Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Gerr]

Gustave: Gerry, did you mean to say there "can be other interpretations" on texts Ellen wrote about...

...PROVIDED that those interpretations don't suggest Ellen was wrong?

...Is this what you mean?

If the prophet Daniel "perceived in the books" that the 70 yrs of captivity was about to end, can there be another interpretation that is contrary to it? (see Dan 9:1-3)

Gustave: Your statement I quoted above sounds similar to the one you made about the SDA belief in Ellen's day...

...That God had a real body with all the parts of a perfect man.

...Was only Ellen and the SDA Pioneers recounting what God allowed them to see in vision.

...And then claiming I was grasping at straws.

Show me where I made any such statement except for the "grasping at straws."

Gustave: You can't help it can you! "Christ AS 'God'!

...This is exactly what I'm talking about.

...There was NEVER a milisecond that Christ wasn't God.

...This is what happens when an aberrant theology places Christ "into a blender".

...Adventist claiming Christ was NOT Almighty God.

...And then claiming Christ was the Almighty.

...Is not development of Doctrine - it's mutation of doctrine.

WHEN did Jesus the Man come into being? You keep ignoring"

NASB95 | Php 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

When Jesus came, He laid divinity aside. He was as totally dependent on God as you & me. When Jesus came, did He come as the omniscient One? Did He come as the God who cannot die?

Gustave:

Ellen was claiming God shew her in vision, things which the SDA Church later....

...Turned around and repudiated.

So enlighten me. What "vision" did she have that was "repudiated" later by the Church?

[Gerr]

Overaged: Looks like you are posting some "Lets nail Ellen White theology" here; but you should be aware that you are using her writings in ways she never would have approved of, and in ways that contradict the offical Adventist teachings

Gustave: I think it's safe to say I'm using Ellen's writings which contradict the CURRENT SDA teachings...

...Prior to EGW's death what I've been saying would have been met.

...With a nod of approval from Ellen.

Such as?

[miz3]

Instead of "many times" I should have said "over and over again."

Thank you, that clears it up. I was scared for a moment that you might not believe the whole Bible was the Word of God.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: overaged

Instead of "many times" I should have said "over and over again."

Thank you, that clears it up. I was scared for a moment that you might not believe the whole Bible was the Word of God.

Well you never know. I could be a Jesuit in disguise and think that the Bible *contains* the Word of God....

[miz3]

As I have said before Jesus Christ is God and has always been God.

The name Jesus Christ was given to this being after the "incarnation".

Before the incarnation the being we call Jesus Christ was every bit God just as the Father is God. And has always existed as such. One did not precede the other. They were and are congruent entities while being One.

Again, because we humans are limited and finite we are not able to grasp how this unbounded entity we call God is and exists. We can only go by Scripture and even that leaves us with many paradoxes.

After the incarnation, the entity we call Jesus Christ, was both fully and completely still God as He always was. In addition, Jesus Christ was also fully and completely human. These two forms existed as One form (a single entity) while at the same time this single entity did not destroy the purity and the existence of each of the two forms (God & human).

You might say that is impossible. Not with God! Is it a paradox for us humans? Absolutely yes!

Most SDA believe (by quoting Philippians chapter two) that Jesus Christ used only His humanity while on earth. Of course the Bible never says this. "Emptying ones self" so that one is subservient to the Plan is not a pretext that He would use only His humanity. It was a statement that Jesus Christ would stick to the Plan as a slave to the Plan.

The fact is we do not know one way or the other whether Jesus Christ ever used His Divinity while on earth (if one uses only the Scripture). He could have. There is a second problem which gustave appears to me to bring up.

Since Divinity cannot die, what happened to Jesus Christ's Divinity while the humanity of Christ was in the tomb?

Or as gustave is also asserting, did Jesus Christ's Divinity morph (mutate) into something else?

These are good questions.

We need to be very careful in these areas because there is much we don't know and the situation is fraught with many paradoxes.

Paradoxes I am afraid will always dog us because we are finite humans trying to understand how a God who is beyond infinity in all possible ways actually works.

Problems always occur when humans try and define God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit using human defined parameters and human logic. Such has been typical of SDA, however, the rest of Christendom is no better.

It is difficult for humans to get much beyond the Luke 1;37. Most humans I know say they believe this text and turn right around and make God some kind of "super human" or put limits of some kind on God.

To most humans God exists as something they envision in their imagination. Thus, the phrase, "my God would not be that way" or some such words like this. As if they own God.

Either the text is right and says exactly what it says or it is false.

The fact that you qualify it or massage it or try and "contextualize" it does not change the Truth of this very powerful and simple statement made by God Himself.

I'm sure I will now catch everyone's wrath for my radical views.

[miz3]

overage,

lol!

That is sure a great likeness of you!

If I ever meet you on the street I will be sure and run in order to avoid your Inquisition!

If you can run faster I guess I'm cooked. Sorry I shouldn't give you any ideas.

[Overaged]

Your views are not that radical! The one thing I would say is that I think it is very important to "contextualize" a Bible text or passage. I would be interested to hear more from you on that note.

[miz3]

Overage,

I meant "contextualize" in the dishonest sense.

However, you are correct that text can and should be put into a proper and honest context so as not to get the wrong idea.

Maybe I could have chosen a better word.

[Overaged]

overage,

lol!

That is sure a great likeness of you!

If I ever meet you on the street I will be sure and run in order to avoid your Inquisition!

If you can run faster I guess I'm cooked. Sorry I shouldn't give you any ideas.

LOL; I could only run faster than you if I was scared.

Here is what I really look like when I don't have my Jesuit disguise on:

[miz3]

lol.

What a great likeness. However, the photographer didn't do you full justice. His lighting was a bit off.

[Overaged]

Overage,

I meant "contextualize" in the dishonest sense.

However, you are correct that text can and should be put into a proper and honest context so as not to get the wrong idea.

Maybe I could have chosen a better word.

[Gustave]

would be interested to see your take on The Nicene Creed. I will post it below and also invite others to venture an answer as to why Adventists should/should not reject it:

The answer is as direct as it is simple overaged....

...The Creed teaches a Christ which cannot MUTATE.

...While Adventism insists Christ could have mutated.

By "MUTATE" the Adventist means that Christ "could have" sinned and lost His salvation....

...And that had that happend God would have terminated Christ PERMANENTLY.

...As in Christ would cease to exist and become as if He never existed in the first place.

This is the exact reason SDA's reject the Nicene Creed....

...This thread and the other similar one document this clearly.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: overaged

would be interested to see your take on The Nicene Creed. I will post it below and also invite others to venture an answer as to why Adventists should/should not reject it:

The answer is as direct as it is simple overaged....

...The Creed teaches a Christ which cannot MUTATE.

...While Adventism insists Christ could have mutated.

By "MUTATE" the Adventist means that Christ "could have" sinned and lost His salvation....

...And that had that happend God would have terminated Christ PERMANENTLY.

...As in Christ would cease to exist and become as if He never existed in the first place.

This is the exact reason SDA's reject the Nicene Creed....

...This thread and the other similar one document this clearly.

LOL; I know it's simple to you, but can you please spell out the exact phrase within this creed that you see as teaching a "non-mutated" Christ? That would make it clearer to me.

Also, have you examined the entire creed and determined that ALL of it's doctrines are correct/biblical?

[miz3]

Quote:

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

—Early Creeds, The

1. I know the Bible uses the word "begotten". However, I can envision some mischief in regard to this word's usage. I believe that the Father, the Son (who we call Jesus Christ a name given Him after the incarnation, and not before), and the Holy Spirit have all three always existed from eternity to eternity without beginning and without end. So if we use "begotten" in the sense of the "incarnation" I have no problem. But if we use it in the sense before the incarnation I see trouble with that. I believe the Bible uses the word begotten in the sense I have just stated.

2. The last paragraph I also have trouble with if we mean the historic Roman Catholic Church or any other physical entity calling itself the ONLY ONE CHURCH!

3. I do believe the Church Christ talked about which He referred to as the Kingdom of Heaven has always existed from Adam's fall to the Second Coming is a Spiritual Church not a physical organized entity. Only God knows who these sheep are regardless of fold.

4. I do believe that God calls physical entities, such as the Jewish Nation, to be His instrument in which to display His Glory and His Truth. God does this even though every such entity eventually became corrupt and failed their mandate from Heaven. Some of these entities would include but may not necessarily be limited to the Roman Catholic Church (Apostolic Church), the Reformation Churches, Possibly the Seventhday Adventist Church, etc.

5. Other than my reservations above, I like the Creed. However, I personally would never sign such a Document because it would bind me too much. It would not give me the room to study and learn more. Any such statement can never be binding except for the time that it is a true reflection of one's views. I want to be free to amend my current beliefs if I find it necessary.

[Gustave]

LOL; I know it's simple to you, but can you please spell out the exact phrase within this creed that you see as teaching a "non-mutated" Christ? That would make it clearer to me.

Also, have you examined the entire creed and determined that ALL of it's doctrines are correct/biblical?

[Overaged]

4. I do believe that God calls physical entities, such as the Jewish Nation, to be His instrument in which to display His Glory and His Truth. God does this even though every such entity eventually became corrupt and failed their mandate from Heaven. Some of these entities would include but may not necessarily be limited to the Roman Catholic Church (Apostolic Church), the Reformation Churches, Possibly the Seventhday Adventist Church, etc.

I like the way you put this! Thanks for sharing your opinion! A rotten apple in every barrel doesn't mean that every apple is rotten.

[Overaged]

Thats a pretty long post to wade through Gustave. I wonder; did you study the whole thing yourself? Can you share exactly where you got this from please? I would be interested to know.

You appear, by your last 2 posts to me, and some other posts to others, to have objections to the thought of Jesus Incarnated, having a possiblity of sinning; IF He chose to. Am I reading you correctly? Is this what you are calling "the mutated Jesus?" Is this why you favor certain of the "historic" creeds, because they appear to give support to your objection?

I would be interested to see how you view the following text, and if you can suggest one of these creeds that would support and explain it to us better?

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (KJV)

To me; Jesus made the choice to not use His divinity to save Himself from a cruel death on the cross; and this means He also could have chosen to sin; and I don't see this as "mutated" according to your definition.

Jesus overcame sin the same way we are to overcome sin. He relied on The Word of God constantly throughout His short (incarnate) life; just as we too are able to do.

Please see my next post for further explanation:

[Overaged]

Here is further explanation of how/why Jesus was "made to be sin" Try studying all the scripture verses mentioned. It is very interesting:

Quote:

By His humanity, Christ touched humanity; by His divinity, He lays hold upon the throne of God. As the Son of man, He gave us an example of obedience; as the Son of God, He gives us power to obey. It was Christ who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses saying, "I AM THAT I AM. . . . Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Exodus 3:14. This was the pledge of Israel's deliverance. So when He came "in the likeness of men," He declared Himself the I AM. The Child of Bethlehem, the meek and lowly Saviour, is God "manifest in the flesh." 1 Timothy 3:16. And to us He says: "I AM the Good Shepherd." "I AM the living Bread." "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life." "All power is given

25

unto Me in heaven and in earth." John 10:11; 6:51; 14:6; Matthew 28:18. I AM the assurance of every promise. I AM; be not afraid. "God with us" is the surety of our deliverance from sin, the assurance of our power to obey the law of heaven. {DA 24.3}

In stooping to take upon Himself humanity, Christ revealed a character the opposite of the character of Satan. But He stepped still lower in the path of humiliation. "Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:8. As the high priest laid aside his gorgeous pontifical robes, and officiated in the white linen dress of the common priest, so Christ took the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim. "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him." Isaiah 53:5. {DA 25.1}

Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His. "With His stripes we are healed." {DA 25.2}

By His life and His death, Christ has achieved even more than recovery from the ruin wrought through sin. It was Satan's purpose to bring about an eternal separation between God and man; but in Christ we become more closely united to God than if we had never fallen. In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us. "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son." John 3:16. He gave Him not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the fallen race.

To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature. This is the pledge that God will fulfill His word. "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder." God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven. It is the "Son of man" who shares the throne of the universe. It is the "Son of man" whose name shall be called, "Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6.

The I AM is the Daysman between God and humanity, laying His hand upon both. He who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," is not ashamed to call us brethren. Hebrews 7:26; 2:11. In Christ the family of earth and the family of heaven are

26

bound together. Christ glorified is our brother. Heaven is enshrined in humanity, and humanity is enfolded in the bosom of Infinite Love. {DA 25.3}

[miz3]

Overaged,

May I suggest you look at the thread topic, WAS SUCCESS A SURE THING FOR JESUS CHRIST?

I have a number of posts that dove tail with this discussion in regard to the possibility of Jesus Christ sinning.

Others have posted their views there also.

You may not agree with me on this but you would get my views none the less, that is if you are interested. I think most SDA will think I am not all there but I am sincere in my views.

Maybe you too will think I am making 1 + 1 = 3!

If you go there let me know what you think.

[Overaged]

Overaged,

May I suggest you look at the thread topic, WAS SUCCESS A SURE THING FOR JESUS CHRIST?

I have a number of posts that dove tail with this discussion in regard to the possibility of Jesus Christ sinning.

Others have posted their views there also.

You may not agree with me on this but you would get my views none the less, that is if you are interested. I think most SDA will think I am not all there but I am sincere in my views.

Maybe you too will think I am making 1 + 1 = 3!

If you go there let me know what you think.

Well; if you were not all here, you would be somewhere else!

I'll have a look.

[teresaq]

First you say,

Quote:

#443364

I find plenty of places where the Bible says Christ came to vindicate humanity or "the world" because God loved us ....

Then you say, #444568

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Therefore we can remove the vindicating of man from theological possibility...

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

AND the ONLY thing which insured the SDa's".... the ONLY THING? Again, like "mutation" and "rectum", those are only YOUR own invention. Grasping at straws. Nitpicking

Do you believe that Christ HAS existed ETERNALLY with God the Father???

...As in "God The Son" & "God The Holy Spirit"?

...Ellen introduces her teaching that THAT VERY GOD could have sinned and forever ceased to EXIST.

...Then you claim it's my invention that Ellen taught a mutation capable "Christ"!

[teresaq]

One of the chief reasons for the rapid and wide-spread interest in the controversy was that nobody could comprehend or understand the question at issue. "It was the excess of dogmatism founded upon the most abstract words in the most abstract region of human thought." -- Stanley. 3 There was no dispute about the fact of there being a Trinity, it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father. Alexander declared: -- {1891 ATJ, TTR 332.3} [Page 332] "History of the Eastern Church," Lecture iii, par. 8.

"The Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, differing only in this one respect, that the Father is unbegotten. He is the exact image of his Father. Everything is found in the image which exists in its archetype; and it was this that our Lord taught when he said, 'My Father is greater than I.' And accordingly we believe that the Son proceeded from the Father; for he is the reflection of the glory of the Father, and the figure of his substance. But let no one be led from this to the supposition that the Son is unbegotten, as is believed by some who are deficient in intellectual power: for to say that he was, that he has always been, and that he existed before all ages, is not to say that he is unbegotten." 4 {1891 ATJ, TTR 333.1} [Page 333] Theodoret's "Ecclesiastical History," book i, chap. iv.

Arius said: -- {1891 ATJ, TTR 333.2}

"We say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way unbegotten, even in part; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, and only begotten and unchangeable, and that he existed not before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning. This is really the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say he is from nothing. And this we say, because he is neither part of God, nor of any subjacent matter." 5 {1891 ATJ, TTR 333.3} [Page 333] Id., chap. v.

From these statements by the originators of the respective sides of this controversy, it appears that with the exception of a single point, the two views were identical, only being stated in different ways. The single point where the difference lay was that Alexander held that the Son was begotten of the very essence of the Father, and is therefore of the same substance with the Father, while Arius held that the Son was begotten by the Father, not from his own essence, but from nothing; but that when he was thus begotten, he was, and is, of precisely the like substance with the Father. {1891 ATJ, TTR 333.4}

Whether the Son of God, therefore, is of the same substance, or only of like substance, with the Father, was the question in dispute. The controversy was carried on in Greek, and as expressed in Greek the whole question turned upon a single letter. The word which expressed Alexander's belief, is Homoousion. The word which expressed the belief of Arius, is Homoiousion. One of the words has two "i's" in it, and the other has but one; but why the word should or should not have that additional "i," neither party could ever exactly determine. Even Athanasius himself, who succeeded Alexander in the bishopric of Alexandria, and transcended him in every other quality, "has candidly confessed that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate upon the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote, the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts." -- Gibbon. 6 {1891 ATJ, TTR 334.1} [Page 334] "Decline and Fall," chap. xxi, par. 8.

It could not possibly be otherwise, because it was an attempt of the finite to measure, to analyze, and even to dissect, the Infinite. It was an attempt to make the human superior to the divine. God is infinite. No finite mind can comprehend him as he actually is. Christ is the Word -- the expression of the thought -- of God; and none but he knows the depth of the meaning of that Word. "He had a name written that no man knew but he himself; . . . and his name is called The Word of God." Rev. xix, 12, 13. Neither the nature nor the relationship of the Father and the Son can ever be measured by the mind of man. "No man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Matt. xi, 27. This revelation of the Father by the Son cannot be complete in this world. It will require the eternal ages for man to understand "the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Eph. ii, 7. Therefore, no man's conception of God can ever be fixed as the true conception of God. God will still be infinitely beyond the broadest comprehension that the mind of man can measure. The true conception of God can be attained only through "the Spirit of revelation in the knowledge of Him." Eph. i, 17. Therefore the only thing for men to do to find out the Almighty to perfection, is, by true faith in Jesus Christ, to receive the abiding presence of this Spirit of revelation, and then quietly and joyfully wait for the eternal ages to reveal "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God." {1891 ATJ, TTR 334.2}

One who lived near the time of, and was well acquainted with, the whole matter, has well remarked that the discussion "seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another. Those who objected to the word 'consubstantial' [Homoousion, of the same substance], conceived that those who approved it, favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore called them blasphemers, as subverters of the existence of the Son of God. And again the advocates of this term, charging their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen superstitions. . . . In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes, as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace." -- Socrates. 7 {1891 ATJ, TTR 335.1}

[Page 335] "Ecclesiastical History," book i, chap. xxiii.

That which puzzled Socrates need not puzzle us. Although he could not divine why they should not agree when they believed the same thing, we may very readily do so, with no fear of mistake. The difficulty was that each disputant required that all the others should not only believe what he believed, but that they should believe this precisely as he believed it, whereas just how he believed it, he himself could not define. And that which made them so determined in this respect was that "the contest was now not merely for a superiority over a few scattered and obscure communities: it was agitated on a far vaster theater -- that of the Roman world. The proselytes whom it disputed were sovereigns. . . . It but but judging on the common principles of human nature to conclude that the grandeur of the prize supported the ambition and inflamed the passions of the contending parties; that human motives of political power and aggrandizement mingled with the more spiritual influence of the love of truth, and zeal for the purity of religion." -- Milman. 8 {1891 ATJ, TTR 335.2} [Page 336] "History of Christianity," book iii, chap. iv, par. 5.

[miz3]

teresaq(sda),

Where in the Bible does it say that God (the Father) has a form or a body. Please don't quote the Moses asking to see God. Even that text does say that God has a form. All Moses saw were the attributes of God.

When we talk about God having a body or a form we are creating boundaries. The Bible always refers to God as being boundless. Thus, to restrict Him to some bounded form is not Biblical.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Ya; I like that equal sign. 1 + 1 = 3. Even if it's black; and I say it's white; then it's white! We see this all the time in "Bible study."

You are so right. If one deviates even a little bit from the raw data one can turn nearly phrase in the Bible to mean what one wants it to mean. No wonder we have so many Christian denominations - each one convinced it's right.

The Bible is a message for humans. If I write a piece on anything I have a decent amount of knowledge for grade-schoolers, but couched in technical terms and way above them, I would be a fool. God is not a fool. He did not put messages in the Bible at His level. What would the use of that be?