SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Hanseng]

On 4/14/2026 at 1:07 PM, Gustave said:

A wonderful testimony that is the opposite of what the Bible defines the Gospel to be. 1st Corinthians 15, 1-10 is explicit as to the Gospel St. Paul was given to preach and the most important part of that Gospel was that there couldn't be any outcome other than what was destined "according to the Scriptures".

The gospel Paul rehearses is about the death and resurrection and Christ. That was God's plan. That's the gospel.  Things don't always go according to His plan. Jesus had free will as did Adam before he fell. There were many things Jesus could have done that he didn't do. He could have prayed for  angels to help him, thus avoiding crucifixion. He did not do that. He could have yielded to satan on three different issues in the wilderness. He did not do that. He could have become a glutton, whoremonger, winebibber. He did none of those things. He was tempted in all points as we are. All human desire is subject to sinful indulgence. Jesus was made in the likeness of men. Adam sinned, a sinless being; consequently, we all sin. We can't help ourselves. Jesus could choose to not sin. Sinful man can not make that choice, according to Romans 7.

The gospel is about the death and resurrection of Christ. You got that part right.   When you start spinning Scripture to suit your agenda is when you get it wrong. "According to the Scripture" in the context of the gospel plan doesn't mean that Jesus was a poseur, pretending resist sin he was incapable of committing. Hebrews 12:4 says Jesus struggled against sin.

He would not have had to struggle against sin if he was incapable of committing it. Instead of interpreting Scripture to fit your own preconceived opinions, try letting Scripture inform your opinions.

Where did you get the idea that Jesus could not sin?

 

 

[Challenger]

On 4/21/2026 at 7:58 PM, Hanseng said:

Where did you get the idea that Jesus could not sin?

 

Gustave, why have you not answered Hanseng's question? I too, would like to know. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not intend to argue Gustave's position.  But, I think that I understand it.  The Catholic position begins with the idea that God cannot sin.  I agree with that position.  From that point it goes on to say that if Christ was fully God, it would be impossible for Christ to sin.  I have a response, that I am not stating here.  I will only say that I do not believe that an adequate SDA response has been made to this issue.  I would like to hear more from a SDA theologian.

[Hanseng]

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I would like to hear more from a SDA theologian.

I'm not a theologian, so forgive me for responding if you wanted to limit replies to only those who are. A theologian is not required to sort this out. Gustave has not revealed the origins of his belief. Based on what Chaplain Matthews has said the answer is simple:  Whoever asserted that Jesus could not sin is/was wrong. Adam was  sinless with no inclination to sin, yet he did sin. Jesus was like Adam, without an inclination to sin. Unlike Adam he did not sin, even though, as the second Adam, he could have.

 Truth doesn't square with the errors of the papacy or whatever the source of the "Jesus could not sin" scheme might be.

[Challenger]

Just want to voice my thoughts even though I too, am not a theologian. I do not believe for a moment that only theologians can understand truth. Example: All religions have their theologians, how many are in agreement on the various Biblical teachings? 

I agree with  Chaplain Mattews, "Whoever asserted that Jesus could not sin is/was wrong. Adam was  sinless with no inclination to sin, yet he did sin. Jesus was like Adam, without an inclination to sin. Unlike Adam he did not sin, even though, as the second Adam, he could have."

[hobie]

On 4/30/2026 at 2:43 PM, Challenger said:

Just want to voice my thoughts even though I too, am not a theologian. I do not believe for a moment that only theologians can understand truth. Example: All religions have their theologians, how many are in agreement on the various Biblical teachings? 

I agree with  Chaplain Mattews, "Whoever asserted that Jesus could not sin is/was wrong. Adam was  sinless with no inclination to sin, yet he did sin. Jesus was like Adam, without an inclination to sin. Unlike Adam he did not sin, even though, as the second Adam, he could have."

This the correct view, He was fully God and yet fully man, that is hard for us to grasp and tends to confuse our understanding on it...

[Gustave]

On 4/24/2026 at 6:12 PM, Challenger said:

Gustave, why have you not answered Hanseng's question? I too, would like to know. 

Because God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) said He wouldn't (Isaiah 35,4)

Jesus said He wouldn't MULTIPLE TIMES (Matthew 7, 22 / Matthew 12, 41-44 / Matthew 16, 21 / Matthew 16, 27-28 / Matthew 17, 22 / Matthew 23, 39 / Matthew 24, 37 / Matthew 26, 64 / Mark 8, 38 / Mark 9, 9 / Mark 9, 31 / Mark 9, 33 / Mark 13, 26 / Mark 14, 28 / Mark 14, 49 / Luke 1, 20 / Luke 7, 18-23 / Luke 24, 25-27 AND MANY, MANY MORE statements that all work out the same way. Apply your Arian rubric to John 3, 35-36 - how could Jesus guarantee that whoever believed in Him HAD eternal life - was Jesus "gambling" here, playing a flim-flam man? According to Ellen White He most certainly was. 

The angel who appeared to Joeseph said He wouldn't (Matthew 1,21)

The Holy Spirit said He wouldn't (Luke 2, 25-35). 

Look, you've seen these texts before but in order to defend Ellen's anti-Gospel message you are forced to ignore them. 

 

[Gustave]

On 4/27/2026 at 7:57 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

I do not intend to argue Gustave's position.  But, I think that I understand it.  The Catholic position begins with the idea that God cannot sin.  I agree with that position.  From that point it goes on to say that if Christ was fully God, it would be impossible for Christ to sin.  I have a response, that I am not stating here.  I will only say that I do not believe that an adequate SDA response has been made to this issue.  I would like to hear more from a SDA theologian.

My position is that God (an indivisible Spirit) is Father, Son & Holy Spirit. God is not the final combination of "parts", i.e. 3 Beings that when united are God (like a pizza). Jesus said if you had seen Him you had seen the Father & the Father is in me and I am in the Father, etc. An eternal single substance that cannot be divided - this is unlike a composite thing like a pizza which depends on its composite parts for its existence. In the Adventist Godhead rubric God is a collection of 3 composite Beings (3 parts) which are united in mission and purpose. Take away the crust or the cheese and you don't have a pizza - the same thing would apply to God if you were to remove the composite part called Jesus or "Christ". The only way to salvage this would be to re-define what God is. I believe this is what happened here in the Adventist God. 

The Catholic position is that God became man without ceasing to be God - God the Son took on human flesh and was like us in all ways except for sin. Additionally, Sacred Scripture is explicit that God would come and would save. This affirmation is boldly asserted throughout the Bible and given that God the Father said there was no possibility of failure, God the Son said that there was no possibility of failure and God the Holy Spirit said there was no possibility of failure Catholics take that to mean that proposing a hypothetical situation resulting in God being false is a non-starter. 

As I've said before, promulgating a hypothetical scenario where the Christ "could have been born from a Greek prostitute" defeats itself because for Christ to be the Christ required being born from a virgin. The same logic chain holds if one postulated that when Jesus walked on water He "could have sunk and drowned" and if He didn't have the possibility of sinking and drowning Jesus' walking on water was all a farce and mockery. 

This is why I see the Adventist Jesus as a "potential Christ" because in Adventist theology Christ had to pass the tests before He actually became "The Christ". A failed Christ is obviously not a Christ and had Ellen White's hypothetical situation been realized God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) would be a liar and the truth would have not been in God. 

Jesus said that He was (at that time) the way, the truth and the life (John 14,6) this is before He died on the cross. Jesus is the Eternal Christ which means He was the Christ in eternity. 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: The gospel is about the death and resurrection of Christ. You got that part right.   When you start spinning Scripture to suit your agenda is when you get it wrong. "According to the Scripture" in the context of the gospel plan doesn't mean that Jesus was a poseur, pretending resist sin he was incapable of committing. Hebrews 12:4 says Jesus struggled against sin.

Challenger, this is for you. 

Yes, the Gospel is about the death and resurrection of Christ HOWEVER, according to Sacred Scripture the most important part of the Gospel ( that part that's said to be of 1st importance) is that all of that was "according to Scriptures". Read 1st Corinthians 15, 1-5 and it should literally JUMP OUT AT YOU. 

If you read Matthew 26, 47-54 and pay attention to what was happening and what Jesus said to Peter about putting his sword back into its place you will realize that all this was prior to Jesus' scourging, having the crown of thorns pushed onto His head, carrying His cross to the point He couldn't and crucifixion and death AND Resurrection- ALL OF WHICH Jesus said HAD TO HAPPEN if the Scriptures were to be fulfilled. 

In Luke 18,31 - Jesus is explicit. 

Quote

Jesus said: And taking the twelve, he said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished.  For he will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon;  they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise.”

I realize I am the odd man out here but Hanseng is claiming I'm "spinning" the Scriptures to make them fit my pre-conceived idea of what the Scriptures should teach. I disagree with Ellen White here. Jesus clearly said that EVERYTHING written about Him WOULD BE (not might be) ACCOMPLISHED. 

What I'm saying is that there is nothing special about Ellen White's teaching that Christ was speaking above His paygrade, Arius claimed the same thing, Jehovah's Witnesses claim the same thing and Christadelphians claim the same thing. This is bedrock theology in Adventist groups. I'm just trying to help people see where this teaching radically differs from Apostolic teaching as understood by Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, etc. 

Imagine if you could push James & Ellen White into a time machine and transport them back to Luke 18, 31 and by the power of the Holy Spirit Ellen & James White understood Aramaic - Jesus says to His closest friends that EVERTHING said in the Scriptures about Him WILL BE FULFILLED and Ellen White exercises the Spirit of Prophecy against Christ and informs Him that He better watch out because He might just sin and loose His salvation and eternally cease to exist. 

Does this sound like a possibility Challenger? I hope I've answered your question but if not or I didn't understand what you were asking please let me know and I'll do my best to explain my position. 

[Gustave]

I just remembered a point I used to use when speaking with the Jehovah's Witnesses & Christadelphians. I would commonly get hit up with something along the lines of,

'DO YOU THINK SATAN IS STUPID, DO YOU THINK DEMONS ARE IDIOTS, WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER WITH TEMPTING CHRIST IF THEY KNEW THEY COULDN'T WIN"? 

That's a fair enough question and easily answerable. Lucifer and his Demons know more about God then any of us do this side of heaven AND they still went through with what they did. The easiest and most direct answer to this Arian question is to allow Jesus Himself to answer it. 

Matthew 8, 28-34

Quote

And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demoniacs met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way.  And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”  Now a herd of many swine was feeding at some distance from them.  And the demons begged him, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of swine.”  And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the swine; and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and perished in the waters.  The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, and what had happened to the demoniacs.  And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their neighborhood

If as Adventist groups says, that Satan and the Demons wouldn't be stupid enough to bother God the Son with temptations if they knew He wouldn't sin - WHY would the demons in Matthew 8 believe that future torment was unavoidable??? Did the demons not really know that Jesus could have sinned and lost His Salvation yet the demons indicate they knew what was going to happen and there was no way out of it. 

The answer to this should be obvious. The Old Testament clearly stated that God would come and would save. Sacred Scripture said many things about The Christ and how it could be known it was The Christ. Being without any sin, healing the sick, raising the dead, where He would be born and by who He would be born. Matthew 4 says that Jesus was led or driven by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. The same force, thing, i.e. God demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ, just like every other fulfillment of Prophecy was documented.