Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

Heb 10:5 ...when he (the Son of God) comes into the world, he says, You (God the Father) had no desire for offerings, but you made a body ready for me (i.e., my Deity)

1. The OUTER BODY of Jesus Christ.

This is what makes it almost impossible to have a conversation with you. There's no such thing as your imaginary "outer body". You will not find that phrase in the Bible, but you will read that Christ defeated sin in sinful mankind. Where did He defeat sin? In sinful mankind. Read Romans 8:3

[Sonny]

If SDA's teach that Jesus had the Rom 7:14-25 experience, which many are doing right here on this board John.

Then they are indeed teaching Christ was sin-polluted and miz3 is right in his obvservations.

The humanity that He assumed as God was sin polluted because it is our humanity Christ came to legally redeem. In that life He lived a perfect life of obedience to God's law, but since that life was polluted it had to take the curse. Sunday morning God raised Christ with a glorified humanity free from all sin. Our old life from Adam died forever. Hence "in Christ" we died to the law in the body of Christ. The law has been satisfied.

[Sonny]

1. The source of Jesus Christ's body was the Holy Spirit!

[Sonny]

1. Your Hebrews chapter ten text was talking about Jesus Christ's OUTER BODY! That is just plain and simple Truth!

It's not truth, miz3, it is plain silliness at best! No where does the Bible speak of this "outer body".

[Sonny]

Again, the only way for SDA to conclude that a sin-polluted christ who could have sinned and been eternally lost is through the Opinions of Ellen White. In this matter Ellen White is not supported by Scripture.

Christ didn't have any special advantage, except He was born spiritually alive where we are born spiritually dead. From the moment of His birth Christ's mind was under the full control of the Holy Spirit.

When Christ became a man in the incarnation He had to give up not His divinity, but His divine prerogatives, in other words, the independent use of His divinity. Even His God-consciousness had to be given up. Jesus discovered He was God only by revelation. He was not God-conscious as a baby. He had to grow up in knowledge. He had to grow up in everything because He had given up the independent use of His divinity and was made in all things like unto us (Heb. 2:17).

Therefore, He was totally God-dependent all through His earthly ministry. John 5:30 says, “I can do nothing of myself.” John 6:57 says, “I live by the Father.” See also John 8:28 and John 14:10. All these texts state very clearly that Christ was totally God-dependent.

[John317]

Quote:

1) "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and HER SEED [the Messiah]; He [Eve's seed] shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His [Eve's seed] heel." Gen. 3: 15

NO! NO! NO!

God was speaking to Adam

Verse 14 says God spoke these words to the serpent (i.e., Satan). Of course Adam and Eve were listening, so it was also for them. It was a promise that one day a descendant of Eve would be victorious over the Serpent, or Satan.

Originally Posted By: miz3

1. NOT Eve's seed at all! Nothing in the text or the context of the passage either directly or by inference points to Eve!

Who is "the woman" spoken of in verses 13 and 16?

At that time, the only woman alive was Eve. Therefore it is easy to see how the reader would conclude that God was speaking of Eve. Galatians 4: 4 says that Christ, the Savior, was "born of a woman." That woman, Mary, was a descendant of the original woman, Eve.

Originally Posted By: miz3

2. It is referring to Adam's seed! Paul confirms this in Romans.

Paul is talking about how death came into the human race through Adam, but there's no mention of "Adam's seed."

Show the verse in Romans about Adam's seed which you refer to.

Are you thinking of Paul's mention of Abraham's seed? But that still has nothing to do with the "seed of the woman."

Originally Posted By: miz3

3. As a Bible student you should know that the "woman" of Genesis 3:15 is not the woman "Eve". It is the "woman of God's People", what Paul and others describe as "His Bride". There is no way this is talking about Eve.

I have over 15 study Bibles, and not a single one gives the interpretation you give here. They all agree with what I have said, that the woman is Eve and the One who will destroy the Serpent is Christ, a descendant of the woman.

Please show your exegesis and reasoning. The Church is to be a chaste virgin presented to Chirst, but how do you connect this to Genesis 3: 15?

I'm aware that there are some interpreters who believe God was thinking about the church when He spoke thus to the Devil, but there is no textual evidence for the claim. Besides, the Church--God's people-- never defeated or destroyed Satan. It was Christ alone who utterly defeated Satan, at Calvary.

There is no reason to believe that "the woman" in v. 15 is any different from "the woman" in v. 16. In both instances, "THE woman" is Eve, the only woman on the planet at the time these words were uttered.

Gen. 4: 1 indicates that Eve understood God to have been referring to her when He spoke of "the woman's seed." She apparently thought that perhaps the first baby might be the descendant God had promised her, the one who would defeat and destroy the Serpent, the Devil. I doubt God told her that many thousands of years would have to pass before her descendant would defeat the Devil.

[John317]

If SDA's teach that Jesus had the Rom 7:14-25 experience, which many are doing right here on this board John.

Then they are indeed teaching Christ was sin-polluted and miz3 is right in his obvservations.

I understand fully where he is coming from.

What SDAs have taught that Christ had the Romans 7: 14-25 experience? I have never seen it, and I certainly don't see it in the writings of Ellen White, nor in the writings of early SDAs.

Miz3 is claiming that Ellen White teaches a "sin-pollutted christ." That is absoutely false. It is also false to believe that SDAs teach such about Christ. This only shows that people are not reading and paying attention to what is being said. Let them quote, and give the reference for, the statements they understand to be saying this.

[Dr. Rich]

The "Woman" is the same Woman of Rev. 12. This is the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

You mean you think the woman of Genesis 3: 15 is the woman of Rev. 12? Can you show from the text of Ge 3:15 how you arrive at that conclusion?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

If SDA's teach that Jesus had the Rom 7:14-25 experience, which many are doing right here on this board John.

Then they are indeed teaching Christ was sin-polluted and miz3 is right in his obvservations.

The humanity that He assumed as God was sin polluted

1Jo 3:5 ...in him is no sin.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

If SDA's teach that Jesus had the Rom 7:14-25 experience, which many are doing right here on this board John.

Then they are indeed teaching Christ was sin-polluted and miz3 is right in his obvservations.

I understand fully where he is coming from.

What SDAs have taught that Christ had the Romans 7: 14-25 experience? I have never seen it, and I certainly don't see it in the writings of Ellen White, nor in the writings of early SDAs.

Miz3 is claiming that Ellen White teaches a "sin-pollutted christ." That is absoutely false. It is also false to believe that SDAs teach such about Christ. This only shows that people are not reading and paying attention to what is being said. Let them quote, and give the reference for, the statements they understand to be saying this.

I do not believe Ellen White ever taught that Christ was sin polluted.

But when Christians claim that because we are tempted (succesfully by Satan), based on what James said, then go on to claim that Jesus also was tempted the same way, then they are indeed saying what Miz3 has objections to.

Consider this (incorrect) reasoning John317:

1. We are tempted because we have sin in us (James and Rom 7).

2. Christ was tempted the same way (Heb).

3. Therefore Christ had sin "in Him".

This is the conclusion many Adventists come to and indeed teach.

In fact some are so vocal as to say that if you do not agree with this you are teaching the doctrines of Anti-christ.

But what Miz3 is objecting to, (as I understand it), is that this, what appears logical, path actually has some information missing and should actually be reasoned like this:

1. We are succesfully tempted because we have sin in us that has not been dealt with by God (James and Rom 7), we are powerless against it.

2. Christ was tempted by Satan externally, in all points, but Satan was unsuccesful. (Heb).

3. Christ had no sin "in Him" (1 John), nothing to respond to Satans suggestions.

4. Therefore Christ had a human body, but the lusts and desires of the flesh, were absent, He came with Adams pre-fallen moral and spiritual nature, but with Adams post fallen Body, but that body had no sinful propensities in it.

5. Christ was tempted exactly the same way Adam was tempted "pre-fall", but was disadvantaged in that He had a fallen human body that had been ravaged by millenia of sin.

That I believe is the scriptural truth of the matter, it is the only answer where all the math adds up...

Now I am not asking you to accept this, but just asking whether you understand the point I am making? :-)

Which basically is this:

Christ was spiritually tempted as Adam was Pre-fall.

But He had a fully human body that was post fall.

But that post fall body had no sin in it.

[Dr. Rich]

Are you saying that Christ was not Michael before He was placed into Mary by both the Father and the Mother (Holy Spirit) in order to be born AS a human? If so, where do you get your evidence for what you wrote?

[Sonny]

1. We are tempted because we have sin in us (James and Rom 7).

2. Christ was tempted the same way (Heb).

3. Therefore Christ had sin "in Him".

On # 3, this doesn't mean Christ sinned or transgressed the law. However, yes, Christ as the Son of Man (not the Son of God) had our bent-to-self (iniquity/sin) in the humanity that He received from Mary's womb. However, in His case, He never allowed it to have its way.

[John317]

I do not believe Ellen White ever taught that Christ was sin polluted.

But when Christians claim that because we are tempted (succesfully by Satan), based on what James said, then go on to claim that Jesus also was tempted the same way, then they are indeed saying what Miz3 has objections to.

It's quite true that Ellen White never taught that Christ was sin-polluted. Quite the contrary. Neither is anyone on this Forum teaching anything like it, at least that I'm aware of. We're not teaching anything that she doesn't say herself.

Temptation is not sin, is it?

[Sonny]

It's quite true that Ellen White never taught that Christ was sin-polluted.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I do not believe Ellen White ever taught that Christ was sin polluted.

But when Christians claim that because we are tempted (succesfully by Satan), based on what James said, then go on to claim that Jesus also was tempted the same way, then they are indeed saying what Miz3 has objections to.

It's quite true that Ellen White never taught that Christ was sin-polluted. Quite the contrary. Neither is anyone on this Forum teaching anything like it, at least that I'm aware of. We're not teaching anything that she doesn't say herself.

Temptation is not sin, is it?

I do not think you are understanding my point John317. :-)

If we say that Christ was tempted like we are, but that means He was tempted like this:

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

That is saying that Christ had "lusts" in Him.

Which means He had "sin" in Him.

Because the lusts of the flesh are sin.

So if we argue that Christ had "lusts" in Him, we are in fact saying He had "sin" in Him.

Christ had no "sin" in Him, John is clear on that.

Therefore, He could not have had "lusts" in Him.

Which means He did not have the Rom 7:14-25 experience.

But the Rom 8 experience, or Adam pre-fall (in relation to the existance of sinful tendencies in Him).

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: John317

It's quite true that Ellen White never taught that Christ was sin-polluted.

Right, He never sinned, yet the humanity that He was made...that He assumed for 30 + years, was polluted with sin because in it was our sin nature. He defeated that nature where it is with all fallen humanity - in the flesh. And then on the ressurrection He left our old, sin filled life in the eternal grave.

In it's place God resurrected Christ as up with a glorified humanity. He took this life (which is our life, glorified) to heaven. In Him we have been cleansed from all sin. At the 2nd coming we will fully realize this truth when we receive from Christ our glorified humanity.

Quote:

Temptation is not sin, is it?

No, but indwelling sin is! That's why we must never say that the Son of Man had a sinful nature. It wasn't His by Divine right. It's ours, yet Christ stooped to take it upon Himself. He was born a condemned man, not for sinning, but for sharing our fallen life. He was made sin is this respect, but He never sinned.

Here's A.T. Jones:

But bear in mind forever that all this He "was made." He was none of this of Himself, of native fault, but all of it he "was made." And He was made it all for us: for us who are under the law; for us who are under condemnation because of transgression of the law; for us who are under the curse because of swearing and lying and killing and stealing and committing adultery and all the other infractions of the roll of God's law that goeth with us and that remaineth in our house.

This is my understanding as well.

I have read these lectures by Jones and they are excellent.

Thanks Sonny.

sky

[skyblue888]

THE FLESH OF JESUS

by E.J. Waggoner

Was Christ, that holy thing which was born of the virgin Mary, born in sinful flesh? Did you ever hear of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception? And do you know what it is? Some of you possibly have supposed that it meant that Jesus Christ was born sinless. That is not the Catholic dogma at all. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born sinless. Why? Obstensibly to magnify Jesus; really the work of the devil is to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Savior of men, and the men whom He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other. That is all.

We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not. There are a great many that have got the marks yet, but I am persuaded of this, that every soul who is here to-night desires to know the way of truth and righteousness. (Congregation: Amen!), and that there is no one here who is unconsciously clinging to the dogmas of the papacy, who does not desire to be freed from them.

Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary? Mind you, in Him was no sin, but the mystery of God manifest in the flesh, the marvel of the ages, the wonder of the angels, that thing which even now they desire to understand, and which they can form no just idea of, only as they are taught it by the church, is the perfect manifestation of the life of God in its spotless purity in the midst of sinful flesh. (Congregation: Amen!) O, that is a marvel, is it not?

Suppose we start with the idea for a moment that Jesus was so separate from us, that is, so different from us that He did not have in His flesh anything to contend with. It was sinless flesh. Then, of course, you see how the Roman Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception necessarily follows.

The words of the Bible concerning Christ we read: "Wherefore, in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

We read of the sufferings of Christ. "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." How many of you are there who think that the suffering of Christ was only the few moments that He hung upon the cross, when His hands and feet were pierced, or while being mocked by the Roman soldiers? No; not then alone. "He suffered being tempted." Where did He suffer? We read in 1 Peter 4:1 "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same"--what flesh? "Arm yourselves likewise with the same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God."

He was tempted in the flesh, He suffered in the flesh, but He had a mind which never consented to sin. "Let (therefore) this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." Phil.2:5. Arm yourself with the same mind, the mind of God, and let that mind have control over the body of sin, and you will experience in your own selves that mystery, the power that Jesus Christ has over all flesh,--the power that God Himself has to demonstrate His own perfect righteousness under the very worst possible conditions that the devil could devise; and thus He shows His power over the devil.

E.J. Waggoner, 1901 General Conference Bulletin, April 16, 1901.

[John317]

Does Ellen White teach that Jesus had lusts of the flesh? No. Neither am I. Jesus did not have the same passions that sinners have, because Jesus never sinned.

There's a wonderful book called The Word Made Flesh-- One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christoloty 1852-1952. About 364 pages. Compiled by Ralph Larsen. It contains virtually everything published by SDAs and Ellen White on the topic of Christ's human nature.

Ellen White wrote: "He (Christ)took the nature of man, with all its possibilities. We have nothing to endure that He has not endured." Ms. 113, 1902, page 1

"Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature." (RH 7-17-1900, page 449, col. 3, BV 201

"He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." (YI 12-20-1900, page 394, col. 2)

"He came as a helpless babe, bearing the humanity we bear. 'As the children arwe partakers of flesh and blood, He also likewise took part of the same.'... In His humanity He understood all the temptations that will come to man." Ms. 21, 1895, page 3

"He... suffered every phase of trial and temptation with which humanity is beset." Ms. 35, 1895, p.1

"Christ assumed our fallen nature, and was subject to every temptation to which man is subject.

[Sonny]

Does Ellen White teach that Jesus had lusts of the flesh? No. Neither am I. Jesus did not have the same passions that sinners have, because Jesus never sinned.

We know that He was tempted - severely at that - by our human nature, but He didn't even respond to it by a thought. That last part is EGW paraphrased.

[Sonny]

It seems that where we have disagreement is in the answer to the question "did Christ, as God, assume our humanity from Mary's womb?"

Well, let's go backwards towards the womb:

Both Romans 6:6, Romans 7:4 tells us that OUR OLD LIFE died when Christ died. That's clear. The question is from where did Christ receive our humanity?

Answer: It had to be from the womb of Mary. Otherwise it makes no sense why Mary was involved.

[Gustave]

I believe you're right. See the previous post just before this one

Yes, I would only add that Jesus' heritage to David is established through the Blessed Virgin...

...Adoption via Joseph back to David is impossible.

Jeremiah 22,30

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for NO man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah

Luke 3 establishes Mary traces back to David and while Joseph can as well....

...The curse prevents adoption of Christ by Joseph.

...Yet Jewish law allows title to pass via Mary.

Numbers 36,6

This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance. Even as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad: For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their fathers brothers' sons: And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.

[miz3]

Quote:

Born of a woman" refers to the fact that Christ was a human being. It takes us back to the promise in Gen. 3: 15, that the Messiah would come out of a woman, i.e, be descended from Adam and Eve.

Born of a woman indeed says that Jesus Christ was a human being. That is not in dispute. However, it does not say that Jesus Christ received any genetic material from any woman! (regardless of what woman you may name!)

You have quoted an awful lot of material from Scripture about Jesus Christ being a descendent. However none of those texts state that Jesus Christ was a descendent in the sense that Jesus received their genetic material.

Jesus Christ was the LEGAL DESCENDENT of all those you have named. Jesus Christ was NOT A GENETIC DESCENDENT of any human being.

There is no Scripture that links Jesus Christ genetically to any other human being.

Jesus Christ's connection to other humans family wise is purely LEGAL!

[miz3]

11) "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one,'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." Gal. 3: 16. (Compare 3: 19)

Notice that the word "seed" in the above is the Greek word "sperma," i.e., sperm. The Messiah was to come from Abraham's sperm, or literal descendants. As Gen.: 15 and Ps. 132: 11 teach, the Messiah would come out of the woman (Eve) and out of the body of David.

You are a good Bible Student. As such you ought to know that when Paul talks about "seed" in reference to Abraham, Paul is speaking Spiritually. In other words, Paul is saying that the link between Abraham and those who belong to Abraham's family as descendants are the "Spiritual Children" of Abraham. Paul says that the being a blood descendent is worthless.

Thus, Paul equates all of Abraham's children, or offspring, as the Spiritual descendents of Abraham.

Jesus Christ was the Ultimate Spiritual descendent.

Also as we pointed out previously, Joseph the father of Jesus Christ contributed no sperm to the Incarnation, thus Abraham could not have contributed any sperm either.

Just not possible.

In addition as we have also pointed out Matthew chapter one states that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT!

You can link all the Old Testament references you desire until you have recopied the entire OT but it still will NOT make any link to Jesus Christ "genetically".

Legally, yes! Genetically? NO! NO! NO!

[miz3]

This is what makes it almost impossible to have a conversation with you. There's no such thing as your imaginary "outer body".

Have you never heard of skin, liver, stomach, muscles, etc. these are all parts of the human OUTER BODY (the physical). The "INNER NATURE" is what 1Corinthians chapter two calls the "spirit of the human"(it is something that is NOT PHYSICAL, because it is intangible).

Paul states that it is this "inner nature" in humanity that is filled with sin! Paul calls it the "sinful nature" and compares it to the "Spiritual Nature" of Romans chapter eight.

Come on Sonny you are well aware of all this stuff.

If I am difficult to talk with it is because I quote Scripture without adding a bunch of twists, and tortured logic, etc. to that Scripture. You are not looking at the texts for what they say, instead it appears you are trying to defend what you have heard from Jack S. because it sounded good.