Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Gustave]

Give the quote here please. Where does she say this? She certainly does not use those words. So what words does she use to "affirm" what you claim?

PECCABLE = liable to sin; susceptible to temptation

Ellen White

He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He COULD HAVE SINNED; HE COULD HAVE FALLEN, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}

Impeccability = not liable to sin; incapable of sin.

1 John 3:5

And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1 John 3:8

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might [G3089] destroy the works of the devil

G-3089

1) to loose any person (or thing) tied or fastened

a) bandages of the feet, the shoes,

of a husband and wife joined together by the bond of matrimony

c) of a single man, whether he has already had a wife or has not yet married

2) to loose one bound, i.e. to unbind, release from bonds, set free

a) of one bound up (swathed in bandages)

bound with chains (a prisoner), discharge from prison, let go

3) to loosen, undo, dissolve, anything bound, tied, or compacted together

a) an assembly, i.e. to dismiss, break up

laws, as having a binding force, are likened to bonds

c) to annul, subvert

d) to do away with, to deprive of authority, whether by precept or act

e) to declare unlawful

f) to loose what is compacted or built together, to break up, demolish, destroy

g) to dissolve something coherent into parts, to destroy

h) metaph., to overthrow, to do away with

[John317]

That's it?

You're quoting a creed about "impeccability." I didn't ask about what the creed says. I don't care what the creed says. I don't believe anything because of what some creed says. It is good for telling what some people believe, but it is not authoritaive. It is church tradition.

You don't appear to understand SDAs or the SDA church. We don't believe something because of a list of beliefs or because of a creed. I only believe something if it comes from revelation, i.e., God. For me that means from the Bible first, and secondarily from Ellen White.

[teresaq]

Ellen White affirmed "the peccability of Christ", which is irreconcilable with Scripture...

...As well as the ancient Christian Creed which systematizes Scripture.

...A theological affirmation of a Peccable Christ is irreconcilable with the Doctrine of the Trinity.

In the other thread about the Nicene Creed it was demonstrated Ellen also promulgated the alien concept...

...That God ( as in The Father )has always had a body of "FLESH".

...And that preIncarnate Christ and Lucifer also had a body of "FLESH".

Therefore; the reason "why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds" is simply that a denomination can't have it's members...

...Recite publically theological affirmations - which paradox the Denominations own theological rubrics.

Hmmm, so apparently you are not SDA, but believe in the trinity, therefore know what the real trinity doctrine teaches...This should be interesting.

Regarding Christ as human you do not believe He was capable of giving in to temptation?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

If Ellen White is a True Prophet, as you say she is, then I would be extremely disappointed if she did not have almost total say in what we as a people believe.

God tells me what I should believe not Ellen.

EGW has no say in what I believe as an SDA.

It's between me and God. NOT me and EGW.

I agree with Woody. And I truly believe MOST Adventists feel this way. I know there are some who use EGW to hammer people on the head with things she said. That was done to me, on occasion, especially at school. But, honestly, I can't remember a sermon where EGW was quoted (though I'm sure some preachers out there do this).

I don't think every word EGW wrote was inspired. God certainly didn't inspire her to write that God doesn't love little children who misbehave. A lot of what she wrote was a product of her time and the environment and people with which and whom she came into contact.

Now, some may say that I pick and choose from EGW's writings as to what I will and will not accept as "inspired" - that is true. Common sense and discernment are very useful tools. I can get a lot out of non-SDA authors, but I use the same philosophy with their writings as I do with EGW. But EGW *is* the acknowledged Adventist foremost visionary. I intentionally do not call EGW the "Spirit of Prophecy" nor do I refer to her as the Adventist's "prophet"... but that is my own quirky nature. I didn't know her personally, did not know her well enough to determine if she passes for a Biblically sound prophet or not. So I take many things that she says with a grain of salt.

I know many other Adventists who do not share my view. But that's okay. Everyone uses different mental tools to determine what they wish to believe.

[John317]

Quote:

If you really believe this, you are under obligation to do it. So if that is the case, we shouldn't see you quoting her any more, right?

In case you haven't noticed by now - I don't believe in every thing our prophet has to say. It's you who has the job of defending her. I don't.

Yes, there's no sense in following her directions on this, is there? You appear to simply want others to do it.

I agree that you don't defend her. I understand that clearly-- have understood it since the beginning.

You do what is called cherry-picking --- I think that's what Miz3 calls it. It the very thing Ellen White said we shouldn't do. See 1 SM 43-45. But then if we only believe some of what she said, we can choose what we want to believe and throw the rest of it out. Kind of like some churches do with the Bible.

But you are wrong that I am obligated to do what you believe the statement means. I am obligated to do what I'm convicted the statement says, not what someone thinks it says. Your view of it would mean no one would ever quote Ellen White at all again. Yet you've got things arranged so that you could continue to quote her at will.

[miz3]

Do you agree with him? Is this what you understand Ellen White to have written-- that the Father has a body of flesh and that the pre-incarnate Christ had a body of flesh?

NO!

I believe the Father is "Spirit" whatever that means. No one knows what that means. Ellen White believed that it has form. The Bible does not say.

I think we need to be vary careful in probing this area. We are not talking about some alien on a distant planet, or a child's imaginary friend, or our friend down the street.

We are discussing the Almighty God who states that He is the "I am". That is what he told Moses. Read the story, God told Moses that when Pharaoh asks who sent you, you are to say that "I am sent you".

"In the beginning, God".

This is an unimaginable and awesome being and our minds cannot even begin to comprehend Him.

Someone who isn't even the in pecking order because "He Is" is not someone to fool around with, either in jest or otherwise.

I would be extremely careful and never engage in any conversation or thoughts that try and "dissect" God in any way shape or form.

I also believe the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ is in every way the exact same as the Father!

Like the Father I would tread extremely careful. You are treading on the most holy ground.

Even when talking about Jesus Christ post-incarnation I want to tread very carefully.

These beings are MOST HOLY! We have no business talking about them as if they were a head of cabbage or a specimen on the dissecting lab table.

I know you did not want a long answer but you got one anyway because I have some very strong feelings about this.

miz3

Please feel free to quote me accurately on this!

[ClubV12]

Now wait a minute, it's been suggested I should be deeply steeped in the bible and the bible alone before I begin reading Ellen White?

That aint gonna happen! Let me dig up a good EGW quote for this .

Some will have to learn in a few months what it's taken others years to learn, or words to that effect.

I've been a Seventh Day Adventist about a year now. The first book I read was Steps to Christ, what a great foundation upon which to build, I barely had a clue on how to proceed with the new walk. The second book was the Great Controversy, now I still wasn't reading my BIBLE very much, but I WAS getting a powerful message and a great education. Once I fully accepted EGW was God's messenger I couldn't stop reading! I quickly went through the Conflict Series and THATS when I really started reading the bible. It became so much more real, so personal. I actually cried for the way Bathsheba was treated by David. I felt like I knew her, like a sister and was deeply saddened by the story.

Ellen White brings SO much clairity to the word, it DOES drive you to the feet of Jesus. It DOES inspire more bible study and reading.

Again, I cannot conceive of separating the two. My mission now, is to learn these great truths and be able to present them from the bible, and the bible alone. But make no mistake, I HAVE fulfilled that "prophecy" that some will have to learn in a few months, by being a diligent student of BOTH the bible and the Spirit of Prophecy!

I stand in awe at the love and mercy of God in providing for me, for us, a messenger for our time so that we may more fully understand His word.

[John317]

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is NOW like the Father?

Isn't Christ still the God-man? Isn't He the same as He was when He ascended to heaven in Acts 1? See Luke 24: 38-43.

Doesn't He return as the God-man, with a body, not as an invisible "spirit-being"?

[John317]

I can see how you would get the impression people are saying only read Ellen White after we have studied the Bible. That is not strictly true and it is not what Ellen White was saying. Ellen White was talking about how we should study the Bible.

Let's say that I am going to preach a sermon on (or study) Rev. 14. Should I first read what Ellen White says and then study the Bible? No. She herself said that we should do all the studying we can of that verse or chapter, and then once we have studied it on our own, with prayer, we should then turn to Ellen White's comments. (This is what she told H.M.S. Richards.)

But you bring up a good point-- she isn't saying that people need to thoroughly study the Bible before reading a book like Steps To Christ. I read it before my baptism and before I really began to study the Bible. It is still one of my favorite books.

[miz3]

John317,

Jesus Christ is, was (post incarnation), and always will be fully and completely God and is, was, (post incarnation), and always will be fully and completely human.

I am now going to tell you a paradox:

Jesus Christ is one complete being (not two) and operates as a complete singular entity (no schizophrenia).

At the same time the Divinity of Jesus Christ is undiluted.

At the same time the human (glorified humanity) of Jesus Christ is also undiluted.

This is the miracle of the incarnation. No sperm from a man and no egg from Mary. Again a miracle.

We cannot explain this miracle or this paradox of the person of Jesus Christ.

We need however tread carefully. I will not go any further than what I said already.

[John317]

Is Jesus related to Adam,Abraham, and King David? He calls Himself the root and offspring of David, and David was told that one of his descendants would sit on his throne forever and ever.

[Woody]

Quote:

Your view of it would mean no one would ever quote Ellen White at all again. Yet you've got things arranged so that you could continue to quote her at will.

Yep. That's what the quote says. But like I said. I am not required to do as she says because I don't defend nor believe all that she wrote. On the other hand - You believe in all she wrote. You defend her. So, it's up to you to wiggle out of this one.

[miz3]

You may not like this and I say this with all Christian kindness.

ClubV12 is a primary example of what I was talking about. However, I would rather ClubV12 read Ellen White than to not read either of them.

I believe it is best and makes the Christian much, much stronger to be thoroughly grounded in the Bible before even approaching Ellen White. That does not mean we have to know everything about or in the Bible but we should be rather thoroughly acquainted with Scripture and then Ellen White comes on.

I may further disappoint you. I do not take back a single word I said in my long explanation earlier about the Bible and then Ellen White as the top two by far and away.

Ellen White was and still is a Prophet of God. She is clearly inspired.

However, I do not believe everything she wrote or said was inspired.

However, I do not believe we can just hunt and peck (cherry picking) only to please ourselves. This is a very difficult balance to make but we must be prayerfully honest about what we read and not simply discount her words just it doesn't fit some cherished sin or some cherished belief we have.

This is why I believe a through knowledge of Scripture is vital so that we will developed the habits of knowing the difference between spiritual fact and opinion.

The Bible is all Spiritual Fact! Thus, it is the template.

Regardless, she is God's chosen Prophet and she is inspired!

[Woody]

This cherry picking idea is a myth. I don't know of anyone who does that. Christian by definition goes by what is Biblical. Not all that EGW said or wrote was Biblical.

Unfortunately what those who blindly support her do ... is they use this phrase: "well she meant this ... " IOWs they feel they can get in her head and change her words to say what they want her to say so they can continue to support their idea that all she said was without error. Talk about cherry picking of a different kind. This is mind reading. When she says something unBiblical ... they say "well she also said this". As if speaking error is okay if you said the opposite at some time.

[miz3]

Is Jesus related to Adam,Abraham, and King David? He calls Himself the root and offspring of David, and David was told that one of his descendants would sit on his throne forever and ever.

Not in the human blood sense.

He can claim them because Jesus mother and father were blood relations and Jesus belonged to that family.

Paul and Jesus Christ, Himself, point out that our relationship to each other is not by blood. Blood counts for nothing.

It is the Spiritual Bond that counts. Paul for example stated that the true children of Abraham were not the Jews but were any human that believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Jesus is the root of all humanity because as our Savior He makes us all His brothers and sisters (also sons and daughters). Jesus was the offspring because He trusted His Father just as Abraham and David trusted the Father. Another nifty paradox because Jesus is both the Spiritual Father and the Spiritual Son at the same time. Boy is God great or what?

[miz3]

Woody,

I agree with you. I have also seen the "cherry picking" with the "she really meant this" or "you have to understand this in light of this or that".

The cherry picking I am talking about is also done with the Bible by people who have an "axe to grind" (dueling metaphors or similes or whatever you call them).

This is a serious problem within SDA but also outside. It because people want to form the Truth to suit themselves.

I believe in Bible Study:

1. True prayer to God for wisdom (not some formula dashed off, pro forma stuff).

2. Read the exactly what the text says. Not what you want it to say. Not what you hope it says. No fuzzy nuances because of you bias. Etc.

3. Believe what it actually says.

4. God is clear enough. As you put it Woody......No mind reading!

[ClubV12]

Well I can this about that. I tried reading the bible and didn't make a lot of progress. Steps to Christ just made sense, it offered practical advice on how to proceed. It is the perfect example of a lesser light leading to a greater light. Understanding the great controversy opened a pathway to understanding the bible, seeing it in a whole new way.

I'm totally convinced this is the best way to approach non-believers or new believers without a clue. Get them reading Ellen White because it's MUCH easier to understand and grasp the principles involved. Trust it to point them in the right direction.

I am still surprised at the high number of church members, in my local church, that have NOT read the conflict of the ages series. These books are not just for Seventh Day Adventists, they were written for the WORLD. They should be distributed to the WORLD! A practical, readable, understandable introduction to God's word. I do all I can to promote them vigorously within my church and my community.

If I had to make a choice as to which book, the bible or Steps to Christ, to put into the hands of one contemplating a walk with God, it would be Steps to Christ first and foremost. Like the Ethopian who was reading the bible but needed clairity on what it all meant. A very common problem.

Are the EGW books abused? I guess so, just like the bible is abused, I see no difference.

[Woody]

Exactly. Well put miz3

[Gustave]

That's it?

You're quoting a creed about "impeccability." I didn't ask about what the creed says. I don't care what the creed says. I don't believe anything because of what some creed says. It is good for telling what some people believe, but it is not authoritaive. It is church tradition.

You don't appear to understand SDAs or the SDA church. We don't believe something because of a list of beliefs or because of a creed. I only believe something if it comes from revelation, i.e., God. For me that means from the Bible first, and secondarily from Ellen White.

The Creed is saying exactly what the Scriptures say explicitly...

...Take note of what the Apostle says WAS the reason for the Incarnation.

1 John 3:5

And ye KNOW that he [ Christ ] WAS manifested TO TAKE AWAY our sins; and in him is no sin.

Matthew 1:21

And she SHALL bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he SHALL SAVE his people from their sins

These Scriptures speak of the reality of Christ SAVING His people PRIOR to His ( Christ's ) Incarnation...

...According to the Scriptures Christ WAS eternally the Christ.

...Therefore there was NEVER a time Christ WASN'T the Christ.

If Christ was PECCABLE as Ellen was fond of gloating over it's obvious in this rubric...

...That Christ really wasn't the Christ until He BECAME the Christ in time.

...This view according to Scripture is heretical and indeed is classified as heretical in the Creed.

"Shall Save" = G4982 / SOZO

1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction

a) one (from injury or peril)

1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health

1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue

to save in the technical biblical sense

1) negatively

a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment

to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance

The Creed lays Anathema on any who say that Christ WAS PECCABLE....

...Given that Scripture states without exception that Christ was IMPECCABLE.

...I can see why you would rather NOT care what the Creed says.

Like I said previously, it would be difficult to verbally affirm a summary of Scripture....

...Which violates a Doctrinal rubric which is fundamental to SDAism.

The Angel informs Joseph that Mary WOULD give birth to a Son....

...What possibility existed that Mary would NOT give birth to Jesus?

...If your answer to that question is ZERO chance than by what methodology.

...Other than Ellen White do you maintain a possibility existed whereas Jesus would NOT save His people from their sins?

Had Ellen White's hypothetical situation of Christ sinning and loosing His Salvation been reality....

...And her prophetic schema been activated - Christ WOULD HAVE mutated from God the Eternal Saviour.

...To a SINNER and then to a state of being forever as if He NEVER WAS.

...THIS is the very "mutation" both the Scriptures AND Creed which systematizes Scripture condemn AS HERETICAL.

I didn't want there to be any question as to what I meant OR as to what Scripture or the Creed affirms....

....And I'm still waiting for a single verse from the Bible that suggests it's within Orthodoxy.

....For Christ to mutate.

....OR that The Father had / has FLESH.

....OR that Michael the archangel ( which you affirm is Christ ) or Lucifer the archangel were created with FLESH.

....All of which Ellen White claims to have been shown to her via a vision from God.

[CoAspen]

CoAspen,

I guess helping people to know the Truth is not one of your specialties.

I help those that help themselves and have a sincere desire to learn. But I find it a waste of time when it becomes apparent the desire is to force others to prove their belief system or argue about a mote when it does not have a salvation issue attached. Those who have a real interest in Truth simply do not act in the way your posts are going...regardless of belief system!

God does not open our brain cap like it was hinged and pour everything in. We seek and ask and search.

Do you really want Truth and answers or just to argue with the ones you are given? Learning the truth is not a he says or she says or my way and not your way, it is about listening to God and then living the life. Words are cheap, subject to definitions, understanding, etc, but actions are the strongest attention getter and proof of what one believes.

By the way...I believe everything one needs to learn, for salvation, is contained in the Bible, no more no less.

[phkrause]

My sincere apologies that I misunderstood your intent, but that's how it came across to me.

That's exactly how it read to me also Gerry.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: miz3

CoAspen,

I guess helping people to know the Truth is not one of your specialties.

I help those that help themselves and have a sincere desire to learn. But I find it a waste of time when it becomes apparent the desire is to force others to prove their belief system or argue about a mote when it does not have a salvation issue attached. Those who have a real interest in Truth simply do not act in the way your posts are going...regardless of belief system!

God does not open our brain cap like it was hinged and pour everything in. We seek and ask and search.

Do you really want Truth and answers or just to argue with the ones you are given? Learning the truth is not a he says or she says or my way and not your way, it is about listening to God and then living the life. Words are cheap, subject to definitions, understanding, etc, but actions are the strongest attention getter and proof of what one believes.

By the way...I believe everything one needs to learn, for salvation, is contained in the Bible, no more no less.

I very much agree with the last sentence. All that we need is in scripture. No need to divert us from that.

[ClubV12]

I think it is a mistake to disparage or discourage people from reading Ellen White based on the reasoning that some use her writings in the wrong way. A serious mistake. There not read enough, not only by the world, but by our own people.

Ellen White has done "more harm than good"? That's an amazing lack of appreciation and understanding for the work of God's messenger. So because of this "fear" that some may abuse her message we should hide it? Discount it? Sweep it away? Hold up the bible and the bible alone, which in effect, denies the power of the modern prophets writings! This is a fear based mentality that shows a distinct lack of trust in the power of God and His chosen messenger for our time.

One could say, Christianity has done "more harm than good", and they can certainly make a strong case for that! Shall we then discount the message, water it down, make it of no effect?

NEVER! We should proudly and boldly introduce the world to the writings of Ellen White, without fear and with confidence. Her books should be scattered like the Autumn winds. I have nothing to hide, from anybody, concerning the value of her basic works. A book like the Great Controversy, to Mormon's, to Baptist's, to Catholics. THAT is the very people for whom this book was written.

The best advice I got when I hesitated about whether or not she was inspired was simply, "Read the book". That's really all it takes, just READ it.

[Woody]

Quote:

Ellen White has done "more harm than good"?

I didn't see where anyone said that. If you are referring to my quote - I stated it was the "abuse" such as you have done here that caused more harm than good to be done.

You see - those who support this kind of abuse just can't get out of the habit can they? What a shame.

[Gail]

One could say, Christianity has done "more harm than good", and they can certainly make a strong case for that!

Yes, and some people certainly do!