Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[teresaq]

It is common knowledge that in the early days of our formation as a church, some individuals did have Arian beliefs and tendencies:

Quote:

Uriah Smith taught the semi-Arian view held by Joseph Bates, James White, and certain others, and denied the personality of the Holy Spirit. ...The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. 2002. Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[teresaq]

teresaq(sda),

In that case Jesus Christ, both His Divine nature and Human nature as a combined unity in a single individual would have been destroyed.

This is interesting because by your logic Divinity is not eternal but is finite like us, because there is some circumstance in which the Divine could die. That means that all "persons" of the Godhead are in jeopardy of ceasing to exist under some circumstance....

I do not believe the Bible teaches such a Doctrine. If it does, show me from the Bible where Divinity could die.

That point raises a lot of questions, some of which are:

Could divinty die?

Could divinity sin?

If divinity sinned, would it kill Him?

What is sin?

If God had decided to let us go without intervening to save us, would that have been sin?

For me, it tells me I do not, in the least, comprehend the love of God towards us.

[miz3]

That point raises a lot of questions, some of which are:

Could divinty die?

Could divinity sin?

If divinity sinned, would it kill Him?

What is sin?

If God had decided to let us go without intervening to save us, would that have been sin?

For me, it tells me I do not, in the least, comprehend the love of God towards us.

I don't think you answered my questions.

It appears to me, that you are holding to a Doctrine that is in your mind set but has no Biblical basis for existing.

Your imagination tells you that an "Eternal God both ways", a God who is beyond all infiniteness, a God who Created everything and Sustains everything, and who so beyond, beyond everything that it is more than infinitely beyond our imaginations, would actually make promises (Genesis 3:15, etc.) that He possibly could not actually keep?

I do not see such a god existing in the Bible unless it is the "idols" of the heathen.

The God I know from the Bible is a "WINNER" each and every time. The God I know from the Bible doesn't just "win" by the slightest distance of a hair's breadth. The God I know from the Bible makes "Promises that locked in and there is no chance that His Promises will not come to pass"!

Thus, when the God of the Bible, who I serve, states as in Genesis 3:15 that He will (not maybe) crush the devil and sin with a deadly crush, I believe Him and have 100% confidence that He will do it, not by a hair's breadth, by an infinitely crushing blow unlike any Victory that could be imagined.

The God of the Bible does not just barely win, He Wins by total victory and the opposition gets no scores against Him.

Does Elijah in Mount Carmel come to mind?

[teresaq]

No, its not an answer but since I see the point differently than you do it raises those questions for me.

I believe God knows the beginning from the end, therefore could state the promises definitely. I mean, that God knew that even tho Jesus would be tempted "as we are" Jesus would not fail, would not give in to those temptations.

Quote:

The God of the Bible does not just barely win, He Wins by total victory and the opposition gets no scores against Him.

Yeah! By not giving in to sin, the sin we find so attractive!

Now I do believe that Jesus did not find much of the sin we so readily run to as attractive, but I have no doubt it was a temptation to turn those stones into bread to satisfy His hunger-starving hunger, that perhaps only those who are actually starving could understand what a temptation that could be.

Or being irritated with people. Seems to me that if anyone had a right to be irritated with people it would be Jesus but He never was. He was grieved at our stupidity, but not irritated in the sense that we get irritated with each other. That would have come under the heading of "thou shalt not kill". If being angry with someone comes under that heading, then irritation does also.

[miz3]

Now I do believe that Jesus did not find much of the sin we so readily run to as attractive, but I have no doubt it was a temptation to turn those stones into bread to satisfy His hunger-starving hunger, that perhaps only those who are actually starving could understand what a temptation that could be.

Ok, what about the throwing oneself from a high place? Do you think that Jesus Christ was really inclined to maybe do that?

What about bowing down to satan in order to get the kingdoms? Do you think that Jesus Christ was really inclined to maybe do that?

You seem to have some point because of His hunger on the stones to bread, but what about these two other temptations. Its not hunger pulling the strings anymore.

[phkrause]

Ok, what about the throwing oneself from a high place? Do you think that Jesus Christ was really inclined to maybe do that?

What about bowing down to satan in order to get the kingdoms? Do you think that Jesus Christ was really inclined to maybe do that?

You seem to have some point because of His hunger on the stones to bread, but what about these two other temptations. Its not hunger pulling the strings anymore.

I'd say people who have not eaten for a few days, let alone 40 days, if I'm not mistaken, make bad choice's. How many times have we heard of a bad confession because someone was kept from eating for 6, 12, 24 hours. Maybe this is a bad example, but it speaks to hunger. I think Jesus could have been tempted had it not been the bound he had with the Father.

[miz3]

pkrause,

That still does not answer the fundamental issue of these last two temptations. Was Jesus Christ really tempted (albeit weakened physically with humger) to accept the base premise of these two temptations? Hunger was not the base premise of the last two temptations. In addition Jesus was not offered relief of His hunger in regard to the last two temptations either.

[Sonny]

You seem to have some point because of His hunger on the stones to bread....

Jesus was tempted to do something we aren't tempted to do. Have you ever been tempted to fight Bruce Lee or maybe Mike Tyson? No! Why? You can't do it...you wouldn't have a chance. Likewise you've never been tempted to turn stones into food, right? Why? You cant' do it.

So Christ's temptation, during forty days of hunger, was to grab onto His Divinity in order have food. Can you imagine the temptation? No, because we can't turn stones into bread. His humanity, that He assumed at the incarnation, tempted Him to go outside His Father's will. He was tempted with the love of self.....

[miz3]

Sonny,

That still does not answer the fundamental issue of these last two temptations. Was Jesus Christ really tempted (albeit weakened physically with humger) to accept the base premise of these two temptations? Hunger was not the base premise of the last two temptations. In addition Jesus was not offered relief of His hunger in regard to the last two temptations either.

[Sonny]

I don't follow your question....Word it differently, please.

[miz3]

Sonny,

Hunger has nothing to do with the last two temptations.

Eplain, how Jesus Christ was tempted in the last two temptations. In other words, what was in Jesus Christ and what would Jesus Christ gain by jumping from a high place?

In the third temptation why would Jesus Christ have even the slightest desire to worship satan?

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

I'll be back later with some "documentation" for you on how the Arian Pioneers had no problem calling Jesus "God" while at the same time making sure it was understood Jesus was NOT God in the ultimate sense.

I read them to say that Jesus was not the Father, that there was a difference between the Father and Jesus.

But you are coming from a "3 persons in 1 being" position so we may have trouble "connecting" so-to-speak.

While I'm at it, tho, I can understand the pioneers seeing person=being. I can't for the life of me see any difference.

person=being

3 persons in 1 being

3 beings in 1 person

3 persons in 1 person

3 beings in 1 being

All four of those statements say the same thing to me. (shrug)

The Christian Faith affirms that God is ONE in Nature, Substance & Essence...

...God IS; Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

...The Father ( Generates ) The Son ( Generated ) The Holy Spirit ( Proceeding ).

...God is not capable of sin or mutation in that way.

In the Adventist rubric only the Father is "God" and while Jesus can be called God...

...It's ONLY because Jesus had God for His Father.

...SDA rubrics indentify the Holy Spirit as the "presence" of God and Christ.

...And because of THAT the personal pronoun "He" can be used.

...But ONLY in that sense.

As I'm sure you are aware Dr. Kellogg "came to believe in the Trinity"...

...And this caused an uproar with Ellen White & the other Adventists.

...Precisely because of "God The Holy Spirit".

...In Adventist theology God was a literal 'Person'.

The Holy Spirit wasn't "God" in the Adventist mind....

...It was God's ( or Christ's ) influence.

Signs of the Times, 1912, Vol 39 # 32

3829 — The Holy Spirit n Personality?

Question:

Can't we say that the Holy Spirit is a

personality, as long as the personal pronoun

is attributed to it? T. A. Z.

Answer:

The use of the personal pronoun is not of itself proof that the Holy Spirit is a personality, and yet the work of the Spirit is the work of a personality. By the Spirit both the Father and the Son come personally to every soul that receives the Spirit. In that wonderful sense which no human being can comprehend, the Spirit comes to each soul as a personality. And yet it does not have what we would call human personality of being in one place only at one time, that is, such personality as has our Lord Himself — in one place as He is in no other place. The Holy Spirit may be in any number of places at one and the same time, bringing the special presence of God in each of those places. In the office of the "Signs of the Times" there are fourteen different telephones all connecting with the manager. The manager may connect all these with him at one and the same time. He could issue a general order so that the foreman of each department could hear his voice at the same time. In a way he is personally present in every department. Every department hears his voice. The marvelous invention of the telephone makes him present in fifteen different places at the same time. So it is that God's Spirit makes the Father and the Son present in as many different places as God may direct, at one and the same time. We know somewhat of the working. We understand how it is to some extent of the Lord's ways and methods. We see the effects, but we know almost nothing of the nature and the power that Infinity uses to communicate with man. Let us be willing to leave it there. In some instances the Spirit is represented as the great life of God. In some it is spoken of as a power that is poured out and shed forth. To the individual it comes as the representative of the personal God. Therefore it may be spoken of as a personality, and looking at it from another view-point, as not a personality.

This should make it very obvious what Ellen meant when she said that Michael....

...Was the ONLY "BEING" in the universe who could enter into all the councils of "God".

...It was simply that the Holy Spirit was NOT a "Being" or "Personality".

...Like God or Christ were.

Perhaps another example.

Signs of the Times, 1910, Vol 37, # 24

Question:

Please explain in the Question Corner John 16:7, 13. Is the Holy Spirit a personality? Are the words "Him" and "he"

masculine pronouns? Please explain what the meaning of the Holy Ghost is in 2 Peter 1:21. W. E. H.

Answer:

The pronouns in the above question are, of course, in the English, masculine pronouns, but they do not have the same distinction in the Greek. For instance the term "he" in verse 13, is in the original ekeinos, which is not a pronoun, but a pronominal adjective, properly translated "that." It is used in Matt. 17:27 referring to the Koman coin which was used to pay temple taxes. That which really has no gender at all, but which is noted as being strong and big, is spoken of as masculine; while things of a softer, gentler nature are spoken of as feminine. That same distinction is to quite an extent observed in the English language also. We speak of a battle-ship as a "man-of-war;" we speak of an ordinary ship as "she."It is that which is represented as proceeding forth from both Father and Son, and common to both Father and Son; that which makes Father and Son one, and that life which connects Jesus with all His true disciples wherever they may be. It is not a personality in the sense in which Jesus was a personality when here upon earth; because if that had been the case it would not have been expedient for Him to go away (John 16:7), because He in His personality could be in only one place at a time, but the Spirit could be everywhere, as 'implied in Psalm 139, "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?" But there is this power with the Spirit of making Christ, or the Father, present everywhere at all times in response to faith. We have a very weak illustration of this in the telephone and in later inventions, by which a manager in his office, for instance — that office covering a half mile of territory, which could be enlarged to an almost unlimited extent — can call every foreman in every department to any number, and talk with them all at the same time, just as tho he were present with each one. That invention has the power to make that manager personally present in each department. That in a limited way shows how it is that the Holy Spirit can make Christ present in all parts of His great dominion at the same time,— just as truly present as though He were in His own personality present.

So, in keeping with the other things we have seen from Adventism....

....The Holy Spirit can be a "he" WITHOUT being a "BEING" or "personality".

....In the exact same way Jesus could be be called "God" without being "God".

Revew and Herald, Sept 6, 1892

Is God a Spirit?

Question:

If God is a spirit (John 4:24) and at the same time a person (Dan 7:9) would not the same reasoning prove that the Holy Spirit is a PERSON as referred to in John 4: 26?

Answer:

NO - For God is elsewhere described and represented as a Person; but the Holy Spirit is not. The fact that the Holy Spirit is personified John 14 and thus spoken of as acting in a personal and individual manner does NOT prove it to be a person any more than the fact that love is spoken of in 1 Cor 13 as performing certain acts and exercising certain emotions, prove that charity or love is a person.

Review and Herald, Nov 10, 1891

1. What is the meaning of the expression, "another

comforter," in John 14 :16? 2. Please explain 1 John 16 : 13.

3. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, what is meant in 1 John 5:7? A. O.

Ans.—1. Christ is himself a comforter ; and while he was here upon the earth, the disciples rested in his personal presence. But he was about to go away, and what would compensate them for the loss of his presence ?—He promises, '' I will send you another comforter " in my place, that is, the Holy Spirit.

2. John 16:13 describes the work of the Holy

Spirit, and it is so connected with the Father and

the Son that it is itself personified and spoken of as

doing what the Father and the Son do through it.

3. 1 John 5 : 7 is an interpolation

It is as I've said several time now....

...Ellen White said NOTHING to contrast what the SDA Pioneers said.

...In Ellen's mind the Holy Spirit was simply God making a conference call!

In Ellen's theology God had a rectum because He was a "personality"...

...Jesus wasn't God in the ultimate sense but could be called God.

...Because God was His Father.

Hope that helps.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

Now I do believe that Jesus did not find much of the sin we so readily run to as attractive, but I have no doubt it was a temptation to turn those stones into bread to satisfy His hunger-starving hunger, that perhaps only those who are actually starving could understand what a temptation that could be.

Ok, what about the throwing oneself from a high place? Do you think that Jesus Christ was really inclined to maybe do that?

What about bowing down to satan in order to get the kingdoms? Do you think that Jesus Christ was really inclined to maybe do that?

You seem to have some point because of His hunger on the stones to bread, but what about these two other temptations. Its not hunger pulling the strings anymore.

My bible says,

Matthew 4:1

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Mark 1:13

And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Luke 4:2

Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

It also says,

Hebrews 2:18

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Are these scriptures mistaken somehow?

As for Jesus throwing Himself from some high place that was not the temptation. According to the scriptures the temptation was for Christ to prove Himself the Son of God by throwing Himself down so that God could save Him with the scripture Satan quoted.

Bowing down to Satan? Are we real keen to go through any kind of suffering? What would we do to get out of it? Why should we expect Christ, in His humanity, to feel differently, than any of us feel?

Instead of "arguing" about whether these were temptations or not-when the scriptures declare them to be-we should try to understand them seeking the Holy Spirit.

I thank you for letting me see that by your questions.

[teresaq]

The Christian Faith affirms that God is ONE in Nature, Substance & Essence...

...God IS; Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

...The Father ( Generates ) The Son ( Generated ) The Holy Spirit ( Proceeding ).

....

Interesting distinction. I believe we Adventists see all three-at this point in time-each one, as "self-existent". That is what the original word translated "Jehovah", or "LORD" means.

[teresaq]

I'll be back later with some "documentation" for you on how the Arian Pioneers had no problem calling Jesus "God" while at the same time making sure it was understood Jesus was NOT God in the ultimate sense.

[miz3]

As for Jesus throwing Himself from some high place that was not the temptation. According to the scriptures the temptation was for Christ to prove Himself the Son of God by throwing Himself down so that God could save Him with the scripture Satan quoted.

Bowing down to Satan? Are we real keen to go through any kind of suffering? What would we do to get out of it? Why should we expect Christ, in His humanity, to feel differently, than any of us feel?

Instead of "arguing" about whether these were temptations or not-when the scriptures declare them to be-we should try to understand them seeking the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for responding I was despairing of ever receiving an answer.

"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,

and they will lift you up in their hands,

so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

Matthew 4:5-7.

OK, did Jesus Christ deep inside himself really "doubt", "not sure" etc. whether He was the Son of God. Or, did Jesus Christ actually know with 100% certainty that He was the Son of God. In my book the answer Jesus gave demonstrates that there was no doubt in Jesus' mind that He was indeed the Son of God and therefore there was not even the slightest chance that this "temptation" would succeed. Do you really think, given the clearness of the Scripture above that it was touch and go whether Christ would sin or not sin?

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

Matthew 4:8-10.

Again, since Jesus Christ already knew that He was the Son of God (see temptation number two) why would He even for even the slightest moment even consider bowing to Satan?

As to the suffering bit, Jesus Christ was not stupid. He knew that either way you slice it He was going to suffer eternal death anyway. Bowing to satan would not relieve Him from eternal death. It would have been a sin and for sin you pay with death and suffering. So either way you slice it Jesus had to suffer eternal death. So that is a bogus argument!

No touch and go, No hanging in the balance! No drama! No soap-opera!

One can be tempted but that does not mean there is any chance that those temptations have even the slightest chance of succeeding. In the case of Jesus Christ there was absolutely ZERO CHANCE OF HIS SINNING!

I look forward to your response.

[Gustave]

Interesting distinction. I believe we Adventists see all three-at this point in time-each one, as "self-existent". That is what the original word translated "Jehovah", or "LORD" means.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Interesting distinction. I believe we Adventists see all three-at this point in time-each one, as "self-existent". That is what the original word translated "Jehovah", or "LORD" means.

The bolded section of what you wrote above IS the key difference.....

...Catholicism has always maintained that.

...I.E. Catholic Doctrine 'Develops' Vs Adventist doctrine 'Mutates'.

Hey Gustave! How are you? I have been thinking of what you said in this part of your post. Can you show us please some specific references in official Roman catholic writings just where this kind of statement about Adventists exists. I think there is a misunderstanding.

[Overaged]

Ok Teresaq, if ALL the SDA Pioneers affirmed that God had "ALL" the parts and members of a perfect man.....

...Would a man without a rectum be classified as perfect?

...Or would a man without a rectum be classified as ABNORMAL.

...Please tell me, how exactly do you see it?

This is just really really weird.

You know; I have looked after many people who were born without various parts and pieces, and yet, they were still people, still souls who had the same needs and cares as most anyone else. Still "perfect" in God's eyes, as assured to us in Mat 5:48. It is not the physical parts that makes a person "perfect."

[Overaged]

One can be tempted but that does not mean there is any chance that those temptations have even the slightest chance of succeeding. In the case of Jesus Christ there was absolutely ZERO CHANCE OF HIS SINNING!

I look forward to your response.

Nicely said but I was left wondering which Bible version you are using? I was curious about that as I read the wording and how it is expressed.

[Gustave]

Hey Gustave! How are you? I have been thinking of what you said in this part of your post. Can you show us please some specific references in official Roman catholic writings just where this kind of statement about Adventists exists. I think there is a misunderstanding.

[Gustave]

This is just really really weird.

You know; I have looked after many people who were born without various parts and pieces, and yet, they were still people, still souls who had the same needs and cares as most anyone else. Still "perfect" in God's eyes, as assured to us in Mat 5:48. It is not the physical parts that makes a person "perfect."

Under the Old Covenant when it was time to select a lamb w/out blemish....

...Had a lamb been born w/out a rectum - .

...Would THAT lamb have been used for the Passover?

Think about the question.

[Overaged]

Did you want me to post official Dogma whereas the Trinity is concerned...

...From valid Catholic sources?

No; I was hoping you could show from official Catholic sources, where your church teaches that our church believes in the "mutation" idea of Christ? You did state that your church teaches this.

[Overaged]

Under the Old Covenant when it was time to select a lamb w/out blemish....

...Had a lamb been born w/out a rectum - .

...Would THAT lamb have been used for the Passover?

Think about the question.

You have a very strange focus here on certain body parts.

You know; I once had a nursing instructor who had 3 kidneys. Was she more than "perfect?"

In the same way; the Lamb" that you take for tomorrow's sacrifice, well maybe it has cancer tumors inside it's body that you could miss; without xrays. How on earth would anyone see certain physical things with that Lamb?

Your point here about perfection does not even fit the Roman Catholic teachings on this subject. Perfection, in God's eyes, is not just about outward appearances.

[Gustave]

No; I was hoping you could show from official Catholic sources, where your church teaches that our church believes in the "mutation" idea of Christ? You did state that your church teaches this