When Bible Prophecy Is Certain and Sure

[phkrause]

How to Avoid Misunderstandings and Disappointment

https://adventistreview.org/theology/sabbath-school/when-bible-prophecy-is-certain-and-sure/

[Gustave]

One of my favorite Scriptures demonstrating a certain / assured Prophecy is in Acts 2 where it's claimed that prior to the Incarnation of Christ King David, made a prophecy that it was impossible that Christ could fail. Immediately after this affirmation about the impossibility of Christ failing [insert sinning or any other failure] we are told why this was:

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Verses 30 - 31

According to Scripture itself this removes any possibility of Christ sinning, loosing His Salvation and remaining in the tomb to putrefy and boil with maggots - for the simple fact God swore an oath to David that the Christ would do EXACTLY as God ordained The Christ would do. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Verse 30:  

*  While King David is not normally called a prophet in the Bible, Gustave may be considered correct in suggesting the in Verse 30, it is King David that is identified as a prophet.

*  Gustave has cited the verse from the KJV.  The textual evidence for the KJV reading, which mentions Christ directly, is lacking.  More modern versions, such as the NIV, read similar to: " . . . God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on hl\is throne, . . ."

Verse 31:

*  In both the KJV and versions such as the NIV, Christ is clearly cited.   Again, Gustave is not in error in suggesting the Christ is the focus of the statement.

*  The KJV tells us that the soul of Christ was not left in hell, while versions such as the NIV state that Christ was not left in the Grave.

 

My purpose has not been to comment on the fundamental understanding of the passage that Gustave has stated.  I will leave it to you to consider his understanding.  Rather, my purpose has been simply to suggest slight changes in wording that are reflected in   more modern translations of the Bible.

[phkrause]

On 4/6/2025 at 9:40 PM, Gustave said:

One of my favorite Scriptures demonstrating a certain / assured Prophecy is in Acts 2 where it's claimed that prior to the Incarnation of Christ King David, made a prophecy that it was impossible that Christ could fail. Immediately after this affirmation about the impossibility of Christ failing [insert sinning or any other failure] we are told why this was:

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Verses 30 - 31

According to Scripture itself this removes any possibility of Christ sinning, loosing His Salvation and remaining in the tomb to putrefy and boil with maggots - for the simple fact God swore an oath to David that the Christ would do EXACTLY as God ordained The Christ would do.

So I was listening to Doug Batchelor, actually it was a radio show called "Bible Answers" and it was back in 2008. Someone called in and asked this same question. Could Jesus have sinned? Also the answer came from Pr Jean Ross who was filling in for Doug that night. He gave a very interesting answer, he said to the caller If Jesus could not of sinned than "Why was Jesus allowed to be tempted? I thought that was a very interesting comment. I'd never thought of that. So I ask you than why do you think that he was allowed to be tempted by Satan?

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, phkrause said:

So I was listening to Doug Batchelor, actually it was a radio show called "Bible Answers" and it was back in 2008. Someone called in and asked this same question. Could Jesus have sinned? Also the answer came from Pr Jean Ross who was filling in for Doug that night. He gave a very interesting answer, he said to the caller If Jesus could not of sinned than "Why was Jesus allowed to be tempted? I thought that was a very interesting comment. I'd never thought of that. So I ask you than why do you think that he was allowed to be tempted by Satan?

For the same reason that every other prophecy Christ fulfilled is detailed in the Gospels - from being born from a virgin to being called out of Egypt. Scripture said The Christ had to be blameless, without fault and perfectly holy - what better way to demonstrate that than have the Holy Spirit drive Jesus into the wild to be tempted by the father and founder of lies himself? 

Jesus was forthright when He said that His Words would never pass away Matthew 24, 35  - Apostolic Christianity really banked on Jesus' words and literally took Him at His word when He said things such as these: 

Matthew 7, 22 - Many will say to me on that day. 

Matthew 19, 28 - Promises to His Apostles

Matthew 24, 30 - Jesus will come in the clouds

Matthew 25, 31 - When the Son of Man comes in His glory

& scores upon scores of other words from Jesus about what will happen - all of which would have been a mockery if He had sinned, lost His salvation and been eternally smitten by Father God for messing up. 

When Jesus says what He did in Matthew 24, 35 this would have been a jaw dropping thing for a devout Jew to hear - they would have immediately recalled Isaiah 55, 11 which unequivocally says that God's word does not return to Him void and here Jesus is saying He is God Almighty. 

The other thing here that should be mentioned about Jesus' words NOT passing away are the words He spoke prior to His being tempted by or of Lucifer in john 14, 30.

Jesus told His Apostles that they were not to worry because Lucifer had NOTHING in Him. If Jesus' words will not return void what does this mean in the hypothetical that Jesus "could have sinned", "could have lost His salvation" and 'rotted in the tomb'? 

I have now collected 160 explicit references that assert the impossibility of Christ failing to do what the Law & the Prophets said He would do and how this truth is embedded in the Council of Nicaea and is repeated each and every day at Catholic Mass and all Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. 

I appreciate the question phkrause, I hope to explore this matter much deeper with you or any Seventh-day Adventist that would be willing to discuss it. 

 

 

 

"

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Civil discussions of differing viewpoints are welcomed in this forum.

[Gustave]

Acts 2, verses 30-31

Luke states (in the KJV) that David was speaking of Christ 

NRSVCE: Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying...

The Voice: Here’s what David was seeing in advance; here’s what David was talking about—the Anointed One would be resurrected...

Clear Word SDA Bible: he was not only a King but also a prophet. So he knew what God had promised to do and that God had confirmed it by an oath. The promise God made was that one of David's descendants would come and take the throne and occupy it forever. This King would be the Messiah who would come, die and be raised from the dead; He would not stay in the grave, either would decay touch his body". 

Note how the CWB phrases it:  "one of David's descendants would come" & "This King WOULD BE the Messiah".....

As in would be if He didn't sin & loose His salvation. 

Christ is described in Scripture as the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world, God the Son was eternally the Christ - He is never spoken of as "would be" - as if He needed to meet qualifications prior to being able to use the title. The transitive property in Acts 2, 30-31 is definitely Christ.

I've never looked this text up in the Clear Word Bible before but I'm glad that I did. 

[Gregory Matthews]

The Clear Word is a translation of the Bible that was intended to be read to children in a language that they would understand.     It is a translation by a Seventh-day Adventist scholar.  In no way did he intend for it to become a SDA Bible.    However, the SDA publishers gave it the title:  The Clear Word Bible.    The translator was greatly offended by that, and he required that future printings have the word "Bible" removed, and solely listed as The Clear Word, with the word, Bible removed.

Bible translators classify Bibles into either two or three types:

* Formal translations are intended for preaching and scholarly study.  They give priority to being faithful to the original text and the language in which it was written.

* Dynamic translations are intended as devotional readings.  They give a priority to communicating the meaning of the original language to the language in which the Bible is translated.

* a Paraphrase, is sometimes a part of the Dynamic translation, and sometimes is considered to be a separate category.    It is much freer in sticking to the original text.  It is much more subject to the translator's idea as to what the writer intended.

The Clear Word is not a Formal translation and should not be used for either study, doctrinal preaching, or doctrinal understanding.  It falls into the Paraphrase category.   It has a place when used with children and people with limited English language skills.  But, in no way should it be considered a SDA Bible.

 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

phkrause said: If Jesus could not of sinned than "Why was Jesus allowed to be tempted? I thought that was a very interesting comment. I'd never thought of that. So I ask you than why do you think that he was allowed to be tempted by Satan?

Jesus Himself said that everything said about Him in the Law & the Prophets (The Old Testament) "HAD TO BE FULFILLED" Luke 22, 37 / Luke 24, 44 & many other places & all those things said about Jesus exclude the possibility of failure - this isn't my taking indecent liberty with those texts - the texts explicitly say this in the most blunt terms available in language. 

In addition to the mass of Old Testament Scripture which rebuts the argument of a hypothetical case of Jesus sinning is the teaching of the New Testament itself - what the Gospel is and what the primary AKA most important truth of the Gospel is. 

1st Corinthians 15:  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

What St. Paul is here saying is that Jesus died for our sins AND THAT HIS DEATH WAS, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (aka -absolutely was going to / would happen and did happen). Many, if not most Christians, when asked what the Gospel is, will readily say 'Jesus died for our sins' but omit by ignorance that this act was "according to the Scriptures" - that there was zero possibility of any of it not happening. 

I shouldn't have to remind anyone what instructions Paul left for Christians when someone tried to share with them a gospel which differed from the one he preached - affirming Jesus could have sinned is a significantly different gospel. 

This is why what St. Paul said in 1st Corinthians is embedded in the Nicene Creed word for word & why its affirmed at each and every Mass. The Eastern Orthodox Church says the Nicene at every Divine Liturgy - it really is of 1st importance according to the Bible. 

I'd say its important to note that the primary reason for holding the Council of Nicaea was to combat Arianism - and Arius was adamant that Christ COULD HAVE SINNED AND LOST HIS SALVATION. It's right there in the Canons. 

I wanted to dig into the question phkrause asked of me about why would God would have allowed Jesus to be tempted if Jesus could not sin? 

The answer to this is very simple - because Scripture is explicit that Jesus couldn't sin and this sinlessness was one of the things said about The Christ, it's right in there with the virgin birth, being of the line of David, being called out of Egypt, raising the dead, healing the sick and making the deaf hear and lame walk. The Christ had to fulfill all of those things (and all the others) - had Jesus failed on 1 thing it would have simply meant HE WASN'T THE CHRIST to begin with. Imagine having a Doctrine where a hypothetical situation existed that it was possible that The Christ would have been called out of China instead of Egypt or perhaps a hypothetical of Christ being born of a Roman or Greek prostitute who had slept with thousands of men. 

Imagine claiming that if when Jesus was walking between towns if it wasn't possible for Him to be killed and eaten by a bear or lion, maybe be bitten by a cobra and being killed than Jesus' ministry would be a farce and a mockery - does this pass the logic test? Of course not. 

There are literally 160 plus explicit references of the impossibility of Jesus sinning in the Scriptures - if SDA's are Sola Scriptura, they must accept this as a Biblical fact. 

 

[Challenger]

Gustave

On 4/8/2025 at 6:42 PM, phkrause said:

So I was listening to Doug Batchelor, actually it was a radio show called "Bible Answers”… Someone called in and asked the question. Could Jesus have sinned?  Dr Jean Ross who was filling in for Doug that night. He gave a very interesting answer, …If Jesus could not of sinned than "Why was Jesus allowed to be tempted? 

Following is your partial response in which you disagree:

Jesus was forthright when He said that His Words would never pass away Matthew 24, 35  - Apostolic Christianity really banked on Jesus' words and literally took Him at His word when He said things such as these: 

Matthew 7, 22 - Many will say to me on that day. 

Matthew 19, 28 - Promises to His Apostles

Matthew 24, 30 - Jesus will come in the clouds

Matthew 25, 31 - When the Son of Man comes in His glory

& scores upon scores of other words from Jesus about what will happen - all of which would have been a mockery if He had sinned, lost His salvation and been eternally smitten by Father God for messing up. 

You and I have had this conversation in the past. You recall I believe as Dr. Ross, therefore, I will defend that here using your texts. 

To begin, you should understand that I believe based on the scriptures, that only the Father has foreknowledge. Jesus and the Holy Spirit relinquished this power, before Jesus created anything. In like manner that the Father and the Holy Spirit relinquished the power to create at the same time. In like manner Jesus and the Father relinquished the ability to be in all places at the same time as only the Holy Spirit can. Each deity giving up two thirds of their powers for the benefit of governing their forthcoming creation, is why God is love. Yet nothing is lost, for one third plus one third plus one third equals a whole Godhead united, having the same power, united in love. 

Jesus was a prophet, and like other prophets all prophesied of future events. And since Jesus and all prophets did not know future events we must conclude that these prophecies originated from the Father who only knows the beginning from the end, then given to the Holy Spirit, who gave them to the prophets, including Jesus.  

Since the Father foreknew that Jesus “would not” be tempted into sining, He gave Jesus the prophecies [Day of the Lord prophecies] in Matthew of which you reference. This in no means as you believe, proves that Jesus "could not have sinned", and the Father not raising Him up. Had Jesus sinned these prophecies would not have been given, and the plan of salvation would have failed, leaving mankind without a savior, and Jesus remaining in the tomb. 

As I understand it, there is no hint of mockery here, God”s love prevailed at a very high cost for God. I do see mockery in your reasoning since you believe Jesus was incapable of sinning, and salvation was a sure thing from the get go, was just a matter of going through a process, sacrificial love to the extent of Jesus giving up His existence not necessary.

 I know you will not agree with anything that I have conveyed here but thought it a good exercise in defending my own personnel faith.

 

Cheers

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Challenger said: 

You and I have had this conversation in the past. You recall I believe as Dr. Ross, therefore, I will defend that here using your texts. 

To begin, you should understand that I believe based on the scriptures, that only the Father has foreknowledge. Jesus and the Holy Spirit relinquished this power, before Jesus created anything. In like manner that the Father and the Holy Spirit relinquished the power to create at the same time. In like manner Jesus and the Father relinquished the ability to be in all places at the same time as only the Holy Spirit can. Each deity giving up two thirds of their powers for the benefit of governing their forthcoming creation, is why God is love. Yet nothing is lost, for one third plus one third plus one third equals a whole Godhead united, having the same power, united in love. 

This is textbook anti-Trinitarianism. I apologize if you have previously told me you are not Trinitarian & I've forgotten. Having Christ be 1/3 of God is the same thing as saying He's not God. This isn't something I'm being nit-picky about - its the same thing that a Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran or any other Christian would tell you. You would find agreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, WWCOG but those folks are also vocally anti-Trinitarian. 

Quote

Challenger said: Jesus was a prophet, and like other prophets all prophesied of future events. And since Jesus and all prophets did not know future events we must conclude that these prophecies originated from the Father who only knows the beginning from the end, then given to the Holy Spirit, who gave them to the prophets, including Jesus.  

The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are "One inseparable Being". In any event even using your rubric Ellen's Hypothetical fails because the Father does know the end from the beginning and The Father was explicit as to the end. To be clear Christ knew the end from the beginning. 

Quote

Challenger said: Since the Father foreknew that Jesus “would not” be tempted into sining, He gave Jesus the prophecies [Day of the Lord prophecies] in Matthew of which you reference. This in no means as you believe, proves that Jesus "could not have sinned", and the Father not raising Him up. Had Jesus sinned these prophecies would not have been given, and the plan of salvation would have failed, leaving mankind without a savior, and Jesus remaining in the tomb. 

"The Father foreknew that Jesus "would not" be tempted into sinning" and therefore gave Jesus the Day of the Lord prophecies and yet this in no way proves Jesus could not have sinned??? I can tell you this Challenger - had Jesus sinned it would have meant the same thing if Jesus had been born of a Pegan prostitute - He WOULDN'T have been the Christ. The rubric of Jesus rotting in the tomb leaving the Father to run things is seriously the most direct anti-Trinitarian thing one could say. I'd be interested in what Phkrause and other SDA's think of this apologetic? 

I do appreciate you having the courage of your convictions Challenger - that you put your thoughts out here for consumption is admirable & I really do appreciate you sharing those thoughts with me. I would seriously be interested in hearing if other SDA's work this question about similar or the same as you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

Remember folks, the Gospel itself defined it impossible that Christ could fail - that's actually, according to St. Paul, the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Gospel.. One can easily see how this makes sense - if people are educated to know that EVERYTHING that happened to Jesus was "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" & "ACCORDING TO THE LAW & THE PROPHETS" it would inspire people [like the Bereans] to dig into the Scriptures TO SEE IF IT COULD BE TRUE. 

According to the Scriptures it can't be true that God COULD sin and loose His Salvation, cease to exist. However, it's within reason to believe that archangels could [and did] sin and loose their salvation. 

[Challenger]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

Having Christ be 1/3 of God is the same thing as saying He's not God.

I have been married to my wife now 44 years. In taking our marriage vows, I promised to be sexually faithful to her only, giving up my ability to share that depth of a relationship with another. In so doing am I not a man?

[Challenger]

16 hours ago, Gustave said:

I can tell you this Challenger - had Jesus sinned it would have meant the same thing if Jesus had been born of a Pegan prostitute - He WOULDN'T have been the Christ.

Had Christ sinned, it would have had no effect on His miraculous birth. You and I continue to sin, in so doing is either of us not our selves?

[Challenger]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

According to the Scriptures it can't be true that God COULD sin and loose His Salvation, cease to exist. 

What texts do you have in mind?

Mans salvation requires a savor, under the terms of the everlasting gospel, Christ is that savior, having no sin. Had He sinned, man would not have a savior, and there was no provisions for saving Christ should He choose to die, having sinned, for His life and death would not have fulfilled all that the plan of salvation required.

Too, in order for Christ to secure mans salvation He had to suffer the second death, which is the wages of sin. While on the cross in the last moments of His life, the Father abandon Christ, and Christ said to the Father, "Father why have thou forsaken Me?" (Mk. 15:34)

Why would the Father do this? When Adam sinned, and Jesus interceded to save man from sudden death that day, the Father informed Jesus all that would be required of Him to save mankind, and at any time in the process should He decide to abort the Fathers requirements He could use His own divinity to rescue Himself. For Jesus had said, "nobody takes my life, but I lay it down." 

So the Father tested Christ with the same thoughts that will pass through the minds of all who will experience the second death. No hope of another life. Yes, Jesus predicted He would arise after three days, but this statement was based on His faith in the Fathers promise to do so, should He fulfill all that the Father required of Him. He would only know for sure if the Father raised Him up.

Christ chose to suffer the second death because of His love for mankind, as the Father was willing to offer His son, as the lamb of God, such is the love of the Godhead for fallen man, making available the salvation for man. Therefore the Father raised Christ up, since He fulfilled all that was required. 

 

[Challenger]

19 hours ago, Gustave said:

I do appreciate you having the courage of your convictions Challenger - that you put your thoughts out here for consumption is admirable & I really do appreciate you sharing those thoughts with me. I would seriously be interested in hearing if other SDA's work this question about similar or the same as you. 

 

 

I seems rather doubtful other Adventists will respond. My beliefs go outside of the SDA's box once it was completed in 1915. (The death of E.G. White)

[Gustave]

Quote

Challenger said: I have been married to my wife now 44 years. In taking our marriage vows, I promised to be sexually faithful to her only, giving up my ability to share that depth of a relationship with another. In so doing am I not a man?

You are certainly a man - however you are not God, nor are you the God-man. 

Quote

Challenger said: Had Christ sinned, it would have had no effect on His miraculous birth. You and I continue to sin, in so doing is either of us not our selves?

He WOULDN'T have been the Christ had He sinned.

You are here claiming that the power of the Most High overshadowed the Virgin Mary [in keeping with prophecy] but that at some point after that time Christ COULD HAVE sinned, rotted in the tomb and eternally ceased to exist [in direct contradiction of prophecy]? I'd be interested in hearing what you'd say IF an Egyptian man had sex with Mary and Jesus was born - what is the possibility you believe that could have happened? 

You next ask me; 

Quote

Challenger said: What texts do you have in mind [that show that God couldn't sin, loose His salvation, etc.]. 

Here are 2 - there are obviously a multitude of others. 

"No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.  By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother". 1 John 3,9

If Jesus sinned (according to the Scripture) He would NOT HAVE BEEN OF GOD. Ellen White's theological rubric allows for The Holy Spirit to overshadow the Virgin Mary, for Simeon (in Luke 2, 25-33) to continue living FOREVER because God promised Simeon he would not die until he beheld The Christ. So now, to protect Ellen White, God would become a liar so that Ellen White might be true???

Quote

Challenger said:  Had Christ sinned, it would have had no effect on His miraculous birth. You and I continue to sin, in so doing is either of us not our selves?

We are not "God". IF God sinned He wouldn't be God according to Sacred Scripture. Perhaps this is an area of SDA theology I'm not as familiar with as I need to be. It's a GIVEN in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy & "Reformational" Denominations that God can do anything EXCEPT NOT BE GOD. I realize that "Restorationist" Denominations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, SDA's etc. see this differently. I'm doing my best to be charitable to this [very alien to me] teaching. 

Quote

Challenger said: It seems rather doubtful other Adventists will respond. My beliefs go outside of the SDA's box once it was completed in 1915 (The death of E.G. White). 

That helped me understand a bit better of your position. The early SDA's were Arian / Semi-Arian who preached a flesh Father and creature Christ. The SDA Pioneers and Ellen White taught it was VITAL for you to believe that Christ COULD HAVE LOST HIS SALVATION and rotted in the tomb. This was taught quite militantly and Ellen White provided a protocol for SDA's when a mass of Scripture was quoted against one of their creature christ teachings. 

 

Ellen White / 1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God

That Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation and eternally cease to exist is definitely one of those "special points" of SDA Faith - I realize that this point of faith is shared by all non-Trinitarian groups but few have doubled & tripled down on it to the degree that Ellen White did. 

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on 1 John 3,9 and the promise God made to Simeon in Luke 2. We could start there, proceed slowly and work our way through the other 158 or so texts that say the same thing. 

 

 

 

[Challenger]

21 hours ago, Gustave said:

Here are 2 - there are obviously a multitude of others. 

"No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.  By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother". 1 John 3,9

If Jesus sinned (according to the Scripture) He would NOT HAVE BEEN OF GOD. Ellen White's theological rubric allows for The Holy Spirit to overshadow the Virgin Mary, for Simeon (in Luke 2, 25-33) to continue living FOREVER because God promised Simeon he would not die until he beheld The Christ. So now, to protect Ellen White, God would become a liar so that Ellen White might be true???

 My question to you. What texts do you have in mind that show that God couldn't sin, and loose His salvation?  In the above response you provide two texts. The first texts is addressing individuals who enter a faith based relationship with Christ.  You used the RSV translation because it states, "and he cannot sin," of which you also put in bold print, to drive home your point, that Christ cannot sin. But this text is not referring to Christ but rather to His followers. 

If you and I were to believe as the texts states, that once we choose to follow Christ neither of us can sin, than I'm certain that both of us would have to conclude that we are not followers after Christ, because I know that I sin from time to time and I'm quite certain you do as well. Isn't that whats confession is for?

Better translation are more accurate, in that they say, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin." This implies a change has taken place due to the Holy Spirits influence on ones mind, whereby, they will turn away from the sin. But should we sin, we are to confess our sin to Christ, (Not a priest) and are then forgiven, now works need. 

Sorry, I have no idea as to your point in the second paragraph. 

[Gustave]

Quote

Challenger said: My question to you. What texts do you have in mind that show that God couldn't sin, and loose His salvation?  In the above response you provide two texts. The first texts is addressing individuals who enter a faith based relationship with Christ.  You used the RSV translation because it states, "and he cannot sin," of which you also put in bold print, to drive home your point, that Christ cannot sin. But this text is not referring to Christ but rather to His followers.

Regardless of what translation you use that text states that God's nature is incapable of sinning - it's Christianity 101. Now, I grant you that t.v. series, like Supernatural, posit that God can sin, die, cease to exist, etc. I assumed that Seventh-day Adventists believed that God [The Father] is incapable of sinning and eternally ceasing to exist BUT given that they nurture a belief that God the Son could eternally cease to exist its just a lateral transfer to apply that same logic to The Father and / or the Holy Spirit. 

Jesus taught us The Lord's Prayer for a reason, all of us will continue sinning until we take our dirt nap. What you're doing is promoting a false dichotomy fallacy wherein you claim something is either or when there are clearly more options. 

James 1, 13-15 clearly says that SIN comes about by someone lusting or yearning for something forbidden & once that lust gives birth to the sin and sin than brings death. So, for your Ellenistic / Arianist mechanism to work God would first have to yearn for something contrary to the Divine Nature, foster that lust and give birth to the sin. 

Are you seriously asking me to provide additional Scriptures which speak to the impossibility of God eternally cease to be God and passing out of existence? 

Under the Old Covenant the faithful were directed to bring their sins to a Priest and the same thing takes place in the New Covenant with the difference being that Jesus gave this power to His Apostles - who were ordered to make more. 

Once we get this concept of yours sorted out about God possessing the possibility of committing suicide I would enjoy discussing how Christ ordained the use of Sacraments - of which confessing one's sins to a Priest is certainly one. 

So, other SDA's. How far afield from SDA doctrine is Challenger here? 

[Gustave]

Quote

Challenger said: Sorry, I have no idea as to your point in the second paragraph.

Luke 2, 25 - 35, I insist you read it for therein you will see that God PROMISED Simeon that he would NOT die before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 

 

A failed Christ is impossible to have -  it's like saying "Christian Porn" or something similar. 

Had Ellen White's rubric of God sinning been realized then Simeon would have LIVED FOREVER for God promised Simeon he would not die until he had seen the Savior. This twisted notion makes Christ out to NOT BE GOD - which was exactly the way Arius, the SDA Pioneers and Ellen white wanted it. Do you see the point now? 

[Challenger]

I do not see your point for the following reason. First, Christ put His divinity aside, when He became man, which you fail to understand, having the the unfallen nature as Adam, yet Adam sinned, thus Christ could have sinned, but did not.  

Not aware that  scripture reveals how long Simeon lived afterwards. Hypothetical, suppose years latter Christ having the same nature as Adam, had sinned, it would have had no bearing on the fact that God's promise to Simeon was fulfilled, and Simeon would not live forever, as you assert. 

[Challenger]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

Regardless of what translation you use that text states that God's nature is incapable of sinning... I assumed that Seventh-day Adventists believed that God [The Father] is incapable of sinning and eternally ceasing to exist BUT given that they nurture a belief that God the Son could eternally cease to exist its just a lateral transfer to apply that same logic to The Father and / or the Holy Spirit. 

 

I would agree that God's nature is incapable of sinning, However, Jesus taking on the same nature as Adam and becoming a man while He was on earth is not the same nature which the Father and the Holy Spirit posses. The difference between your thinking and mine which makes it impossible for us to agree is, I believe in three separate individual Gods, and you don't. Therefore, from your perspective it is impossible for Jesus to have had an unfallen nature at one point, different than that of the Father and Holy Spirit. 

That being said, I think we better understand each other on need to move on to other issues perhaps. 

[Challenger]

On 5/18/2025 at 6:19 PM, Gustave said:

That helped me understand a bit better of your position. The early SDA's were Arian / Semi-Arian who preached a flesh Father and creature Christ. The SDA Pioneers and Ellen White taught it was VITAL for you to believe that Christ COULD HAVE LOST HIS SALVATION and rotted in the tomb. This was taught quite militantly and Ellen White provided a protocol for SDA's when a mass of Scripture was quoted against one of their creature christ teachings. 

I have been a Adventist now for over forty years. Have never heard of the term, "flesh Father, and creature Christ." How do you come up with these terms?

[Gustave]

Quote

Challenger said: 

I would agree that God's nature is incapable of sinning, However, Jesus taking on the same nature as Adam and becoming a man while He was on earth is not the same nature which the Father and the Holy Spirit posses. The difference between your thinking and mine which makes it impossible for us to agree is, I believe in three separate individual Gods, and you don't. Therefore, from your perspective it is impossible for Jesus to have had an unfallen nature at one point, different than that of the Father and Holy Spirit. 

That being said, I think we better understand each other on need to move on to other issues perhaps. 

The Historic Christian Faith has maintained (in keeping with Scripture) that God became man without ceasing to be God. The Reformers also accepted this Apostolic Teaching. The "Restorationist" groups rejected that teaching and instead promulgated that Jesus wasn't really God like the Father is God - I think that's what's responsible for this situation within SDAism. 

Jesus did not have a fallen nature - again, this is something Restorationist groups advocate - it's alien to Historic Christianity as well as the Reformers. I'd be happy to work through why Jesus didn't have a fallen nature but first you have to accept the fact that God swore that Jesus wouldn't fail. 

 

Quote

Challenger said: I have been a Adventist now for over forty years. Have never heard of the term, "flesh Father, and creature Christ." How do you come up with these terms?

Focus on the concept, the definition of what the SDA Pioneers and Ellen White affirmed - that the Father had every member, organ and part of a perfect man. The term creature Christ was coined by Arius who claimed that Christ was initially a potential Christ - a creature who had been exalted by "God". This creature Christ was capable of mutation (i.e. of sinning). Ellen adopted this teaching of Arius by way of her husband and the other early Adventists. By affirming that Jesus "could have sinned" & "could have been eternally lost" you are heralding the creature christ doctrine of Arius. 

[Challenger]

19 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Historic Christian Faith has maintained (in keeping with Scripture) that God became man without ceasing to be God. The Reformers also accepted this Apostolic Teaching. The "Restorationist" groups rejected that teaching and instead promulgated that Jesus wasn't really God like the Father is God - I think that's what's responsible for this situation within SDAism. 

Jesus did not have a fallen nature - again, this is something Restorationist groups advocate - it's alien to Historic Christianity as well as the Reformers. I'd be happy to work through why Jesus didn't have a fallen nature but first you have to accept the fact that God swore that Jesus wouldn't fail. 

"The Historic Christian Faith has maintained (in keeping with Scripture) that God became man without ceasing to be God." I believe this is a true statement, in that Jesus, one of three individual Gods, became a man, born with an UNFALLEN nature as Adam, yet without ceasing to be God.  I have made this clear to you in the past, why do you insist I think Christ had a fallen nature, and ceased to be God/ Please pay attention to what I'm telling you so I don't have to keep repeating myself.  

I believe that the three separate Gods have different roles within the Godhead. Example, Jesus only is the creator, who only can live with His creation, who only will judge mankind. 

The Father only knows the beginning from the end, designed the plan of salvation, wrote the book of Life, who will always remain in unapproachable light (glory), and rules over all of creation.

The Holy Spirit will always remain invisible, can read the minds of all, can be in all places as the same time, and is the conduit between God and man.

Each equal Gods having different roles.