Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Overaged]

As a member of the R.C.C. I agree that Christ's Divine Nature...

...Was UNITED ( not blended or mixed ) with human nature.

[Gustave]

Christ had two Natures.....

...One Divine & One Human.

...These NatureS were UNITED - they were NOT blended or mixed.

...This was defined MANY, MANY years ago.

[Overaged]

Ellen White's teachings on the pre-existence of Christ, also show that she did have a correct Biblical view of the nature of Christ:

II. Eternal Pre-existence of Christ

The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by him as his right. This was no robbery of God.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906, p. 8. {7ABC 440.3}

In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. {7ABC 440.4}

Here Christ shows them that, although they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.--The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899. {7ABC 440.5}

From all eternity Christ was united with the Father, and when He took upon Himself human nature, He was still one with God.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 2, 1905, p. 10. 441 {7ABC 440.6}

When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity.--The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 38, 39. {7ABC 441.1}

But while God’s Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding his preexistence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with his Father. From everlasting he was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. {7ABC 441.2}

A human being lives, but his is a given life, a life that will be quenched. "What is your life? It is even vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." But Christ’s life is not a vapor; it is never-ending, a life existing before the worlds were made.--The Signs of the Times, June 17, 1897, p. 5. {7ABC 441.3}

From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was "the image of God," the image of His greatness and majesty, "the outshining of His glory."--The Desire of Ages, p. 19. {7ABC 441.4}

He was one with the Father before the angels were created. --The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 17. {7ABC 441.5}

Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.-- The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906, p. 8. {7ABC 441.6}

The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. --The Desire of Ages, pp. 469, 470. {7ABC 441.7}

In it [God’s Word] we may learn what our redemption has cost Him who from the beginning was equal with the Father.-- Counsels to Parents and Teachers, p. 13. {7ABC 441.8}

Nichol, F. D. (1985; 2002). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 7A (433). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

It is easy to see from these and approximately 1100 other similar quotes that neither Ellen White or the Adventist church taught anything such as a mutated Christ. You are very wrong about Adventist teaching on this subject Gustave.

[Overaged]

Christ had two Natures.....

...One Divine & One Human.

...These NatureS were UNITED - they were NOT blended or mixed.

...This was defined MANY, MANY years ago.

Only starting at the Incarnation.

Phil 2:1-5, "If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain

conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:"

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Php 2:1-5). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Ellen White is in harmony with scripture when she says that His experience is to be our's:

"In Christ the cry of humanity reached the Father of infinite pity. As a man He supplicated the throne of God till His humanity was charged with a heavenly current that should connect humanity with divinity. Through continual communion He received life from God, that He might impart life to the world. His experience is to be ours. {DA 363.1}"

Notice here she uses the word "connect" rather than "blend" or "unite."

Phil 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Php 2:5-8). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Phil 2: 7 tells us that Jesus made a conscious choice to be "made in human likeness;" and He did this through the same divine promises by which we partake of the divine nature:

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This "partaking" by Jesus, or by humanity, as mentioned above has nothing to do with "mutation," neither by Jesus, or by us. (see 2 Cor 5:17)

[Gustave]

It is easy to see from these and approximately 1100 other similar quotes that neither Ellen White or the Adventist church taught anything such as a mutated Christ. You are very wrong about Adventist teaching on this subject Gustave

You need to snap out of this circle you're racing around Overaged....

...I NEVER said SDA's EVER taught a "MUTATED CHRIST".

...What I've said and demonstrated Ad Nausem.

...Is that SDA's taught AND CONTINUE TO TEACH a MUTATION CAPABLE CHRIST.

...And THAT is what violates Scripture and the Creed which systematize Scripture.

Go back and re-read our exchanges on this issue and think about my posts in THAT CONTEXT...

...What I've been saying should JUMP out at you.

[Gustave]

This is the first clear distinction you have made that I can understand. I don't think that use or mis-use of such semantics really does even half justice to current, official Adventist beliefs, nor does such semantics reflect one way or the other on how Ellen White taught and believed on the divinity of Jesus. "blended," "mixed" or "united," it can all be used interchangeably; and certainly was in Ellen White's writings, and don't forget that she, in the time she wrote some of the quotes you gave, would not have the same understanding and use of these words as what you and I might have today.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

It is easy to see from these and approximately 1100 other similar quotes that neither Ellen White or the Adventist church taught anything such as a mutated Christ. You are very wrong about Adventist teaching on this subject Gustave

You need to snap out of this circle you're racing around Overaged....

...I NEVER said SDA's EVER taught a "MUTATED CHRIST".

...What I've said and demonstrated Ad Nausem.

...Is that SDA's taught AND CONTINUE TO TEACH a MUTATION CAPABLE CHRIST.

...And THAT is what violates Scripture and the Creed which systematize Scripture.

Go back and re-read our exchanges on this issue and think about my posts in THAT CONTEXT...

...What I've been saying should JUMP out at you.

You are changing your tune a little eh? Now it's "mutation-capable," rather than "mutated."

My answers would still be the same; and the quotes I provided above show clearly that you are wrong about Adventists here.

[Gustave]

You are changing your tune a little eh? Now it's "mutation-capable," rather than "mutated."

My answers would still be the same; and the quotes I provided above show clearly that you are wrong about Adventists here.

My "tune" has been the same from the inception of my point....

...Show me where I said SDA's teach that Christ "mutated".

[Sonny]

Christ had two Natures...

Christ had only one nature - the sinless nature of God.

At the incarnation, Christ as God, took upon His sinless Deity our sinful life from Mary's womb. That life had a sinful nature, but it wasn't Christ's nature, it was ours. It belonged to the fallen lives of all men from Adam.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

You are changing your tune a little eh? Now it's "mutation-capable," rather than "mutated."

My answers would still be the same; and the quotes I provided above show clearly that you are wrong about Adventists here.

My "tune" has been the same from the inception of my point....

...Show me where I said SDA's teach that Christ "mutated".

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

My "tune" has been the same from the inception of my point....

...Show me where I said SDA's teach that Christ "mutated".

Quote:

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. 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.--Ibid., p. 1128. 448 {7ABC 447.4}

The Son of God humbled Himself and took man’s nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. . . . Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam’s place to bear the test he failed to endure.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. {7ABC 448.1}

Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. . . .

Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129. {7ABC 448.2}

[/quote']

I asked you to show me where "I" said anything about SDA's teaching a "Mutated Christ"....

....Why don't you go ahead and show me where I said this.

....Or perhaps you could just bypass the scampering and just admit I never said what you charged me with.

...And I can continuing answering your posts.

[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'.

This is one of a number of places where you said mutates....(pg 40 of this topic). Guess you can't keep track of all your falsehoods here, but don;t worry; I will remind you...

Is your "deprogramming" working yet?

[Gustave]

Is your "deprogramming" working yet?

I've said that numerous times and in each case it has nothing to do with a mutated Christ....

....Adventist doctrine DOES MUTATE, I've already demonstrated that.

Ellen White said Jesus was NOT God almighty....

...Than she later says He is.

...That's a mutation of Doctrine!

...NOT a development of doctrine.

Ellen claimed the door of God's mercy was forever shut....

...She rendered "visions" to prove this doctrine.

...Until it was realized it was a failure.

...Then the Doctrine was MUTATED at which point Ellen started to have visions about those new teachings.

That's "Mutation of doctrine".....

...Not development of doctrine.

I have never said SDA's teach a mutating Christ.....

...I've always said they teach a mutation capable Christ.

...When Ellen said Christ COULD HAVE SINNED that's exactly what that means.

You seriously need to go back and re-read our exchanges...

...I think you may come away with a certain understanding.

...Now that you know what I meant.

[miz3]

overaged I think wants to keep missing your point.

Maybe its too painful to admit otherwise?

[Gustave]

I can certainly understand why my points were not being understood....

...As an alien concept from what I had presented was being held onto.

Development of Doctrine = Jesus is God which DEVELOPS on from there.

Mutation of Doctrine = Jesus is NOT God which MUTATES that Jesus is God ( as long as it's properly understood ).

What I've said from the start of this discussion is that Ellen White ( and the SDA Church ).....

...Has taught a Christ "CAPABLE of Mutation".

...I.E. "Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation".

...I.E. "Christ rised His future eternal existence", etc, etc.

These are all teachings of a mutation capable "God"......

...This is the ONLY thing I've been going after here.

...I've never said SDA's teach a mutated Christ ( as in He mutated ).

[Overaged]

I can certainly understand why my points were not being understood....

...As an alien concept from what I had presented was being held onto.

Development of Doctrine = Jesus is God which DEVELOPS on from there.

Mutation of Doctrine = Jesus is NOT God which MUTATES that Jesus is God ( as long as it's properly understood ).

What I've said from the start of this discussion is that Ellen White ( and the SDA Church ).....

...Has taught a Christ "CAPABLE of Mutation".

...I.E. "Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation".

...I.E. "Christ rised His future eternal existence", etc, etc.

These are all teachings of a mutation capable "God"......

...This is the ONLY thing I've been going after here.

...I've never said SDA's teach a mutated Christ ( as in He mutated ).

You have a pretty fancy way of denying what you say here on this forum. The above quote does *mean* that you are saying we teach a mutated Christ. That means that you are denying the Bible's view of the nature of Christ; who had BOTH human and divine natures at the same time during His Incarnation. Our doctrine is just as the Bible's doctrine, teaching an Incarnated Christ, with the doctrine of Incarnation, rather than the doctrine of "mutation."

One of several major faults with what you are trying to say about Adventist belief on the nature of Christ, is that because Jesus took on the nature of mankind; that He might overcome sin, in the same way that God tells us we are to do. This must mean that He could have chosen to sin; how else could He do it? Yet; He was a Perfect Sacrifice, for He was never tainted with sin; He never once gave in to the devils manifold temptations.

I have provided a fair bit of evidence from official Adventist sources to show that our doctrine does not mutate; nor do we teach a mutated Christ. You have not proven otherwise. That's because there is no evidence for what you say; your own Church doesn't even *officially* teach this way about Adventists.

When the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness; Jesus had to make a choice - a repeat of the same choice that a third of the angels in heaven did not make; choosing rather to form Satan's army of demons, who inject our world with the results of their choice. At His Incarnation; Jesus had to choose a response, a number of times, to the devil. This choice does not reflect His nature. Just that He had to choose.

Christ’s words were verily to the ruler the invitation, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.” Joshua 24:15. The choice was left with him. Jesus was yearning for his conversion. He had shown him the plague spot in his character, and with what deep interest He watched the issue as the young man weighed the question! If he decided to follow Christ, he must obey His words in everything. . . . {CSA 15.2}

God; through His Spirit, left Jesus with the same choices; and He leaves us today, with the same choices. Why else would the prophet say; "choose ye this day?" Saying that Jesus had choices to choose from does not in any way negate or change who he is; or what His nature is.

At the center of the Christian religion is Jesus Christ. Beyond the acceptance of a set of fundamental beliefs, in its inmost essence our religion is first and foremost a commitment to a Person: Jesus Christ. The same is true of the Christian message. The gospel is about an event at the center of which is Jesus Christ. Christianity does not go back merely to an early community of believers. It is rooted in Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity is Christ. Christ Incarnate; Christ our High Priest; Christ, our "all in all."

[Gustave]

You have a pretty fancy way of denying what you say here on this forum. The above quote does *mean* that you are saying we teach a mutated Christ. That means that you are denying the Bible's view of the nature of Christ; who had BOTH human and divine natures at the same time during His Incarnation. Our doctrine is just as the Bible's doctrine, teaching an Incarnated Christ, with the doctrine of Incarnation, rather than the doctrine of "mutation."

[miz3]

Well spoken Gustave! Very powerful!

Oveaged used very tortured and confusing language. In doing so he actually said nothing except that he supported the SDA view of a Savior who could have ended up not being a Savior.

Oh by the way overaged in using the "choose you this day" passage you completely misapply it.

That has nothing to do with "free choice" or "free moral agency". That text was a call to arms of all of those who served God to come out and rid the camp of those who did not serve the Lord God. That text has nothing whatsoever to do with making a decision. Decisions had already been made.

Also if Jesus Christ could have chosen to sin then God's Promise in Genesis 3:15 was "iffy iffy".

Yet God calls us to believe all His promises. How can we be sure that we can trust the Promise if in fact there was even the slimmest chance that it could fail.

How do you actually know that God's Second Coming Promise can be kept. Maybe there is something that will happen if someone screws up that will chuck the whole thing.

When you take the position you do you put all of God's promises in great jeopardy!!!!

You position is definitely not Biblical but is based on a soap opera view of the situation which brings everything into a cliffhanger. In your position there is always the chance that "evil" may yet triumph!

Wow!

[miz3]

Overaged either evil has a chance to win or it does not have a chance to win.

Which is it?

[Overaged]

The Incarnation is simply God became man WITHOUT ceasing to be "GOD"....

...The Divine Nature of God was UNITED ( not blended or mixed ) with human nature.

...In the ONE Person Jesus "The Christ".

...Who was ALWAYS ( Eternally ) "The Christ".

[miz3]

If the angels in heaven could choose to sin; why couldn't Jesus on Earth also choose to sin; if He wanted to?

This appears to be the central reason why Jesus Christ could have sinned. That is hardly Biblical.

Maybe there is another thing involved here in that you believe Jesus Christ was just like the Angels?

Aslo, if Jesus Christ could have "chosen" to sin, does that mean that God the Father "could also choose to sin"?

[Overaged]

Aslo, if Jesus Christ could have "chosen" to sin, does that mean that God the Father "could also choose to sin"?

God can do anything.

[miz3]

overaged,

Is it sin, if God the Father does it?

[Overaged]

overaged,

Is it sin, if God the Father does it?

What does the Bible say? "How readest thou?"

[miz3]

overaged,

You tell me!