Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Gustave]

Gustave,

I believe you have nailed it again!

That is marvelous. Couldn't say it better my self.

I really like that James 1:13 text!

It's only Catholicism 101 and I absolutely belive it to be the Deposit of Faith....

...Passed down from Generation to Generation.

In Catholicism it is correct to say we don't have a Canon of Scripture....

...We have a Canon of Faith and the Bible are those Books according to the Canon of Faith.

...This is the meaning of the Catholic term "Faith & Reason".

I would have to admit that whereas a "Saved Christian" is concerned....

...I absolutely agree with the SDA's that what we do is part of our Salvation.

...When we struggle and carry our Cross ( which means cooperating with God's grace )

...We ARE "being saved".

In the end if we have lived up to all the light we have been given grace to see....

...Jesus will make up for our falts - which will be many.

[Twilight II]

Quote:

Ellen White

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test. For our sake He exercised a self-control stronger than hunger or death.--The Desire of Ages, p. 117. {7ABC)

This is not Biblical.

Ellen White often expressed her personal opinion and this is one of those personal opinions that reflected the views many others of her day had. This quote was taken from the "Conflict Series" and much of what she wrote in those books was "copied" material. Such copied material is merely opinion which Ellen White is entitled to have.

Such opinions are NOT INSPIRED!

Just because it is her opinion does not necessary mean she is wrong! However, in this particular case Ellen White is indeed wrong!

This does not conflict with your understanding on the nature of Christ my friend. :-)

[Twilight II]

Their is one reason why many of us Adventists have ended up thinking Christ has a sinful spiritual/moral nature like them.

And it is this:

They start in the wrong place.

They start with the wrong texts.

----------------

The question is this:

Did Jesus have sin in Him?

The bible is plain:

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

-----------------

So what is going wrong?

Why have so many drifted into error on this?

Because they start with this text as their "foundation":

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Question:

Is this text dealing with the spiritual and moral nature of Christ?

No.

So why are so many insisting this is the starting place, when considering the moral and spiritual nature of Christ?

Although it is not dealing with that at all?

Because this text is being used in error.

James is talking about a man who has "succumbed" to temptation and describing the process.

He is describing how man has "lusts" within himself that are used against him.

--------------

Then there is the next text which is added to this in "support" of this:

Hbr 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.

Is this dealing with Christ's spiritual and moral nature?

No...

It is dealing with the fact that Jesus was tempted, just as we are tempted.

Yet He did not succumb to that temptation.

So this is talking about how Christ overcame temptation.

This is dealing with "external" temptation.

All of the references to Christ being tempted are external, in that they originated from Satan.

There was nothing inside of Christ to respond to Satan, Satan had "nothing" in him.

Christ did not have any lusts in Himself.

--------------

So we have one text explaining why we fall to temptation.

Another text explaining that Christ never fell to temptation.

And these are used as an argument for the nature of Christ.

But it is not dealing with this issue at all.

If you build your house on a poor foundation it will fall.

---------------

So to re-iterate:

Did Christ have a sinful moral and spiritual nature?

Let us go to the text which answers that plainly:

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

The bible says no...

[miz3]

Twilight,

The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ did not and never did have a "sinful nature" like you and I.

Jesus Christ had a "sinless nature" which was totally pure and which did not in any way shape or form respond to sin. Thus, it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus Christ to sin!

God had a foolproof plan! There was ZERO chance that the plan would fail.

[Sonny]

Did Jesus have sin in Him?

The bible is plain:

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

I already explain this. When Jesus was resurrected by the Father our old humanity wasn't resurrected. Hence our old life died the 2nd death, just as the law requires. Sunday morning Christ was resurrected with a glorified, sinless, immortal humanity. That means that it was free from indwelling sin.

Go to Eph 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus....

Now 2 cor 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died....16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh (look at them as they are "in Christ"); even though we have known Christ according to the flesh (humanity indwelt with sin), yet now we know Him in this way no longer.

Why? Because on the resurrection Christ was raised with a glorified humanity free from indwelling sin.

verse 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ (that is, he is aware of his position in Christ), he is a new creature ; the old things passed away ; behold, all things have become new."

So "in Christ" all things have become new. In Christ the old man died and we have a new creation. So Christ doesn't have "indwelling sin" any longer.

Now back to 1 Jo 3:5 "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

Is John talking about between Christ's birth and death or after His resurrection? Let's look at the context:

1 John 1:2 We know that when He appears [i.e., at the 2nd coming], we will be like Him....

Okay, the context is speaking of Christ after the resurrection. So this doesn't deny that Christ, as the Son of Man, took our humanity indwelt with sin from the manger to the grave.

[Gustave]

Miz3, is absolutely right - there was as much chance that Christ wouldn't have born from a Virgin....

....As there there was a chance He could have sinned.

Does anyone know if Ellen ever said anything about the possibility of Christ not being born of a virgin?

....It's the same thing.

[skyblue888]

Jesus' flesh was our flesh with all its tendencies to evil. It was sinful flesh that he took. In his human nature, Jesus inherited tendencies just as you and I are born into this world with inherited tendencies from our parents and parent's parents. It may reach to the fourth generation. It is called the great law of heredity. Jesus was not born with holy flesh. This is the doctrine of antichrist. If He were born with holy flesh He could not be a Saviour.

sky

[Sonny]

Jesus was not born with holy flesh. This is the doctrine of antichrist. If He were born with holy flesh He could not be a Saviour. sky

Bingo!

It's the doctrine of (I hope John won't get upset here) legalists! You see if Christ's work wasn't complete (i.e., He didn't actually rewrite our history) then we, through works of the law, must rewrite our own history. This is anti-Christ....This is the work of the Papacy.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Jesus was not born with holy flesh. This is the doctrine of antichrist. If He were born with holy flesh He could not be a Saviour. sky

Bingo!

It's the doctrine of (I hope John won't get upset here) legalists! You see if Christ's work wasn't complete (i.e., He didn't actually rewrite our history) then we, through works of the law, must rewrite our own history. This is anti-Christ....This is the work of the Papacy.

Sonny, we agree that the teaching that Jesus took holy flesh when he was born into this world is the doctrine of antichrist but I have no idea of what you are talking about in what you added to that.

sky :)

[Sonny]

Miz3, is absolutely right - there was as much chance that Christ wouldn't have born from a Virgin....

....As there there was a chance He could have sinned.

Guys...come on. Why would Christ as God even be connected to Mary in the first place?

Mary didn't birth God. God is self-existing...He has always existed. So again, what does this have to do with Mary?

[Sonny]

Sonny, we agree that the teaching that Jesus took holy flesh when he was born into this world is the doctrine of antichrist but I have no idea of what you are talking about in what you added to that. sky

Jesus has legally answered the demands of the law in Himself. He did this by assuming our humanity, indwelt with sin. In Him our humanity was made obedient and in Him our humanity died the 2nd death. Now we have a glorified humanity, in Him, in the heavenly places.

So in Christ the law has been answered:

1] We, our humanity, was made obedient because Christ defeated "sin in sinful mankind"

2] Because Christ took our fallen humanity, under the curse, it had to die. Hence in Christ our old humanity died.

3] On the resurrection Christ was raised with a glorified humanity - free from all sin. This humanity is what Christ holds up before God's holy law. We are complete in Him

Now, since we have folks here denying this truth, then they must answer the law themselves.

1] They have to keep the law as Christ did.

2] But since all have sinned then they must die, the 2nd death.

So only those who are legalists-those who think that they can answer the law as Christ did-reject the truth as it is in Christ.

[Twilight II]

Twilight,

The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ did not and never did have a "sinful nature" like you and I.

Jesus Christ had a "sinless nature" which was totally pure and which did not in any way shape or form respond to sin. Thus, it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus Christ to sin!

God had a foolproof plan! There was ZERO chance that the plan would fail.

Jesus could have sinned.

The same way Adam sinned before the fall.

All Jesus had to do was exert His will above His Fathers will.

This is what Adam did.

Adam did not have a "sinful" nature, but he still sinned.

Mark :-)

[Sonny]

Jesus could have sinned. The same way Adam sinned before the fall.

Adam's sin is called a mystery. It can't be explained. Why? How could a sinless human being, indwelt with righteousness, sin? You must remember that Adam had nothing in him to respond to sin. It was Eve who outwardly tempted Adam, but again Adam wasn't tempted from within. There was nothing in him to respond to sin.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Did Jesus have sin in Him?

The bible is plain:

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

I already explain this. When Jesus was resurrected by the Father our old humanity wasn't resurrected. Hence our old life died the 2nd death, just as the law requires. Sunday morning Christ was resurrected with a glorified, sinless, immortal humanity. That means that it was free from indwelling sin.

Where in Johns statement do you get theidea there was a "time restriction" on Jesus having no sin in Him?

That this texts only applies to Him after the ascension.

I do not see it in this text.

Do you think you might be supplying that rationale so that it will fit with your idea that Jesus did have a sinful nature?

Because no mention of the resurrection (or the time frame you are applying) is made in the text we are discussing.

[Twilight II]

Jesus' flesh was our flesh with all its tendencies to evil. It was sinful flesh that he took. In his human nature, Jesus inherited tendencies just as you and I are born into this world with inherited tendencies from our parents and parent's parents. It may reach to the fourth generation. It is called the great law of heredity. Jesus was not born with holy flesh. This is the doctrine of antichrist. If He were born with holy flesh He could not be a Saviour.

sky

Unbiblical Sky.

John plainly states:

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

[miz3]

Quote:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.

1John 1:1-4.

This text is talking about Christ before the Cross not after!

Quote:

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.

1John 3: 1-3.

What is the context of this passage, Sonny?

Lets look at verse by verse.

Verse One states:

1. The Father's Love is so great and the Father has poured out this Love on us. What is this love? It is that we are called the "children of God".

2. We are indeed the Children of God.

3. The world does not know us because it did not know Jesus Christ before the Cross.

Verse Two states:

1. Now while we are on earth we are the children of God.

2. Later when Christ appears the Second Time we shall be changed to be like Christ's resurrected body.

Verse Three states:

1. If humans trust in Jesus Christ they will be "purifying themselves" so that they can be like God.

2. This is the Sanctification Process and has nothing to do with Justification.

We have gone through the context of both 1John chapter one and 1John chapter three and nothing about Justification and nothing about Christ having a "sinful nature" before the Cross.

[Twilight II]

This is the doctrine of antichrist.

sky

Careful where you wave that sword Sky... :-)

I have discussed this with other people.

They often resort to the charge of "heresy", when they do not agree.

In fact there is a movement in the Church at the moment that insists that if you do not accept their point of view on this, then you are engaging in the "Alpha & Omega" of apostasy.

The fact they could be wrong doesn't concern them.

Only the fact they must be right and everyone else should be burned at the stake is of any concern to them...

THAT is the spirit of anti-christ...

[Sonny]

Because no mention of the resurrection (or the time frame you are applying) is made in the text we are discussing.

Sure, verse 3. That's the context. We shall see Him as He is...i.e., without sin. That's after the resurrection!

But let's take verse 5 all by itself:

"But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin."

When did He appear? At the incarnation. How did He take away our sins?

Romans 6:5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

6 For we know that our old life was crucified with him

why?

So that the body of sin (humanity indwelt with sin) might be done away with!

When Christ's humanity, indwelt with sin, died YOU died too! Are you a sinner or a holy joe? Answer: Sinner.

So when Christ died - you died - because Christ took YOU into Himself. Stop fighting the gospel!

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Jesus could have sinned. The same way Adam sinned before the fall.

Adam's sin is called a mystery. It can't be explained. Why? How could a sinless human being, indwelt with righteousness, sin? You must remember that Adam had nothing in him to respond to sin. It was Eve who outwardly tempted Adam, but again Adam wasn't tempted from within. There was nothing in him to respond to sin.

Exactly Sonny...

Adam had nothing in him to respond to sin.

But he was tempted externally and did sin.

This is the same way Jesus was tempted.

Except He did not sin.

Jesus was the second Adam.

Except Jesus was inhibited by assuming not Adams unfallen body, but a body that was fallen.

Adam met the temptation in the garden with a perfect moral nature and perfect body.

Jesus met the temptation with a perfect moral nature but a fallen body.

[miz3]

Quote:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.

1John 3:4-5.

Let's look at verses four and five within context.

Verse four says:

1. Fact is that all who sin break the law. They are lawless.

Verse five says:

1. Jesus Christ appeared. When did Jesus Christ appear? Jesus Christ appeared between His Birth and the Cross!

2. Why did Jesus Christ appear? Jesus Christ appeared to take away our sins.

3. Now in context which is from Christ's Birth to the Cross Jesus Christ "in him is no sin"!

There you have it Sonny. The context says that in Christ was no sin. Thus, your assertion that Christ took on our "sinful nature" is wrong! The Bible does not support you theory!

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Because no mention of the resurrection (or the time frame you are applying) is made in the text we are discussing.

Sure, verse 3. That's the context. We shall see Him as He is...i.e., without sin.

That's after the resurrection!

But it doesn't state that He was ever any different...

It does not state that at one point He had sin in Him, but now He doesn't.

That is not in that text Sonny.

It is not there.

[skyblue888]

quote=Twilight II]

Jesus' flesh was our flesh with all its tendencies to evil. It was sinful flesh that he took. In his human nature, Jesus inherited tendencies just as you and I are born into this world with inherited tendencies from our parents and parent's parents. It may reach to the fourth generation. It is called the great law of heredity. Jesus was not born with holy flesh. This is the doctrine of antichrist. If He were born with holy flesh He could not be a Saviour.

sky

Unbiblical Sky.

John plainly states:

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

[Sonny]

But he was tempted externally and did sin.

This is the same way Jesus was tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are --yet was without sin.

Who is the "we"? Folks before the fall or after the fall?

Answer: After!

So Christ was tempted as we are tempted: from within!

[Sonny]

It does not state that at one point He had sin in Him, but now He doesn't.

You have to read the context, and here's the best argument:

"But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin."

When did He appear? At the incarnation. How did He take away our sins?

Romans 6:5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

6 For we know that our old life was crucified with him

why?

So that the body of sin (humanity indwelt with sin) might be done away with!

When Christ's humanity, indwelt with sin, died YOU died too! Are you a sinner or a holy joe? Answer: Sinner.

So when Christ died - you died - because Christ took YOU into Himself. Stop fighting the gospel!

[skyblue888]

"Do not forget, either, that the mystery of God is not God manifest in sinless flesh, but God manifest in sinful flesh. There could never be any mystery about God's manifesting Himself in sinless flesh--in one who had no connection whatever with sin. That would be plain enough. But that He can manifest Himself in flesh laden with sin and with all the tendencies to sin, such as ours is--that is a mystery. Yea, it is the mystery of God. And it is a glorious fact, thank the Lord! Believe it. And before all the world, and for the joy of every person in the world, in Jesus Christ He has demonstrated that this great mystery is indeed a fact in human experience. For "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same."

"In all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." And therefore God "made him to be sin for us." "He hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Thus, in our flesh, having our nature laden with iniquity and Himself made to be sin, Christ Jesus lived in this world, tempted in all points like as we are and yet God always caused Him to triumph in Him and made manifest the savor of His knowledge by Him in every place. Thus God was manifest in the flesh--in our flesh, in human flesh laden with sin--and made to be sin in itself, weak and tempted as ours is. And thus the mystery of God was made known to all nations for the obedience of the faith. O, believe it!

And this is the mystery of God today and forever--God manifest in the flesh, in human flesh, in flesh, laden with sin, tempted and tried. In this flesh God will make manifest the knowledge of Himself in every place where the believer is found. Believe it and praise His holy name!" A.T. Jones, Lessons on Faith, R&H, Sept.29,1896.

sky