Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[Lysimachus]

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.

"Must", and "will" are not the same. What "must be done", and is "for-ordained" to be done, never means that there is no choice to refuse to do that which "must be done".

Gustave, you've lost this battle long before it has begun. You're dead wrong, as we have unequivocally pointed out.

You're better off remaining silent from this point forward.

Adventism has come along to restore the sacred truths of Orthodoxy. Both the Papacy and the Orthodox Church, and all its perfidious Creeds are the devising of heretical Demonism. The Great Hermetic Dragon, and its Sun god.

[Lysimachus]

In case you missed my previous post, here it is again:

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! :)

[Gustave]

Lysimachus, do you believe that the "It Is Written" television episode I linked is in error???

...That video actually estabishes everything I've said here.

...It even cites the Councils and Synods involved.

...Claiming they defended Apostolic Christianity.

[Dr. Waite]

The reason Adventist Denominations do not read the creed or accept it....

...Is because the Creed affirms that it was impossible for Christ to mutate.

...Aside from that one rather large issue the SDA body appears to agree with everything else.

Does anyone within the SDA Church believe at a future time....

...The SDA Denomination will reject the teaching that it would have been possible for Christ to mutate?

...And affirm the Creed?

If this could be possible what effect would it have on the prophetic schema(s) uttered by Ellen White?

...And how would such a change in theology take place?

In this the Nicene Creed:?

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

and of all things, visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only begotten Son of God,

begotten of the Father before all ages,

God from God, Light from Light,

of one being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven.

He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit

of the virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He shall come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son

he is worshipped and glorified.

He spoke through the prophets.

I acknowledge one holy, catholic and apostolic church,

and one baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come."

It says "begotten of the Father before all ages"

Was this ever changed to "eternally begotten"?

Does the SDA church agree with "I acknowledge one holy, catholic and apostolic church"?

[Gustave]

From what I've heard Dr Waite the answer is yes....

...The SDA Church boasts it's the Catholic church.

[Dr. Waite]

The reason Adventist Denominations do not read the creed or accept it....

...Is because the Creed affirms that it was impossible for Christ to mutate.

...Aside from that one rather large issue the SDA body appears to agree with everything else.

Does anyone within the SDA Church believe at a future time....

...The SDA Denomination will reject the teaching that it would have been possible for Christ to mutate?

...And affirm the Creed?

If this could be possible what effect would it have on the prophetic schema(s) uttered by Ellen White?

...And how would such a change in theology take place?

What do other Christians think about SDA's so-called trinity doctrine and whether SDAs agree with the Nicene creed?

The Adventist "God” is not a "He” (one living being/monotheism), and the Biblical God is not "They” (three divine beings/tritheism).

God is outside of time and space, and is the "I AM.” Time, space, and matter were created by God, and have not always existed uncreated.

Adventism denies the orthodox, Biblical teachings of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit.

Adventism's authoritative founder and prophet Ellen G. White rejected the doctrine of the Trinity (which she had been raised to believe in the Methodist denomination) and taught anti-Trinitarianism her entire career, eventually formulating the current Adventist heresy of Tritheism. (For the documentation on this, see: http://www.cultorchristian.com/#EGW)

God's revelation to us does not begin with error and then "progress” to truth (much less to more error!).

Adventism rebelliously chose to reject Christianity in favor of anti-Trinitarianism, to which they still hold today.

As we have seen throughout this week, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, including its authoritative prophetess Ellen G. White, does not teach the historic, orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity (as their own scholars admit—see here: http://www.cultorchristian.com/sdaadmissions.html), but instead teaches a tritheistic "Godhead” that is a group of three separate physical divine beings (gods), who are "one” only in purpose, character, etc. This teaching is nearly identical to "the Godhead” of Mormonism.

The Adventist "Jesus” is not the Jesus of the Bible, who is the one true God, but is instead merely one of three gods.

For further study of the Biblical, Christian doctrine of the Trinity see Christian apologist Robert Bowman's study "The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” available online at: http://www.irr.org/trinity-outline.html Also, a short collection of helpful Christian quotes on the Trinity can be found here: http://www.cultorchristian.com/christiantrinity.html

For an in-depth examination and documentation of the differences between the Adventist "Godhead” and the Christian Trinity, see my website here: http://www.cultorchristian.com/

See http://www.biblestudiesforadventists.com/2012/quarter1/week1/sabbathschool7.html

[Gustave]

What do other Christians think about SDA's so-called trinity doctrine and whether SDAs agree with the Nicene creed?

ANY Church ( Christian so called ) that teaches it was hypothetically possible for Christ to have mutated...

...I.E. "sin" & subsequently eternally cease to exist because He would have lost His conditional deity.

...Has absolutely departed, in total, from the Trinity Doctrine.

This is easily demonstrated by simply reading the Creed and Symbol of Nicaea...

...Which simply systematize Sacred Scripture in it's affirmation that Christ is: the same yesterday, today & forever.

It's simply not any more difficult then that.

[Gustave]

Dr. Waite, interesting to note that the audio link contained in one of the URL's you posted....

...Has SDA's confirming most EVERYTHING I've been saying here in this thread.

...I would be interested in hearing what SDA's who claim they are Trinitarian think about this.

http://www.cultorchristian.com/audio/sdatrinity.mp3

[phkrause]

Gustave, here's an article by Angel Manuel Rodriguez called "What If." I thought it was very interesting. Tell me what you think? Its from the September 2010 Adventist World NAD edition.

http://www.adventistworld.org/article/847/resources/english/issue-2010-1009/what-if

[Gustave]

Gustave, here's an article by Angel Manuel Rodriguez called "What If." I thought it was very interesting. Tell me what you think? Its from the September 2010 Adventist World NAD edition.

http://www.adventistworld.org/article/847/resources/english/issue-2010-1009/what-if

[Lysimachus]

None of the above negates the previous arguments put forth by myself and Dennis.

To believe that Christ could NOT have chosen to sin, and failed, IS in very sense of the word, Unbiblical, and Heretical.

Knowing the end from the beginning does not contradict this. Only when you perceive this concept with skewed lenses will it appear to contradict it.

What COULD happen, and what WOULD happen, are two different dimensions.

The Words of Christ do not say what you think they are saying. The words do not mean what you think they are meaning. In reality, they confirm our beliefs on this matter.

You just have to adjust the way you are processing the data in your mind. It's very deep. It is mysterious.

[Guest]

You just have to adjust the way you are processing the data in your mind. It's very deep. It is mysterious.

I hope it's not over his head.

[phkrause]

Well I disagree with you. I find what he says to very biblical. You have not refuted anything anywhere. Your opinions are yours to say, I just don't agree with them.

[Gustave]

Well I disagree with you. I find what he says to very biblical. You have not refuted anything anywhere. Your opinions are yours to say, I just don't agree with them.

I understand I'm the odd man in this place pkrause - I knew that coming in...

...And I want you to at least consider what I'm saying here.

...Prior to going back to your SDA theological safe spot.

In Catholicism the whole of Sacred Scripture is taken into account...

...And Doctrines are developed from the initial deposit of Faith which was once delivered.

In this case Scripture is crystal clear that God would come and would save the world...

...Many things were said about the Christ through the Old Testament books.

...Jesus said ALL things had to be fuflilled concerning Him that was said in Scripture.

You CANNOT deny that part of "all things" said of The Christ...

...Was that He would be WITHOUT sin - He would die for the People and be Resurrected.

...This truth is as plainly stated as ANY other prophecy about the Christ.

Luke 24,44

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ALL things MUST be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

He said it here,

Matthew 26,53

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

& here,

Matthew 16,21

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he MUST go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

& here,

Matthew 17,22

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man SHALL be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, AND the third day he shall be raised again

And of course one of the strongest rebukes Christ was known to make...

...He made it to those who didn't believe "ALL" that the Prophets said.

Luke 24,44

And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

The Prophets were clear about how things would end up...

...This is exactly was Jesus said.

...& He said only a fool would have questioned ANY part of it.

Isaiah 35,4

He will come and SAVE you

Daniel 4,3

His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom

Psalm 22,31

They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this

Isaiah 9,6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this

1 Peter 1, 10

Of which salvation the PROPHETS have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that SHOULD come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified BEFOREHAND the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Jer 31,32

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It is as the Prophet Daniel had clealy stated in his prophecy...

..."The Great God of Heaven" would set up a kingdom and no one would deny this.

...Not even Lucifer - who Ellen White claimed "had a shot at denying it".

I'm asking you to consider the evidence from Scripture itself...

...That says a hypothetical of Jesus loosing His own salvation.

...And being annihilated by God the Father is blasphemous.

Why do you believe in the SDA doctrine of Christ being peccable when the Bible said He wouldn't sin....

...Long before Christ came in the flesh to save us?

[Gustave]

Well I disagree with you. I find what he says to very biblical. You have not refuted anything anywhere. Your opinions are yours to say, I just don't agree with them.

I understand I'm the odd man in this place pkrause - I knew that coming in...

...And I want you to at least consider what I'm saying here.

...Prior to going back to your SDA theological safe spot.

In Catholicism the whole of Sacred Scripture is taken into account...

...And Doctrines are developed from the initial deposit of Faith which was once delivered.

In this case Scripture is crystal clear that God would come and would save the world...

...Many things were said about the Christ through the Old Testament books.

...Jesus said ALL things had to be fuflilled concerning Him that was said in Scripture.

You CANNOT deny that part of "all things" said of The Christ...

...Was that He would be WITHOUT sin - He would die for the People and be Resurrected.

...This truth is as plainly stated as ANY other prophecy about the Christ.

Luke 24,44

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ALL things MUST be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

He said it here,

Matthew 26,53

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

& here,

Matthew 16,21

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he MUST go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

& here,

Matthew 17,22

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man SHALL be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, AND the third day he shall be raised again

And of course one of the strongest rebukes Christ was known to make...

...He made it to those who didn't believe "ALL" that the Prophets said.

Luke 24,44

And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

The Prophets were clear about how things would end up...

...This is exactly what Jesus said.

...& He said only a fool would have questioned ANY part of it.

Isaiah 35,4

He will come and SAVE you

Daniel 4,3

His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom

Psalm 22,31

They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this

Isaiah 9,6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this

1 Peter 1, 10

Of which salvation the PROPHETS have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that SHOULD come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified BEFOREHAND the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Jer 31,32

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It is as the Prophet Daniel had clealy stated in his prophecy...

..."The Great God of Heaven" would set up a kingdom and no one would deny this.

...Not even Lucifer - who Ellen White claimed "had a shot at denying it".

I'm asking you to consider the evidence from Scripture itself...

...That says a hypothetical of Jesus loosing His own salvation.

...And being annihilated by God the Father is blasphemous.

Why do you believe in the SDA doctrine of Christ being peccable when the Bible said He wouldn't sin....

...Long before Christ came in the flesh to save us?

[John317]

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.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

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.

You're hearing me wrong, Gustave. I'm not disagreeing with Longacre in regard to the possibility of Christ's failing. The Church's disagreement with Longacre is over the Trinity, not over God's risk.

[Gustave]

You're hearing me wrong, Gustave. I'm not disagreeing with Longacre in regard to the possibility of Christ's failing. The Church's disagreement with Longacre is over the Trinity, not over God's risk.

Perhaps we have not been understanding each other here...

...What I'm saying is that the SDA hypothetical of Christ sinning.

... IS anti-Trinitarian - that's the whole issue.

Review & Herald Nov 14, 1854

Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense ; that ho alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to havo life in himself." John v, 26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (i. e., is self existent) just the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life ? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity ? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; 01 even if it did, 1 would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life

It is in the above context that Ellen White said:

Ellen White

Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty .

The Trinity Doctrine does not allow ANY mechanism by which God the Son would cease to exist...

...When one considers that Christ called those who questioned ANYTHING the Prophets said about Him Fools.

...And it's realized that the Prophets said Christ would be without sin.

...It should close any argument out that promulgates Christ "could have" sinned.

[Gustave]

I found another Scripture that speak of the heretical teaching of creature christ...

...Please meditate on this Scripture.

Luke 22,36

For I say unto you, that this that is written MUST YET be accomplished IN me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...In otherwords Ellen White taught Christ "could have mutated".

...This is why the SDA Church does not affirm the Nicene Creed.

...Simply because the Creed and Council it came from.

...Classify the mutation of Christ as heretical.

The SDA Church would not affirm the Nicene Creed even if an SDA wrote it. We don't believe in, or submit, to any creed, no matter who wrote or even if we agree with it. We simply are opposed to the whole concept of a Creed, apart from the Bible. Many SDAs are even opposed to having a list of Fundamental Beliefs which has been affirmed by the SDA world church in General Conference.

Do you really believe that there is a significant deifference between a religious creed and a list of fundamental beliefs? My dictionay definies a creed as a list of fundamental beliefs,which means that they must be synonyms.

[Gustave]

Yes Nic, you've addressed the point I was making about this issue...

...The SDA Creed allows for a mutation capable creature christ.

...While the Nicene Creed identifies such as heretical.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“We can be thankful to God that He didn't allow this to happen to the Seventh-day Adventist Church when it came time for them to accept the truth of the Trinity. We only accepted the Bible's teachings on it and nothing more.”

The doctrine of the Trinity as taught by us Adventists has many problems. Here is a small sample:

A. It makes Jesus the Son of the Holy Spirit because Mary was impregnated by it. If we understand the H.S. as the invisible manifestation of God’s presence, then the problem is solved. You are probably familiar with one of the basic characteristics of Hebrew poetry. An idea or thought is followed by another one which is equivalent to it. A good example is found in Psalm 139:7: “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?" As you can see, God’s Spirit is equated with God’s presence in this biblical passage.

B. Ellen White told us that Lucifer occupied the position of honor next to Christ in heaven. If this is correct, then it follows that the alleged Holy Spirit occupied the fourth position of honor in heaven. If we follow the logic, we need to conclude that if there was a Trinity in heaven before the fall of Lucifer, he—Lucifer—was a member of such Trinity. Can we accept this?

C. We use Genesis one to support the doctrine of the Trinity. But we discover that the original Hebrew term for Spirit has many possible connotations such as wind, breath, and even presence. If we choose the last option, and if we use this every time where Bible translators have used phrases such as Holy Spirit, or God’s Spirit, then we discover that those texts simply refer to the invisible presence of God’s.

D. We also use the passage found in John 14 in support of this doctrine which we inherited from Rome with some modifications. We forget that after promising to send another Comforter, he did explain that the one coming would be Jesus himself in a spiritual and invisible manner: “I will come back to you. I will not leave you orphans.” He even stated that the one coming back to them would be the one living with them. So I ask: Who was living with them? It was Jesus. He had been with them in a physical and visible form, but he would come back to them in a spiritual and invisible manner.

E. In addition, we have the following enigma: The Bible teaches that prophecy was the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. But when we go to the most prominent prophetic books of the Bible, we discover that the instrument for the revelatory experience was the Angel Gabriel.

F. Read the chain of revelation detailed in Rev. 1:1. It includes God, Jesus Christ, the angel, and the prophet. The H.S. is not included. And the same is true when we go to the book of Daniel. This is so patently clear that in chapter 10:21 we discover that the Angel Gabriel stated that there was no one to help him in this except Michael the Prince.

There is much more, but I will stop right here.

[Gustave]

Nic, you obviously understand why the General Conference will NOT allow the Nicene Creed...

...To be affirmed in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

...The Nicene Creed is not in keeping with Ellen White's Arian theology.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gustave,

If Jesus could not have sinned, then how do you explain the following:

A. Jesus’ agony in the Garden of Gethsemane?

B. Jesus desperate exclamation “Why have you forsaken me?”

C. Satan’s efforts to induce Jesus to show a lack of faith in God’s provision for his needs when he was tempted in the desert? Was the Devil so foolish as the even try to lead Jesus to deviate from God’s will for him?

Besides, can you state your own position on the Trinity doctrine?

[Gustave]

Gustave,

If Jesus could not have sinned, then how do you explain the following:

A. Jesus’ agony in the Garden of Gethsemane?

B. Jesus desperate exclamation “Why have you forsaken me?”

C. Satan’s efforts to induce Jesus to show a lack of faith in God’s provision for his needs when he was tempted in the desert? Was the Devil so foolish as the even try to lead Jesus to deviate from God’s will for him?

Besides, can you state your own position on the Trinity doctrine?

For starters I wouldn't take what Jesus said was impossible & mutate it into a possibility...

...God was most explicit when He said what He did about what was going to happen.

Luke 18,31

Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and ALL THINGS that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man SHALL BE accomplished

Luke 22,37

For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end

That highlighted part comes from Isiah 53...

...Let's take a look at it.

Isaiah 53,9

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, NEITHER was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge SHALL my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors

Jesus said that "ALL" of "EVERYTHING" said concerning Him "HAD TO BE FULFILLED"...

...This is part of the 'all' Nic.

...This isn't the only Scriptures either - there isn't enough room in one post to cover all of them.

A few more examples:

Luke 24,44

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ALL THINGS MUST BE FULFILLED, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me

I've already shown where in the law of Moses salvation was PROMISED by God....

...I've already shown in the Psalms salvation COULDN'T fail.

...I've already shown in the Prophets there was no possibility of failure.

...Jesus explicitly says this Himself.

So, lets look at the Arian ( that's exactly what they are ) pleading arguments...

...That Christ "could have" sinned and lost His Salvation.

A)

Jesus' agony in the garden of Gethsemane?

Jesus KNEW exactly what was going to happen to Him...

...He said this SEVERAL times & because Christ was as much fully human as He was God.

...He had human emotions, fears, could feel pain, etc.

...Scripture says in all ways except for sin He was one of us.

Imagine that you were sentenced to die for a crime you didn't commit....

...And that you got to see your own execution order complete with the torture that would take place prior.

...Now, imagine that your time was running out - would you be in agony??

B

Jesus desperate exclamation “Why have you forsaken me?”

This is another classical Arian pleading argument which claims Jesus was at His wits end...

...Thinking His Father had turned His back on Him!

...This is perhaps one of the more twisted interpretations out there.

Jesus, was QUOTING enough of a famous Psalm so those close would understand...

...ANY Jew or educated Roman would have known what Jesus meant.

...It was the 22nd Psalm which ENDS in "Victory".

So no, Jesus wasn't making a "desperate plea" to His Father...

...Jesus KNEW He was going to die, period.

Matthew 16,21

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he MUST go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Remember when Jesus said everything said concerning Him HAD TO HAPPEN...

...Scriptures CAN'T be broken, etc?

...Well, as an SDA you really like the Prophet Daniel, right?

Daniel 2,43

And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of THESE kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Is Jesus, according to Seventh-day Adventists, the stone that was cut out of the mountain w/out hands?

...If you say YES then what business do you have rebuking what Jesus said in Luke 24,44?

...And the Holy Spirit in nearly a 100 other places in Scripture?

C.

Satan’s efforts to induce Jesus to show a lack of faith in God’s provision for his needs when he was tempted in the desert? Was the Devil so foolish as the even try to lead Jesus to deviate from God’s will for him?

Of course Satan would - he had to try...

...Jesus was DRIVEN into the wild so that Satan could test Him.

Mark 1,11

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And immediately THE SPIRIT driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

If what Jesus said about EVERYTHING the law, the Prophets & Psalms saying concerning Him HAD TO HAPPEN....

...Then along with healing the sick, raising the dead, being called out of Egypt, etc.

...Would ALSO require that He be WITHOUT SIN & what better way to demonstrate that.

...Then by having the father of sin himself, Lucifer perform the temptations?

You wouldn't say "WHAT IF" Jesus would have been born through the regular way...

...OR WHAT IF Jesus would have sunk and drowned when He walked on water.

...Or WHAT IF when his parents were fleeing Judea the city guards caught the Holy Family and executed Baby Jesus.

...Would you seriously entertain such "hypotheticals"?

This boils down to Ellen White being Arian and because she maintained that Jesus could have lost His conditional deity...

...Thereby forcing the real God to annihilate Christ had this happened.

...Thus the Nicene Creed can't be affirmed in SDA Churches.

...Because the Creed affirms that Jesus is Eternally the same.

...I.E. can't mutate from God to sinner.

I will find some posts I've made on the Trinity Doctrine and link them for you.

[Gustave]

Samojluk,

Can you see where I'm coming from....

...From a Biblical perspective?