Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[phkrause]

I will answer it by giving examples of Ellen White's use of "propensity," evil propensity," and "passions"--

1) That your passions and appetites may be subject to the control of reason... Our natural propensities must be controlled, or we can never overcome as Christ overcame.-- 4 T 235

2) The appetite and passions should be restricted and under the control of an enlightened conscience.-- 3 T 491

3)... Enabling men to bring all their propensities under the control of the highter powers...-- 3 T 491

4) Every true Christian will have control of his appetite and passions.-- 3T 569-570

5) Nonsense and amusement-loving propensities should be discarded.-- MYP 42

6)We need not retain one sinful propensity.-- RH 4/24/1900

6) He [Christ] was a might petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature, but compassed with infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are.-- 2 T 509

7) He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions.--2 T 202

8) Not for a moment was tehre in Him an evil propensity. SDA BC V: 1128

9) Though He had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He yield to do one act which was not pure and elevating and noble.-- IHP 155.

10) But although their evil propensities may seem to them as precious as the right hand or the right eye, they must be separated from the worker, or he cannot be accepteable to God.-- TM 171-2.

11) He was made like unto His brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical. (Roget's Thesaurus lists susceptibilities and propensities as synonyms.) RH 2/10/1885

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: miz3

So far I agree!

Good....

Remember I asked you from where did we get our humanity...our lives? Well, we now both agree that it ultimately came from Adam - the head of the human race.

We also agree that we are fallen and that our bodies...our humanity has in it our bent to self, which is called the sin nature.

Okay, back to Romans 6:6 (or 7:4)

"We know that our old self [our old man] was crucified with him (Christ) so that the body of sin might be done away with...."

"The body of sin" refers to our humanity indwelt with sin. Here's something clearer:

In Romans 7:21 Paul says "sin living in me"....A few verses after that he says, "I see another law at work in the members of my body, .... the law of sin at work within my members

So "the body of sin" is the same as "sin living in me" ...also called "the law of sin within my members" (my body parts).

Do you agree?

?

[Gustave]

This is an example of people attacking something they don't understand but think they do.

What does Ellen White mean by "evil propensity"? You apparently believe that it means "sinful nature." But is this true?

Would the use OF "concupiscence" instead of Ellen's word "propensities" render a different meaning to EGW's statements John317??

...A simply yes OR no is the only answer you need to provide.

Of course if you say "YES" I would like to hear your reasons why there is a difference.

[John317]

..

Would the use OF "concupiscence" instead of Ellen's word "propensities" render a different meaning to EGW's statements John317??

...A simply yes OR no is the only answer you need to provide.

.

Yes. Concupiscence is evil desire or lust, whereas "propensity" or "propensities" is not necessarily evil. However, we must control all propensities, but there are other propensities that we must eliminate from our lives through the Holy Spirit's power.

"Evil propensities" is very similar to concupiscence. I know, however, that many people understand "concupiscene" to refer to "sexual desire," but this is wrong. God gave us "sexual desire," and it is not wrong in itself. In fact, without it, the human race would die out.

Jesus certainly did not experience "concupiscence" in the sense of evil desire or lust. Did He experience sexual desire? Certainly, but He never gave into the temptation to express it sinfully in any way, that is, outside of God's will; nor did Christ ever cherish an evil or lustful thought.

Again, He could have but He never did.

Ellen White says-- and I fully and firmly agree with her-- that we don't need to retain a single evil or sinful propensity.

Understanding this is why it's so important to discuss it here and get it straight. It dovetails with the Investigative Judgment and the Three Angels Message. I believe that's why the Devil is so desirous of deceiving people about this issue, causing people to believe either that they can't help sinning or that God will save them in His kingdom no matter what they do.

[miz3]

In Romans 7:21 Paul says "sin living in me"....A few verses after that he says, "I see another law at work in the members of my body, .... the law of sin at work within my members

So "the body of sin" is the same as "sin living in me" ...also called "the law of sin within my members" (my body parts).

I see the "sin living in me" the same thing as "I see another law at work in the members of my body.

I see both things as the same as the "sinful nature".

I also see "the of sin at work within my members" also the same as the "sinful nature".

Does that put us in agreement again?

[Gustave]

By this point it should be exceptionally clear why SDA's reject the Council of Nicaea...

...It's simply because an article of it does not agree with the prophetic utterance of Ellen White.

...And that article contains an affirmation that Christ is God & as God, couldn't fail & eternally cease to exist.

...That's the reason.

Ellen White

Christ has found his pearl of great price in lost, perishing souls. He sold all that he had to come into possession, even engaged to do the work, and RUN the RISK of losing his own life in the conflict. How then should man regard his fellow man? Christ has demonstrated the way. He says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. Letter 119, 1895)

Ellen White

Christ's humanity could NOT be separated from His divinity.” Signs of the Times, 14th April 1898, ‘Christ and the law’)

Ellen White

Nature sympathized with the suffering of its Author. The heaving earth, the rent rocks, proclaimed that it was the Son of God who died.” ( 2nd Vol. Testimonies page 211, ‘The sufferings of Christ’)

In Ellen's mind THAT was the risk the pre-Incarnate Christ took by entering the conflict...

...In classic Arianism thought Ellen interpreted Phil 2: 5-7.

...To mean that Christ 'dumped' His conferred divinity.

...Staking or gambling IT on the outsome.

Because the divinity was BLENDED or MIXED with the humanity...

...The result of that blending equated to birthing 'god light'.

...A god that if found guilty of sin, would eternally cease to exist.

In this rubric the Incarnate Son of God dumped His conferred diety...

...So that He may have no help aside from any other man.

...Which Christ got ONLY from the Father who was licensor of Christ's diety anyway.

Ellen White

He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient TO His Father's will. Manuscript 99, 1903, pp. 3, 4. "Christian Education in Our Schools", September 1, 1903, see also Selected Messages book 3, page 141, chapter 19, ‘The incarnation'

According to SDA theology Jesus didn't sin DUE to the "real God's" grace...

...NOT because of Jesus' IMPECCABILITY.

...Which the Scriptures boldly SHOUT He absolutely has eternally had.

Pay close attention to the following.

Ellen White

Jesus Christ laid off His royal robe, His kingly crown, and clothed His divinity with humanity, in order to become a substitute and surety for humanity, that dying in humanity He might by His death destroy him who had the power of death.” (Ellen G. White, Letter 97, page 5, To "My Brethren in North Fitzroy," November 18th 1898)

Who died in "HIS" Humanity????

...The answer of course is, THE PRE-INCARNATE CHRIST!

...That was the RISK in a nutshell.

"IF" or "HAD" Christ sinned His divinity would have been stripped away - returning to "God' who issued it...

...And the dead incarnated Michael the archangel would have simply been consumed by maggots.

...End of story, game over!

A rather famous SDA states it thus.

Charles Longacre

If it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce and mere mockery. If it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin. / If Christ "risked all," even His eternal existence in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and if overcome by sin, He would have gone into Jo¬seph's tomb and neither that tomb nor any other tomb would ever have been opened. All would have been lost and He would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed His divinity AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been lost, eternally lost. If He had failed, His immutability as well as His eternity would have been forfeited and eternally lost It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and if that had happened, and it was possible to happen, God, the Father, would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. Diety of Christ page 13

"Had" failure been the case the pre incarnate Michael the archangel would have been 'bloted out'...

...Along with the rest of US.

The Council of Nicaea states such a teaching is rank heresy...

...And THAT is exactly why SDA's reject the Creed.

Due to some of the messages I've got I will answer a question that's came to me several times...

...Where am I getting my information.

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerus/index_eng.html

Download that, it has EVERYTHING. It includes a complete RSV CE and every Scripture that has ever been spoken about is listed on the right.

Given that a bad interpretation of Phili 2, 5-8 is what caused the issue this thread is over that would be a good place to start.

St. Chrysostom

Behold Sabellius too. It is written, “He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God.” Now equality is not predicated, where there is but one person, for that which is equal hath somewhat to which it is equal. Seest thou not the substance of two Persons, and not empty names without things? Hearest thou not the eternal pre-existence of the Only-begotten?

Lastly, What shall we say against Arius, who asserts the Son is of a different substance? Tell me now, what means, “He took the form of a servant”? It means, He became man. Wherefore “being in the form of God,” He was God. For one “form” and another “form” is named; if the one be true, the other is also. “The form of a servant” means, Man by nature, wherefore “the form of God” means, God by nature. And he not only bears record of this, but of His equality too, as Jn also doth, that he is no way inferior to the Father, for he saith, “He thought it not a thing to seize, to be equal with God.” Now what is their wise reasoning? Nay, say they, he proves the very contrary; for he says, that, “being in the form of God, He seized not equality with God.” How if He were God, how was He able “to seize upon it”? and is not this without meaning? Who would say that one, being a man, seized not on being a man? for how would any one seize on that which he is? No, say they, but he means that being a little God, He seized not upon being equal to the great God, Who was greater than He. Is there a great and a little God? And do ye bring in the doctrines of the Greeks upon those of the Church? With them there is a great and a little God. If it be so with you, I know not. For you will find it nowhere in the Scriptures: there you will find a great God throughout, a little one nowhere. If He were little, how would he also be God? If man is not little and great, but one nature, and if that which is not of this one nature is not man, how can there be a little God and a great one?

(He who is not of that nature is not God. For He is everywhere called great in Scripture; “Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised.” (Ps 48,1). This is said of the Son also, for it always calls Him Lord. “Thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone.” (Ps 86,10). And again, “Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His greatness there is no end.” (Ps 145,3).

But the Son, he says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, “Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God.” (Tt 2,13). But can he have said “appearing” of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing “of the great God.” Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, “The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” See, the Son is great also. How then speakest thou of small and great?

Listen to the Prophet too, calling him “The Messenger of great counsel.” (Is 9,6). “The Messenger of great counsel,” is He not great Himself? “The mighty God,” is He small and not great? What mean then these shameless and reckless men when they say, that being little He is a God? I repeat ofttimes what they say, that ye may the more avoid them. He being a lesser God seized not for Himself to be like the greater God! Tell me now (but think not that these words are mine), if he were little, as they say, and far inferior to the Father in power, how could He possibly have seized to Himself equality with God? For an inferior nature could not seize for himself admission into that which is great; for example, a man could not seize on becoming equal to an angel in nature; a horse could not, though he wished it, seize on being equal to a man in nature. But besides all that, I will say this too. What does Paul wish to establish by this example? Surely, to lead the Philippians to humility. To what purpose then did he bring forward this example? For no one who would exhort to humility speaks thus; “Be thou humble, and think less of thyself than of thine equals in honor, for such an one who is a slave has not risen against his master; do thou imitate him.” This, any one would say, is not humility, but arrogance. Learn ye what humility is, ye who have a devilish pride! What then is humility? To be lowly minded. And he is lowly minded who humbles himself, not he who is lowly by necessity. To explain what I say; and do ye attend; he who is lowly minded, when he has it in his power to be high minded, is humble, but he who is so because he is not able to be high minded, is no longer humble. For instance, If a King subjects himself to his own officer, he is humble, for he descends from his high estate; but if an officer does so, he will not be lowly minded; for how? he has not humbled himself from any high estate. It is not possible to show humble-mindedness except it be in our power to do otherwise. For if it is necessary for us to be humble even against our will, that excellency comes not from the spirit or the will, but from necessity. This virtue is called humble-mindedness, because it is the humbling of the mind.

Again, what in opposition to Paul of Samosata? for what did he affirm? The very same. But it is no emptying of Himself, that one who is of human nature, and a mere man, should wash his fellow-servants. For what we said against the Arians, we must repeat against these too, for they differ not from one another, save by a little space of time; both the one and the other affirm the Son of God to be a creature. What then shall we say to them? If He being a man washed man, He emptied not, He humbled not Himself. If He being a man seized not on being equal with God, He is not deserving of praise. That God should become man, is great, unspeakable, inexpressible humility; but what humility is there in that one, who was a man should do the works of men? And where is the work of God ever called “the form of God”? for if he were a mere man, and was called the form of God by reason of His works, why do we not do the same of Peter, for he wrought greater deeds than Christ Himself? Why say you not of Paul, that he had the form of God? Why did not Paul give an example of himself, for he wrought a thousand servile works, and did not even refuse to say, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” (2Co 4,5).

These are absurdities and trifles! Scripture says, He “emptied Himself.” How did He empty Himself? tell me. What was His emptying? what His humiliation? was it because He wrought wonders? This both Paul and Peter did, so that this was not peculiar to the Son. What then means, “Being made in the likeness of men”? He had many things belonging to us, and many He had not; for instance, He was not born of wedlock. He did no sin. These things had He which no man has. He was not what he seemed only, but He was God also; He seemed to be a man, but He was not like the mass of men. For He was like them in flesh. He means then, that He was not a mere man. Wherefore he says, “in the likeness of men.” For we indeed are soul and body, but He was God, and soul and body, wherefore he says, “in the likeness.” For LEST when you hear that He emptied Himself, you should think that some change, and degeneracy, and loss is here; he says, whilst He REMAINED what He was, He took that which He was not, and being made flesh He remained God, in that He was the Word. (Jn 1,14).

703 In this then He was like man, and for this cause Paul says, “and in fashion.” Not that His nature degenerated, nor that any confusion arose, but He became man in fashion. For when He had said that “He took the form of a servant,” he made bold to say this also, seeing that the first would silence all objectors; since when he says, “In the likeness of sinful flesh,” he says not that He had not flesh, but that that flesh sinned not, but was like to sinful flesh. Like in what? in nature, not in sin, therefore was His like a sinful soul. As then in the former case the term similarity was used, because He was not equal in everything, so here also there is similarity, because He is not equal in everything, as His not being born of wedlock, His being without sin, His being not a mere man. And he well said “as a man,” for He was not one of the many, but “as” one of the many. The Word who was God did not degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a man; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility. When therefore he says, “as a man,” this is what He means; since he calls Him a man elsewhere also, when he says, “there is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus.” (1Tm 2,5).

If Christ was the FULLNESS of the Godhead.....

...It means what Orthodox Christianity has always said it does.

...It means God became man WITHOUT ceasing to be God.

...100% God and 100% man united ( not blended or mixed ) in the One Person Jesus who is the Christ.

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

..

Would the use OF "concupiscence" instead of Ellen's word "propensities" render a different meaning to EGW's statements John317??

...A simply yes OR no is the only answer you need to provide.

.

Yes. Concupiscence is evil desire or lust, whereas "propensity" or "propensities" is not necessarily evil. However, we must control all propensities, but there are other propensities that we must eliminate from our lives through the Holy Spirit's power.

"Evil propensities" is very similar to concupiscence. I know, however, that many people understand "concupiscene" to refer to "sexual desire," but this is wrong. God gave us "sexual desire," and it is not wrong in itself. In fact, without it, the human race would die out.

Jesus certainly did not experience "concupiscence" in the sense of evil desire or lust. Did He experience sexual desire? Certainly, but He never gave into the temptation to express it sinfully in any way, that is, outside of God's will; nor did Christ ever cherish an evil or lustful thought.

Again, He could have but He never did.

Ellen White says-- and I fully and firmly agree with her-- that we don't need to retain a single evil or sinful propensity.

Understanding this is why it's so important to discuss it here and get it straight. It dovetails with the Investigative Judgment and the Three Angels Message. I believe that's why the Devil is so desirous of deceiving people about this issue, causing people to believe either that they can't help sinning or that God will save them in His kingdom no matter what they do.

Concupsicence does NOT have to be evil...

...Nor does the RCC claim it all is.

...Could you use "evil concupiscence" intead of propensities where Ellen used the term?

[Sonny]

Does that put us in agreement again?

Yes...

So we are in agreement that the "body of sin" is our life indwelt with sin. Good.

Now let's go back and look at the points we agreed on:

I asked, "did your life die in Him?" On post #456252 you responded, "Yes, Sonny!"

Later I asked, "So you got your life after the fall, right? The proof is because you and I have sinful natures, right?"

On post #456270 you said, "So far I agree!"

Okay to summarize our agreements let's hit the high points one more time:

1] We agree that the "body of sin" is our life indwelt with sin (i.e., the sin nature).

2] We agree that your life died in Christ.

3] We agree that your life, even after becoming a Christian, contains a sinful nature.

If you agree with this summary we can go to the final conclusion.

[John317]

By this point it should be exceptionally clear why SDA's reject the Council of Nicaea...

...It's simply because an article of it does not agree with the prophetic utterance of Ellen White.

...And that article contains an affirmation that Christ is God & as God, couldn't fail & eternally cease to exist.

...That's the reason.

We reject the Council of Nicaea because it has no authority. It carries absolutely no authority for Christians. We wouldn't accept it even we agreed with all of it. As a church we reject it on principle, not because we disagree with some parts of it.

None of the church councils after Acts 15 have any authority for the Christian church as a whole. Our only authority is the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. I couldn't care less what the Council of Nicaea or any other council said, nor what any pope has said.

That's the real reason.

[John317]

..."Had" failure been the case the pre incarnate Michael the archangel would have been 'bloted out'...

...Along with the rest of US.

The Council of Nicaea states such a teaching is rank heresy...

...And THAT is exactly why SDA's reject the Creed.

Who cares what the Council of Nicaea says? I certainly don't and neither does the SDA church. That council has no authority. As a church, we wouldn't accept it as authoritative even if we agreed with it 100%. I agree with the Apostles Creed and with some of the other creeds, but they still represent no authority with me or with our church. They only have historical interest for me. I don't believe what I do because of anything the creeds say. Whether the creeds say something is "rank heresy" is of no importancce to me whatsoever.

That is exactly why SDAs reject the Creed.

But it is true-- and the Bible supports it-- that if Christ hadn't died to save us, we would all have perished.

[John317]

St. Chrysostom

While I agree with much that Chrysostom said, he is no more authority to me than any other pastor or minister. I don't accept the Church Fathers as authoritative but only as of historical importance to show us what some Christians believed at certain times in the history of the church. They are certainly not our measuring-stick of truth. For me, Ellen White is of far greater authority than the Church Fathers ever thought of being. They weren't prophets of God, and Ellen G. White was.

[miz3]

We agree that your life died in Christ.

I agree that my life died with Christ on the Cross.

With the addition of the words in blue, I now agree.

[John317]

..

Would the use OF "concupiscence" instead of Ellen's word "propensities" render a different meaning to EGW's statements John317??

...A simply yes OR no is the only answer you need to provide.

....Concupsicence does NOT have to be evil...

...Nor does the RCC claim it all is.

...Could you use "evil concupiscence" intead of propensities where Ellen used the term?

No, it could not be used in place of Ellen White's term. The word carries too much historical and theological baggage, as shown in the following article taken from the Catholic encylcopedia:

Quote:

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished. If, in fact, the will resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuous appetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control. "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh."

From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. Nor have the inordinate desires (actual concupiscence) or the proneness to them (habitual concupiscence) the nature of sin; for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will; though it be true that they are temptations to sin, becoming the stronger and the more frequent the oftener they have been indulged. As thus far considered they are only sinful objects and antecedent causes of sinful transgressions; they contract the malice of sin only when consent is given by the will; not as though their nature were changed, but because they are adopted and completed by the will and so share its malice. Hence the distinction of concupiscence antecedent and concupiscence consequent to the consent of the will; the latter is sinful, the former is not. The first parents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God. A short but important statement of the Catholic doctrine on this point may be quoted from Peter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent to Rome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: "Our belief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh" (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty. By the sin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege. Human nature was deprived of both its preternatural and supernatural gifts and graces, the lower appetite began to lust against the spirit, and evil habits, contracted by personal sins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom. Hence that lamentable condition of which St. Paul complains when he writes:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:21-25)

Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting.

The Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Luther, proposed new views respecting concupiscence. They adopted as fundamental to their theology the following propositions:

•Original justice with all its gifts and graces was due to man as an integral part of his nature;

•concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam's transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin;

•baptism, since it does not extinguish concupiscence, does not really remit the guilt of original sin, but only effects that it is no longer imputed to man and no longer draws down condemnation on him. This position is held also by the Anglican Church in its Thirty-nine Articles and its Book of Common Prayer.

The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature. (See GRACE; JUSTIFICATION; SIN.)

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

We agree that your life died in Christ.

I agree that my life died with Christ on the Cross.

With the addition of the words in blue, I now agree.

Sure...on the cross, because that's where your old life came to and end "in Christ".

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Does that put us in agreement again?

Yes...

So we are in agreement that the "body of sin" is our life indwelt with sin. Good.

Now let's go back and look at the points we agreed on:

I asked, "did your life die in Him?" On post #456252 you responded, "Yes, Sonny!"

Later I asked, "So you got your life after the fall, right? The proof is because you and I have sinful natures, right?"

On post #456270 you said, "So far I agree!"

Okay to summarize our agreements let's hit the high points one more time:

1] We agree that the "body of sin" is our life indwelt with sin (i.e., the sin nature).

2] We agree that your life died in Christ [on the cross].

3] We agree that your life, even after becoming a Christian, contains a sinful nature.

If you agree with this summary we can go to the final conclusion.

Okay....Miz3 agrees (I made the modification to # 2)

Now let's look at an EGW statement and see if you agree with it:

"He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature" [MM 181]

[miz3]

Quote:

He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. Medical Missionary page 181

Sonny above is the whole sentence of your partial quote. This can be a problem when we lift phrases by themselves out of their context.

In this specific case Ellen White was admonishing those who had charge of young men who worked under those with more experience. As such Ellen White counseled these more mature men to deal with the younger men as the older men would like Christ to deal with them.

Ellen made the above sentence in regard to this context to show that Jesus Christ understands the position of the mature men and understands the position of the young men.

She never, ever meant this statement to be a "theological truth". She was expressing her view of theological truth into the "inspired" portion of her counsel to the mature men!

Given the complete sentence I cannot agree with Ellen White's theological assertion because I believe it is contrary to what the Bible says. However, I agree with the overall counsel given by Ellen White to the mature men as being "inspired".

In other words Ellen White inserted her own opinion in a theological way into the larger "Inspired" counsel.

On that basis I have to say I disagree with the whole sentence because it implies that Jesus Christ took on our sinful nature before the Cross. This concept is alien to the Bible.

The full sentence sends a completely different message than does the phrase when the phrase is taken by itself. Which means that Ellen White meant something entirely different than just what that phrase states.

So I cannot agree!

[Sonny]

I really don't care about the context surrounding her quote because I'm not out to prove EGW. Taken by itself, "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature", can you agree with this?

[Sonny]

To all wanting to discuss the gospel maybe we should move to "In Christ" - the gospel explained? This topic is "Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds". So here we are off topic.

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

St. Chrysostom

While I agree with much that Chrysostom said, he is no more authority to me than any other pastor or minister. I don't accept the Church Fathers as authoritative but only as of historical importance to show us what some Christians believed at certain times in the history of the church. They are certainly not our measuring-stick of truth. For me, Ellen White is of far greater authority than the Church Fathers ever thought of being. They weren't prophets of God, and Ellen G. White was.

Are the only parts of Chrysostom you don't agree with....

...The parts which are at odds with what Ellen decreed for SDA's to believe?

I'm wondering what things Chrysostom said in what I quoted what you don't agree with?

The Catholic Church as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church has it's early Church Fathers....

...And the SDA's have their early Church Pioneers.

...The concept of "Father's" & "SDA Pioneers" appears to have the same meaning.

Only that the SDA Pioneers, of which Ellen White was the largest part...

...Taught Arianism / semi Arianism.

If you were alive and a believing member of the SDA church in 1869....

...And you compared the stated teachings of SDAism compared to the R.C.C.

...Of the two groups which do you NOW believe was closer to the truth?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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

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

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

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

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

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,

and they will lift you up in their hands,

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

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

Matthew 4:5-7.

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

[miz3]

Teresaq(sda),

Since you have stated that nothing I say will change your mind then I think we will have to agree to disagree.

You seem like a nice person. Thanks for the exchange!

[John317]

Only that the SDA Pioneers, of which Ellen White was the largest part...

...Taught Arianism / semi Arianism.

If you were alive and a believing member of the SDA church in 1869....

...And you compared the stated teachings of SDAism compared to the R.C.C.

...Of the two groups which do you NOW believe was closer to the truth?

Keep in mind that there were SDAs in those days who believed in the Trinity. Some were pastors. So it is not true that the SDA church had a requirement that members be Arian or semi-Arian. This is important because it shows that the SDA church did not have an official doctrine about the Trinity. In fact, as I mentioned before, James White wrote an article in the Review and Herald in which he stated that the doctrine of the Trinity or other views of the Godhead should not be a test of Christian character or of fellowship.

One of my great-great grandmothers and a great-grandmother on either side of my family were SDAs in the early 1860s and 1870s. I don't know what they believed on this issue. They left no record of this. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if they were semi-Arian.

We frankly don't know for sure what Ellen White's personal view of the Trinity was at that time-- the 1860s and 1870s. It's apparent to me that she wasn't sure of some things regarding the Holy Spirit. But she didn't express her personal opinion as if it were authority. She only wrote what God showed her was truth. So it is not surprising that Ellen White didn't write much about the Holy Spirit during those years. That is why her earliest writings are in harmony with her later writings. She was waiting for God to show her more truth about the Holy Spirit. And God did this, starting about 1888 and this continued up to about 1910. She seems to have made her clearest statements about the Holy Spirit and the Godhead between 1897 and 1906.

All this should not surprise us. Prophets have wrong personal opinions, too, of course. That is not a problem as long as they realize the difference between their opinion and what God has revealed to them for the Church. I believe Ellen White did this.

As far concerns a comparison of the Catholic view of the Trinity and the most common view of the early SDAs, there is no doubt that the Catholic view was closest to the truth. But there are aspects of the Catholic view that are wrong, too, (according to my understanding of a recently published Catholic Catechism).

I could not have been a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though, under any circumstances, because it teaches many false doctrines and practices that I consider of far greater importance than the Trinity. Remember that Christ did not say, "If you love me, you will be right in every detail about the Godhead," but rather, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

I do believe that it's important to know and understand aright the doctrine of the Trinity, but I don't believe it is necessarily salvific. I believe there will be many saved in heaven who didn't have correct theology, but they truly loved the Lord with all their heart and were honest with Him and obeyed Him as their Lord and Savior.

[Overaged]

I do believe that it's important to know and understand aright the doctrine of the Trinity, but I don't believe it is necessarily salvific. I believe there will be many saved in heaven who didn't have correct theology, but they truly loved the Lord with all their heart and were honest with Him and obeyed Him as their Lord and Savior.

[John317]

...The Catholic Church as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church has it's early Church Fathers....

...And the SDA's have their early Church Pioneers.

...The concept of "Father's" & "SDA Pioneers" appears to have the same meaning.

It may be seem similar but SDAs as a whole don't view the Pioneers as "authority" for determining truth. Some SDA individuals--- especially the relatively few who are wanting to take the church back to the views of the Pioneers--- do see them this way, but they are wrong, and the Pioneers themselves would have urged modern SDAs to make the Bible their only rule of doctrine and faith, just as Ellen White herself did.

I do enjoy reading the Pioneers and studying what the believed, but it would be foolish to believe something only because they did. What they taught and believed MUST be in harmony with the Bible and with Ellen White's writings before I would accept it. Many of the leading Pioneers were wrong on a number things, including Armageddon and the Trinity. However, they were more right than wrong (in my judgment) on most of the important doctrines, such as the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the Three Angels' Messages, the gift of prophecy, the Bible as the Word of God, the Second Coming, the Health Message, etc.

By the way, I do enjoy reading the early Church Fathers, including Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and others, but I don't view them as "authority" and I do read SDA pioneers more often than I read the Church Fathers.

[John317]

...

Quote:

Few realize the full meaning of the words that Christ spoke when, in the synagogue at Nazareth, He announced Himself as the Anointed One. He declared His mission to comfort, bless, and save the sorrowing and the sinful; and then, seeing that pride and unbelief controlled the hearts of His hearers, He reminded them that in time past God had turned away from His chosen people because of their unbelief and rebellion, and had manifested Himself to those in heathen lands who had not rejected the light of heaven. The widow of Sarepta and Naaman the Syrian had lived up to all the light they had; hence they were accounted more righteous than God's chosen people who had backslidden from Him and had sacrificed principle to convenience and worldly honor.

Love the quote here. What is the reference?