Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[phkrause]

I have to agree John, I haven't seen any answers either, just opinions. Which is fine in my book. What bothers me is when someone just claims there opinions are more right that everyone elses.

[John317]

Third, you have not yet answered my question: Was Christ on earth a free moral agent, faced with genuine choices; or did Christ obey God merely because he had no other choice?

Originally Posted By: Gustave

I certainly did answer it John. Christ was FREE to do anything except "cease to be God".

How does that answer the question?

I grant you that Christ could not choose to be not-God.

But was Christ only deity? Was not Christ also fully man? And if he was a man, could that man choose to disobey? Remember that all other men who've ever lived could choose to disobey God.

Are you saying that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, could not disobey God if he had wanted to do so? You seem clearly to be implying that Christ obeyed His Father because He couldn't do anything else. How is that a proof of righteousness? Was Jesus righteous because He had to be and could not choose to be otherwise? Did God stack the deck so that He couldn't possibly lose? In other words, wasn't Satan tricked into thinking he could tempt Jesus to sin when in fact it was not a real tempation at all?

Was the first man, Adam, free to chose to disobey the Father?

Assuming that your answer is yes, then the next question is, why wouldn't the second Adam be free to choose to disobey also? And if Jesus could not sin, how did Christ's tests replicate the tests of Adam?

[John317]

You live near the ocean? I noticed the ocean in some of your pictures.

[Guest]

Good Questions!

[John317]

I've answered your Hebrews quote with the Greek meanings for those words....

...And also showed from other Scriptures exactly what Hebrews was teaching.

...Show me your "Bible study method".

I also did not yet see this, so please don't assume that you've really answered it. Let me check and get back with you on it.

Here are the beliefs of the Mormons as regards the the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are very close to their belief on this topic, although we very much disagree with them about other things with respect to God:

Quote:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals,[4] but that they act together in perfect unity of purpose as a single monotheistic entity (the "Godhead") for the common purpose of saving mankind, Jesus Christ having received divine investiture of authority from the heavenly Father in the pre-mortal existence. Strictly speaking, it is not appropriate to categorize the Latter-day Saints as "Nontrinitarian." Rather, it is more accurate to describe them as Non-traditional Trinitarian, meaning their belief in the Trinity does not conform to all of the traditional beliefs in the Trinity. Latter-day Saints believe the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are "one" in the same manner that Christ's disciples can and should be "one," in all ways spiritual, but not necessarily physical.[5]

[John317]

Thanks, Richard. And now to get some answers. :-)

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Ellen White 13MR 18.1

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. [color:#FF0000]He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

I've found the concept in the Review and Herald & the Sabbath School quarterly....

...As I said this isn't a shock given that all Adventist denominations affirm the same teaching.

What Adventist denominations do you have in mind? Can you name them all?

Do you have references to support this statement? Please show them.

I will be delighted if your statement is true, but I did not know that all the Adventists denominations were that far advanced in their theological development.

[John317]

I've heard the same reasoning from the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians....

...They are also Adventists.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not classified among "Adventists."

Quote:

Other relationships:

The Bible Students movement founded by Charles Taze Russell had in its early development close connections with the Millerite movement and stalwarts of the Adventist faith, including George Storrs and Joseph Seiss. The various groupings of Bible Students currently have a cumulative membership of less than 20,000 worldwide. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses (who emerged in 1931 following a schism in the Bible Students movement that began in 1917) and remaining Bible Students are not generally regarded as part of the Millerite Adventist movement, Russell attended and eventually led an Adventist oriented Bible study church from 1870–74. Avowing his indebtedness to Adventism, he "was deeply influenced by Adventist thought."[6] As of December 2008 there were approximately 7 million Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.

Here is what the wikipedia says about "Adventists":

Quote:

Adventism is a Christian movement which began in the 19th century, in the context of the Second Great Awakening revival in the United States. The name refers to belief in the imminent Second Coming (or "Second Advent") of Jesus Christ. It was started by William Miller, whose followers became known as Millerites. Today, the largest church within the movement is the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Notice their common origin. Jehovah's Witnesses did not come out of the Second Great Awakening revivial in the USA. Their only real connection to Adventists is that Russell studied some books writtten by the Adventist author and preacher, George Storrs. There is no connection whatsoever between Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists.

[John317]

...What I'm saying is that for "God" to cease to exist because He sinned.

...Would require mutation.

Here you have another confused opinion about SDA Beliefs.

Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that if Christ had sinned, God would have ceased to exist.

Please quote the statement by SDAs to this effect. Or quote the ones that you have been led to believe teach that God would have ceased to exist if Christ had sinned. We believe no such thing. God could not possibly die or cease to exist.

[John317]

God became man WITHOUT ceasing to be God....

...The Divine Nature perfectly united with the Human Nature.

...This is Trinity 101.

The two Natures were not mixed or blended so-as to produce something different than God OR man...

...Jesus was fully God & fully man.

This is precisely what the SDA Church believes and teaches. You will find statements to this effect among many SDA publications, including the writings of Ellen G. White herself.

Were you unaware of this?

You write as if you did not know.

[John317]

...I'm familiar with a minimum of 28 explicit cases in Scripture in which the Arian concept of Christ loosing His salvation...

...Is classified as heresy.

Originally Posted By: John3L17

Please provide all 28.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

That's the spirit John317!

....2) Isaiah 35:4 "God WILL COME and WILL SAVE"

Please prove by the use of references and quotes from Arian writings that Arians believe Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation.

How does Isaiah 35: 4 explicitly classify the Arian concept of Christ losing His salvation as heresy?

Is this verse referring to the first or the second coming of Christ?

Why do you believe that a verse which speaks of the promised coming of Christ meant that Christ would be unable to choose to disobey His Father or commit sin?

The promise was written hundreds of years before the coming of Chrsit, and it was inspired by the Holy Sprit. But when Christ was a man on earth, did he know everything that was before, Him apart from His Father? When Christ walked this earth as a man, He was God; yet did God sleep and get hungry, and was God tempted by sin? If not, who then was sleepy and hungry and tempted by sin? Was it God who slept on the pillow in the boat on Lake Galilee?

[John317]

ZEPH 3:5

The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, [color:#CC0000]he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame

A) God does NOT do iniquity

God does NOT FAIL

According to the Bible.

How does this prove that the man Jesus of Nazareth could not have sinned against God if He had wanted to?

What we are asking for are verses that show Jesus was either not free to decide or was made so that he did not want to be free to make real choices.

[LifeHiscost]

We are up to the fourth step (as a denomination). Keep up the good work! Not far to go!

AJ

I am a Seventh Day Adventist who has never read the church manual or the 28 fundamentals, and have only my baptismal vows corroborating my belief in the Scriptures. That is, of course, not to ignore making an effort to live a life that is dedicated to living the life Jesus says is needful to give Him glory.

IOW, letting my light so shine...

Maybe that's the reason I sometimes rub some people's fur the wrong way. I've of recent years seen no good reason to add to the Word in order to be where Jesus wants me to be.

One thing that has done for me is to look to the Word to determine what or why my experience either doesn't seem to be bringing me the peace He has promised, or it tells me that the problems I sometimes experience aren't necessary if I pay closer attention to sola Scriptura.

"After the usual readings from the books of Moses and the prophets, those in charge of the service sent them this message: “Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, come and give it.”"

Acts 13:15 NLT

God blesses!

[John317]

You choose to believe it because Ellen White promulgated it despite the fact Scripture says it was impossible...

...This demonstrates, at least in this case, that the Creed is fully compliant with the Bible.

...While the Arianism contained within Jehovah's Witness & SDA theology is NOT.

I would appreciate it if you ask people what they believe and why, instead of putting words in their mouths that they have not said.

So far you make a lot of claims and make accusations without evidence. For instance, you make the claim that SDA theology contains Ariansim. Would you please show a direct connection between Arians and modern SDA beliefs?

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Adventisms theological construct requires that it was possible for Christ to sin and loose His Salvation...

This statement is absolutely correct.

The Bible itself clearly implies this. What is a "test" if the person tested cannot possibly fail the test? In that case, a test would not be a genuine test.

Jesus of Nazareth was a free moral agent, and as such, He was free to obey or disobey God. He had REAL choices to make. If the first Adam was free to chose to disobey God, the last Adam also must be free to disobey. Otherwise the "test" is only a make-believe test. A make-believe test is a deception. It looks like something it isn't. That is not how our honest, trustworthy God-- who cannot lie-- operates.

I appreciate your explanation, John. I'd be even more interested in your explanation of God is One". I have some difficulty with the spin that is put to the explanation inserted into Biblical pronouncements, seemingly denying that God is One. The clearest evidence I have that God is One, is the death of Christ when He was separated from both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

That is also ignoring, "If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body?

If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body?"1 Cor 12:15 NKJV

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

I think we need to let God judge whether someone is or is not a follower of Christ. Our bsiness is to teach and preach and practice the truth and leave it up to God to decide who is saved in His kingdom. God knows the heart and we obviously do not. We can judge words and actions but not motives or the heart.

I would especially agree when looking at another's loss of life or salvation. One caveat would be whether we can give an affirmative to someone who might ask us are we saved.

"And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn’t obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s anger"John 3:36 NLT

"Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life."1 John 5:12 NLT

God blesses!

[Dr. Waite]

Gustave:

You state: "...Jesus was fully God & fully man." Obviously, you agree with John. Those that believe in the trinity doctrine say one thing and then contradict themselves. They say that Jesus is fully God having omnipresence and then in the next breath they say that He is not fully God because he needs another person "God the holy spirit" to be omnipresent and therefore not fully God.

[BobRyan]

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.

[BobRyan]

Please prove by the use of references and quotes from Arian writings that Arians believe Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation.

How does Isaiah 35: 4 explicitly classify the Arian concept of Christ losing His salvation as heresy?

Is this verse referring to the first or the second coming of Christ?

Why do you believe that a verse which speaks of the promised coming of Christ meant that Christ would be unable to choose to disobey His Father or commit sin?

In Matt 4 Jesus as God the Son in human form was "tempted" -- in Romans 8 "tempted in all points AS we are" -- But as Paul points out - God in pure God form (not incarnate) "cannot be tempted".

Jesus as God incarnate could be tempted and so by definition could have chosen to fall.

In Acts 1 Jesus said that he did not know the date/time of the 2nd coming -- yet God knows all.

When Jesus refuses the worship of Mary after the resurrection - he said it was because he had not yet ascended to the Father to receive that confirmation that the sacrifice was perfect and acceptable to God.

In the Garden Jesus tells Peter that IF He chose to - he could call 12 legions of angels to come to his aid - but he chose not to.

He also prays "not my will by thy will be done".

And he states clearly in John 12 "Of my own self I can do nothing" - he chose to limit his actions so as to be a transparent view of God the Father.

Jesus in subjection to the Father voluntarily chooses to limit himself.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...The Council of Nicaea is 100% in the Bibles' corner.

If you're talking about the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325, it was initiated by the Emperor, Constantine, and therefore has no authority whatsoever as far as Seventh-day Adventists are concerned. It was the beginning of the church riding on the back of the state, where the civil power controls the church and enforces matters that are the prerogatives of the church alone.

John:

Has the Seventh- day Adventist Corporation followed in the steps of Constantine and used the civil power to enforce matters that are the prerogatives of the church alone? Have they used the trademark laws to enforce their creed of 28 fundamental beliefs?

[Dr. Waite]

A third reason is that once creeds are writtten, there is no changing them, even when they are shown to be imperfect or wrong in the light of further Bible study under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You'll notice that our Fundamental Beliefs say directly that they are subject to change when the church finds greater truth or learns a better way of expressing those truths.

[Dr. Waite]

As I said before, our church at that time had quite a variety of beliefs concerning the Godhead and the nature of Chrsit and the Holy Spirit. There was no real agreement among our leaders on this topic. You will see this if you closely examine the writings of Uriah Smith and James White, for instance. Most of them wrote very little on the topic and the church never held meetings where the Godhead was the primary topic of study or discusion. It was something individuals studied, but there was not much organized discussion about it. The interest of the church was in the major issues, such as the Second Coming, the Sabbath, the Third Angels Messages, the state of the dead, etc.

The truth is that the pioneers including Ellen G. White were united on this statement regarding the Godhead and nature of Christ:

"I. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.

II. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with his own blood he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in

Heaven. See Lev. 16; Heb. 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; c"

[John317]

Amen!

Excellent post, Bob.

[Dr. Waite]

In 1890 there were no other SDAs teaching what she wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets concerning the pre-existent Christ. Nor did other SDAs teach in 1898 what Ellen White wrote in The Desire of Ages about Christ. In the 1890s, she was telling people that there are three living persons, or beings, in the heavenly trio and that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. These are clearly not the words of someone who believes the Arian view of God.

[John317]

Gustave:

You state: "...Jesus was fully God & fully man." Obviously, you agree with John. Those that believe in the trinity doctrine say one thing and then contradict themselves. They say that Jesus is fully God having omnipresence and then in the next breath they say that He is not fully God because he needs another person "God the holy spirit" to be omnipresent and therefore not fully God.

I'll let Gustave answer for himself, but my own answer here is that Christ voluntarily gave up his "form of God" in order to take on the form of man, and He gave up that form of God forever because of His love for us.

Philip. 2:6-7

[The pre-incarnate Christ] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form,

NOTE: Christ was God in heaven [equal with the Father] before coming down to this earth as a babe. The word "form" [Gk. morphe] refers to the reality of a person or thing. This verse is not saying that Christ merely appeared to be God was really wasn't. (Compare v. 7,8, where it speaks of Christ's "coming in the likeness of men," and of his "appearance as a man." Jesus was and is a real man, not a make-believe man.)

Both the Father and the Son are omnipresent by the Holy Spirit. The Son is no longer in the form of God but by His own choice He is limited to a glorified and immortal human body.