SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[phkrause]

On 8/31/2024 at 9:34 AM, Challenger said:

Larry W. Wilson

Not to get off of topic, but didn't he have a series of lectures some years ago about when Jesus would return??

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, phkrause said:

Not to get off of topic, but didn't he have a series of lectures some years ago about when Jesus would return??

Where is this at? 

Was it a generalization or more specific as in Jesus would return in a certain year and on such and such month and on such and such day? I'd be interested in seeing this. Did these lectures also include the possibility of Jesus sinning when He returns? 

[Challenger]

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

Where is this at? 

Was it a generalization or more specific as in Jesus would return in a certain year and on such and such month and on such and such day? I'd be interested in seeing this. Did these lectures also include the possibility of Jesus sinning when He returns? 

Gustave, to answer your questions I believe I am in a better position to answer your questions than Phkrause since I have read most of his material, and consider his interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecy using God's four natural laws, which He built in them, the most accurate to date. But he has published teachings on all of the bible and was very astute, humble, and loved the Lord with all of his heart, and was open to progressive truths to his very end.

Yes, in his early years, (late 8o's) he thought since the Jubilee Calendar as he reasoned might come to a end in 1994, the return of Christ might be shortcoming. He made it clear that no prophecy pointed to that date but that was his reasoning. People made a big ta-do out of it and said, He said, Jesus would return in 1994. So most people got a negative view of him through word of mouth, first second, or third down the line, without reading any of his books or watching any of his many videos.

Is it not amazing how one negative comment about an individual can be recalled years latter when that individuals name is brought up, such as in the case of Phkrause. Mr. Wilson passed away going on three years now. But his ministry continues. www.wake-up.org. Consider checking it out. If you would like to understand the basic events taking place through the tribulation based on the prophecies of Rev., and using "God's four natural law," to interpret them, go to, Youtube" and type in, "Are You Ready For Coming Events." Its 18 minutes in length. 

In answer to your last question Gustave, I have never heard of such a statement, and know that Larry would not have made such, knowing Christ did not sin while here on earth. 

[Gustave]

Quote

challenger said: In answer to your last question Gustave, I have never heard of such a statement, and know that Larry would not have made such, knowing Christ did not sin while here on earth. 

That wasn't my question. 

In any event I don't believe any SDA post Ellen White said Jesus sinned while on the earth. What they all said was that HE COULD HAVE SINNED, fell and eternally ceased to exist. If this horrific hypothetical had been realized it's said that the Father would have continued on, being the only God of the universe. 

 

[Challenger]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

That wasn't my question. 

In any event I don't believe any SDA post Ellen White said Jesus sinned while on the earth. What they all said was that HE COULD HAVE SINNED, fell and eternally ceased to exist. If this horrific hypothetical had been realized it's said that the Father would have continued on, being the only God of the universe. 

 

This was your question in which I answered.  "Did these lectures also include the possibility of Jesus sinning when He returns?"  Not knowing what Mrs. White may have said, I think since Christ took on the unfallen nature as Adam, and Adam sinned, then it only stands to reason that Christ could have sinned as well. After all satan dried to entice Him too do so, but failed. Too, since the wages of sin is the second death, which is eternal, and Christ had to experience it, or otherwise He would not have paid the penalty for sin, in order for mankind to receive eternal life.  

Yes, had He sinned, their would have been no savior for Him, and it seem reasonable that the Father made this know to Jesus before He agreed to the terms of the plan of salvation. Therefore, Jesus would have died eternally, and from my perspective just the Father and the Holy Spirit would have remained. This understanding focuses more on the  sacrifice from a loving God, than our personal salvation, and it is God's love that draws us to Him.

For you to make sense of my reasoning here, let me explain how I understand the Godhead. In the beginning before anything was created, the three separate Gods decided that their created universe to be, would function more efficiently if they didn't execute their overlapping powers. (Even our corporations have one CEO)

Therefore, it was decided that only the Father would hold onto his foreknowledge and full glory and rule the universe from His heavenly thrown in unapproachable light. Jesus would be the only creator God, and would dwell in the form of His creation first as a angel in heaven and latter man, to reveal the Godhead to His creation face to face. The Holy Spirit is the only God who can be in all places at once, reads our thoughts and will remain invisible for all eternity. His role is a communicative link between us the Father and Jesus. 

Since love is action, the willingness of three deities, all having the same powers in the beginning but willing to surrender two thirds for the benefit of something bigger than themselves, explains why God is love, before anything was created. Which is why we must love God before our neighbor, just as God showed love toward each other first, before they created us their neighbors. And as long as this love exist between them our universe will be secure. 

I know this is fare from what you believe but just wanted to share mine. 

[Gustave]

Hi challenger, thanks for your response. 

Your views are in keeping with all Adventist groups (JW's, Christadelphians, WWCOG & SDA's). I do appreciate that you let me know what your beliefs are in this area. 

To simplify my beliefs, I'd say that Adventist groups get this VERY wrong by looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. Scripture records Jesus' temptations by the Devil for the same reason Scripture records Jesus was born where He born and by whom He was born. I'm fairly sure if someone asked you; 

"what would have happened if Jesus would have been born in Egypt by a pagan prostitute?"

My guess is that you would say that Jesus couldn't have been the Christ if He had been born in Egypt by a prostitute because the Bible said that He would be born in a specific place (and it wasn't Egypt) and by a specific type of woman (and it wasn't a prostitute).

Orthodox Christianity (including Protestant Faith traditions) say the same thing about the possibility of The Christ sinning and eternally ceasing to exist - they did and would say that Scripture boldly asserts that The Christ could not sin because Scripture says He would not sin.  Thus, Christ's temptations by the Devil were confirmation that Jesus (like He did in every other case) fulfilled Prophecy. 

I know this is light years from what you believe but just wanted to share with you why I believe the way I do. 

[phkrause]

7 hours ago, Challenger said:

Yes, in his early years, (late 8o's) he thought since the Jubilee Calendar as he reasoned might come to a end in 1994, the return of Christ might be shortcoming. He made it clear that no prophecy pointed to that date but that was his reasoning. People made a big ta-do out of it and said, He said, Jesus would return in 1994. So most people got a negative view of him through word of mouth, first second, or third down the line, without reading any of his books or watching any of his many videos.

I believe one of my SILs worked for him, also she had sent us all his lectures, but unfortunately we don't have them anymore!!

[Challenger]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Your views are in keeping with all Adventist groups (JW's, Christadelphians, WWCOG & SDA's). I do appreciate that you let me know what your beliefs are in this area. 

I studied into the Adventist faith at age 33, with lots of question coming out of the Methodist faith 44 yrs. ago. I learned what I shared from Larry Willson material,  never heard it taught in the Adventist faith, even to this day. 

[Challenger]

31 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I believe one of my SILs worked for him, also she had sent us all his lectures, but unfortunately we don't have them anymore!!

What was her name. I'm sure she had nothing but good things to say about him. Met him at three of his seminars, and talked with him on the phone, plus a few short letters. Wonderfull Christian. 

Why did you throw away his material, because it was different?

 

[Gustave]

19 minutes ago, Challenger said:

I studied into the Adventist faith at age 33, with lots of question coming out of the Methodist faith 44 yrs. ago. I learned what I shared from Larry Willson material,  never heard it taught in the Adventist faith, even to this day. 

It's an extremely common belief within all Adventist groups. You immediately offered Adventist apologetic reasoning as to why the teaching was logical. One can't read Ellen White without this concept being firmly seated within the mind.  

[phkrause]

1 hour ago, Challenger said:

What was her name. I'm sure she had nothing but good things to say about him. Met him at three of his seminars, and talked with him on the phone, plus a few short letters. Wonderfull Christian.

Her name is Sylvia Downs. As far as the tapes they just got really old and didn't play well anymore!! I actually enjoyed listening to them, they were very interesting!!

[Challenger]

43 minutes ago, Gustave said:

It's an extremely common belief within all Adventist groups. You immediately offered Adventist apologetic reasoning as to why the teaching was logical. One can't read Ellen White without this concept being firmly seated within the mind.  

I don't base my beliefs on her writings like most of the 2nd and 3rd generation adventists and church leaders. I base my beliefs on the Bible only. 

Earlier you had asked, "what would have happened if Jesus would have been born in Egypt by a pagan prostitute?" 

Since it was Jesus pre incarnate that communicate with the patriarchs (as the Word, which is His responsibility)  the Father chose Abrahams descendants, the nation of Israel to be the trustees of His/Fathers gospel. The Father predetermined Jesus would be born of that nation, according to the Fathers timing, place, mother, and step father. No "ifs" it the Fathers plan. 

[Challenger]

22 minutes ago, phkrause said:

Her name is Sylvia Downs. As far as the tapes they just got really old and didn't play well anymore!! I actually enjoyed listening to them, they were very interesting!!

One of his latter books, and crown jewel is , "Jesus Final Victory." It is a commentary of the seventeen prophecies found in Dan., and Rev. Can buy in on Amazon or from WUAS. book store. Can read it to online, free. Just go to www.wake-up.org. Most likely increase you understanding of those prophecies by 100% by just reading the 33 pg. introduction. 

[Gustave]

Quote

challenger said: I don't base my beliefs on her writings like most of the 2nd and 3rd generation adventists and church leaders. I base my beliefs on the Bible only. 

If that's the case I compliment you on your stance. 

Quote

challenger said: Since it was Jesus pre incarnate that communicate with the patriarchs (as the Word, which is His responsibility)  the Father chose Abrahams descendants, the nation of Israel to be the trustees of His/Fathers gospel. The Father predetermined Jesus would be born of that nation, according to the Fathers timing, place, mother, and step father. No "ifs" it the Fathers plan. 

That's correct & it was the same pre-incarnate Christ that stated through the Prophets that God Himself would come and save. As you said the Christ would be born of that nation according to the Father's timing, place mother and as you say taking it one step further - - - NO IF's in the Father's plan. 

Given that it was the Father's plan ( from before the creation of the world ) that the world would be saved through His Only Son how is it that you introduce an 'IF' by justifying a hypothetical situation that God might not have made it???? 

If you base what you believe off Scripture and not Ellen White it should be fairly easy to show me where it is in Scripture that repudiates the 200 or so Scriptures that explicitly say He couldn't / wouldn't fail.

[Challenger]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

If you base what you believe off Scripture and not Ellen White it should be fairly easy to show me where it is in Scripture that repudiates the 200 or so Scriptures that explicitly say He couldn't / wouldn't fail.

In answer to your question, there is no explicit texts that state, " that Christ could have failed."

However, If one believes as I, that Christ came as the second Adam, with an unfallen nature, which the angles were given as well. The scriptures reveal that Satan lead both Adam and Eve, and one third of the angles into sin. Therefore, having an unfallen nature was no guarantee that Christ could not have fallen into sin as well. The only way for Adam and Eve and the fallen angels to have avoided their fall was to keep their faith in God. That they did not do, but the unfallen angels did and so did Christ while on earth, and they were victories over sin, because their faith proved they loved God with all their heart.

For me these examples server as proof that Christ could have failed. If you reason, it was impossible for Christ to have failed then it seems to me that your understanding is along the same lines as Satan's in the paragraph in bold below, which I posted earlier.

 I [L. Wilson] believe Job’s experience is recorded in the Bible because it portrays a similar parallel to Christ’s experience. I believe that Lucifer presented an argument against Jesus in Heaven. The argument may have gone like this:

 Lucifer said to the Father, “Jesus has gone to Earth to redeem mankind, but this is a silly charade. Jesus does not have a sinful nature, He is naturally offended by sin, and His victory over sin will be mockery because He has no propensity or attraction for sin in the first place!”

The Father could have responded, “Lucifer, in the beginning, millions of angels had sinless natures, but you managed to lead them into sin. Adam and Eve were created with sinless natures, but you managed to lead them into sin. Jesus went to Earth as a second Adam to recover all that Adam lost. He has the same nature that Adam had before he fell. You may do whatever you want to lead Jesus into sin, but you cannot take His life. To put your allegations beyond controversy or doubt, I will send Jesus into the solitude of the wilderness for forty days when He begins His ministry.

When He gets there, He will not eat for forty days and He will have no companionship. I will do this to Jesus so that at the end of the forty days, when He is physically near death and He has the greatest doubts (if any) about His mission, you will have your best opportunity to lead Him into sin. Everyone in the universe will see that as the second Adam, Jesus had no advantage over the first Adam when confronted with temptation. To make sure that everyone understands that Jesus had no advantage over Adam, I will grant you three chances to lead Him into temptation. If you win, Jesus will suffer the penalty for sin, the second death. If He wins, you will suffer the penalty for sin twice over, once for being a sinner and once for being a predator.” With these words ringing in his ears, the devil soberly left Heaven to prepare for a vigorous assault on Jesus.

After Jesus’ baptism, the Spirit led Him into the wilderness, just as the Father had promised Lucifer. I am sure this development puzzled Jesus, who knew nothing of Lucifer’s discussion with the Father. However, just as everyone else in the universe is required to live by faith, the Father also required Jesus to live by faith (daily surrender to His will) and He meekly went to the desert.

 

[Gustave]

Quote

challenger said: In answer to your question, there is no explicit texts that state, " that Christ could have failed."

You are correct here, there are no texts that (even implicitly) suggest Christ could have failed - in fact there are well over 100 texts that say the opposite. 

Quote

challenger said: However, If one believes as I, that Christ came as the second Adam, with an unfallen nature, which the angles were given as well. The scriptures reveal that Satan lead both Adam and Eve, and one third of the angles into sin. Therefore, having an unfallen nature was no guarantee that Christ could not have fallen into sin as well. The only way for Adam and Eve and the fallen angels to have avoided their fall was to keep their faith in God. That they did not do, but the unfallen angels did and so did Christ while on earth, and they were victories over sin, because their faith proved they loved God with all their heart.

So, your beliefs dictate what the Biblical texts mean as opposed to the Biblical texts dictating what you believe. If Scripture says A but in your heart you really believe B then it can be B - all you have to do is really believe it. This is classic Restorationism - it's how the Mormon's, JW's, Christadelphians, etc. justify their doctrines. 

Don't mean to push here but I'd like to explore with you the rubric you described about how a belief can be contrary to Scripture yet valid enough to build a doctrine on it. This is of interest to me. 

[Challenger]

54 minutes ago, Gustave said:

So, your beliefs dictate what the Biblical texts mean as opposed to the Biblical texts dictating what you believe. I

When one considers the thousands of heavenly angels and the fall of Adam and Eve, these examples are explicit proof based on scripture that individuals with unfallen natures are not immune to falling into sin. This is not me having a preconceived opinion and dictating what the Biblical texts means.

Too, you misquoted me, "there are no texts that (even implicitly) suggest Christ could have failed...) I said,  "there is no explicit texts that state, " that Christ could have failed."

 

 

54 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Don't mean to push here but I'd like to explore with you the rubric you described about how a belief can be contrary to Scripture yet valid enough to build a doctrine on it. This is of interest to me. 

Not really interested, as you are far mort intellectual than I.

[Gustave]

Quote

challenger said: When one considers the thousands of heavenly angels and the fall of Adam and Eve, these examples are explicit proof based on scripture that individuals with unfallen natures are not immune to falling into sin. This is not me having a preconceived opinion and dictating what the Biblical texts means.

Heavenly angels, Adam and Eve were / are not "God". 

Quote

challenger said: too, you misquoted me, "there are no texts that (even implicitly) suggest Christ could have failed...) I said,  "there is no explicit texts that state, " that Christ could have failed."

I acknowledged that, you indeed said that, "there is no explicit texts that state...." & I followed up your affirmation with there are not even implicit texts (texts that could even remotely imply) the possibility of The Christ sinning. 

Quote

challenger said: Not really interested, as you are far mort intellectual than I.

That's not true, I have no more command of grey matter than anyone else here. I'm only saying that the Law & the Prophets (& the Holy Gospels) explicitly state that The Christ would not sin which defaults into The Christ's inability to sin. So said the Prophets, so said Jesus, The Father & The Holy Spirit. 

Luke 22, 22: WHO decreed that the Son of Man would go as He would go? 

Luke 24, 25-27: it's foolish to not believe what Jesus and all the Prophets said

I'm saying that the Law and the Prophets stated that the Christ HAD TO DIE and rise again and that all this was "decreed" or "determined" before the creation of the world. 

[Challenger]

21 hours ago, Challenger said:

a

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

 

 

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

 

 

[Challenger]

22 hours ago, phkrause said:

Her name is Sylvia Downs. As far as the tapes they just got really old and didn't play well anymore!! I actually enjoyed listening to them, they were very interesting!!

Phkrause, was meaning to ask a little about you earlier. Are you Adventist, if so tell me how that went down. I'm not apposed to questions either.

[Gustave]

Hi challenger, I see you responded to me but I can't see anything in the fields. Don't know what you said. 

 

 

[Challenger]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

Heavenly angels, Adam and Eve were / are not "God". 

Quote

Gustave, I have never stated they were, nor have I ever heard anybody else make such a claim. So I assume what your really saying is that God did not have a fallen nature, when He became one of us. Is that correct?

 

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

I'm saying that the Law and the Prophets stated that the Christ HAD TO DIE and rise again and that all this was "decreed" or "determined" before the creation of the world. 

Off course Christ had to die, but before His death He had to live a life without sin, if His death was to pay the penalty for sin, making salvation possible for all who put their faith in Him. If He would do all this the Father would raise Him up. 

This was all predetermined by the Father, and pre-incarnate Jesus agreed to this stipulations to stay the execution of Adam the day he sinned. And on that day Jesus agreed to become the son of God the Father, meaning He would  be obedient to all that the Father would require of Him, just as a son is obedient to his father. 

On this earth Jesus was obedient to the Father in every way so the Father raised Him up. 

Did the Father having all fore knowledge know that Jesus would be successful, of course. Which is why the Father informed His prophets that  Christ would die and be raised up. Did the Fathers fore knowledge take away Christ choice to be obedient to the Father or not. No. Does the Fathers fore knowledge of the names written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, take away the freedom of choice of those who names are written therein? No. 

 

 

[Challenger]

10 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Hi challenger, I see you responded to me but I can't see anything in the fields. Don't know what you said. 

 

 

Mal function on my part. 

[Gustave]

Quote

challenger said: Gustave, I have never stated they were, nor have I ever heard anybody else make such a claim. So I assume what your really saying is that God did not have a fallen nature, when He became one of us. Is that correct?

I'm saying what the Western Church (Catholic), Eastern Church (Orthodox) and all Protestant faith traditions affirmed - that God became man WITHOUT ceasing to be "God". A Divine Nature & a Human Nature perfectly united without mixing or blending.  Restorationist groups see this differently, promulgating that Christ's nature WAS MIXED OR BLENDED with the Human resulting in a creature with concupiscence. You are correct in assuming that I don't believe that God developed a fallen nature when He became man. I would add that an educated Methodist would be violently aghast if you explained how it was that The Christ adopted a fallen nature. This is simply Arianism repackaged. 

Quote

challenger said: Off course Christ had to die, but before His death He had to live a life without sin, if His death was to pay the penalty for sin, making salvation possible for all who put their faith in Him. If He would do all this the Father would raise Him up. 

No argument from me on what you just said, of course for the Sacrifice to be perfect and acceptable all these things (conditions) had to be met. NO ONE has said otherwise. 

Quote

challenger said: This was all predetermined by the Father, and pre-incarnate Jesus agreed to this stipulations to stay the execution of Adam the day he sinned.

Everything was predetermined by the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Jesus, according to Scripture eternally did & does the will of the Father. 

Quote

challenger said: And on that day Jesus agreed to become the son of God the Father, meaning He would  be obedient to all that the Father would require of Him, just as a son is obedient to his father.

Now where did you get that? That on a certain day Jesus agreed to become the Son of God??? Christ has "eternally" been the Son of God. Again, this is Trinity 101 stuff but I shouldn't assume you agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. Do you claim to be Trinitarian? Don't be bashful, I've talked with many S.D. Adventists who were frank about not being Trinitarian. 

You had previously said that you studied your way out of the Methodist Church and into Adventism so it would be helpful to me to know if the Trinity Doctrine was one of those things the Methodists taught that you ended up studying your way out of? As you may know, the Adventists during Ellen White's time repeatedly lambasted the Methodists for affirming the Trinity Doctrine & Ellen participated directly in this work. 

Quote

challenger said: On this earth Jesus was obedient to the Father in every way so the Father raised Him up. 

Jesus raised Himself up, the Holy Spirit raised Him up and God the Father raised Him up - sounds like the Trinity to me. 

Quote

challenger said: Did the Father having all fore knowledge know that Jesus would be successful, of course.

That's my point challenger, & the Trinity communicated what would happen long before it happened and by doing so invalidated any hypothetical musings to the contrary. 

Quote

challenger said: Which is why the Father informed His prophets that  Christ would die and be raised up.

Yes, think about this for a minute. The Father informed the Prophets that Christ would die and be raised up. The Trinity also said that the Christ would be born of a Virgin, would make the blind see, the lame walk, etc. What percentage possibility in your mind that the Christ didn't fulfill any of these things? Please answer this question. 

Quote

challenger said: Did the Fathers fore knowledge take away Christ choice to be obedient to the Father or not.

Jesus said He eternally did the will of the Father so if you believe what you just told us here the Father's foreknowledge removed the possibility of Christ sinning. In any event Jesus is God no differently than the Father & Holy Spirit are God and God does not sin or fail. You're using Arian reasoning that Jesus isn't God. Remember, Trinitarian 101 is that God became man WITHOUT ceasing to be God. Jesus had two natures (a Divine and a Human) these two natures were NOT mixed or blended. 

Quote

challenger said: Does the Fathers fore knowledge of the names written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, take away the freedom of choice of those who names are written therein? No

This is Arianism. 

Is God's name written in the Book of Life? You've just proved the point I and every Trinitarian throughout Christian history has ever made. 

[Challenger]

13 hours ago, Challenger said:

Gustave, I have never stated they were, nor have I ever heard anybody else make such a claim. So I assume what your really saying is that God did not have a fallen nature, when He became one of us. Is that correct?

 

Gustave, In my statement above due too your latter response I realized I used the words, "fallen nature", when I meant "unfallen nature."

I would have thought you would have called me out on flip flopping as in all previous post I was adamant on this issue.

So I will rephrase the question. Do you believe that Christ was given the "unfallen nature, as Adam?