God

[Gregory Matthews]

https://atoday.org/can-we-properly-define-deity/

 

[Gustave]

I look at the Creeds and Councils much in the same way I do Acts 15. A matter presented itself to "the Church" that was important enough or having the potential to do great damage to the body of Christ so a gathering is held, a gathering that was guided by the Holy Spirit not unlike Acts Chapter 15. Most don't realize it but the Nicene Creed is very Biblical - it literally causes the folks to say it to acknowledge what the Gospel is and the most important part of it - ironically the part that causes one to realize the Trinity Doctrine is spot-on with Sacred Scripture.

[Gregory Matthews]

The Nicene Creed was first stated in 325, Minor revisions were made in later times the one in 381 being an import but minor one.  Ther are minor differences between the Eastern Church and the Western Church. It was first stated in Greek.  An English translation follows.  Seventh-day Adventists do not disagree with this listing.  NOTE:  I have copied the following from:  https://www.bibles.net/the-full-text-of-the-nicene-creed/

 

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  In the above "holy catholic church" does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church.  It is a simple statement to the effect that the Church of God is a universal church, and SDAs agree with such.

[Gustave]

That part of the Creed which states that Christ's coming and victory was "according to the Scriptures" directly affirms what Sacred Scripture defines as not only the Gospel but the "most important part". 

Quote

1st Corinthians 15, 3-5: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,  and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

This part and the other parts of the Nicene Creed weren't fabricated in the early part of the 4th century - they were of Apostolic origin, the deposit of faith given to the Apostles. At a certain point in time (due to the heretical teaching of Christ having the ability to mutate) it became necessary to formally declare these truths to the Church. The Holy Catholic Church (at the time the Creed was formulated) was the body of believers who accepted the authority of the Council. At that moment the Church was ONE. It wasn't until the great schism that the eastern Church became known as "Orthodox" and the western Church became known as Roman Catholic. Prior to this split I'd agree with Gregory that when the Creed said "holy Catholic Church" it was referring to THE CHURCH who's members acknowledged the authority of the Council of Nicaea. 

The Apostolic Church was affirming that they worshipped a Triune God as opposed to a "duality" or "compound God" (a God that consisted of parts) whereas God was understood to be a collection of Beings that operated in such a united way that they were considered to be one (like a husband and wife that were in total agreement and worked as one in the raising of a child). Under this "duality' or "compound god" concept 1 of the Beings or god's could eternally cease to exist leaving 1 or more Beings to continue operating. This was not acceptable to the Council of Nicaea because: 

The Divine Nature is simple and undividable - i.e. it's not that whatever the divine "stuff" is that is God is divided up into the three Persons of the Trinity so that God is a collection of 3 like-minded perfectly unites Beings with the same Divine Nature, it's that the 3 Person's are IN THE SINGLE Divine Nature which can't be divided. If the Son ceased to exist you don't have God any longer - you have something else. 

I read the article a couple of times and disagree with it - we are not talking about something there is wiggle room on - we're talking about if God is truly Eternal, OR, is God's continued existence conditional. If God is a unity of Beings such as Ellen White taught (and Doug Batchelor still teaches) and had Ellen's hypothetical situation of Christ sinning been realized the Divine nature would have been reduced by a third which would have meant God was not ONE but duality or compound being. Worse yet what would we do with 1st Corinthians 15 and literally 150 additional equally affirmative Scriptures that say failure was impossible? 

[phkrause]

On 12/20/2025 at 3:12 PM, Gustave said:

If God is a unity of Beings such as Ellen White taught (and Doug Batchelor still teaches) and had Ellen's hypothetical situation of Christ sinning been realized the Divine nature would have been reduced by a third which would have meant God was not ONE but duality or compound being. Worse yet what would we do with 1st Corinthians 15 and literally 150 additional equally affirmative Scriptures that say failure was impossible?

None of the statements say that he wont fail, but all pretty much say that he will do! And even Jesus' own words to his Father show that he had a choice when he says "Take this cup from me, but not my will but your will be done!!"

[Gustave]

On 12/22/2025 at 8:20 AM, phkrause said:

None of the statements say that he wont fail, but all pretty much say that he will do! And even Jesus' own words to his Father show that he had a choice when he says "Take this cup from me, but not my will but your will be done!!"

I’ve been thinking about what you said regarding the 'possibility' of Christ failing. If we look at the Ontological Trinity (who God is in His actual nature), it reveals a logical contradiction in that idea.

Here are three quick points based on Scripture:

1. The Nature of God (2 Timothy 2:13): Paul says God 'cannot disown himself.' Since Jesus is the Son—the same 'substance' as the Father—for Him to fail or cease to exist would be God disowning Himself. Scripture says that is an impossibility.

2. The Truth of God (Titus 1:2 & Hebrews 6:18): These texts say it is 'impossible for God to lie.' If God declared through the Prophets that Christ would triumph (Isaiah 53:11, Daniel 2:44), but there was even a .001% chance He could fail, then God’s word wouldn't be 'Truth'—it would be a gamble.

3. The Power of the Word (Isaiah 55:11): God says His Word 'will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire.' Jesus is the Word made flesh. If He could have failed, the Word would have returned empty, which God explicitly says cannot happen.

In short, Jesus didn’t just 'happen' to succeed; His victory was an ontological necessity. He is the 'same yesterday, today, and forever' (Hebrews 13:8). If He could have ceased to exist, then He wouldn't be the eternal God described in the Bible.

To say it another way it would be like clinching your fists and screaming at medical science that women have just as much probability of getting testicular or prostate cancer as men have, BECAUSE you identify a man who identifies as a woman TO BE A WOMAN. You may not realize it but you, Doug Batchelor & Ellen White are promoting a "logical impossibility" not unlike preaching the merits of a square circle. Obviously, the only way you could argue this fallacy would be to redefine what a square is. Ironically this is precisely what the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists have done with the Trinity - they have poured alien definitions into the Trinity to allow for square circles, married bachelors, women with prostate cancer, etc. (i.e. logical impossibilities). 

I'm hoping someday you will watch the series "Supernatural" - it's about two brothers who fight monsters, witches, demons, etc. In the Supernatural series Lucifer has a punchers chance to defeat God by employing legal tactics, witchcraft and other means. While entertaining I always scoffed at that part of the show almost being insulted at how preposterous it was when the show floated that kind of stuff. I must admit that I was somewhat shocked when I realized it was straight out of the SDA playbook / great controversy. I wonder if one of the writers of that series wasn't SDA??? 

 

[phkrause]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

I’ve been thinking about what you said regarding the 'possibility' of Christ failing.

I believe I've always said that he had a choice and not that he could or would fail!!

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

I believe I've always said that he had a choice and not that he could or would fail!!

If Jesus was / is "the fullness of the Godhead bodily" He would have been incapable of choosing to sin the same as would be The Holy Spirit or The Father. You're proposing an impossible contradiction. If Jesus is God (John 1:1), for Him to "fail" or "sin" would mean God was acting against His own nature. Since God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Jesus, being God, was / is not subject to the possibility of failure for to fail would activate a truth that repudiates everything God has said about Himself:

• Isaiah 40,8: Word of God not enduring forever?
• Psalm 119,89: God's word was not forever seated in heaven?
• Proverbs 30,5: Every word of God was not pure & definitely not a shield to put your trust in?
• Psalm 33,8: What God speaks didn't stand? 
• Daniel 4, 34: God doesn't do according to His will?
• Job 36,5: God isn't mighty or firm in His purpose? 
• Proverbs 19, 21: God's purposes don't prevail?
• Psalm 102, 12: The Lord shall not endure forever? 
• Psalm 92, 15: There was unrighteousness in the Lord? 
• Deut 32, 4-....: God is not a God of Truth he is a God of iniquity? 
• Zeph 3,5: The Lord CAN do iniquity; The Lord CAN fail? 

There are 100's more where the above came from. 

Sacred Scripture does not teach that God is like a pie that's cut into three pieces. It's one pie (Being) and The Son & Holy Spirit are as fully God as is The Father. This is why I find it so horrific that a teaching exists that The Son is taught (by Ellen White, Doug Batchelor & other SDA's) to have "risked his eternal existence on the outcome" of the great controversy - as if God was a cherry pie cut into thirds and Lucifer (had The Christ sinned) would have gobbled up one piece of that cherry pie up while winking at The Father! Just like in Spiderman when Peter Parker's best friend turned against him. 

Phkrause, IF Jesus is a fractional part of "God" then your God has "parts" and is a "composite". No wonder Ellen White said what Jesus did was such a gamble and that heaven itself was imperiled. Ellen White did use the word "STAKED" in her description. Anything made of parts requires a "Maker" to put those parts together. If the Son could be "removed" from the Godhead, the Godhead would be dependent on its parts to exist. This contradicts the scripture that God is the source of all things and depends on nothing.

 

Past all of that If God has to "prove" Himself to His creatures (angels or aliens), it suggests His authority is derived from their approval. In contrast, the Bible describes God as the ultimate authority who "does whatever pleases him" (Psalm 135:6) and owes no explanation to His creation (Job 38-41). I understand much of this stuff you are getting from the great controversy but think about it for a minute - "Is God's Law above God?" The Seventh-day Adventist view I'm starting to realize appears to make the Law the external standard that God is "trapped" by. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Methodism, Baptists and Evangelicals view "the Law" is an expression of God—He cannot be "judged" by it because He is the source of it.

Isaiah 55, 8-9 come to mind here: 

Quote

Isaiah 55, 8-9: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

If God's logic is infinitely higher than ours, He cannot in any way be "vindicated" by our understanding. We simply lack the "hardware" to fully process His "software."

I really enjoy discussing this subject with you Phkrause! I think it's the most important subject in Christianity. 

[Gregory Matthews]

The foundation for this discussion arises from some differences in understanding the nature of Christ:

*  Was Christ fully God and fully human?  If so, what does that mean?  NOTE:  I say that Christ was fully God and fully human.  I seek to understand that this means.

*  I agree that God cannot sin.

*  I agree that humanity sins.  

*  I agree that Christ while both fully human and fully God, did not sin.

*  "I agree that Christ was the only one living on Earth why never sinned.

*  Over the 80+ years of my life, my understanding of this has changed, more than once.   At this point in time, I can only say that I still do not fully understand the nature of the one who was Christ.

 

NOTE:  Gustave, I welcome your full response to my post.

 

 

[phkrause]

On 12/26/2025 at 8:55 PM, Gustave said:

If Jesus was / is "the fullness of the Godhead bodily" He would have been incapable of choosing to sin the same as would be The Holy Spirit or The Father. You're proposing an impossible contradiction. If Jesus is God (John 1:1), for Him to "fail" or "sin" would mean God was acting against His own nature. Since God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Jesus, being God, was / is not subject to the possibility of failure for to fail would activate a truth that repudiates everything God has said about Himself:

I understand what you're saying here. Again my point would have to do with the part of Jesus being fully divine and fully human!! He had to be fully human to feel what we as sinners feel I believe! So to me this means if he couldn't sin than from what I understand he didn't have a choice. My understanding is that he did have a choice of sinning? Also if he didn't have a choice than he couldn't be our sacrifice or substitute?? If you think about the sacrificial system the only thing when they killed the lamb it had to be spotless, with no defects, etc.! So Jesus had to be the perfect substitute for us!! In my believe that means he had to be able to choose in everything that He did, to sin or not to sin as a human.

[Gustave]

57 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I understand what you're saying here. Again my point would have to do with the part of Jesus being fully divine and fully human!! He had to be fully human to feel what we as sinners feel I believe! So to me this means if he couldn't sin than from what I understand he didn't have a choice. My understanding is that he did have a choice of sinning? Also if he didn't have a choice than he couldn't be our sacrifice or substitute?? If you think about the sacrificial system the only thing when they killed the lamb it had to be spotless, with no defects, etc.! So Jesus had to be the perfect substitute for us!! In my believe that means he had to be able to choose in everything that He did, to sin or not to sin as a human.

I'm coming at this question from what Sacred Scripture says, it doesn't say Jesus was exactly like us - it says that Jesus was like us in everything EXCEPT sin. That God Himself "would come" and "would save" was clearly stated by the Old Testament Prophets. Jesus said everything written about Him "had to be fulfilled". If Christ had the potential to sin the Scriptures would read differently showing potentiality, showing that God's existence is "conditional" upon God being subservient to the law that flows from God's own nature? 

The sacrificial system typologically tied to Christ stipulated that the spotless lamb to be sacrificed had to be pre-selected which Scripture affirms Christ was (from before the foundations of the world). Since Sacred Scripture was explicit that God Himself would pull this off with zero possibility of failure anything that postulates a hypothetical situation of failure defaults into a rejection of the plainest teaching in the Scriptures, i.e. that God is the one sure thing we can count on. Suggesting that Christ had the potential to sin would be no different than saying "WHAT IF" Joseph and Mary didn't leave for Egypt early enough and Harrod's soldiers ran a sword through the Baby Jesus and creating a doctrine over this hypothetical? We know that was impossible because God the Holy Spirit specifically told the old man that the baby he was holding WAS SALVATION ITSELF. 

Luke 2, 25-35.

That's another explicit example which renders any hypothetical failure as "against the Scriptures". Our Doctrines should be "according to the Scriptures" and not contrary to the Scriptures. At least you said you could understand where I was coming from with my beliefs and that does make me feel better. I would be horrified if I had explained it so poorly that you couldn't understand where I was coming from. 

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The foundation for this discussion arises from some differences in understanding the nature of Christ:

*  Was Christ fully God and fully human?  If so, what does that mean?  NOTE:  I say that Christ was fully God and fully human.  I seek to understand that this means.

*  I agree that God cannot sin.

*  I agree that humanity sins.  

*  I agree that Christ while both fully human and fully God, did not sin.

*  "I agree that Christ was the only one living on Earth why never sinned.

*  Over the 80+ years of my life, my understanding of this has changed, more than once.   At this point in time, I can only say that I still do not fully understand the nature of the one who was Christ.

 

NOTE:  Gustave, I welcome your full response to my post.

 

 

What theologians call the Hypostatic Union answers this - it's why the Council of Nicaea was so forceful in rejecting the teaching of Arius that Christ had the potential to sin. I can't fathom the Nature of the godhead either. All I can say is that the Bible said in hundreds of places that it was impossible that Christ could sin, or drown, or be killed by a cobra or anything else that was outside of what was "according to the Scriptures".