Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Overaged]

A ) you continue to teach a mutation capable Christ - it's time you accept it.

&

B ) By your own publications SDAism has documentated mutated doctrines.

You keep denying that you use the word "mutated" to describe our doctrines; yet here it is again.

Part of Christ’s mission was to be truly human. He possessed the essential characteristics of human nature. He was “flesh and blood” (Heb. 2:14), and in all things like His fellow human beings (verse 17). His humanity did not correspond to Adam’s humanity before the Fall, nor in every respect to Adam’s humanity after the Fall, for the Scriptures portray Christ’s humanity as sinless. Conceived by the Holy Spirit, His birth was supernatural (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35), so much so that the angel sent by the Father told Mary that “the child to be born will be called holy” (Luke 1:35).

He came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). He took human nature in its fallen condition with its infirmities and liabilities and bearing the consequences of sin; but not its sinfulness. He was truly human, one with the human race, except for sin. He could truthfully say “He [satan] has no power over me” (John 14:30; en emoi ouk echei ouden, lit. “has nothing in me”). Jesus took human nature, weakened and deteriorated by four thousand years of sin, yet undefiled and spotless. “In him,” writes John, “there is no sin” (1 John 3:5).

If you want to fiddle with scripture or with Adventist writings to try to say we believe differently; help yourself.

"As for me and my house, we WILL SERVE THE LORD!"

[miz3]

Part of Christ’s mission was to be truly human. He possessed the essential characteristics of human nature. He was “flesh and blood” (Heb. 2:14), and in all things like His fellow human beings (verse 17). His humanity did not correspond to Adam’s humanity before the Fall, nor in every respect to Adam’s humanity after the Fall, for the Scriptures portray Christ’s humanity as sinless. Conceived by the Holy Spirit, His birth was supernatural (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35), so much so that the angel sent by the Father told Mary that “the child to be born will be called holy” (Luke 1:35).

He came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). He took human nature in its fallen condition with its infirmities and liabilities and bearing the consequences of sin; but not its sinfulness. He was truly human, one with the human race, except for sin. He could truthfully say “He [satan] has no power over me” (John 14:30; en emoi ouk echei ouden, lit. “has nothing in me”). Jesus took human nature, weakened and deteriorated by four thousand years of sin, yet undefiled and spotless. “In him,” writes John, “there is no sin” (1 John 3:5).

This response was very enlightening. You are a very clever person. You did not actually quote Ellen White but your response could have been lifted almost exactly from her writings. You attempt to leave the impression that you get everything from the Bible but what you wrote has all the earmarks of Ellen White. Some of the phrases are indeed lifted from her.

You deny that Christ had a human nature (internal) like Adam BEFORE the fall and you also deny that Christ had a nature (internal) like us AFTER the fall. In doing this you are trying to play both sides of the street. What you suggest is impossible. There are only two possibilities available:

1. a sinless human nature like Adam (internal only)

2. sinful human nature like us (internal only)

When I first saw your posts I thought here is a person who will HONESTLY LOOK AT THE ISSUES!

Man was I wrong. What you have written has proven to be just another SDA who is unable to defend the twisted outlook to the Truth. You are indeed more clever than some others in your tactical commitment and in your avoidance moves.

[Dr. Waite]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (noun)and the Word was God (adjective)".

Does the Holy Scriptures teach "mutation" i.e. by the "Word" being with God, the "Word" became God (adjective)?

[Gustave]

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

[Overaged]

This response was very enlightening. You are a very clever person.

Thankyou!

[Overaged]

Therefore since Michael was an archangel AND Lucifer sinned...

...Well, Lucifer was an archangel and he sinned.

...Therefore Michael or Christ would have to have the same peccability.

ST, September 14, 1882 par. 9

"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God's government, at first met with no favor; yet being urged again and again, they were finally accepted by those who had before been loyal and happy subjects of the King of Heaven

You have totally misrepresented the Bible description of "Michael;" as well as what Adventist doctrine says about it. It is easy to go to some website like you are and pick out a few quotes that make things appear to be one way; when infact they are not. Do you actually know what we teach about "Michael?" By this post; apparently you haven't a clue. You are clutching at straws.

When I said that Jesus was in heaven, along with Lucifer when Lucifer sinned, I was not making reference in any way about His nature; just the fact that some in heaven made a choice to sin and rebel against God, and that because of that anyone of them could have. My reasoning was pretty simple, and had nothing to do with His nature at that time. Just as I have avoided stating what I think Jesus' exact "human nature" was at the Incarnation; when He could have chosen to sin, I avoided getting specific with the reference to beings sinning in heaven. And I believe I have good reason for that.

You are denying the clear teachings of the Bible. Humbling Himself, the Word took the “form” of a servant, once again the essential characteristics and qualities that make a human being what it is. He became fully human. This was no metamorphosis [mutation], as so frequently seen in Greek myths, but a genuine incarnation. Nor was it merely the appearance of humanity, but genuine humanity. Christ’s humanity was real and complete. A preexistent divine Being humbled Himself and took human nature. A genuine incarnation occurred.

Numerous allusions to the Incarnation are found throughout Paul’s Epistles, some quite strong (2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; 5:7). In Galatians 4:4, 5 we are told that “when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons.” Paul refers the whole transaction to the Father, who thus fulfills the plan of redemption. God’s Son was born of a woman.

The same purpose is underlined when, toward the end of his life, the apostle asserts that “the saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). We may have felt the need of a teacher, an example, a revealer, an interpreter of God’s will, a bulwark against evil. We may find all this in Him, and more, but at the core of them all He is God and Saviour.

[Overaged]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (noun)and the Word was God (adjective)".

Does the Holy Scriptures teach "mutation" i.e. by the "Word" being with God, the "Word" became God (adjective)?

[Gustave]

You have totally misrepresented the Bible description of "Michael;" as well as what Adventist doctrine says about it. It is easy to go to some website like you are and pick out a few quotes that make things appear to be one way; when infact they are not. Do you actually know what we teach about "Michael?" By this post; apparently you haven't a clue. You are clutching at straws.

[Gustave]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (noun)and the Word was God (adjective)".

Does the Holy Scriptures teach "mutation" i.e. by the "Word" being with God, the "Word" became God (adjective)?

[miz3]

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This text demonstrates that Christ as the second Adam had a nature like Adam before the fall.

[phkrause]

We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan was, next to Christ, the highest angel in heaven

That is saying Christ IS an angel....

Not sure how you get that. When I read that, I read that Lucifer was the highest ranking Angel in Heaven, period! Not that Christ was an angel and than Satan was the next in line!! You really are trying to twist EGWs words.

[Sonny]

This text demonstrates that Christ as the second Adam had a nature like Adam before the fall.

Now we agree on many things, but I've got to disagree here. But first, Christ as God never HAD a sinful nature. The sinful nature, which is our bent-to-self, belongs to the human race passed on genetically through Adam.

What Jesus as the Son of God did was to assume the fallen race by uniting His Deity with our fallen, sinful humanity in the womb of Mary.

Let's reverse this. When you accepted Christ's finished work the Holy Spirit moved into your humanity. Specifically He moved into your spirit, which is the inner mind.

The point is the Holy Spirit, who is God, moved into you a sinner. The only difference after conversion is your mind is no longer in agreement with your nature, but even after conversion you still retain your sinful nature, right?

Here's my point: You still have a fallen, sinful humanity, yet the Holy Spirit (God) resides in you.

Does that make the Holy Spirit a sinner because He dwells in you? No! He remains Himself, God.

Likewise do you become God because the Holy Spirit resides in you? No! You're still a sinner (although growing) and you are still mortal. So you don't become God although God resides in you.

Now reverse this back: At the incarnation Jesus, as God, assumed that which wasn't His by divine right. "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature." Who said that? Ellen White.

Notice she didn't say Christ's sinful nature...she said OUR sinful nature.

IF we can agree on this point I'll tell you why this is so important.

[miz3]

“All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.”

Revelation 13:8. [bold type supplied].

God had a plan even before the earth was created. It also says that God saw the plan as being complete from the moment of its inception. It does say in Revelation 13:8 that the Lamb was slain. Why would God state that Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, was slain even before the earth was made? Could it be that God was declaring victory even though the event in human history had not yet occurred? Could it be that there is never any doubt about success once God says that it will happen?

[miz3]

“So the LORD God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.’.”

Genesis 3:14-15.

Do you notice the emphatic and certain language God uses. There is no ambiguity or maybe anywhere. God doesn’t say, “Maybe I will crush your head”. He states that indeed I will crush your head and totally destroy you. God promises that He will be victorious and save Humanity. That is why Genesis 3:15 is called a Promise. With humans there is a difference between a promise and the fact that it will be successful, but not with God. If God cannot keep His promises what assurance can His creation ever have? God makes His promises so that Humanity can be at peace that it will happen. I ask you if God’s promises about His First Coming are ify, ify, then what makes you certain that His promises to come a second time (Second Coming) a sure thing. It seems the same people that say that the First Coming had a maybe in it declare that the Second Coming is a dead lock certainty. Again, I ask, if the First Coming was not a certain success, then what makes us so certain that the Second Coming will be a success and that things will go just as God has planned it?

[miz3]

God, when He makes a promise, considers the promise kept and complete at that moment. Thus, the promise of humanity’s salvation by Christ’s death on the Cross was kept and completed at the moment God made the promise. This fact accounts for the promises God made directly to Abraham, the promises made by the Old Testament prophets, the Sanctuary Services in the Jewish economy, the translation of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah to name a few other promises. Why would these men be translated unless, their penalty under sin was paid in the mind of God? What is God going to do if His plan fails throw Enoch and the others back? How absurd! God knew that His promise was already accomplished and so to translate these men was done. The translation of these three men would also be evidence of encouragement to the rest of us that God would succeed and we too would have our sin debt paid and like these men go to heaven. The idea that the Plan of Salvation could fail is a myth. It was never in doubt and the future plans of the completion of God’s will is also a done deal even though we humans have not seen it yet. Yet there are some that think that everything weighed in the balance and that it just barely was saved at the last moment. That the God who has stated that He does not change would change and at the last moment give up the Plan. This concept is not Biblical.

“Arise, Balak, and listen; hear me, son of Zippor. God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?”

Numbers 23:18-19.

“He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.”

1 Samuel 15:29.

“I the LORD do not change.”

Malachi 3:6.

“And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever.”.’ Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.”

Hebrews 7:20-22. [see also Psalm 110:4].

“Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”

James 1:16-17.

[miz3]

Let’s look at Christ’s own words while on earth to see if He wavered.

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Matthew 16:21

Jesus lays out the plan knowing that He not only will die but will be raised from the dead on “the third day”. There is more.

Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death.”

Matthew 20:17,18

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this...

Mark 8:31,32

They were on their way to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him, and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”

Mark 10:32-34

Notice the emphatic nature of the prediction. There is no “maybe” at all in these words. The use of the word “will” is undeniably clear. Jesus spoke that these things were certain to happen. After His death He seemed almost to chastise them that they did not trust not only His predictions but those of the Old Testament scriptures. It is clear that Jesus does not want them to worry about the events that are sure to take place. He wants them to be at peace that He and the Father have everything under control and that the Plan must take place in this way and everything will be all right. How typical of humanity. We hear the plain word and some how it is not enough. We want to complicate things. The nature of sin is fear. See the book of Genesis. One of the first by products of sin was that Adam and Eve were afraid. Our fear breeds mistrust and it escalates to the point that we misconstrue the plain words and facts just as the disciples did.

[Dr. Waite]

The verse really says this from the Greek:

John 1:1 Εν ἀρχῆ ἦν ὁ λόγος

In beginning was the Word

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸσ

and the Word was with

τὸν θεόν,

the God,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

and God was the Word.

Does this verse describe a mutation?

[miz3]

Yes there is more yet.

Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.”

Luke 18:31-33

This passage even includes the fact that the writers of the Old Testament predicted these things and everything they said would happen. Again and again each of the Gospel writers has used the emphatic sense. It is clear that in the mind of Christ there was no doubt, no flinching. It would happen and indeed it did.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

John 12:7,8

Is there a note of doubt in this expression by Christ? No! He clearly speaks of the event as a sure thing.

“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Then a voice came from heaven, “ I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; other said an angel had spoken to him.

Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

John 12:27-33

This is too obvious. It is also too powerful. The deal is done!

Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

“But we have no right to execute anyone,” the Jews objected. This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.

John 18:31,32

Everything was planned and then orchestrated to be fulfilled. How much clearer could it be.

Later, KNOWING THAT ALL WAS NOW COMPLETED, and SO THAT THE SCRIPTURE WOULD BE FULFILLED, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips.

John 19:28, 29

So much for Christ not being aware while He was on the cross. He knew that the work He and His Father set out to do was complete. There was no wavering, only confidence. They knew the outcome before, during, and after the fact. We never see any wavering anywhere. Everything Christ does and says shows that from the beginning they did not take a risk or chance and you never hear anything that even remotely intimates that God or Christ ever saw it as a risk. They knew that Their will would be done.

[miz3]

Some might say, “What about in the garden when He prayed about the cup.”? This was not a wavering where the plan was in the balance. Christ was not asking that the plan be shelved and let humanity die. He was not going to abandon the plan. He wanted only to accomplish the plan without the pain of His bearing Hell for us. Is there a less painful way for us to accomplish this? If not, we will keep it as you say, Father. This can not be construed to be a thought that Christ would chuck the whole thing and go home to His Father. Nothing in the Holy Scripture anywhere even remotely hints at such an idea, let alone say so.

The texts sited show overwhelmingly that from the beginning the “deal was done” and nothing could alter it or change the outcome. The outcome was sure. I am glad that we have a God who does not waver in His plans. He is a God that when He says something it is sure to be. God is not toying with us. This is why the ancients who looked forward to the Cross had faith and trusted that it would be so because they were certain that what God set out to do would be done no matter what. This is why we have confidence in the plan after the Cross. We know that it is a done deal. There will be no strings attached later with a “by the way didn’t I tell you ...”. We have confidence that when He said He would come back and take us to heaven that this part of the deal is done also. Or do you think that God might change His mind and the dead will not be raised and the whole plan will be abandoned. Which of you thinks that? If you do then you do not have any assurance at all. The Bible writers from beginning to end do not share this view even in the slightest. They always speak with confidence and so does God. So should we.

I am thankful that from beginning to end God has it all planned out and nothing can change the plan that He has made. As someone wrote in a hymn “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine”. I am happy because no matter what happens God has saved me and my eternal destiny is sure because it is based solely on His Person and His Word.

[Gustave]

Not sure how you get that. When I read that, I read that Lucifer was the highest ranking Angel in Heaven, period! Not that Christ was an angel and than Satan was the next in line!! You really are trying to twist EGWs words.

Satan WAS, next to Christ, the Highest angel in heaven"

That is saying Christ was the HIGHEST ANGEL in heaven and Lucifer was right behind him.

I've already quoted Ellen White where she states both Christ and Lucifer were "archangels"....

...Lord have Mercry: how much clearer could it be!

Ellen White

The Son of God was next in authority to the great Lawgiver. He knew that His life alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man.” (Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, page 9

Ellen White

Speaking of Satan, our Lord says that “he abode not in the truth.” He was once the covering cherub, glorious in beauty and holiness. He was next to Christ in exaltation and character. It was with Satan that self-exaltation had its origin. He became jealous of Christ, and falsely accused him, and then laid blame upon the Father. He was envious of the position that was held by Christ and the Father, and he turned from his allegiance to the Commander of heaven and lost his high and holy estate.” (Ellen White, Review & Herald, October 22, 1895)

Christ was "exalted" as Lucifer was "exalted"...

...Only Christ was exalted HIGHER than Christ by the "Great lawgiver".

[miz3]

Sonny,

I have certainly agreed with your views on Justification as stated in Romans chapter 5 100%. I agree because your views are Biblical.

However, I guess we part a ways on this particular point. If Christ had a "sinful nature" like me then like me he would be forced to sin. Romans chapter says this is so.

"Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God."

Romans 8:5-8.

Notice that anyone having the "sinful nature" is controlled by that nature and cannot please God. If Jesus Christ had such a "sinful nature" Christ would not have been able to please God. We know that is not so. Jesus Christ was controlled by the Spirit (see Bible which says the Spirit led Christ into the wilderness to be tempted and other passages about Christ being filled with the Spirit).

I am sorry but Jesus Christ did not take on our "sinful nature". It is simply NOT BIBLICAL!

[miz3]

Powerful stuff Gustave!

I am with you on this one that you can't make it much clearer.

It is extremely clear. Me thinks that people are so wedded to their wrong ideas that it is impossible for them like the Jewish Pharisees to admit they have been wrong.

Especially since a Roman Catholic teaches them about their own theology. For SDA that must be hard to swallow.

Disagreement is one thing. However when confronted with obvious Truth and still hold to your erroneous views is entirely another thing.

[Sonny]

If Christ had a "sinful nature" like me then like me he would be forced to sin. Romans chapter says this is so.

Keep in mind that statement from EWG: "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature."

Notice Christ as God (and He has always been God) took or assumed OUR (not His) sinful nature.

He took us in our fallen state so that He, as the 2nd Adam, could re-write our history.

[Overaged]

Sonny,

I am sorry but Jesus Christ did not take on our "sinful nature". It is simply NOT BIBLICAL!

Then Jesus did not die; and that is not Biblical!

[Sonny]

Notice that anyone having the "sinful nature" is controlled by that nature and cannot please God. If Jesus Christ had such a "sinful nature" Christ would not have been able to please God.

We are born with our nature controlling our minds. Read Eph 2:3 As David said, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me".

Why? Because having a sinful nature is sin in and of itself. When we are born our natures and minds are in harmony. What the flesh wants, the mind agrees. Hence we are born spiritually dead.

Christ, as the 2nd Adam, was born spiritually alive. What does that mean? It means that while the sinful nature resided in His assumed humanity that nature never had control of His mind.

So Christ never sinned even in sinful flesh. However, because He assumed our humanity in it's fallen state that humanity stood condemned. Not because He sinned, but because our humanity is a condemned humanity because it has been ruined by sin.