Gustave Posted January 30, 2012 Author Posted January 30, 2012 Yes, Gustave. Seventh-day Adventists know those verses well and rejoice in them. But those verses do not deal with the issue of whether Christ was a free agent and could have chosen to disobey His Father. Where can that even come into the picture John? ...Was Christ a free agent to NOT be born of a virgin. ...Was Christ a free agent to NOT be called out of Egypt. ...To not heal the sick? All those things ( to include Him not sinning or failing ) were explicitly REQUIREMENTS.... ...In the law and the Prophets that the Christ HAD TO MEET. ...Therefore IF Christ had sinned it would have simply meant He wasn't the Christ in the first place. Just the same as if it so happened Jesus was born of a woman who was bred by a Roman or Greek... ....And was produced in "the normal way". ....Ellen's "what iF" God failed is the same thing as saying that. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 You argued before it was just the man at risk. Now your latest statement seems to change that in accordance with the quotes. It looks like Gustave had a point. How can there be a rupture in the Godhead if it is just the man at risk? Gustave's point was that SDAs and EGW teach that God would have ceased to exist if Jesus Christ had sinned. We don't teach that. God cannot possibly cease to exist. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 ...Was Christ a free agent to NOT be born of a virgin. Yes, He did not have to come here as a human being. It was Christ's choice to come here and sacrifice for us. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
tall73 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Originally Posted By: tall73 You argued before it was just the man at risk. Now your latest statement seems to change that in accordance with the quotes. It looks like Gustave had a point. How can there be a rupture in the Godhead if it is just the man at risk? Gustave's point was that SDAs and EGW teach that God would have ceased to exist if Jesus Christ had sinned. We don't teach that. God cannot possibly cease to exist. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist
tall73 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Gustave's point was that SDAs and EGW teach that God would have ceased to exist if Jesus Christ had sinned. We don't teach that. God cannot possibly cease to exist. By the quote he placed here reputedly from Longacre I don't think you are getting quite what Gustave is saying. It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. This seems quite similar to your latter conclusion of a rupture in the Godhead. Now you have said that Gustave didn't understand Adventist teaching enough. How is it then that we have what he is asserting is an historical Adventist quote that seems to take Ellen White the same way? IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist
tall73 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Incidentally Gustave, what is the reference for Longacre's quote? Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 Heading to bed now. OK, good night. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Gustave Posted January 30, 2012 Author Posted January 30, 2012 Incidentally Gustave, what is the reference for Longacre's quote? http://www.a4t.org/Sermons/Misc/Longacre-Deity_of_Christ.pdf Here is what Longacre's bio looks like. Evangelist, author, editor, minister and administrator, Charles S. Longacre is best remembered for his work in Religious Liberty. Born in 1871 at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Charles Longacre heard the Advent Message in 1895. By 1898 he had completed the ministerial course at Battle Creek College, Battle Creek, Michigan. He then worked in the Pennsylvania Conference in evangelistic work until 1907. In 1908 Longacre moved to South Lancaster, Massachusetts to teach Bible history at South Lancaster Academy, where he remained until 1913 as principal. From that date until 1936 he became secretary of the Religious Liberty Association, editing Liberty, the association's journal for twenty-eight years, remaining on the editorial staff until his death in 1958. In 1919 he was also secretary of the General Conference Home Missionary Department. From 1932 until 1941 he also served as secretary of the American Temperance Society. Granted a Bachelor of Arts degree by Emmanuel Missionary College, Michigan (now Andrews University) in 1914, Longacre also received a B.A. in Philosophy from George Washington University, Washington D. C. with a minor in International Law. He also completed a three year law course with La Salle Extension University, Chicago. He wrote many articles for SDA and other periodicals. Author of books such as: Freedom: Civil and Religious, The Church in Politics, Religious Liberty and Civil Government, and Roger Williams - His Life, Work, and Ideals, Longacre received medals from Freedoms Foundations, Pennsylvania in 1955, 1956, and 1957, "for outstanding achievement in bringing about a better understanding of the American Way of life." In 1956 he also received a citation from Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State "in appreciation of his decades of distinguished service in behalf of religious freedom." For a biography of Longacre, refer to Charles S. Longacre, Champion of Religious Liberty, by Nathaniel Krum. Review & Herald Publishing Association, Washington D.C. Longacre was a who's who of SDAism - he is listed in SCORES of General Conference commiteee meetings... http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCC/GCC1915/index.djvu Quote
tall73 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Some additional thoughts for both sides. As to temptation, Gustave, it appears to me that Jesus was tempted, as the Scriptures say. I don't think he was tempted to lust, or to steal etc. as you mentioned before. I agree with you also that Satan found nothing in Him. Jesus' temptation however seems different from ours in the first place. Most of us are not tempted to turn stones in to bread, or jump off high buildings. However, Hebrews does say that he can relate to our weakness because He was tempted. It seems to me then that there must have been some legitimate temptation or else that could not be said. One place where I see temptation to a degree was the garden experience before the cross. Jesus said "let the cup pass from me". Certainly He did not want to have to go to the cross. God had laid out the plan, and Jesus was asking for another way. That does seem like legitimate temptation. Yet even here the response was "Your will be done", so He did not sin. Just trying to work through all this. Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895 Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption Heaven itself was IMPERILED? Here I think your argument seems right on. Risk implies the opportunity for failure. When she talks of Jesus going to earth she frames it as Jesus taking on a risk at that time. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not ONLY became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure AND eternal loss What Jesus did was not risk in that sense. It was not just a risk but a full certainty that Christ would have to die. But nor was it a risk of failure because God who knows all things knew it would not be a failure. Risk means a chance of failure. But God knew that what He did would be successful, but at a cost. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist
tall73 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 EGW was trying to explain what could have happened if certain situations transpired, even though it was impossible to happen. She was trying to drive a point home, not say that the 'ifs' could truly possibly happen. It shouldn't be a stumbling block to anyone. When one wants to drive a point home, one would emphasize by repeating variously angled explanations, though these may be considered unnecessary by some others... but it is more to personal style or shortcomings (if put in that way) but this shouldn't keep anyone from grasping the elemental truths. I think I understand what you are getting at. Sometimes you might take hypotheticals to illustrate further the meaning of something. However, by attributing to God the thought that there was risk of failure involved it is downplaying God's knowing the end from the beginning. God knew it would not fail. To talk as though Jesus or God, pre-incarnation, entertained the notion that it could fail lowers God to our level of uncertainty about the future. She was trying to talk about how great of a cost heaven paid. Part of that cost she figures in is the notion of risk. Ultimately using risk as an element of how great the cost was is not accurate. Risk was not possible. God knew what would happen. So uncertainty about the future was not something that was part of the cost paid in the plan of salvation by God or Jesus, pre-incarnation. The certainty of God giving His Son over to death and to take on our sins upon Himself was the cost. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 http://www.a4t.org/Sermons/Misc/Longacre-Deity_of_Christ.pdf ...For a biography of Longacre, refer to Charles S. Longacre, Champion of Religious Liberty, by Nathaniel Krum. Review & Herald Publishing Association, Washington D.C. Longacre was a who's who of SDAism - he is listed in SCORES of General Conference commiteee meetings... http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCC/GCC1915/index.djvu Charles S. Longacre was a prominent anti-Trinitarian in the SDA church and therefore when it comes to the topic of the Godhead, he doesn't represent the views of the SDA church. In spite of all the many good things he did in other capacities, what Longacre said in regard to the Godhead simply has no authority. To use his quotes on the topic would be like quoting a CAtholic who rejects papal infallibility in order to represent Roman Catholic doctrine. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 None of this has anything to do with why SDAs don't agree with the Nicene Creed. The reason we don't agree with the Nicene Creed is simply that it was influenced by Greek philosophy, whereas SDA beliefs regarding the Godhead are based directly on the Bible. As I said before, even if we agreed with the Nicene Creed, the SDA church would not accept it as an authority. Our rejection of the Nicene Creed is based on principle, not on whether we agree or disagree with it. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted January 30, 2012 Moderators Posted January 30, 2012 :-) Thank you, dgrimm. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Gustave Posted January 30, 2012 Author Posted January 30, 2012 Originally Posted By: Gustave http://www.a4t.org/Sermons/Misc/Longacre-Deity_of_Christ.pdf ...For a biography of Longacre, refer to Charles S. Longacre, Champion of Religious Liberty, by Nathaniel Krum. Review & Herald Publishing Association, Washington D.C. Longacre was a who's who of SDAism - he is listed in SCORES of General Conference commiteee meetings... http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCC/GCC1915/index.djvu Charles S. Longacre was a prominent anti-Trinitarian in the SDA church and therefore when it comes to the topic of the Godhead, he doesn't represent the views of the SDA church. In spite of all the many good things he did in other capacities, what Longacre said in regard to the Godhead simply has no authority. To use his quotes on the topic would be like quoting a CAtholic who rejects papal infallibility in order to represent Roman Catholic doctrine. Longacre articulated exactly what Ellen White was saying, that God risked loosing His Son.... ...And had that loss been realized it would have been permanent. What I hear you saying John is that Longacre's affirmation that Christ could have failed... ...Is "AGAINST THE TRINITY ...And that is PRECISELY what I've been telling you. From the White Estate The Battle Creek Moon Journal estimated that 2,000 were in the slowly moving procession that passed the open casket, which was placed just in front of the pulpit. An honor guard of six ministers alternated in pairs every twenty minutes and stood, one at the head of the casket and one at the foot. Those so privileged were Elders C. S. Longacre, M. L. Andreasen, W. A. Westworth, E. A. Bristol, L. H. Christian, and C. F. McVagh.—DF 756. So, Longacre was an "honor guard" for Ellen White as she laid in State.... ...I wonder what that means John. I've already went through the mechanics of how Ellen had worked all this out... ...If Christ sinned His conditional deity would have simply returned to the one who gave it to Him. ...The Father, the Ultimate God. "Christ's deity was His to keep so long as He remained Loyal" Do you remember Ellen White saying that? If He wasn't loyal Father God would have sucked out the loaned deity and Christ would have suffered eternal loss. Seriously John - what risk would there have been IF the worst thing that would have happened IF Christ sinned would be that the earthly corpus of Christ rotted in the tomb and whatever it was Christ always was simply floated back up to heaven to continue in the existence and position He had prior to the Incarnation? You would have a point if Ellen had said something different than Longacre - however Longacre was saying EXACTLY what Ellen White was saying. Your likening this spectacle to A Catholic who doesn't believe in Papal infallibility teaching the meaning of Catholicism isn't very good - for your point to hold water Ellen would have had to say something totally different than Longacre - when the facts show she didn't - she said the same thing. Quote
tall73 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 None of this has anything to do with why SDAs don't agree with the Nicene Creed. The reason we don't agree with the Nicene Creed is simply that it was influenced by Greek philosophy, whereas SDA beliefs regarding the Godhead are based directly on the Bible. As I said before, even if we agreed with the Nicene Creed, the SDA church would not accept it as an authority. Our rejection of the Nicene Creed is based on principle, not on whether we agree or disagree with it. I do think Gustave has a few too many topics going at once here which are somewhat loosely related. Perhaps he can review how he sees them all relating. And it is true historically that the SDA church on principle did not hold to creeds. But they also disagreed with some of the creeds on particulars. such as the parts of the body, etc. And it is also true that the current fundamental beliefs are still included in the official baptismal vows (for those churches that use them) and become a default creed. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist
tall73 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Charles S. Longacre was a prominent anti-Trinitarian in the SDA church and therefore when it comes to the topic of the Godhead, he doesn't represent the views of the SDA church. Yet you seemed to be agreeing with his assessment in this regard, in that you talked about a rupture in the Godhead. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist
Gibs Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 This article contains a paper called ‘The Deity of Christ’. It was written by Charles Smull Longacre, a renowned Seventh-day Adventist minister. Undoubtedly, from beginning to end, he knew and understood our God given message. As will be seen when the paper is read, the beliefs found therein were as believed by Seventh-day Adventists prior to its adoption of the trinity doctrine. Longacre first came into contact with Seventh-day Adventism in 1895. Three years later in the May of 1898 he completed his ministerial course. This was the year that ‘The Desire of Ages’ was first published. This is very important to realise because Longacre was obviously taught, also continued to teach throughout his ministry, what was then our denominational beliefs concerning the Godhead. This was a Godhead belief that not only upheld the full and complete deity of Christ but also taught that in eternity He was begotten (brought forth – not created) of the Father. This therefore was strictly a non-trinitarian belief. It was this non-trinitarianism that during Ellen White’s ministry was taught within our denomination. This, during the early 1900’s, was the continuing faith of Seventh-day Adventists. Ellen White died in 1915. Early in his ministry Longacre was not out of harmony with the main body of Seventh-day Adventists. He only taught what they believed and taught. This again is very important to realise. As we read through his paper, we need to keep this in mind. Longacre’s paper details these non-trinitarian beliefs. He also gives ample support for them from the Scriptures, also from the writings of Ellen White. For more on Charles Longacre, also on others who upheld the ‘old theology’ of Seventh-day Adventism, even into the 1950’s, see section forty-eight of the Detailed History Series. Important also to realise is that Longacre was a very well known figure in Seventh-day Adventism. He held quite a number of very important posts. This is seen in the following biography found in Volume 10 of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (1966). As you read his paper please bear this biography in mind. Interesting to note is that Longacre was selected as one of the six ‘guards’ to Ellen White’s bier at her funeral. He was very much respected within Seventh-day Adventism. Until you show me better proof I will stand with C. Longacre, Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Is the Holy Spirit another God? Read, don't sound like it to me, Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. Quote A Freeman In Jesus Christ
Gustave Posted January 31, 2012 Author Posted January 31, 2012 Well Gibs, you are right that it's impossible to hold to a peccable Christ and apply the hypothetical.... ...That IF He sinned He would lost His salvation, "GOD" would-a-lost His dear Son eternally, etc, etc. ...And be a Trinitarian - it's impossible. Aside from that I can clearly see how the SDA Church attempted to do it's best to move away from that position... ...But they simply can't and retain Ellen White as a prophet. ...For if she was wrong about THAT then what else was she wrong in? Quote
Gustave Posted May 9, 2012 Author Posted May 9, 2012 Given the current thread "RE, Father, Son & Holy Ghost 3 gods"... ...I felt it only proper to bump this thread. ...If anyone wants to drill down deeper into the issue. Quote
Lysimachus Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 Here is why Adventists don't go along with the Satanic Creed. By their fruits, ye shall know them. How do we know that the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was a union setup by Satan? The profuse history showing the persecution that took place against all dissenters, not to mention the punishments upon Sabbath keepers, and that Pope Sylvester I during this time was the first to declare the sanctity of the Sabbath to be transferred to Sunday. It was the Council of Nicaea, by order of the Pagan Constantine, that plunged humanity into the horrors of the Dark Ages, and prevented man from exercising his moral will and free choice. The Nicene Creed became the Holy Spirit and replaced it, so that men's minds could not become free moral thinking agents. Quote: It was intended that the decision of this council, in the creed adopted, should put an end forever to all religious differences. "It is certain that the Creed of Nicaea was meant to be an end of theological controversy." -- Stanley. ("History of the Eastern Church," Lecture iv, par. 39.) Constantine published it as the inspiration of God. In a letter to the "Catholic Church of the Alexandrians," announcing the decision of the council, he said: "That which has commended itself to the judgment of three hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God; seeing that the Holy Spirit dwelling in the minds of so many dignified persons has effectually enlightened them respecting the divine will. Wherefore let no one vacillate or linger, but let all with alacrity return to the undoubted path of duty." (Socrates's "Ecclesiastical History," book i, chap. ix.) Another, expressing the views of the Catholic Church in this same century, ascribes absolute and irresistible infallibility to the decisions of the council. He flatly declares that even if those who composed the council had been "idiots, yet, as being illuminated by God and the grace of his Holy Spirit, they were utterly unable to err from the truth." -- Socrates. (Id) And Athanasius declared: "The word of the Lord, which was given in the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, remaineth forever." (Stanley, "History of the Eastern Church," Lecture iv, par. 41.) Those who had formed the creed were exalted as the Fathers of Nicaea, and then to the creed was applied the scripture, "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set." (Id) From that time forth the words, "Stand by the landmark," were considered a sufficient watchword to put every Catholic on his guard against the danger of heresy. "From this period we may date the introduction of rigorous articles of belief, which required the submissive assent of the mind to every word and letter of an established creed, and which raised the slightest heresy of opinion into a more fatal offense against God, and a more odious crime in the estimation of man, than the worst moral delinquency or the most flagrant deviation from the spirit of Christianity." -- Milman. ("History of Christianity," book iii, chap. iv, par. 1.) In the unanimity of opinion attained by the council, however, the idea of inspiration from any source other than Constantine, is a myth, and even that was a vanishing quantity, because a considerable number of those who subscribed to the creed, did so against their honest convictions, and with the settled determination to secure a revision or a reversal just as soon as it could possibly be brought about: and to bring it about they would devote every waking moment of their lives. Yet more than this, this theory proceeds upon the assumption that religious truth and doctrine are subject to the decision of the majority, than which nothing could possibly be farther from the truth. Even though the decision of the Council of Nicaea had been absolutely, and from honest conviction, spontaneously unanimous, it never could rest with the slightest degree of obligation or authority upon any soul, who had not arrived at the same conclusion from honest conviction derived from the free exercise of his own power of thought. There is no organization, nor tribunal, on earth that has any right to decide for anybody what is the truth upon any religious question. "The head of every man is Christ." 1 Cor. xi, 3. "One is your Master, even Christ." Matt. xxiii, 8. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. . . . So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Rom. xiv, 4, 12. In the quest for truth every man is free to search, to believe, and to decide for himself alone. And his assent to any form of belief or doctrine, to be true, must spring from his own personal conviction that such is the truth. "The truth itself, forced on man otherwise than by its own inward power, becomes falsehood." -- Neander. ("History of the Christian Religion and Church," Vol. ii, Section Second, part i, div. i, par. 1.) And he who suffers anything to be so forced upon him, utters a lie against himself and against God. The realm of thought is the realm of God. Whosoever would attempt to restrict or coerce the free exercise of the thought of another, usurps the dominion of God, and exercises that of the devil. This is what Constantine did at the Council of Nice. This is what the majority of the Council of Nice itself did. In carrying out the purpose for which it was met, this is the only thing that it could do, no matter which side of the controversy should prove victorious. What Constantine and the Council of Nice did, was to open the way and set the wicked precedent for that despotism over thought, which continued for more than fourteen hundred dreary years, and which was carried to such horrible lengths when the pope succeeded to the place of Constantine as head over both Church and State. To say that the Holy Spirit had anything whatever to do with the council either in discussing or deciding the question or in any other way, is but to argue that the Holy Spirit of God is but the subject and tool of the unholy passions of ambitious and wicked men. (Alonzo Trevier Jones, The Two Republics, or Rome and the United States of America, Chapter XIV. Establishment of the Catholic Faith, pp. 352-354) This ecumenical proceeding that transpired was a small foretaste of what will happen in the end of the world. It contributed to plunging the world into the horrors of the Dark Ages, and fueled persecution upon all dissenters, and it will happen again. "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful." (Revelation 17:12-14) I'm sorry folks, but all accusations that we are anti-Catholic ain't gonna fly! The truth is the truth, as cutting and painful as it may be, it will triumph my friends! :) Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Gustave Posted May 10, 2012 Author Posted May 10, 2012 Here is why Adventists don't go along with the Satanic Creed. By their fruits, ye shall know them. How do we know that the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was a union setup by Satan? The profuse history showing the persecution that took place against all dissenters, not to mention the punishments upon Sabbath keepers, and that Pope Sylvester I during this time was the first to declare the sanctity of the Sabbath to be transferred to Sunday. It was the Council of Nicaea, by order of the Pagan Constantine, that plunged humanity into the horrors of the Dark Ages, and prevented man from exercising his moral will and free choice. The Nicene Creed became the Holy Spirit and replaced it, so that men's minds could not become free moral thinking agents. Just what persecutions of dissenters and punishment of Sabbath keepers... ...Do you believe was going on in 325 A.D.? ...Most of the Bishops who attened that council were already maimed because they had already been tortured for their faith. ...And the faith of those already tortured Bishops is reflected in the Creed. Also, you've already identified yourself as not believing in the Trinity Doctrine.... ...So your false conjecture as to why the Nicene Creed is Satanic holds less water than a chicken-wire canoe. Quote
Lysimachus Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 Just what persecutions of dissenters and punishment of Sabbath keepers... ...Do you believe was going on in 325 A.D.? I never said anything of the sort. The issues above discuss what this Creed led to, not what persecutions took place who dissented upon the Creed at that time. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Gustave Posted May 10, 2012 Author Posted May 10, 2012 I never said anything of the sort. The issues above discuss what this Creed led to, not what persecutions took place who dissented upon the Creed at that time. Then you agree that the Symbol of Nicaea was agreed upon by those Christian Bishops.... ...Who had been hunted and tortured for their faith. ...And it was THOSE same Christian Bishops who formulated the Creed. Quote
Gustave Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 The following is the KEY ELEMENT within the holy Symbol of Nicaea... ...That has SDA's promulgating that the Creed of Nicaea was formulated at the direction of Lucifer. Nicaea Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); OR who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], OR that the Son of God is created, OR MUTABLE, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes Hebrews 13,8 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same for ever Luke 24,36 Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to you; it is I, fear not. But they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them: Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and feet. But while they yet believed not, and wondered for joy, he said: Have you any thing to eat? And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them. And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things MUST needs BE FULFILLED, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. The Prophets EXPLICITLY stated that Christ WOULD pay all our debts... ...He would go to the cross SPOTLESS with NO INIQUITY. ...He was the Lamb Slain from before the world was created. This fundamental truth is shouted at nearly deafening levels throughout the Sacred Scriptures... ...Yet because it didn't jive with the Arian theology of the SDA Pioneers & Ellen White. ...It was suppressed and promulgated that Christ COULD HAVE sinned and lost His own salvation. Instead of Christ not falling for Satan's temptations to be understood as another PROOF He was the Christ... ...An Arian rubric was formulated which mutated God the Son into a "creature christ". ...A "creature christ" which had only a "conditional deity". ...A deity which Ellen White said He would have lost "IF" or "HAD" Jesus sinned. Quote
Gustave Posted June 3, 2012 Author Posted June 3, 2012 Recently discovered the following video which was produced by the Seventh-day Adventists... ...The video appears to be affirming EXACTLY what I had previously been. ...That Christ is REALLY God & as such there is no change from perfectly holy to sinner. http://www.itiswritten.com/television#episodes/1080 Is something good taking place within SDAism? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.