All about Seventh Day Adventists and Catholics

[Pythons]

When one understands the Adventist concept of Christ within Adventism there is no paradox in Ellen’s statment…
…Simply because Christ is NOT God in the ultimate sense.
…Because “God” ( remember in Adventism ONLY the Father is God in the Ultimate sense ) invested His OWN power in Christ.
…So the life eternal, unborrowed, etc isn’t Christ’s by His own right.
…It was poured into Christ ( the husk ) like a bar tender fills up a mug of beer.
…And that’s the part which is IMPOSSIBLE to sink and die ( i.e. The Father ).

Review and Herald November 14, 1854
Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere;** but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that ho alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being**. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to havo life in himself." John v, 26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself **If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (i. e., is self existent) jusl the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life **? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity ? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; 01 even if it did, 1 would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life

This reasoning can be dupicated up to and PAST the death of Ellen White…
…In her teachings she supported this view and now it’s finally catching up to the SDA denomination.

I’ve noticed in speaking with SDA’s that they generally will affirm teachings found in Scripture…
…However where it’s established that Ellen contrasts Scripture in each and every case.
…They will claim God’s ways are over the head of man’s ways and because Ellen spoke for God.
…And it was God’s words which make up Ellen’s writings they will have to wait until they get to heaven to ask God about the paradox statements by Ellen.

Protector, I want you to know that Catholics don’t want to round up people who go to Church in observance of Christ and kill them…
…We hold Mass EVERY Saturday.

I would also like you to know it was our Mighty God ( the ONLY God ) who Himself came to save us in the Person of Christ…
…There was NEVER a possibility that God could have sinned and lost His Salvation.
…And Christ was Diety eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit ( who is also God ).

Hope this helps you see.
God Bless.

 

[BTTG]

BTTG;7928911:
Rev 12:1-6 - The woman of revelation 12 is both an individual person and a collective symbol. She is Mary the mother of th Messiah and the spiritual mother of his disciples (Jn 19:26-27). But she also represents the faithful of Israel, crying out for the messiah (Rev 12:2), as well as the Church, attacked by the devil for witnessing to Jesus (12:17) (CCC 501, 507, 1138).

Hi Cynthia, I agree with some of your comments. I do not believe the "women " is Mary. I do agree that the “women” represents the church=God’s people.Yes, today God’s people are called spiritual Israel.

The depiction of the woman is rich in biblical symbolism. (1) Antagonism between the woman and the dragon, the “ancient serpent” (12:9), recalls Gen 3:15, the first prophecy in scripture to foretell the demise of the devil through the offspring (Messiah) of a woman (a new Eve). (2) Images of the sun, moon, and stars call to mind Gen 37:9-10, where they symbolise the family of Israel, namely, Jacob, his wife, and his twelve sons. (3) the pangs and anguish of childbirth recall Isaiah’s description of Daughter Zion, a maternal figure that represents the holy remnant of Israel groaning for redemption (Is 26:17; Mic 4:9-10). (4) Because the woman is a queen who wears a crown and a mother who bears a royal male child, she is also the Queen Mother of the Davidic kingdom reestablished by Jesus, the Davidic male child (1 Kings 2:19-20; Jer 13:18) (CCC 489).

The woman is clearly the Church, endowed with the Word of the Father, whose brightness outshines the sun. Like the moon she is adorned with heavenly glory, and her crown of twelve stars points to the twelve apostles who founded the Church. The vision speaks of the Mother of our Savior, depicting her in heaven, not on earth, as pure in body and soul, as equal to an angel, as one of heaven’s citizens, as one who brought about the Incarnation of God. She has nothing in common with this world and its evils but is exalted and worthy of heaven, despite her descent from our mortal nature (Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse 6, 19).

Rev 12:1 - the moon:
Can symbolize both maternal dignity (Gen 37:9-10) and feminine beauty (song 6:10). twelve stars: represent both the twelve tribes of Israel (21:12) and the twelve apostles of Jesus (21:14).

Rev 12:2 - the pangs of birth:
probably related to the Passion of Jesus, which peirced the heart of his Mother (Lk 2:35) and seized his disciples with the distress of a woman in labor (Jn 16:20-22)

Rev 12:6 - fled into the wilderness:
Many interpret this as the safe escape of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem when they fled to a place called Pella. Refer back to Rev 11:2.

Rev 12:13-17 -
Slammed down to earth, the devil storms off after the woman, but God protects her from his evil intentions. The imagery recalls how Yahweh was said to have rescued Israel from Egypt on eagle’s wings (12:14; Ex 19:4). Other allusions include the salvation of Noah’s family from the flood (12:15; Gen 6-8) and the destruction of Korah and his rebel supporters when the earth **opened its mouth **to swallow them alive (12:16; Num 16:1-34).

Rev 12:17 - the woman… her offspring: An allusion to Gen 3:15, which stands as a backdrop for the entire chapter. Here the woman’s offspring is not only the Messiah (individual, 12:5), but also his disciples (collective, Rom 16:20). See note on Rev 12:1-6.

I hope this helps.

 

[BTTG]

barboza21;7935051:
Hi Cynthia, I agree with some of your comments. My responses are comments in RED.

Rev 12:1-6 - The woman of revelation 12 is both an individual person and a collective symbol. She is Mary the mother of th Messiah and the spiritual mother of his disciples (Jn 19:26-27). But she also represents the faithful of Israel, crying out for the messiah (Rev 12:2), as well as the Church, attacked by the devil for witnessing to Jesus (12:17) (CCC 501, 507, 1138).

I do not believe the "women " is Mary. I do agree that the “women” represents the church=God’s people.Yes, today God’s people are called spiritual Israel.

The depiction of the woman is rich in biblical symbolism. (1) Antagonism between the woman and the dragon, the “ancient serpent” (12:9), recalls Gen 3:15, the first prophecy in scripture to foretell the demise of the devil through the offspring (Messiah) of a woman (a new Eve). (2) Images of the sun, moon, and stars call to mind Gen 37:9-10, where they symbolise the family of Israel, namely, Jacob, his wife, and his twelve sons. (3) the pangs and anguish of childbirth recall Isaiah’s description of Daughter Zion, a maternal figure that represents the holy remnant of Israel groaning for redemption (Is 26:17; Mic 4:9-10). (4) Because the woman is a queen who wears a crown and a mother who bears a royal male child, she is also the Queen Mother of the Davidic kingdom reestablished by Jesus, the Davidic male child (1 Kings 2:19-20; Jer 13:18) (CCC 489).

The woman is clearly the Church, endowed with the Word of the Father, whose brightness outshines the sun. Like the moon she is adorned with heavenly glory, and her crown of twelve stars points to the twelve apostles who founded the Church. The vision speaks of the Mother of our Savior, depicting her in heaven, not on earth, as pure in body and soul, as equal to an angel, as one of heaven’s citizens, as one who brought about the Incarnation of God. She has nothing in common with this world and its evils but is exalted and worthy of heaven, despite her descent from our mortal nature (Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse 6, 19).

I do not believe that the vision reads about mother Mary, and that Mary is in heaven. But that is another topic for another day. The “church” as we agree is God’s people, then Mary cannot be the “women” for thus Mary in this verse would mean the “mother of God”, which we know too that this could not be. As a side note, the Pagans had goddesses which were called " queen of heaven".

Rev 12:1 - the moon:
Can symbolize both maternal dignity (Gen 37:9-10) and feminine beauty (song 6:10). twelve stars: represent both the twelve tribes of Israel (21:12) and the twelve apostles of Jesus (21:14).

I do agree with your above statements… the church is the bride…feminine

Rev 12:2 - the pangs of birth:
probably related to the Passion of Jesus, which peirced the heart of his Mother (Lk 2:35) and seized his disciples with the distress of a woman in labor (Jn 16:20-22)

I see this verse as describing Jesus being born and the loud cry and the pain was in reference to the transgression of God’s people and the truth of God’s word had fallen.

Rev 12:6 - fled into the wilderness:
Many interpret this as the safe escape of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem when they fled to a place called Pella. Refer back to Rev 11:2.

I believe the “fleeing into the wilderness” was a prophetic period of time which is 1,260 years. As per your comment on Rev 11:2, who are the two witnesses that prophesy for 1,260 days?

Rev 12:13-17 -
Slammed down to earth, the devil storms off after the woman, but God protects her from his evil intentions. The imagery recalls how Yahweh was said to have rescued Israel from Egypt on eagle’s wings (12:14; Ex 19:4). Other allusions include the salvation of Noah’s family from the flood (12:15; Gen 6-8) and the destruction of Korah and his rebel supporters when the earth **opened its mouth **to swallow them alive (12:16; Num 16:1-34).

In Rev. 12:13, the dragon , as we agree was cast to the earth at the cross. And yes, I agree God protects her ( church) during the 1,260 days ( years). You are correct in your scriptures above on how God protected His people in the OT, however vs 13 is talking about “after” the dragon “persecuted” Jesus, the women fled into the wilderness for 1,260 days/years. Therefore, the 1,260 days/years comes after the cross.

Rev 12:17 - the woman… her offspring: An allusion to Gen 3:15, which stands as a backdrop for the entire chapter. Here the woman’s offspring is not only the Messiah (individual, 12:5), but also his disciples (collective, Rom 16:20). See note on Rev 12:1-6.

The women is the “church”, or “God’s people”, then I don’t think the offspring, or I like the better word of “remnant”, can be Jesus, or His disciples. The remnant of the church are those that keep the ten commandments that were handed down to Moses and they that have the "testimony of Jesus’= spirit of prophecy.

Do you know who the “women”/ “great harlot” is in Rev 17 ?

thanks for the discussion

written with love

 

[Pythons]

BTTG,
You realize the concept that the Catholic Church is the whore woman comes from the type of reasong that says Jesus isn’t God, right?
…How about making some counter-points to the posts I made for you and Richard Kastener previously.
…Then we can discuss the Great Whore all you want.

 

[Protector]

Isaiah 35,4 I don’t think anyone here is against that because what you just said above is true…
….From there you’ve somehow incorporated the concept that to want to live is a sin?

Sadly Pythons, you have misconstrued what I was saying, and that was partly my fault.
I used Luke 22:42 to illustrate the fact that Jesus had human free-will,
i.e "… but yet not my will

"

("For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.

" Heb 4:15 D-R)

I’m not quite sure where the following idea comes from:-

Please enlighten me.

GOD

HIMSELF, Isaiah 35:4 confirmed by the whole New Testament.

There would be NO sin in him, Isaiah 53:9 - confirmed by Jesus being tempted BY or OF the Devil.

Pythons, most of the above I have known since my youth. Also I have attached a short phrase to your quote below:-

"BE GOD

HIMSELF, Isaiah 35:4 confirmed by the whole New Testament. (and the O.T.)

Pythons, I tend not to waste precious time in contemplating “what-ifs”, and as to the following,
“Richard said ( in keeping with Ellen White’s teaching ) that “Christ” COULD HAVE SINNED & could have lost His eternal existence…”,

Christ had human free-will, and was tempted in every way the same as us. When Peter said to him prior to their arrival in Jerusalem, “And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee.” ( Matt 16:22 D-R) Christ, having first rebuked Peter, “Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” (Matt 16:23 D-R) then exercised his human free-will to go through with it. It would seem to me that what Ellen White and Richard are inferring is, if Christ had no choice His sacrifice would have had no merit. It’s a bit like saying that, the execution of a murderer on the gallows has merit.

Thank you for all of your Scripture passages, one or two of which I was unaware. Also, please continue your gentle chastisement of me in regard to my lack of quoting skills.

Protector.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Pythons]

protector:

Sadly Pythons, you have misconstrued what I was saying, and that was partly my fault.
I used Luke 22:42 to illustrate the fact that Jesus had human free-will

I used Luke 22:42 to illustrate the fact that Jesus had human free-will,
i.e “… but yet not my will, but thine be done”. Also, with regard to my, “valid apologetic for …Ellen White” I intended no such thing. All that I did was to point out by the use of Scriptural references that the following quote from Ellen White was correct,

Scripture says God Himself would come to save us and neither fail or sin…
…Ellen White said Christ could have fallen and sinned & that God risked forever loosing His son by sending Him.
…Ellen White said it was** impossible **for Diety to sink and die.

It does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots of Ellen’s alleged prophetic utterances…
…Did Ellen White not say that it was impossible for Diety to sin and die.
…Than promptly turn around and say it was possible for Christ to sin and die.
…I provided the quotes where she made those affirmations - how do you figure?

Jesus had human free will to choose what He was going to eat or how much wine he was going to drink…
…Free will does NOT extend to the level Adventism pushes it whereas Jesus 'could have sinned and lost His salvation".
…Frankly, that’s very disturbing and alien to EVERYTHING the Bible teaches.
…I just did a word search on the Ellen White Estate and came up with the following.

Ellen White
Christ was tempted in all points like as we are; but His will was ever kept on the side of God’s will. In His humanity **He had **the same free will ****that Adam had in Eden. He could have yielded to temptation as Adam yielded. And Adam, by believing God and being a doer of His word, could have resisted temptation as Christ resisted it

Ellen White MR 113.2
The first Adam was a free moral agent. But he abused His freedom. He allowed himself to be overcome by appetite. By disobedience he lost his innocence. By his own **free will **he became a sinner, separating himself from the favor of God. The second Adam was also a free moral agent, held responsible for His conduct

Do you NOT see a problem with the above and specifically the next quote?
…I perfectly understand where you are getting this idea from.

Ellen White
As a member of the human family he was mortal, but as a God he was the fountain of life to the world. Review and Herald Sept 4,1900

Opp’s!
… “a” God!

Ellen White
He yielded up His life a sacrifice, that man should not eternally die. He died, not through being compelled to die, but by His own free will. {FLB 46.7}

You miss the point protector - God The Son ALWAYS does the will of the Father…
…Be it in eternity prior to the world being created…
…To eternity AFTER the world was made.
…Your concept of “free will” is totally alien to the Bible.
…And the only place I’m finding it is in Ellen White’s writings.

 

[Pythons]

Here is where the problem is coming from…
…Ellen believed only the Father was God in the ultimate sense.
…She also believed The Father created Lucifer.
Ellen White:

Now the perfect harmony of heaven was broken. Lucifer’s disposition to serve himself instead of his Creator aroused a feeling of apprehension when observed by those who considered that the glory of God should be supreme. In heavenly council the angels pleaded with Lucifer. The Son of God presented before him the greatness, the goodness, and the justice of the Creator, and the sacred, unchanging nature of** His law**. God Himself had established the order of heaven; and in departing from it, Lucifer would dishonor his Maker and bring ruin upon himself. But the warning, given in infinite love and mercy, only aroused a spirit of resistance. Lucifer allowed his jealousy of Christ to prevail, and became the more determined.

To dispute the supremacy of the Son of God, thus impeaching the wisdom and love of the Creator, had become the purpose of this prince of angels. To this object he was about to bend the energies of that master mind, which, next to Christ’s, was first among the hosts of God. But He who would have the will of all His creatures free, left none unguarded to the bewildering sophistry by which rebellion would seek to justify itself. Before the great contest should open, all were to have a clear presentation of His will, whose wisdom and goodness were the spring of all their joy.

The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng–“ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God’s plan, but would exalt the Father’s glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. The angels joyfully acknowledged the supremacy of Christ, and prostrating themselves before Him, poured out their love and adoration. Lucifer bowed with them, but in his heart there was

Did you see that, Christ was one of the “hosts of God” and Lucifer was NEXT in ranking…
…My friend would you be willing to talk with me over the phone or email perhaps?
…Why don’t we take this 'off line"?

 

[Annie_B]

I’m eager to hear BTTG’s or another SDA’s response because it doesn’t make sense to me why it would be attractive to embrace a faith that was resently created by a man who interpreted the Bible which was written & compiled by the Catholic Church established by our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ.

I’m sure it makes perfect sense to SDA’s and I’d like to understand from their point of view too.

This may be slightly off topic but I am curious about a statement you made. I have heard before that the Catholic Church “compiled” the bible (though the jury is still out on that one in my opinion) but I have NEVER heard that the Catholic CHurch actually wrote the Bible as you state in the above quoted reply. From what source do you get your information to make this claim?
Annie

 

[john_aurelius]

Y’now St. Peter wrote letters, which have been faithfully maintained and published in the New Testament.

St. Paul likewise, St Matthew, St John, St Luke, St Jude

Who copied their letters, preserved them generation after generation of the catholic church, faithful monks in scriptoriums copying the greek and latin Scriptures.

How isn’t the New Testament Catholic?

The mortal remains of St. Peter and St. Paul are beneath the Vatican!!!

 

[PRmerger]

It would seem to me that what Ellen White and Richard are inferring is, if Christ had no choice His sacrifice would have had no merit. It’s a bit like saying that, the execution of a murderer on the gallows has merit.

Well, then, that is very Catholic of Ellen and Richard to say!

Thank you for all of your Scripture passages, one or two of which I was unaware. Also, please continue your gentle chastisement of me in regard to my lack of quoting skills.

Protector.

There are codes that exist between brackets. So, putting a “U” in between brackets will produce an underline. Putting a “B” between brackets will bold. Putting “quote” between brackets will quote.

However, one must use these keys:

and / quote] or ** / b] or / u] in order for it to work. One must be at the beginning and the other at the end.

I think you are omitting the backslash.**

 

[PRmerger]

Y’now St. Peter wrote letters, which have been faithfully maintained and published in the New Testament.

St. Paul likewise, St Matthew, St John, St Luke, St Jude

Who copied their letters, preserved them generation after generation of the catholic church, faithful monks in scriptoriums copting the greek and latin Scriptures.

How isn’t the New Testament Catholic?

The mortal remains of St. Peter and St. Paul are beneath the Vatican!!!

Not to mention that it was the Catholic Church that discerned that the Gospels of M, M, L and J were inspired, but that the Gospels of Phillip, Thomas, Mary Magdalene weren’t.

IOW, you would not know what’s the Word of God were it not for the Catholic Church.

 

[Annie_B]

Ok. And the source of that claim (besides the Catholic Church saying it is so)?

Annie

 

[PiousTemplar]

Not to mention that it was the Catholic Church that discerned that the Gospels of M, M, L and J were inspired, but that the Gospels of Phillip, Thomas, Mary Magdalene weren’t.

IOW, you would not know what’s the Word of God were it not for the Catholic Church.

May I ask, why weren’t the Gospels of Phillip and Thomas inspired? I mean, they all received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost! Or, is it because they weren’t written by Phillip and Thomas and were written later on?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok. And the source of that claim (besides the Catholic Church saying it is so)?

Annie

History documents this, Annie.

Is there any other church out there at that time that had bishops and popes that claims it decided what books should go into the Bible and what ones should be omitted?

 

[PRmerger]

May I ask, why weren’t the Gospels of Phillip and Thomas inspired?

Because they contained things that were contrary to the paradosis.

The Christian faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever written.

Thus, when Christians read things which were not contained in the Deposit of Faith known as Sacred Tradition, they knew to discard it.

I mean, they all received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost! Or, is it because they weren’t written by Phillip and Thomas and were written later on?

Not sure what you’re saying here. Just because one receives the Holy Spirit does not mean that everything he writes is theopneustos.

I received the Holy Spirit at Confirmation–yet the Church does not perceive any of my writings to be inspired.

In fact, Mary, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, has no writings that are considered to be theopneustos.

So being indwelled by the Holy Spirit is not a criterion for being in the Bible.

 

[Protector]

Scripture says God Himself would come to save us and neither fail or sin…

I am not very well versed in the intricacies of the Doctrine of The Hypo-static Union Pythons, so I may very well be talking utter gibberish (from your point of view), but it is my understanding that the following applies. God, by his foreknowledge, knew that Jesus would not sin even though He had human free-will. As many have said, Jesus found the very idea of sin repulsive, (if only we could emulate that eh? How wonderful this world would be).
In Gethsemane Jesus subjugated His human free-will in favour of His Father’s Divine Will:-

“Saying: Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet **not my will, but thine be done” .(Luke 22:42 D-R) **. So Christ deliberately chose of His own (human) free-will not to use His divinity. So He lived, and died as a MAN, but also as the Son of God, (with due regard to the Hypo-static Union of which I know very little).

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12 D-R ),

and also,

"But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.(Romans 5:15 D-R )

So, the bottom line is, as a man with human free-will Jesus had the ability to sin, but chose not to. God, The Father by virtue of His foreknowledge knew that Jesus would not sin, so the free-will of Christ was not compromised by the intervention of the Divine Will.

impossible

for Diety to sin and die.
…Than promptly turn around and say it was possible for Christ to sin and die.
…I provided the quotes where she made those affirmations - how do you figure?

I have not read any of the writings of Ellen G. White, excepting those snippets quoted by you so I cannot comment other than to say that there appear to be (as you say) contradictions. However, Christ died not as God, but as a man. So EGW seems to be saying, Christ as God could not sin, nor die, but Christ as a man could both sin and die. This of course is where we should enlist the services of the Doctors of the Church (with the Doctrine of the Hypo-static Union) to enter the debate to explain how it was possible.

Once again I must claim ignorance of the subject of the quote above. However, I will attempt a response to your assertions , which seem to be introducing the concept that “human free-will” is not totally “free”, it has restrictions. A bit like saying, “In this society everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others”. Romans 5:13 &15 (cited above) would seem to indicate to me that Christ died for our sins as a MAN.

Quite obviously you do not, dear Pythons as I have not read the writings of Ellen G White. As I said to another poster, when it comes to “prophets” of recent times I tend to be a natural skeptic, preferring instead the Prophets of the O.T.


…

Yes, I know Pythons, but He does the the will of The Father as a function of His human free-will…viz:- “…but yet not my will, but thine be done” .(Luke 22:42 D-R). BTW, I found the following a little harsh, but it’s not important, it is your considered opinion. But seeing that it’s not my “concept”, coming as it does from the Scriptures, it would be more charitable to say that my interpretation, “is totally alien to…” the generally accepted one.
…

As I said, I have not read White’s writings so I am unable to compare. Thank you for your post Pythons.

Protector.

 

[Pythons]

Protector, Yes, God knew that He would not sin or fail to fulfil His Purpose…
…And this was clearly established, long prior to The Word’s Incarnation.
…And that, “is according to the Scriptures”.

Yes, if man could fully duplicate Christ it would be a perfect world but as man can’t…
…Christ, in keeping with the Sacred Scriptures, came and “SAVED US”.
…Which again, was established long prior to the Christ’s Incarnation.

Christ has always been and always will be “The Eternal Son” and - in keeping with the Scirptures…
…He ( Christ ) “always” did and does the Will of the Father - Eternally.

John 4,34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work

John 6,38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me

John 8,29
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him

In any event your reasoning in this case is irrelevant because your premise of what the Hypostatic Union is, is incorrect…
…The H.U. is that in Christ ONE PERSON subsists in two natures.
…The Person Christ performed miracles and provided Salvation.
…I.E. Mary was the Mother of a Person & NOT a Nature.

Now, I’m going to close the escape route I’ve noticed all Adventists use in this discussion…
…And that is simply to again remind you that Ellen White explicitly stated that God risked forever loosing His Son.
…Had Christ nurfed the “purpose” God purposed from before the foundations of the world.

Ellen White said God risked loosing His Son & also said Christ ‘risked’ loosing His future eternal existence & knew this PRIOR to coming to earth!
…This is NOT the language of “God knew Christ would make it” and it has nothing to do with the H.U.
…You had said previously that Ellen’s statements were “in line” with the Scriptures.
…So far - you have not demonstrated that in the least.

protector:

So, the bottom line is, as a man with human free-will Jesus had the ability to sin, but chose not to. God, The Father by virtue of His foreknowledge knew that Jesus would not sin, so the free-will of Christ was not compromised by the intervention of the Divine Will

Here we go again! This is classic Adventist reasoning, the foundation of which is rejection of the ONE PERSON of Christ…
…This is how Adventists reason this issue out - by saying Jesus as a man & Jesus as ‘a’ God.
…Again, this is heretical. It’s the same thing as saying God could choose to rape and steal and be a pedophile…
…But God chooses not to do those things - but He could if He wanted to because God is a free moral agent.
…This shows a very incorrect understanding of what God is.

protector:

I have not read any of the writings of Ellen G. White, excepting those snippets quoted by you so I cannot comment other than to say that there appear to be (as you say) contradictions. However, Christ died not as God, but as a man. So EGW seems to be saying, Christ as God could not sin, nor die, but Christ as a man could both sin and die. This of course is where we should enlist the services of the Doctors of the Church (with the Doctrine of the Hypo-static Union) to enter the debate to explain how it was possible

No Doctors of the Church would affirm Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation, AS A MAN or AS DIETY…
…If you know of any I would appreciate if you could bring these Doctors to my attention.
…Therefore there is NO debate.

Based on what you just said about not knowing anything of Ellen White’s teachings…
…What denomination of Adventist are you? Jehovah’s Witness, Christadelphian, WWCOG offshoot, what?
…You certainly are subscribing to Adventist doctrine and I would like to know which Adventist you are coming from.

protector:

Quite obviously you do not, dear Pythons as I have not read the writings of Ellen G White. As I said to another poster, when it comes to “prophets” of recent times I tend to be a natural skeptic, preferring instead the Prophets of the O.T

Evidently not Protector - because the Prophets of the Old Testament said God Himself would come and save us…
…And specifically said God would not sin, fail or cease to exist.
…This whole concept can be traced back to Arianism.
…Do you believe Arius was right Protector?

 

[Protector]

In any event your reasoning in this case is irrelevant because your premise of what the Hypostatic Union is, is incorrect…
…The H.U. is that in Christ ONE PERSON subsists in two natures.
…The Person Christ performed miracles and provided Salvation.
…I.E. Mary was the Mother of a Person & NOT a Nature.

I know, and I told you as much in my post. I have NO premise, because I have NO basis for reasoning. My scant knowledge of the HU was gleaned from a brief summary of the Nicene Creed, “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God”.
Other than that I John I:1-3 has been the basis for my understanding,

" 1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life:
2 For the life was manifested; and we have seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us:
3 That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ",

       and also:-   (John 1:1  D-R)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

You have made an assumption based on scanty information Pythons. My defense of EGW was not as support for a fellow SDA, and I am not any "denomination of Adventist ", I am a plain old fashioned Christian, albeit with an imperfect “understanding of what God is” according to you.

Yes, you are quite right. But I should have identified those portions of her statements to which I referred. E.G. “Christ is the only begotten Son of The Father” etc.etc.

I agree totally with those statements Pythons.

Certainly not!

Thank you for your post. Keep up the good work.

Protector.

P.S For technical reasons I have to go off-line for a few weeks so forgive me if I do not respond to your next post immediately.

 

[BTTG]

BTTG,
You realize the concept that the Catholic Church is the whore woman comes from the type of reasong that says Jesus isn’t God, right?
…How about making some counter-points to the posts I made for you and Richard Kastener previously.
…Then we can discuss the Great Whore all you want.

**Richard and Protector are doing a good job, no need for me to interject yet.

written with love**

 

[Pythons]

**Richard and Protector are doing a good job, no need for me to interject yet.

written with love**

Let’s just hope they opt to stick with this and start to provide some answers to the multiple question marks directed at them…
…Feel free to jump in any old time ya want.