Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[CoAspen]

Is there a mirror close by?

asinine |ˈasəˌnīn|

adjective

extremely stupid or foolish

To call an idea or thought 'asinine' is not hateful, but it is very strong, still an opinion.

[Gustave]

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

[Gustave]

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

John didn't believe I had 28 texts which proved Christ could NOT mutate from God to forever dead...

...He called me out on that & I provided the texts, and then more after that.

As for JW doorknockers I remind you that Jehovah's Witness doctrine ( like SDA )...

...Affirms Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation.

...And had Christ done so "God" would have destroyed Christ along with the lost.

...And "THEY" would have ceased to exist permanently.

Jehovah's Witnesses also affirm that Jesus, prior to His coming to earth....

...Existed in heaven as Michael the archangel along with Satan the archangel.

...And countless OTHER archangels.

I'm a Trinitarian and a believer in the Bible therefore your statement sounds odd to me....

...As it appears you share more in common with a JW theologically than I do.

[Gustave]

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?

[Gustave]

It's been established then that the Sanctuary and Sabbath teachings of the Seventh day Adventists....

...Incepted off the premise that Father God had a body of flesh.

...And a person who denys this teaching is said to be one who; 'destroys the personality of God'.

...This was the affirmatin of Ellen White.

[John317]

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.

That's because Jesus Christ, while living on this earth, developed a human personality. He was fully God, but He did not walk this earth as God Alimighty. Instead He walkd this earth as a humble carpenter. He grew up just as any human being grows up. He went through experiences that shaped his personality. But the fact that he is a human being does not mean he is not God. He is truly both God and man. He is the God-man.

Ellen White wrote, "Christ was God, essentailly, and in the highest sense." 5 BC 1126

She says that Christ is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and self-existent. See Ev. 615

Romans 9:5

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

NOTE: Christ is God over all. This is the clear teaching of both the Bible and Ellen White.

[John317]

[quote name="Gustave1 John 3:8

For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Ellen White said Jesus' purpose in coming to earth was "to vindicate God's holy law".

1. to clear' date=' as from an accusation, imputation, suspicion, or the like: to vindicate someone's honor.

2. to afford justification for; justify: Subsequent events vindicated his policy.

3. to uphold or justify by argument or evidence: to vindicate a claim.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

No heart that is stirred to rebellion against the law of God has any union with Christ, who died to vindicate the law and exalt it before all nations, tongues, and peoples. Pharisaic self-complacency and bold assumptions of holiness are abundant

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

Christ died to vindicate the justice of God, and to remove the obstacles that man had placed between himself and eternal happiness. ST May 27, 1899

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

They may look upon Calvary, they may see the Son of God agonizing in the garden and dying upon the cross, and yet many for whom he has made this great sacrifice refuse to obey the law which he died to vindicate. RH sept 14, 1886

Originally Posted By: Ellen White

The sum and substance of the arguments of Satan is that sin may be immortalized, that Christ abolished the law, and that evil doers may be in favor with God. But the death of Christ tells a different story; for he died to vindicate the claims of the law, to give to the world and to angels an unanswerable argument of the immutability of the law of Jehovah. {ST, February 5, 1894 par. 11}

And the list goes on and on...

[/quote']

Yes, I do believe those statements. I don't see how John 3: 8 contradicts the Ellen G. White statements.

If you believe they are contradicted by the clear word of God, please show this evidence?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Doug

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?

The 1st Adam COULD fail and DID INDEED FAIL - God created Adam with free will to obey or not....

...Jesus could NOT FAIL because God DOES NOT FAIL.

Jesus could have failed because He was a real man, just as real a man as Adam was, and He was faccd with real moral choices which had real consequences. God did not make it impossible for Chrsit to fail any more than God made it necessary for Adam to Fall. Both were free moral agents. Adam could have past the test and Christ could have failed it.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Doug

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

John didn't believe I had 28 texts which proved Christ could NOT mutate from God to forever dead...

...He called me out on that & I provided the texts, and then more after that.

Those texts don't show any such thing. You keep mentioning "Christ mutating from God to forever dead." Where do you get such terminology? Certainly not from Ellen White, nor from the Bible. I don't know of anyone besides you who have used such language in this context. That's utter nonsense. The verses you referred to have nothing to do with that.

Please quote one verse and show how it proves that the human Christ could not die eternally.

[John317]

...As for JW doorknockers I remind you that Jehovah's Witness doctrine ( like SDA )...

...Affirms Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation.

Do you have a clear quote from JW publications to this effect?

I would not be inclinded to say it is a false teaching merely because the JW hold it. The JW teach many true things.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...And had Christ done so "God" would have destroyed Christ along with the lost.

If Jesus had sinned, i.e., rebelled against the Father, the man Jesus of Nazareth would certainly have perished.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...And "THEY" would have ceased to exist permanently.

Where do you find that Seventh-day Adventists believe that both the divine and human natures of Christ would have ceased to exist if Christ had sinnnd?

Also, where do JWs teach this? Do you have a clear quote from one of their publications on this pioint?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't beleieve that Christ was divine while on his earthly mission. They believe he was not divine but that He was wholly human.

On the other hand, SDAs believe that Christ was both God and man the whole time He was upon the earth.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Jehovah's Witnesses also affirm that Jesus, prior to His coming to earth....

...Existed in heaven as Michael the archangel along with Satan the archangel.

...And countless OTHER archangels.

We agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus was Michael the Archangel, but we don't believe that Christ was on the same level as counless other archangel.

This is based on solid Bible evidence, yet it does not mean that Jesus was just another archangel. He never ceased to be God.

Quote:

I'm a Trinitarian and a believer in the Bible therefore your statement sounds odd to me....

...As it appears you share more in common with a JW theologically than I do.

I'm also a Trinitarian, but I don't believe there's anything wrong with having some beliefs in common with JW or with people of different denominations..

[John317]

It's been established then that the Sanctuary and Sabbath teachings of the Seventh day Adventists....

...Incepted off the premise that Father God had a body of flesh.

It is not an SDA Belief that God the father has a body of flesh. He has a body, yes, but we don't know anything in detail about that body. All we know is what God has revealed to us about Himsel.

It is true the SDAs make the connection between the necessity of /God's personality and the doctrines of the sanctuary. We believe God the Father and Christ are literally in the Most Holy Place in heaven. See Daniel 7: 9-14.

Quote:

Christ alone was able to represent the Deity. He who had been in the presence of the Father from the beginning, He who was the express image of the invisible God, was alone sufficient to accomplish this work. No verbal description could reveal God to the world. Through a life of purity, a life of perfect trust and submission to the will of God, a life of humiliation such as even the highest seraph in heaven would have shrunk from, God Himself must be revealed to humanity. In order to do this, our Saviour clothed His divinity with humanity. He employed the human faculties, for only by adopting these could He be comprehended by humanity. Only humanity could reach humanity. He lived out the character of God through the human body which God had prepared for Him. He blessed the world by living out in human flesh the life of God, thus showing that He had the power to unite humanity to divinity. {1SM 264.2}

[Gerr]

Gerry: 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.

miz3: 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.

Anger? Hatred? NO!!! NOTE: I did not call you asinine (thank you for the sp.), but I call them as I see them. Nobody is beyond making asinine statements including me! What else could I call an unfounded REPEATED charge that something the SDA church believes is based on EGW when in fact the same idea/interpretation have existed for CENTURIES before she came along? You have maintained that the SDA interpretation could not be sustained by Scripture alone. How then did they come to their conclusions?

[miz3]

Gerry,

Those ones who long before Ellen White took that position (the Papacy is Babylon, etc.) had no other entity in their world that fit the criteria.

My point is that the view they had was a limited view of the World and as such the only big entity at that time would be Roman Catholic Church. They really had no other choice in their day.

Such is not true today. We have a much wider view of history and a much wider view of current world conditions. As such, we can see many other "candidates" some of which dwarf the Roman Church in quantity and quality of evil.

Thus, today we have so many others that fit the criteria of Babylon. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only one to fit the criteria, anymore.

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

NOTE: I have it in writing that you did call me that name. I saw it as not revealing a very SDA and/or Christian spirit on your part.

I agree that we all will from time to time make foolish or stupid statements.

[phkrause]

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.

e

Exactly, and that's what I've been reading from others but not you. It seems to me that only you speak the truth and anyone that has a different opinion than yours doesn't have it. That's just amazing.

[miz3]

pkrause,

The Bible and the Bible only is the FINAL AUTHORITY!

[ClubV12]

Not according to Dr. Rich. Only Jesus and eye witness' are the final authority, the rest of the New Testament is in question.

Not unlike someone who refuses to acknowledge another source of authority, God's prophet (and more), Ellen White.

Why anyone would want to limit his sources, when they are clearly inspired, leaves me baffled...

[miz3]

Not unlike someone who refuses to acknowledge another source of authority, God's prophet (and more), Ellen White.

Why anyone would want to limit his sources, when they are clearly inspired, leaves me baffled...

You mentioned that Ellen White's words on the "reform dress" were NOT INSPIRED.

Are there any other Ellen white communications that you would categorize as "not inspired"?

I ask so I can know which parts of Ellen White are "inspired" and which parts are "not inspired".

[ClubV12]

Was Pauls counsel on marriage inspired, or not? Same applies to EGW counsel.

[phkrause]

Was Pauls counsel on marriage inspired, or not? Same applies to EGW counsel.

[miz3]

Gerry Cabalo,

You cite these numerous ones from the distant past some of them are Roman Catholic scholars.

I am curious, why do except their "scholarship" on the "little horn" and the "antichrist" but you don't accept their Biblical scholarship on the "state of the dead", their Biblical scholarship on "Sunday Worship" (mainly the Protestant scholars), their scholarship on "baptism", their scholarship on the "Lord's Supper" (communion), etc.

You seem to pick and chose depending what you agree with and disagree with. In other words "these people you cite" are "great Biblical scholars" if they agree with you and Ellen White but they are "NOT great Biblical scholars" when they don't agree with you.

I think your witnesses have just been impeached. That means they are not credible witnesses because you are cherry picking. Either they are credible Biblical witnesses or they are not credible Biblical witnesses. It cannot depend on agreement with you and you alone (and/or Ellen White) as to whether they are credible witnesses or not.

When you use them as an Authority you must use them as a total Authority or not use them at all.

The Bible is a total Authority. To many Ellen White is a total Authority. You can't say they have Authority then undercut your Authority on other points you don't like. Either your Authority is an Authority or it isn't.

The ancient ones you cite are not Authorities. They had opinions (which happen to be wrong) about many things including the "antichrist" and the "little horn" but that does not make them right, unless you are willing to go down the whole road with them as "inspired Bible scholars" on everything, not just on the "antichrist" and the "little horn".

Thus, your citations are mute!

[miz3]

pkrause and ClubV12,

I take it then that you believe every word Ellen White uttered and every word she wrote was "inspired"?

There then is nothing we have of her today that is "uninspired"?

Correct?

[ClubV12]

"I take it then that you believe every word Ellen White uttered and every word she wrote was "inspired"?"

I am reminded of the great controversy, when the evil doer first began to take that which was simple, shroud it in mystery and sew doubt through out heaven. I'm wondering,,, who is inspiring you, miz3?

[miz3]

ClubV12,

I don't think that you are the "one" to judge me.

I know my Source. The question is do you know my Source?

From you own words I don't think you know my Source but I do think that you think you know and you would be wrong in that assessment.

[John317]

Yes, I know your source, miz3. Based on what you say and your attitude, it is plain for all to see.

But I am actually glad you are here and I hope you stay. You apparently came for a certain reason, but people who attack Christ and His church and His prophet often fall at last into the hand's of a loving, forgivng God.

[miz3]

John317,

You apparently think that you too are my judge.

God is my judge and I'll take my chances with Him, thank you very much.