I've had a few discussions with members of Adventist groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists & Christadelphians) and have come to understand that people within the Adventist Faith Tradition believe / argue for the creature-christ doctrine of Arius (4th century). I was hopeful someone here could describe or break down the mechanics of this teaching for me in the specific context of Seventh-day Adventism. I'm coming from the perspective of Latin Rite Catholicism.
The Arian Creature-Christ Teaching - How Do Seventh-day Adventists define it?
- Thread starter Grunion
- Start date
Chief
Chief of Sinners.
I am not sure where this comes from. The Seventh-day Adventist statement of faith differs from this view. Look here
So, to make sure I, or any other SDA attempting to address your question does not respond out of context, please clarify your view and set the premise right.
rob
Active member
Your question is huge, as the Chief said, it would help if you asked specific questions.
I had a look at Christadelphians - they view Jesus as a man, not God because
1) God cannot die, and Jesus died
2) God cannot sin, and Jesus was tempted to sin, so had to be able to be tempted
Both of these points are flawed
1) Who says death is what? The Bible defines death as a sleep, and the second death as separation from God.
So if God is a unity of three persons as a Divine Family, the separation of one members from other members, would cause the definition of death. This is my SDA way around Jesus death. Most SDA would say the humanity part died but the divinity part did not die. I say both died, but it is also correct Divinity cannot die - if you use the human definition of death.
Bible proof all of the Godhead separation
Ps 22:1 My Strong Authority, my Strong Authority, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from Yashah, and from the words of my roaring?
2) Jesus had to live by faith - in fact the only way to live is by faith, you cannot live by self power, such a power comes by faith in Satan, and naturally does not exist in God's sinless world.
Now faith involves will and choice, and these are options even God can do.
Missing is a word for "sin" but this is assumed. Missing means to be missing using Divine Power.
Jesus had to live by faith in His Father's Divine Power, and not his own power,
Even angels can do missing and repent and come back to the Father as sinless again.
The verse for this is here
Job 40:14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
So it is certainly possible for God (with choice and will) to choose not to do faith.
This is why the Devil tempted Him to break faith by doing things in His own Divine Power.
Jehovah's Witnesses, have a angel as adopted as the Fathers special Son.
Such a doctrine is weird, for the Bible condemns this notion right off:
Heb 1:4 ¶ Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Notice the Son was born of the Father, not created as angels are.
This implies the Father and the Mother ( I use earthly terms here) can do a "born" process as "earthlings understand this process:-
The verse for this is here
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God.
Notice two Strong Authorities come over Mary, the HS and the Father to born humanity onto and into their Son
This makes the SON with two natures, one was always divine and other came here as humanity.
JW would only see their special angel with one nature.
Christadelphians would see their Christ with one nature.
Catholics have a trinity view, and do not see the Godhead as a Divine Family. They see the Father and the HS and the Christ as masculine He gender. Most SDA also use Catholic trinity for their view.
Some SDA like myself see the Godhead as a Divine Family with a Father, Mother and Son, as we understand this term (I use laymen terms).
Some say this is pagan polytheism, but it's not.
A better description of GOD is "provider love, responder love and child collective love." No member of the Godhead is independent, and therefore love flows as a single spring, not three springs, a single fountain not three fountains.
For example all three members took part in earth Creation.
In fact doing a power act on your own (assuming this is possible) is a sin - breaking faith.
Therefore GOD (despite three divine persons) function always in faith.
The technical definition of faith means to support something.
Now I have covered a wide scope here and will answer any specific questions with both Bible and EGW for confirmation, you need two witnesses to establish truth. Shalom
I had a look at Christadelphians - they view Jesus as a man, not God because
1) God cannot die, and Jesus died
2) God cannot sin, and Jesus was tempted to sin, so had to be able to be tempted
Both of these points are flawed
1) Who says death is what? The Bible defines death as a sleep, and the second death as separation from God.
So if God is a unity of three persons as a Divine Family, the separation of one members from other members, would cause the definition of death. This is my SDA way around Jesus death. Most SDA would say the humanity part died but the divinity part did not die. I say both died, but it is also correct Divinity cannot die - if you use the human definition of death.
Bible proof all of the Godhead separation
Ps 22:1 My Strong Authority, my Strong Authority, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from Yashah, and from the words of my roaring?
2) Jesus had to live by faith - in fact the only way to live is by faith, you cannot live by self power, such a power comes by faith in Satan, and naturally does not exist in God's sinless world.
Now faith involves will and choice, and these are options even God can do.
Missing is a word for "sin" but this is assumed. Missing means to be missing using Divine Power.
Jesus had to live by faith in His Father's Divine Power, and not his own power,
Even angels can do missing and repent and come back to the Father as sinless again.
The verse for this is here
Job 40:14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
So it is certainly possible for God (with choice and will) to choose not to do faith.
This is why the Devil tempted Him to break faith by doing things in His own Divine Power.
Jehovah's Witnesses, have a angel as adopted as the Fathers special Son.
Such a doctrine is weird, for the Bible condemns this notion right off:
Heb 1:4 ¶ Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Notice the Son was born of the Father, not created as angels are.
This implies the Father and the Mother ( I use earthly terms here) can do a "born" process as "earthlings understand this process:-
The verse for this is here
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God.
Notice two Strong Authorities come over Mary, the HS and the Father to born humanity onto and into their Son
This makes the SON with two natures, one was always divine and other came here as humanity.
JW would only see their special angel with one nature.
Christadelphians would see their Christ with one nature.
Catholics have a trinity view, and do not see the Godhead as a Divine Family. They see the Father and the HS and the Christ as masculine He gender. Most SDA also use Catholic trinity for their view.
Some SDA like myself see the Godhead as a Divine Family with a Father, Mother and Son, as we understand this term (I use laymen terms).
Some say this is pagan polytheism, but it's not.
A better description of GOD is "provider love, responder love and child collective love." No member of the Godhead is independent, and therefore love flows as a single spring, not three springs, a single fountain not three fountains.
For example all three members took part in earth Creation.
In fact doing a power act on your own (assuming this is possible) is a sin - breaking faith.
Therefore GOD (despite three divine persons) function always in faith.
The technical definition of faith means to support something.
Now I have covered a wide scope here and will answer any specific questions with both Bible and EGW for confirmation, you need two witnesses to establish truth. Shalom
Hi Chief and Rob — thanks again for taking the time to engage with my question.
As Rob (and I) noted earlier, Christadelphians hold to a “creature-Christ” doctrine similar to what is found in several Adventist-tradition groups.
Historically, this position aligns closely with the teaching of Arius. Arius maintained that “God” (the Father) is a different "Being" from the Son, that the Son is capable of mutation (sinning) — which the Father is NOT capable of — The Council of Nicaea rejected this teaching decisively. The Synodal Letter to the Egyptians summarizes the council’s judgment:
The bishops unanimously condemned Arius’ claims that the Son
• “is from things that are not,”
• “before he was begotten he was not,”
• “there once was when he was not,”
and that the Son, by his own power, is capable of good and evil, and is a creature or work. The council pronounced anathema on these statements and forbade such teachings from being heard within the Church.
After his condemnation and expulsion, Arius continued to promote his views in the desert, where Arianism took root. It maintained that only the Father is God in the strict sense, and that the Son — being a creature and a separate being — could have sinned and thereby lost salvation, since creatures can “mutate” from righteous to sinful.
My understanding is that Adventist-tradition groups today hold a similar view: although Jesus did not sin (according to their definition of sin), he could have sinned (according to their definition) because creature-christ was not ONE IN BEING & Consubstantial with the Father. And if he had sinned, God would have eternally smote him not indifferently than a boot would smote a cockroach — creature-christ would have found himself in the lake of fire, experiencing the 2nd death.
As these concepts / teachings are incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine (which I believe systematize Sacred Scripture) I was hoping to get a walk-through of the creature Christ teaching within Seventh-day Adventism.
I have already looked at Ellen White's creature-christ teaching - but that's different than the actual application of her teachings as it's lived within the SDA Faith Tradition.
As Rob (and I) noted earlier, Christadelphians hold to a “creature-Christ” doctrine similar to what is found in several Adventist-tradition groups.
Historically, this position aligns closely with the teaching of Arius. Arius maintained that “God” (the Father) is a different "Being" from the Son, that the Son is capable of mutation (sinning) — which the Father is NOT capable of — The Council of Nicaea rejected this teaching decisively. The Synodal Letter to the Egyptians summarizes the council’s judgment:
The bishops unanimously condemned Arius’ claims that the Son
• “is from things that are not,”
• “before he was begotten he was not,”
• “there once was when he was not,”
and that the Son, by his own power, is capable of good and evil, and is a creature or work. The council pronounced anathema on these statements and forbade such teachings from being heard within the Church.
After his condemnation and expulsion, Arius continued to promote his views in the desert, where Arianism took root. It maintained that only the Father is God in the strict sense, and that the Son — being a creature and a separate being — could have sinned and thereby lost salvation, since creatures can “mutate” from righteous to sinful.
My understanding is that Adventist-tradition groups today hold a similar view: although Jesus did not sin (according to their definition of sin), he could have sinned (according to their definition) because creature-christ was not ONE IN BEING & Consubstantial with the Father. And if he had sinned, God would have eternally smote him not indifferently than a boot would smote a cockroach — creature-christ would have found himself in the lake of fire, experiencing the 2nd death.
As these concepts / teachings are incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine (which I believe systematize Sacred Scripture) I was hoping to get a walk-through of the creature Christ teaching within Seventh-day Adventism.
I have already looked at Ellen White's creature-christ teaching - but that's different than the actual application of her teachings as it's lived within the SDA Faith Tradition.
rob
Active member
Grunion I note your reply but you did not read what "faith" is...
You have the idea that a creature can live and make their own independent decisions, and use some independent powers within the creature itself. This idea is a myth and never existed in God's sinless world.Further you suggest if Jesus had sinned (what does this mean? according to you? ) The Father would have thrown Him into the Lake of Fire, is also not true. If Jesus had decided to break faith from His Father, the entire Godhead would have been in jeopardy.
I will ask you, where does "Self powers" come from? Within a human naturally? This idea is false.
There is only one verse that many miss entirely it's point:
Ps 119:86 All thy commandments are faithful:
This means the moral law are faith principles, and sin is technically defined as breaking faith. Than and only than after breaking off faith with you Father, do you continue in depravity to transgress the moral law in "so called self empowered works"
But my question - is where do these "Self empowered works" come from? From yourself? No
They are provided to you from Satan - by automatic faith in your Devil Provider.
How than did an angel become a "provider" if no creature can become a provider, and thus by like the Most High?
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do.
The Father empowered the first creature who sinned, to become a "provider power of self"
Why? Because He wanted to experience the same provider nature of the Most High
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
So where is this context spelled out in the Bible?
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your "ab" Provider.
The Hebrew word "ab" in it's broadest sense means "provider" - father is OK for narrow contexts.
Song 6:11 ¶ I went down into the garden of nuts to see the "Providers" of the valley,
This verse shows you the broadest meaning of "ab"
Notice what a "creature provider" does :-
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Affirming Faith Affirming Faith, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth Missing is the servant of Missing.
So you become a slave , which enslaves you. ( you cannot sin on your own)
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your Provider the devil, and the lusts of your Provider ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the Provider of it.
So "self empowered human power" comes to you by Satan, a creature provider.
Now let me confirm this for you:
You need a deep and thorough experience in divine things, and all this sentimentalism that would lead you to lean upon human aid Satan will provide for you, for these things separate you from God. {Lt47-1887.
To confirm this fact in Hebrew, see our Hebrew English translator who confirms this:
EGW: "“An open door” has been set before us, and our opponents, with Satan, who is the chief opposer of righteousness, at their head, cannot close that door. {RH November 24, 1885, par. 14}
and
EGW: "Satan was determined to oppose. {CT 33.1}
and
EGW: "Ever since his fall, it has been the work of Satan to oppose Christ’s efforts to redeem the race. {HS 154.3}
Now if you understand what Faith is you will understand how breaking faith is a silly notion, if you are Jesus, the Divine Power.
Why would you break off your Father, and allow a mere creature to empower you?
Satan wasn't that stupid, while he does this to humans, he wanted to see the Divine Power show some Divine Power independently of the Father. This is a kind of sin no human can achieve. And something Jesus ONLY could do .
Can you turn stones into bread? No human has that power.
Maybe we could by faith, asking God to do that for us.
But the Opposer asked Jesus to use His Divine Power to make bread for Himself. Jesus refused.
This proves that Divinity can be tempted to show independent Provider Power, but Divinity refuses.
"this arian "mutant" idea - is silly"
----------------
Now let me show you Jesus was of divinity not some creature as others claim.
Ho 6:3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.
The torah is a simile of rain, because the teachings are thrown down for us as rain comes down, same function.
Here the former rain is the OT and the latter rain is the NT, but notice the author of both rains is the same YHWH
This means Jesus is YHWH.
"the rock that followed them"
There were TWO rocks that followed Israel.... notice this verse
This picture shows a 5 story high cela rock on top of the foundation tsuwr rock.
Jesus-YHWH is the cela rock and the tsuwr is the Father-YHWH.
More: https://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1067.htm
I will stop here and allow you to discuss and reply ... Shalom
Last edited:
rob
Active member
It was Satan’s purpose to cause Him to doubt that word. If Christ’s confidence in God could be shaken, Satan knew that the victory in the whole controversy would be his. He could overcome Jesus. He hoped that under the force of despondency and extreme hunger, Christ would lose faith in His Father, and work a miracle in His own behalf. Had He done this, the plan of salvation would have been broken. {DA 119.1}
EGW makes the temptation first as doubt in the Father -
A divine being would be able to sustain his claim by working a miracle; “if Thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.” Such an act of creative power, urges the tempter, would be conclusive evidence of divinity. It would bring the controversy to an end. {DA 119.2}
Now later EGW states the temptation was an act of Divinity showing powers of Divinity independently of the Father.
Not without a struggle could Jesus listen in silence to the arch-deceiver. But the Son of God was not to prove His divinity to Satan, or to explain the reason of His humiliation. By conceding to the demands of the rebel, nothing for the good of man or the glory of God would be gained. Had Christ complied with the suggestion of the enemy, Satan would still have said, Show me a sign that I may believe you to be the Son of God. Evidence would have been worthless to break the power of rebellion in his heart. And Christ was not to exercise divine power for His own benefit. He had come to bear trial as we must do, leaving us an example of faith and submission.
Faith means to support someone. Jesus supported His Father.
The Opposer wanted to break that support. Jesus refused.
All three Divine Persons support each other as Cardinally one Being. They are not and cannot be independent powers of divinity, as pagan deities claim to be.
One needs to understand what FAITH means in the Scriptures. Shalom
EGW makes the temptation first as doubt in the Father -
A divine being would be able to sustain his claim by working a miracle; “if Thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.” Such an act of creative power, urges the tempter, would be conclusive evidence of divinity. It would bring the controversy to an end. {DA 119.2}
Now later EGW states the temptation was an act of Divinity showing powers of Divinity independently of the Father.
Not without a struggle could Jesus listen in silence to the arch-deceiver. But the Son of God was not to prove His divinity to Satan, or to explain the reason of His humiliation. By conceding to the demands of the rebel, nothing for the good of man or the glory of God would be gained. Had Christ complied with the suggestion of the enemy, Satan would still have said, Show me a sign that I may believe you to be the Son of God. Evidence would have been worthless to break the power of rebellion in his heart. And Christ was not to exercise divine power for His own benefit. He had come to bear trial as we must do, leaving us an example of faith and submission.
Faith means to support someone. Jesus supported His Father.
The Opposer wanted to break that support. Jesus refused.
All three Divine Persons support each other as Cardinally one Being. They are not and cannot be independent powers of divinity, as pagan deities claim to be.
One needs to understand what FAITH means in the Scriptures. Shalom
A creature can make their own independent decisions. Lucifer was created "perfect" and through free will sinned against God. Adam and Eve were also created perfect and through their free will disobeyed God. I don't know if Seventh-day Adventists reject the Doctrine of Original Sin but the historic teaching is that the posterity of Adam & Eve, by propagation, has received original sin and that this state introduced Concupiscence.
"If Jesus had sinned" is not a hypothetical possibility for Trinitarians. This hypothetical is the foundation of Arianism and is what Ellen White taught with velocity. I'll cite a few examples to clarify what I'm trying to say so that we can get back to my question.
These above statements aren't "one-off's", they are representative of a horde of statements that define Christ as something other than "God". Sacred Scripture affirms that Jesus is God and God can't be tempted of evil (James 1, 13-15) & further clarifies that man sins by being led by his own lust - which is simply unborn or internal sin. If someone approached you, say, a homosexual and propositioned you to have gay sex you would be disgusted if you were heterosexual. The fact remains that you were "tempted" by a gay man - you weren't tempted within yourself. Now, change things up a bit and re-run the scenario with the tempter being a gorgeous woman - now, because you are straight and you YEARN or LUST for this internally you feel the pull and if you go through with it you will give birth to your internal sin. Go back and read the Gospel accounts of Jesus when He was tempted and you will see that the Holy Spirit drove Him into the wilderness to be temped "BY" or "OF" the Devil.
This (Jesus' temptations of or by the Devil) took place because Scripture said the Christ wouldn't sin, He would be perfect. Sacred Scripture is very clear that God Himself would come and WOULD save therefore if the Hebrew Scriptures stated that the Christ would be born of a certain type of woman and would be from a certain town EVERTHING that was to happen HAD TO HAPPEN. This is the meaning of the Jewish idiom "according to the Scriptures" - it simply meant it all had to happen. Consider Jesus' teaching on this matter.
If you consider the Book of Daniel to be Scripture and you take Jesus' words at face value it defaults into the prophecy of Daniel having no other possible outcome than what the text plainly instructs would be the outcome- i.e. that eventually the Great God of Heaven would set up a Kingdom that would never be destroyed and that this stone that was cut out of the mountain (identified as Christ) was Messiah foretold by God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit.
There are literally 150 explicit Scriptures that affirm the impossibility of the Christ failing. I've noticed that ALL Adventist groups militantly affirm that Christ could have failed, could have sinned, lost His salvation, etc. I find your apologetic wanting in this area given that Ellen White said that Divine rath would have come against Christ HAD HE SINNED and contemporaries of Ellen White
affirming that they understood Ellen White as teaching that had Christ sinned then God (The Father) would still be around. That's TWO BEINGS, not one.
Now, back to the question I had.
Ellen White repeatedly taught that Jesus could have failed and had He failed He would have eternally ceased to exist, leaving God alone in the universe. Given that we know that God knows the end from the beginning:
And that God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit explicitly stated that Christ would not fail how can the creature christ doctrine be supported and how is this teaching reflected in SDA Liturgy?
I'm hoping we can explore this deeper.
Last edited:
If the Adventist Arian mutant idea wasn't true it would be silly.
I can't be sure until you confirm it but I'd suspect that if I asked you what percentage chance could exist that for any reason God the Father could eternally cease to exist? Say, The Father was taking a tour one day somewhere in the galaxy when suddenly a star went super-nova, thereby annihilating God so that God would be as if God never existed. What chance would you say there would be of that or any other hypothetical taking place?
The correct answer is ZERO, there is zero chance of God eternally ceasing to exist.
The fact that Ellen White said that a situation could have existed where Christ could have eternally passed out of existence establishes that Ellen White taught that the Son of God was a SEPARATE BEING from the Father. This is a critical fail whereas the Trinity Doctrine is concerned.
But my question isn't if Seventh-day Adventists believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity as it's evident they do not.
Ellen White was a militant anti-Trinitarian all the way to her passing - she taught God was a "unity" not a compound Being. SDA theology affirms that The Father is a "Being" and apart or separate from the Father there is The Son (who is a separate Being) who is like God but NOT God.
I'm not illustrating these points to be argumentative but to try to circle back the discussion on the Arian creature-christ doctrine and how that doctrine may be represented in SDA Liturgical practices and lived within the SDA Church.
Last edited:
Hi Chief, you said:
I'm attempting to sort out what you said above. Myself, I could word what you said in the same way. The part I'm trying to understand is the Adventist teaching that the Son of God is a separate "Being" from the God The Father and that hypothetical situations within Adventist Dogma allowed for the Son of God to eternally cease to exist between the point the Son of God's "Nature" changed from an archangel's Nature to a human Nature up through to the Resurrection of Christ on the 3rd day after He died on the Cross.
I'm attempting to sort out what you said above. Myself, I could word what you said in the same way. The part I'm trying to understand is the Adventist teaching that the Son of God is a separate "Being" from the God The Father and that hypothetical situations within Adventist Dogma allowed for the Son of God to eternally cease to exist between the point the Son of God's "Nature" changed from an archangel's Nature to a human Nature up through to the Resurrection of Christ on the 3rd day after He died on the Cross.
rob
Active member
Greetings
"Who wrote Sabbath Herald November 25, 1880?
Certainly not EGW.
Maybe Uriah Smith? or some other pioneer? These are not inspired statements and hence I reject them.
"one deity" yields no results from EGW
Are you postulating "Elohiym" as modal-ism? Cardinally one deity power?
No comments on my post? Why is that? You don't understand faith?
What does a separate being from the Father mean?
Let me ask you is Eve a separate being from Adam? The answer is no
Were they two beings? The answer is no
Does echad mean "unity" like "compound unity" ? Maybe, it also means cardinally one.
Eve was not created, she was built from the same material the man was built from.
Her origin is the same as his.
Save repetition, read my link https://spiritualsprings.proboards.com/thread/90/defining-god
Note:
"Now some people like Jews might argue we have three different persons and this is polytheism.
But this cannot be because each element of the Infinity Set is exactly the same Infinity as the other members of the Infinity Set. The only difference is how they are expressing themselves.
So I do not see Jesus as a separate being from the Father, or the Holy Spirit.
Nor do I see the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as Catholic trinity does, like some modalism idea that one substance is like the head and arms of a starfish? That God has three expressions of Himself.
Consider this verse:
Le 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
There are two love hebrew words in the Bible, one word "abah" means "provider love" and is mostly expressed by gender male "adam" mankind personalities. The other is "ahabah" means "responder love" and is mostly expressed by gender female "adam" mankind personalities.
A Mrs Cow and a Mr Cow is the same being. So is a Mr Dog and the Mrs Dog the same canine kind.
So the same for Mrs Man and Mr Man, the same adam kind.
The same I feel applies to ELohiym Divine Family, as Romans 1:20 invites us to see.
That is why EGW terms her words carefully:
"heavenly trio"
"three great powers"
"three worthies"
They are not independent deities as pagan deities are in a family model. No
The idea that Israel could worship a Queen of Heaven apart from the King of Heaven independently was frowned upon in Scripture by the YHWH. Love does not work like that.
To save repetition, consider another SDA notion with a weird hypothesis
and read my comments of his theories
Notice the only time Jesus showed his deity on earth (that I know of)
Consider this rare example of Jesus own divinity as deity:
Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
EGW: "His prayer was heard. Suddenly the heavens opened, and holy radiance descended upon the mount, enshrouding the Saviour’s form. Divinity from within flashed through humanity and met the glory coming from above. Arising from His prostrate position, Christ stood in godlike majesty. His countenance shone “as the sun,” and His garments were “white as light.” {HLv 285.1}
Now I told you before - Jesus could have broken faith with His Father, but why would he?
If you learn what doing faith is, why would you break faith in communion with Jesus?
You don't - until you forget Him, or get distracted.
spiritualsprings.proboards.com
Learn what I mean by genuine faith -
Also read my EGW comments on GOD as a Family
(16) EGW: “The heavenly Parent is more willing to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him than earthly parents are to give good gifts to their children. {YRP 284.3
Was EGW lying to speak of the Father as a Heavenly Parent? so that makes the HS the other heavenly Parent?
Shalom
"Who wrote Sabbath Herald November 25, 1880?
Certainly not EGW.
Maybe Uriah Smith? or some other pioneer? These are not inspired statements and hence I reject them.
"one deity" yields no results from EGW
Are you postulating "Elohiym" as modal-ism? Cardinally one deity power?
No comments on my post? Why is that? You don't understand faith?
What does a separate being from the Father mean?
Let me ask you is Eve a separate being from Adam? The answer is no
Were they two beings? The answer is no
Does echad mean "unity" like "compound unity" ? Maybe, it also means cardinally one.
Eve was not created, she was built from the same material the man was built from.
Her origin is the same as his.
Save repetition, read my link https://spiritualsprings.proboards.com/thread/90/defining-god
Note:
"Now some people like Jews might argue we have three different persons and this is polytheism.
But this cannot be because each element of the Infinity Set is exactly the same Infinity as the other members of the Infinity Set. The only difference is how they are expressing themselves.
So I do not see Jesus as a separate being from the Father, or the Holy Spirit.
Nor do I see the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as Catholic trinity does, like some modalism idea that one substance is like the head and arms of a starfish? That God has three expressions of Himself.
Consider this verse:
Le 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
There are two love hebrew words in the Bible, one word "abah" means "provider love" and is mostly expressed by gender male "adam" mankind personalities. The other is "ahabah" means "responder love" and is mostly expressed by gender female "adam" mankind personalities.
A Mrs Cow and a Mr Cow is the same being. So is a Mr Dog and the Mrs Dog the same canine kind.
So the same for Mrs Man and Mr Man, the same adam kind.
The same I feel applies to ELohiym Divine Family, as Romans 1:20 invites us to see.
That is why EGW terms her words carefully:
"heavenly trio"
"three great powers"
"three worthies"
They are not independent deities as pagan deities are in a family model. No
The idea that Israel could worship a Queen of Heaven apart from the King of Heaven independently was frowned upon in Scripture by the YHWH. Love does not work like that.
To save repetition, consider another SDA notion with a weird hypothesis
and read my comments of his theories
Notice the only time Jesus showed his deity on earth (that I know of)
Consider this rare example of Jesus own divinity as deity:
Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
EGW: "His prayer was heard. Suddenly the heavens opened, and holy radiance descended upon the mount, enshrouding the Saviour’s form. Divinity from within flashed through humanity and met the glory coming from above. Arising from His prostrate position, Christ stood in godlike majesty. His countenance shone “as the sun,” and His garments were “white as light.” {HLv 285.1}
Now I told you before - Jesus could have broken faith with His Father, but why would he?
If you learn what doing faith is, why would you break faith in communion with Jesus?
You don't - until you forget Him, or get distracted.
Discovering genuine faith - a simple presentation | Spiritualsprings
Discovering genuine faith Many years ago I
spiritualsprings.proboards.com
Learn what I mean by genuine faith -
Also read my EGW comments on GOD as a Family
(16) EGW: “The heavenly Parent is more willing to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him than earthly parents are to give good gifts to their children. {YRP 284.3
Was EGW lying to speak of the Father as a Heavenly Parent? so that makes the HS the other heavenly Parent?
Shalom
rob
Active member
You quote "The Deity of Christ, Charles S Longacre pages 13 - 14: "
Another pioneer who is not inspired...
I do not read anything except EGW and the Bible. I would suggest you put away these traditions and precepts of men. EGW does not say if Jesus had broken faith, that God would be all alone?
You quote back my discussion with fancy big words"
A creature can make their own independent decisions. Lucifer was created "perfect" and through free will sinned against God. Adam and Eve were also created perfect and through their free will disobeyed God. I don't know if Seventh-day Adventists reject the Doctrine of Original Sin but the historic teaching is that the posterity of Adam & Eve, by propagation, has received original sin and that this state introduced Concupiscence.
Make decisions from free will, - yes.
But where does the power of self to continue with sinning come from?
You comment on original sin
My answer : https://spiritualsprings.proboards.com/thread/80/why-died-sinning-angels-repented
No I do not reject original sin - whatever that means? The spoiler spoiled us when they sinned.
My query to you was - where does SELF as a power come from?
My answer was Satan as a provider.
If you reject doing faith in the Father living in His powers, you are automatically doing faith in the Devil as a Provider. Shalom
Another pioneer who is not inspired...
I do not read anything except EGW and the Bible. I would suggest you put away these traditions and precepts of men. EGW does not say if Jesus had broken faith, that God would be all alone?
You quote back my discussion with fancy big words"
A creature can make their own independent decisions. Lucifer was created "perfect" and through free will sinned against God. Adam and Eve were also created perfect and through their free will disobeyed God. I don't know if Seventh-day Adventists reject the Doctrine of Original Sin but the historic teaching is that the posterity of Adam & Eve, by propagation, has received original sin and that this state introduced Concupiscence.
Make decisions from free will, - yes.
But where does the power of self to continue with sinning come from?
You comment on original sin
My answer : https://spiritualsprings.proboards.com/thread/80/why-died-sinning-angels-repented
No I do not reject original sin - whatever that means? The spoiler spoiled us when they sinned.
My query to you was - where does SELF as a power come from?
My answer was Satan as a provider.
If you reject doing faith in the Father living in His powers, you are automatically doing faith in the Devil as a Provider. Shalom
Rob, take a deep breath and relax. The following should help you understand where I'm coming from.
Ellen White is DIRECTLY responsible for that article in the Sabbath Herald - the Sabbath Herald itself boasts of this fact.
The "PERSONALITY OF GOD" was, according to Ellen White a Pillar Doctrine of the SDA Church. The Personality of God Doctrine's sole purpose was to combat the Doctrine of the Trinity. The specifics of this Personality of God Doctrine was to repudiate the Orthodox Creeds which maintained that God was ONE BEING without body or parts. Thus, in Adventist understanding God was the Father ONLY and then there was another Being who was called the Son of God.
Here is where Ellen claimed the Personality of God was a pillar doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist.
So, if you disagree that the "Personality of God" wasn't a "pillar Doctrine" of the SDA Church or that the Personality of God Doctrine was unequivocally defined and understood to be the principal hammer Adventists were to use against the Trinity Doctrine I'd like to spend the amount of time you need on this so that you can acclimate yourself to this fact.
I'd assume you would believe that Ellen White was "inspired" and that if she told you it was vital for you to believe that the only reason Christ had power was because He obeyed Father God's law perfectly you'd be required to hold this as an article of faith, right?
You're confirming that you reject the Trinity Doctrine as found in the Methodist articles of the Faith, the Lutheran Confession, the Baptist's, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. It saves a lot of my time for you to formally admit this so openly and I thank you for it.
Is there a Seventh-day Adventist here who claims to be Trinitarian that could help me discover how the Arian creature-christ Doctrine is expressed and lived within SDA Liturgical practice?
Ellen White is DIRECTLY responsible for that article in the Sabbath Herald - the Sabbath Herald itself boasts of this fact.
The "PERSONALITY OF GOD" was, according to Ellen White a Pillar Doctrine of the SDA Church. The Personality of God Doctrine's sole purpose was to combat the Doctrine of the Trinity. The specifics of this Personality of God Doctrine was to repudiate the Orthodox Creeds which maintained that God was ONE BEING without body or parts. Thus, in Adventist understanding God was the Father ONLY and then there was another Being who was called the Son of God.
Here is where Ellen claimed the Personality of God was a pillar doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist.
So, if you disagree that the "Personality of God" wasn't a "pillar Doctrine" of the SDA Church or that the Personality of God Doctrine was unequivocally defined and understood to be the principal hammer Adventists were to use against the Trinity Doctrine I'd like to spend the amount of time you need on this so that you can acclimate yourself to this fact.
I'd assume you would believe that Ellen White was "inspired" and that if she told you it was vital for you to believe that the only reason Christ had power was because He obeyed Father God's law perfectly you'd be required to hold this as an article of faith, right?
You're confirming that you reject the Trinity Doctrine as found in the Methodist articles of the Faith, the Lutheran Confession, the Baptist's, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. It saves a lot of my time for you to formally admit this so openly and I thank you for it.
Is there a Seventh-day Adventist here who claims to be Trinitarian that could help me discover how the Arian creature-christ Doctrine is expressed and lived within SDA Liturgical practice?
rob
Active member
Well my friend this is really something here !!
Elder Canright Article The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God
are worthy of study, endorsed by EGW? I see.
Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878 Volume 52 No. 10: How do I read this from EGW Writings.org? Did she really endorse those sentences?
Do you have a link that explains "the personality of God" in great detail, endorsed by EGW?
My understanding is the Provider, the Responder and the Collector ( I use Hebrew terms)
or the Shadday and the Eloah and Michael ( I use Hebrew Names for ELohiym )
are three Divine Powers, so this means to me three personalities of love, but one being.
Much the same as when a family marries, a husband is the same as his wife, and they are cardinally one being according to Scripture (Lev 18:8)
I would love to read all the material EGW endorsed on the Three Great Worthies, and what this means.
I didn't know she detailed the details that plainly?
You do realize the HS is not a "he" despite the general acceptance in SDA circles? What does EGW say on this? You have really opened an interesting subject. If it is so clear, why is it not well published?
Shalom
Elder Canright Article The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God
are worthy of study, endorsed by EGW? I see.
Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878 Volume 52 No. 10: How do I read this from EGW Writings.org? Did she really endorse those sentences?
Do you have a link that explains "the personality of God" in great detail, endorsed by EGW?
My understanding is the Provider, the Responder and the Collector ( I use Hebrew terms)
or the Shadday and the Eloah and Michael ( I use Hebrew Names for ELohiym )
are three Divine Powers, so this means to me three personalities of love, but one being.
Much the same as when a family marries, a husband is the same as his wife, and they are cardinally one being according to Scripture (Lev 18:8)
I would love to read all the material EGW endorsed on the Three Great Worthies, and what this means.
I didn't know she detailed the details that plainly?
You do realize the HS is not a "he" despite the general acceptance in SDA circles? What does EGW say on this? You have really opened an interesting subject. If it is so clear, why is it not well published?
Shalom
rob
Active member
So this is expected to be as inspired as EGW material and the Bible as a whole?
I will study this and let you know.
Shalom
rob
Active member
I am only a few minutes in the book and disagree already
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” Deut. 6:4. Here
we strike the key-note of the doctrine of the Deity. “The Lord our
God is ONE Lord.” Not many, not a thousand, not a hundred, not
ten, not three, but only ONE, one God.
Elohiym does not mean "Father" The hebrew word for the Most High is "eloah, or ab"
and EGW says the Father "ab" is a new name, therefore the "ELOAH" is Old name.
One issue with YHWH, being ONE Lord.
Genesis 19:24 has TWO Lords one in heaven and one on earth, suggests to me there are two YHWH - the word is a functional title not the Name for a single personality of love.
No where does the Bible say the ELohiym is one el
The Hebrew word "el" refers to cardinally one personality of love.
1) Micha -el
2) El - oah
3) EL Shadday
There great powers as EGW says.
The writer is assuming "elohiym" equates to "father god" and it does not.
Shalom
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” Deut. 6:4. Here
we strike the key-note of the doctrine of the Deity. “The Lord our
God is ONE Lord.” Not many, not a thousand, not a hundred, not
ten, not three, but only ONE, one God.
Elohiym does not mean "Father" The hebrew word for the Most High is "eloah, or ab"
and EGW says the Father "ab" is a new name, therefore the "ELOAH" is Old name.
One issue with YHWH, being ONE Lord.
Genesis 19:24 has TWO Lords one in heaven and one on earth, suggests to me there are two YHWH - the word is a functional title not the Name for a single personality of love.
No where does the Bible say the ELohiym is one el
The Hebrew word "el" refers to cardinally one personality of love.
1) Micha -el
2) El - oah
3) EL Shadday
There great powers as EGW says.
The writer is assuming "elohiym" equates to "father god" and it does not.
Shalom