality." UL 367. "The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view the personality and individuality of each [Hebrews 1:1-5 quoted] God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are open to His Son." 8 T 268.

SDA fundamental belief 4 regarding the son states: "Forever truly God". How could the "Son of God" be forever "truly God" if he were "given an exalted position"? The trinity doctrine teaches that there has always been three "gods": "God the Father" God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" and each have always had an exalted position as "God" and that the "Son" was NOT given an exalted position. This contradicts Ellen White.

The SDA biblical research institute teaches that Christ is NOT the literal "Son of God", but rather only a functional son. The Trinity in Scripture by Gerhard Pfandl states: "The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological, but functional." The Merriam-Webster dictionary states: "Ontological" means "related to or based upon being or existence". i.e. the SDA Biblical Research Institute teaches that Christ is NOT the son of God in being or existence.

Ellen White states that the the Holy Spirit is a divine person, but she never refers to the Holy Spirit as "God". She refers to the Holy Spirit as the "Holy Spirit of God". i.e. something that is a part of the Father and comes from the Father and not something or someone that existed as a separate person or being that is "God" because of a unity. She talks about the Holy Spirit as being the representative or agent of God and of Christ. Never as a separate "God". Ellen White clearly identifies who the "Holy Spirit" or the "third person of the godhead" is: "Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall (although unseen by you), [THIS PHRASE WAS ADDED BY ELLEN WHITE.] teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" [John 14:26]. "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will come not unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you" [John 16:7]. {14MR 23.3}

If the Holy Spirit is another divine person or being that divested himself of humanity, he would have had to first be a human in order to divest himself of humanity. There is NO scripture that states that a divine person other than Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was ever a human being.

The disciples of Christ believed that the "another comforter" was Christ himself. Judas, not Iscariot, asked how Christ himself was going to manifest himself unto them and not unto the world. Judas, not Iscariot, DID NOT ask how another person or another being was going to manifest himself to them and not the world, but rather how Christ himself was going to manifest himself to them and not unto the world. See John 14. Christ stated: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be blessed of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." Christ DID NOT state that he was going to have another divine person or being who is NOT himself manifest themselves to his disciples, but rather he himself would be the one to come unto them and manifest himself to them. He stated: "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you". Christ DID NOT state that he would not leave his disciples comfortless by sending another divine person or being, but rather he himself would come to them.

[Dr. Waite]

John you state: "I agree with 1 Tim. 3: 16 as given in the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text. Jesus Christ was and is the God-man. He is fully God and fully man. Not two persons but one person. That one person had real moral choices-- which means He could have chosen other than in the way He did choose. He was a free moral agent."

Jesus Christ was both human and divine and was one person with two individualities. Look at EGW comments: "the two expressions "human" and "divine" were, in Christ, closely and inseparably one, and yet they had a distinct individuality." SDA Commentary Vol. 5, page 1129

[miz3]

Gordon1,

I have noticed that too. You will have to see John317 as to why he did what he did. He did it and gave no explanation.

[phkrause]

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.

First of I disagree with your last sentence in your post. The RCC has never had a Bible and the Bible only position. The only time they agree with the Bible is if the Pope says its OK to agree with the Bible.

Secondly I also disagree with your assumtion that the SDA church does not have the position of the Bible and the Bible only. I will agree that there are individual SDAs that disagree with each other on certain points, but the actual Church is who you need to quote as far as the things you are mentioning in your post.

[Dr. Waite]

I do not believe that "ARIANISM" was a pillar of our faith, but the "personality of God and of Christ" was a pillar. See YRP 235

[miz3]

pkrause,

See the other topic thread by the same name as this one and look at the back and forth between John317 and I on my eight statements.

That back and forth starts around, I think, page 7 or 8.

You will find that in that exchange it becomes clear that the only way the SDA Church can see the fall of Babylon and that Babylon is the Roman Church comes from Ellen White.

Thus, it is impossible for SDA to say the Bible and Bible only.

Please check it out.

[phkrause]

pkrause,

See the other topic thread by the same name as this one and look at the back and forth between John317 and I on my eight statements.

That back and forth starts around, I think, page 7 or 8.

You will find that in that exchange it becomes clear that the only way the SDA Church can see the fall of Babylon and that Babylon is the Roman Church comes from Ellen White.

Thus, it is impossible for SDA to say the Bible and Bible only.

Please check it out.

I've been reading that one too. You have not proven your point. Because EGW didn't discover that one. That's been around for a long time. Even the RCC knew that, that's why they had someone take care of the problem. At least they thought so.

[miz3]

pkrause,

You are free to believe what you like.

You are free to ignore the Truth.

I am not your judge, God is your judge as to whether you are honestly evaluating the facts.

I can only tell the facts as God gives them to me, I am not responsible for who does or does not accept them.

[doug yowell]

[...Now be a good lad and fetch me some Holy Scriptures that say Jesus could have sinned and lost His Salvation.

I'm in late but I hate it when people post condescending quips like this. Sounds like it came straight from a JW doorknocker.

[CoAspen]

PK,

Don't you just love it when someone presumes to speak for the 'whole' SDA church!

[doug yowell]

Adam "could" and Did sin....

...Christ didn't sin because He couldn't sin.

...Because our salvation was ASSURED "IN CHRIST" prior to the foundations of the world.

Eph 1:4 "According as HE hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love".

Christ means "SAVIOUR", "HEALER", "VICTOR" and if Christ had chosen US "IN HIM" before the world was created....

...I would really like to hear what you believe that means?

I find this an important part of the discussion. If man's salvation was assured in Christ before the fall because the man(the last Adam)Christ Jesus COULD NOT have failed, then doesn't it logically follow that man's fall(the first Adam) was assured because he COULD NOT have succeeded?? All of Gustave's texts have pointed to the end result not the how or why it was achieved.They do not prove his main assertion that Christ COULD NOT have failed or that Adam could have successfully resisted and are cited only in retrospect. Is this a cousin to the predeterminism of all humanity?

[Gerr]

pkrause,

See the other topic thread by the same name as this one and look at the back and forth between John317 and I on my eight statements.

That back and forth starts around, I think, page 7 or 8.

You will find that in that exchange it becomes clear that the only way the SDA Church can see the fall of Babylon and that Babylon is the Roman Church comes from Ellen White.

Thus, it is impossible for SDA to say the Bible and Bible only.

Please check it out.

Why don't you check your history before making some asenine statements? As far back as 1120, Bernard of Cluny, in his "bitter satire De Contemptu Mundi cried out against fallen Rome, characterizing the pope as "king of this odious Babylon." And the Reformers did not mince any words as to who Babylon was.

[Gerr]

I can only tell the facts as God gives them to me, I am not responsible for who does or does not accept them.

And PK is giving you the facts as God revealed them to him.

[Dr. Waite]

You state: "From context I think Gustave is using 'mutate' with the (non-standard) meaning 'change his fundamental form'. That is, hsi claim is that Christ could not change from being fully God to being fully man. The argument is that in the Incarnation Jesus was *both* fully God and fully human, but if he had chosen to sin he would have been subject to death, and the divine part would have fled or died."

WHEN THE SON OF GOD TOOK ON OUR SINS AND SUFFERED THE DEATH THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SUFFERED, DID THE "DIVINE PART" LEAVE THE HUMAN PART? WHEN THE SON OF GOD DIED ON THE CROSS, DID HE LAY DOWN HIS LIFE THAT WAS ORIGINAL, UNBORROWED AND UNDERIVED?

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Jesus came not to be God ... but man.

If Jesus as God died - How did He raise Himself up after He as God was dead?

Good question. The answer of course is that Christ's divine nature did not die. God didn't die, only humanity died.

In Christ was "life original, unborrowed and underived". When he took on our sins and died the death that we were to die, did he lay down this "life original, unborrowed and underived"?

[miz3]

Why don't you check your history before making some asenine statements? As far back as 1120, Bernard of Cluny, in his "bitter satire De Contemptu Mundi cried out against fallen Rome, characterizing the pope as "king of this odious Babylon." And the Reformers did not mince any words as to who Babylon was.

Gerry, Gerry, are you now reduced to name calling. Especially name calling from what is supposed to be a Christian mouth. More especially from the mouth of an SDA who is the remnant of the remnant.

By the way it is spelled, "asinine".

If you had carefully read my posts in regard to historical ones from way before Ellen White you would have gotten my explanation. Apparently, you did not read carefully.

You are so filled with hatred that you are reduced to angry tirades rather than cogent arguments.

Respectfully yours,

miz3

[CoAspen]

Quote:

You are so filled with hatred that you are reduced to angry tirades rather than cogent arguments.

Ah...perhaps some chilling is needed!!

Gerry does not go on angry tirades or is he filled with hatred...not now or in the past!!!!

[miz3]

CoAspen,

I am calm! Gerry is the one who used the word "asinine" not me.

I am sure your message was for him and not me.