Is the number 666 associate with papacy?

[Porknpie]

Now, as far as Sola Scriptura, the claim is that it is false teaching. Why? While I believe that God doesn’t communicate with man only through the Scriptures, why would it be wrong to place all my faith upon the Word of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit? At the least, their Words should constitute the foundation for anything else added afterwards

Arga, where in scripture does it say to follow Sola Scriptura? Where was that ever practiced in the Church prior to the 16th Century? Scripture - the words of St. Paul - say to hold fast to what has been taught, both by spoken and Letter.

Sola Scriptura is not what scripture itself teaches. And the only “scripture” at the time of Christ was the OT, and the Jews themselves did not agree on an OT canon.

Anything else in the New Testament must agree with the Old. The OT testifies of Christ. But if the testimony of some, though they be considered Scriptures by some, must stand the test of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is what the early Christians and the Apostles themselves taught from. It is what Christ himself used. It is how he overcame Satan in the desert.

The NT fulfills the OT…agreement is a funny word, I’m not sure what you mean by this. So how do you know that the bible is scripture? How do you **know **that the 66 books in your bible are inspired and inerrant? You haven’t answered this…

Read Psalm 119, it’s all about the Word of God. Since the beginning, God’s Word has always been the foundation of our faith. Any time men departed from it, Apostasy has been the inevitable result. Anyone else, has to build upon what God has said. If men come centuries later change it, they must be rejected. I reject none of the other Scriptures not included into the 66 canon, so long as they agree with the Old Testament’s,

There was no universally accepted Jewish canon at the time of Christ. Certainly not 39 or 46 books. So again, how do you know that the 66 books in your bible are all inspired and inerrant?

God has never made a mistake. He does not change his mind. and the Words of God abide forever. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20

This is very Catholic

And to that person out there, why would I want the pope to be the antichrist? The Bible doesn’t say the pope is the antichrist. All John said is that the antichrists are those who claim Jesus is not come in the flesh. If the pope hasn’t claimed this, then he’s not the antichrist. Right?

No but Ellen White claimed the Pope is the Anti-Christ and the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

Think about the bible question. It’s a good one. Open the bible and ask yourself…there are 66 books in here…how do I know that they all are inspired and inerrant and that other books that are inerrant and inspired haven’t been excluded?

PS…I still eat quite a bit of veggie foods and thank my old room-mate for his positive influence. He never drank coffee but never had a problem with a Dairy Queen shake and all the stimulation that it provides.

PnP

 

[Pythons]

arga:

If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them. — Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 691

What if we were able to show you that the Testimonies ( at least some of them ) didn’t speak according to the Word of God?
…Specifically the Testimonies of Ellen White that demonstrate her Christology.
…Would you be willing to look at the whole “Great Whore of Babylon” = Catholicism differently?

 

[arga]

What if we were able to show you that the Testimonies ( at least some of them ) didn’t speak according to the Word of God?
…Specifically the Testimonies of Ellen White that demonstrate her Christology.
…Would you be willing to look at the whole “Great Whore of Babylon” = Catholicism differently?

If I were to show from Scripture, where the so called infallible Catholic leadership has erred, would you be willing to consider that not everything the church leadership teaches as doctrine is divinely inspired?

Also, as far as Ellen White, none of her writings are the foundation of our faith. So there’s no need to prove her wrong because it won’t make any difference in terms of what we believe. We’re not Ellenists, though some Adventist fanatics are and they use her writings as a kind of 3rd testament, which is wrong according to her own words. We do allege that the Word of God is our foundation of faith. I understand that Catholics consider these along with many other records as the Word of God, and I’m fine with that. As a matter of fact, the Catholic church has in store, the best historic records and compilations of the writings of the early church. So I don’t contest that. Many Adventist scholars in fact, go through these Catholic records as well. Why I believe it is irrelevant, unless your goal is to make me accept the words of other men as the word of God. Jews want others to accept the Talmud as divinely inspired, I reject that as divine, but there may be good lessons to learn from it.

And No, I don’t think that only the 66 canon are the only Divinely inspired writings. The other records simply didn’t make it to the 66 canon because a committee decided not to include them. Would I read the other writings not included? sure I would. But I do contest the argument that the pope is Peter’s successor, I do contest that the pope is the vicar of Christ as well because by Christ’s own words His Vicar was and is the Holy Spirit only. The first popes were not even called Vicar of Christ, they were the called Vicar of Peter, and eventually the transition to vicar of Christ was made. And according to the Scriptures, to take that title, which belongs to the Holy Spirit, is blasphemy as I read it. Sure, we’re all representatives of Christ, but to say that one man’s words are equivalent to the Word of God? Not once since the beginning of creation has God given such authority to man, even Moses which God saw face to face was fallible as clearly recorded. I’ve a hard time accepting any man’s authority at that level, which is why when we read 2 Thessalonians 2:4 where Paul says that a man would sit on God’s temple proclaiming himself to be God, the papacy as an institution comes to mind. The World sees the popes as God, even calling him Father (capital F).

Do I think pope Francis believes he’s God? I don’t think he does, he’s shown he’s a down to earth type of person. But the institution he represents upholds him as if he were in the place of God on earth, a position which the Lord Jesus has given to no man ever. So excuse me for rejecting that doctrine or any writing which supports it. But I will say, I do believe that the 66 canon are not all the truth concerning what God has inspired, and I also know the Catholic church contains many more writings, but for me personally, one must build upon the foundation already set. If new scriptures contradict the previous ones, they must be rejected. Of course you will say, prove where they contradict?

I know, you won’t agree. And that’s fine. What I’d like to know as an Adventist is, would you as Catholics kill another man for not keeping Sunday as the new Sabbath? and do you accept the Pope’s words in teaching doctrine as the Word of God Divinely inspired even if he were to change all the dogmas of faith? Would you put your trust in one man based on his title?

 

[Pythons]

If I were to show from Scripture, where the so called infallible Catholic leadership has erred, would you be willing to consider that not everything the church leadership teaches as doctrine is divinely inspired?

I have no problem considering anything.

arga:

Also, as far as Ellen White, none of her writings are the foundation of our faith. So there’s no need to prove her wrong because it won’t make any difference in terms of what we believe. We’re not Ellenists, though some Adventist fanatics are and they use her writings as a kind of 3rd testament, which is wrong according to her own words. We do allege that the Word of God is our foundation of faith. I understand that Catholics consider these along with many other records as the Word of God, and I’m fine with that. As a matter of fact, the Catholic church has in store, the best historic records and compilations of the writings of the early church. So I don’t contest that. Many Adventist scholars in fact, go through these Catholic records as well. Why I believe it is irrelevant, unless your goal is to make me accept the words of other men as the word of God. Jews want others to accept the Talmud as divinely inspired, I reject that as divine, but there may be good lessons to learn from it.

I’m speaking specifically about Ellen White’s teaching that Christ was “mutation capable”…
…That He was, prior to His Resurrection, a “potential christ”.
…This is a serious departure from what Catholics believe.

 

[arga]

I have no problem considering anything.

I’m speaking specifically about Ellen White’s teaching that Christ was “mutation capable”…
…That He was, prior to His Resurrection, a “potential christ”.
…This is a serious departure from what Catholics believe.

Mutation capable? I don’t know anything about this teaching as an Adventist doctrine or in what sense it was told.

As we understand the scriptures, Christ has always been The Christ. He was no less Christ before his crucifixion as He was after it. Where did you see this Adventist teaching?
Could it have been said in the same sense that Paul mentioned it, in Hebrews 5:8-9

“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him”

In this sense, the Scriptures point that His sacrifice in our behalf was necessary for our salvation. Could that be the sense the author meant? I don’t know any Adventist author who’s said Christ was “mutation capable”.

 

[Porknpie]

If I were to show from Scripture, where the so called infallible Catholic leadership has erred

Arga, that is part what CAF is for…to communicate the Catholic faith and correct false beliefs where and when necessary. Please use share what you believe to be error(s).

And No, I don’t think that only the 66 canon are the only Divinely inspired writings other records simply didn’t make it to the 66 canon because a committee decided not to include them.

Arga, you are saying that a committee determined all 66 books of your bible are inerrant and inspired.

[SIGN]Stop here![/SIGN]

What committee that did this?
When?
Where?
On what basis did they decide the 66 books are inspired and inerrant?
On what basis did they decide other books which are inspired and inerrant are not included?
What writings are missing from the bible that should be included?



PnP

 

[arga]

Arga, that is part what CAF is for…to communicate the Catholic faith and correct false beliefs where and when necessary. Please use share what you believe to be error(s).

Arga, you are saying that a committee determined all 66 books of your bible are inerrant and inspired.

[SIGN]Stop here![/SIGN]

What committee that did this?
When?
Where?
On what basis did they decide the 66 books are inspired and inerrant?
On what basis did they decide other books which are inspired and inerrant are not included?
What writings are missing from the bible that should be included?



PnP

I didn’t say a committee decided they’re inspired and inerrant. I said they selected which books would be in the canon. As far as dates, you already know them because they matter to you. This isn’t relevant to me. Relevant to me is the fruit it produces in people’s lives.

Still no answer on what the pope is to Catholics or why they call him Holy Father (capital F). Do you think this is right?

 

[Porknpie]

I didn’t say a committee decided they’re inspired and inerrant. I said they selected which books would be in the canon.

Arga, you are having a difficult time answering this question I believe because you’ve never thought of it. What are you saying? Are you saying that the 66 books were put into the biblical canon but those who put them together did not understand that they were inspired and inerrant?

On what basis were the books included in the canon?
On what basis were other books excluded?

I’ll fill in the details after your next reply…or perhaps someone else will beat me to it

As far as dates, you already know them because they matter to you. This isn’t relevant to me. Relevant to me is the fruit it produces in people’s lives.

History matters Arga because it shines the light on the Truth. Truth is always relevant. You should know the history of the bible that you hold in your hands, how it came to be and who decided that the books contained in it are inspired and inerrant…and why they thought so. It’s the Written Word of God. It’s totally relevant.

Still no answer on what the pope is to Catholics or why they call him Holy Father (capital F). Do you think this is right?

Arga, take two minutes and read this as it will explain in detail. You are pulling meaning out of the text that is not there, starting from the preconceived view of your faith rather than the other way around. Your exegesis is faulty.

 

[arga]

Read the article and it takes Christ’s words and convoluted them to justify a doctrine for which there’s no word from Christ.

I believe Christ meant exactly what He meant when he said “call no man father”, and I don’t think anyone needs to explain it, unless the agenda is to alter it. Some feel the need to find some way to say Christ didn’t really mean what he said. But I think the word is clear.

If more Jews in the time of Christ on earth had studied the scriptures for themselves instead of accepting only what the Jewish leaders accepted, more would have been saved. The Catholic leadership along with many other Protestant leaders have taken the position that only priests and pastors can interpret the Scriptures properly. Yet God himself spoke to the Israelites saying “teach your children” meaning all needed to study, and all needed to teach. Moses said it best when he said, “would The Lord that all his people were prophets”. God’s word is clear enough for all to read and understand. The Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, men can only cooperate, but it’s the Spirit who teaches, that’s what Christ said.

The early church appointed bishops, which is to say “overseer”. Sure, church leadership should be overseers, guarding the flock, but the title father and Holy Father belongs to Christ only. None of the disciples were addressed as father or Holy Father.

There’s no proof that Christ set Peter as the head of the church, and there’s no scripture proof that Christ commanded us to call Peter Holy Father nor any of the alleged successors. Do you have this proof that Christ said this or just words from others many centuries after Peter died? The only way to accept the pope as a Holy Father is by words of men other than Christ, and if men want to believe this, that’s fine, but it was not what Christ said.

The earthly ministry of the sanctuary was transferred to heaven. We have no need for a pope because the Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit, but if any man wants to take that position, they must first temove the Holy Spirit from that position.

 

[Pythons]

Mutation capable? I don’t know anything about this teaching as an Adventist doctrine or in what sense it was told.

As we understand the scriptures, Christ has always been The Christ. He was no less Christ before his crucifixion as He was after it. Where did you see this Adventist teaching?
Could it have been said in the same sense that Paul mentioned it, in Hebrews 5:8-9

I’m speaking specifically of Scripture repeatedly promising that Christ couldn’t fail…
…Contrasted with Ellen White repeatedly affirming Christ “could have failed”.
…For a perfectly Holy, Eternal God to violate His own laws and sin then eternally cease to exist.
…Requires horrific mutation - THIS is what I’m telling you Ellen White taught, with velocity.

arga:

“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him”

In this sense, the Scriptures point that His sacrifice in our behalf was necessary for our salvation. Could that be the sense the author meant? I don’t know any Adventist author who’s said Christ was “mutation capable”.

If you consider Ellen White an “author” or “prophet” she taught that salvation might not have been realized…
…She taught that God the Father could have spoken out of turn.

 

[Porknpie]

Read the article and it takes Christ’s words and convoluted them to justify a doctrine for which there’s no word from Christ.

I believe Christ meant exactly what He meant when he said “call no man father”,

understand that this is your personal opinion and faith tradition of your church.

If more Jews in the time of Christ on earth had studied the scriptures for themselves instead of accepting only what the Jewish leaders accepted, more would have been saved.

Arga, what percentage of the Jewish population was able to read at the time of Christ? More importantly, who was saved and who was not and how do you know this? Are you believing most were not saved?

The Catholic leadership along with many other Protestant leaders have taken the position that only priests and pastors can interpret the Scriptures properly.

Arga,the bible was written by, for and about the Catholic Church, to have a universal set of readings at Mass and for teaching and instruction. It’s a Catholic book with 73 books recognized as inspired and inerrant at the Synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 ad. Understand that the Church recognized 73 writings out of about 300 in circulation. You implicity acknowledge the infallibility of the Catholic Church to have done so, which is good. . The Church, led by the Holy Spirit to all Truth as Scripture says and Christ promises, selected the books based on the apostolic faith handed down through time, both by oral Tradition and by letter (as St Paul says we should do). So yes, the Catholic Church claims rightly so to be the only one that can interrupt the written word properly.

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

God’s word is clear enough for all to read and understand.

40,000 Christian denominations is proof this is not true…all believing differently on faith and morals, pointing to scripture as their guide. The fact that you do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is one example. Clear in scripture and clear in the Church since the apostolic age.

The Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, men can only cooperate, but it’s the Spirit who teaches, that’s what Christ said.

Christ words were to the apostles, the first Bishops of his Catholic Church. And he adds that he would be with his Church always until the end of the age and the gates of hell would not prevail. Christ protects his Catholic Church from error on faith and morals. Aside from the Eucharist, another SDA error is on birth control (link here). This article references not scripture but the beliefs of Ellen White while showing a bit of hostility towards the Pope. I should note that I can no longer find a link on birth control on your church’s website, explaining its belief. And then there is the Adventist position on abortion which occurs in Adventist hospitals. Link here.. I cite the errors above as examples to show how scripture can be mis-interpreted and the apostolic faith ignored to justify ones beliefs and practices.

PnP

 

[arga]

I’m speaking specifically of Scripture repeatedly promising that Christ couldn’t fail…
…Contrasted with Ellen White repeatedly affirming Christ “could have failed”.
…For a perfectly Holy, Eternal God to violate His own laws and sin then eternally cease to exist.
…Requires horrific mutation - THIS is what I’m telling you Ellen White taught, with velocity.

If you consider Ellen White an “author” or “prophet” she taught that salvation might not have been realized…
…She taught that God the Father could have spoken out of turn.

I see what you mean. And you haven’t read all the information she wrote on the topic. But again, I’m not interested in defending her writings because they’re not the foundation of our faith.

The topic is whether or not Christ could have been tempted to commit sin. As I understand, while Christ was fully human, he was and is also fully God. Therefore his nature as God isn’t like ours. He can’t be tempted to carnal desires that we’re tempted. Yet Paul explains Christ was tempted in every point like we are…

Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

The devil tried to tempt Christ to complete his mission by doing it in a way other than how the Father had determined, but he failed to make Christ sin. The fact that Christ was tempted, means that there was a risk involved, otherwise he cannot be acquainted with our feelings and infirmities as humans. Christ came to show that through faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, he can uphold us and keep us living a victorious life and overcome satan’s tempting power.

Jude 24 “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”

Could Christ be tempted to sin? Yes, the scriptures say so. How so? The scriptures also say that God can’t be tempted and that he neither tempts anyone.

James 1:13 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man”

A contradiction? How can he be tempted in all points and yet not be tempted?

That’s part of the mystery of incarnation, how can an Immortal God take the nature of humanity? God will explain in heaven. But what matters most is that Christ’s humanity could be tempted, and therefore in his human strength there was a risk for failure. But in his Divine nature, he couldn’t sin. So as the scriptures say, Christ was tempted in every point like we are (the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life), but without success, for Christ overcame in the power of the Spirit.

God cannot be tempted with evil, so the devil tried to tempt him with doing good. If you’re the son of God, turn the stones to bread, feed yourself, God doesn’t want you to suffer hunger. If you’re the son of God, jump he will give charge to his angels over you this will give God glory and prove you’re the son. If you want to save the world, I’ll give it to you if you worship me. All these are temptations to do good by satisfying carnal desires. Anyway, yes Christ could be tempted to sin. But having never sinned, he couldn’t be temped in the same way. And long story short, he didn’t sin though he was tempted.

There’s no mutation in this. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Again, the topic is whether or not the papacy takes the place of the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ. How come Vicar of Peter mutated to Vicar of Christ? And how come this title is used for the Pope instead of for the Holy Spirit as Christ said? And contrary to Christ’s command to call no man father, people go the extra mile and call the office Holy Father, capital F. That certainly is disturbing, unless it’s accepted as such based on words of men other than Christ or the Apostles. This is what I need help understanding. How does an office receive a title and authority never given to man? Unless it’s by accepting a dogma other than what was said by Christ.

 

[Porknpie]

Well, there are several reasons. Among the many, I believe through faith, but in the Scripture, we read from Peter

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:19-21

Arga, understand that Peter was referring to the Old Testament as scripture and perhaps some writings of St. Paul. The New Testament did not yet exist.

Prophecy confirms that God’s word is true because its fulfillment is recorded in history.

Sure this is very Catholic. Catholics believe in Christ’s prophecy to guide his Church to all Truth and to protect his Church from error on faith and morals until the end of time. We can see 2,000 years later its fulfillment to date.

Also, God wants faith

Agreed. Catholic believe we are saved by grace, through faith, working in love.

A Christian life is the greatest evidence of the veracity of the Word of God.

And we’ll debate what is a Christian life. We can see in the early Church all seven of the Catholic sacraments in place. These sacraments are those given by Christ himself to give us the grace needed for our salvation. Receiving Christ in the Eucharist is one of them. To life a Christian life, we need to receive the sacraments as Christ gave us. Below are the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of St. John) and Justin Martyr stating that they have been taught (apostles) about the Eucharist.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

Arga,

What bible(s) do you use…the Clear Word Bible??

I’m going to add a separate post on the words of Justin Martyr describing the Mass and how the Sunday is the Lord’s Day, the day when Christians gather.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

Arga -

Below are the words of Justin Martyr writing in the early second century.

No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”.** The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.**

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.

Justin Martyr records the order of the Catholic mass above (gathering on Sunday, readings, a Homily, prayer, the Eucharist and a monetary collection for the needy). And Justin Martyr records that the apostles taught their descendants what Jesus Christ taught them: of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that Sunday is the day of gathering for the Christians. The apostles were taught by Christ himself. For 2,000 years, Catholic East and West, and Orthodox have believed the same.

PnP

 

[Pythons]

I see what you mean. And you haven’t read all the information she wrote on the topic. But again, I’m not interested in defending her writings because they’re not the foundation of our faith.

I believe I have read all of it - I believe I’ve read all of what her religious contemporaries said about it…
…I have a stuffed full file folder of SDA Sabbath and Herald articles from that time period.
…All of these Arians and semi-Arians were maintaining the same thing.

i.e. that Christ had an “on loan conditional deity” from the Father and that Christ might not have met the conditions…
…Had that happened the Ultimate God would have extracted Christ’s conditional deity.
…Christ would have rotted in the tomb and eternally ceased to exist.
…Both the archangel Michael pre-Incarnation as well as the human flesh Michael.

The odd thing I discovered when researching this is that along with the conditional creature Christ teaching of SDA’s…
…They also believed that God the Father, Michael and Lucifer the Archangels.
…All had “flesh, bone, organs, etc”.

Catholics don’t agree with that either.

I can understand why you wouldn’t want to discuss / defend Ellen White’s teachings.

arga:

The topic is whether or not Christ could have been tempted to commit sin. As I understand, while Christ was fully human, he was and is also fully God. Therefore his nature as God isn’t like ours. He can’t be tempted to carnal desires that we’re tempted. Yet Paul explains Christ was tempted in every point like we are…

Yes, you have been tempted to do things by external means that you had no interest in doing…
…Some sin that disgusted you, wasn’t your thing, etc.
…All sins were like this for Christ, for as Scripture says of Christ, the Devil had nothing “in Him”.

This is vastly different then how we yearn and lust for a sin and have to fight or resist our internal temptation to satisfy that sin…
…Ellen said that Christ had to overcome His sinful lusts.
…Catholicism does not agree with this either.

I do believe Ellen was right about one being able to loose their Salvation after having it…
…So I’m not saying everything Ellen said was wrong.
…I’m just saying she was a rank anti-Trinitarian.

arga:

Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

The devil tried to tempt Christ to complete his mission by doing it in a way other than how the Father had determined, but he failed to make Christ sin. The fact that Christ was tempted, means that there was a risk involved, otherwise he cannot be acquainted with our feelings and infirmities as humans. Christ came to show that through faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, he can uphold us and keep us living a victorious life and overcome satan’s tempting power.

Jude 24 “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”

Christ was driven into the desert by the Holy Spirit to demonstrate that He couldn’t sin…
…This was no different then Christ having to flee to Egypt so that He could be called out of Egypt.
…Or being born from a Virgin - the Scriptures couldn’t be broken.

arga:

Could Christ be tempted to sin? Yes, the scriptures say so. How so? The scriptures also say that God can’t be tempted and that he neither tempts anyone.

James 1:13 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man”

A contradiction? How can he be tempted in all points and yet not be tempted?

That’s part of the mystery of incarnation, how can an Immortal God take the nature of humanity? God will explain in heaven. But what matters most is that Christ’s humanity could be tempted, and therefore in his human strength there was a risk for failure. But in his Divine nature, he couldn’t sin. So as the scriptures say, Christ was tempted in every point like we are (the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life), but without success, for Christ overcame in the power of the Spirit.

God cannot be tempted with evil, so the devil tried to tempt him with doing good. If you’re the son of God, turn the stones to bread, feed yourself, God doesn’t want you to suffer hunger. If you’re the son of God, jump he will give charge to his angels over you this will give God glory and prove you’re the son. If you want to save the world, I’ll give it to you if you worship me. All these are temptations to do good by satisfying carnal desires. Anyway, yes Christ could be tempted to sin. But having never sinned, he couldn’t be temped in the same way. And long story short, he didn’t sin though he was tempted.

There’s no mutation in this. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Christ was tempted externally by Lucifer and probably by His friends growing up…
…As Scripture says the enemy had nothing in Him so Christ was NOT Himself tempted to do such and such.
…“Like us in all ways except for sin”.

 

[Pythons]

arga:

Again, the topic is whether or not the papacy takes the place of the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ. How come Vicar of Peter mutated to Vicar of Christ? And how come this title is used for the Pope instead of for the Holy Spirit as Christ said? And contrary to Christ’s command to call no man father, people go the extra mile and call the office Holy Father, capital F. That certainly is disturbing, unless it’s accepted as such based on words of men other than Christ or the Apostles. This is what I need help understanding. How does an office receive a title and authority never given to man? Unless it’s by accepting a dogma other than what was said by Christ.

According to the Scriptures the Holy Spirit communicated teachings via the Church ( God’s appointed religious Authority )…
…Prophets don’t establish doctrine - they remind or rebuke people from drifting away from them.
…Ellen claimed God established doctrine through her - this is alien to Scripture.

 

[Traverse]

With all due respect, Pythons. I’m not even adventist… but arga keeps saying that Ellen White has some writings, but that they are not the foundation of their faith. Why do you keep focusing so much on something that is clearly shown to be of not that much importance?

That’d be like me accusing you, a catholic, of believing in a pope when one of them put a cadaver on trial and then destroyed it.

 

[Pythons]

With all due respect, Pythons. I’m not even adventist… but arga keeps saying that Ellen White has some writings, but that they are not the foundation of their faith. Why do you keep focusing so much on something that is clearly shown to be of not that much importance?

That’d be like me accusing you, a catholic, of believing in a pope when one of them put a cadaver on trial and then destroyed it.

Ellen White is the foundation of the SDA faith Traverse…
…This is why SDA’s are forced to swear fealty to Ellen White prior to officially joining the SDA Church.
…Have you looked at their fundamental beliefs as listed on their official website?

 

[HerrZJA]

Ellen White is the foundation of the SDA faith Traverse…
…This is why SDA’s are forced to swear fealty to Ellen White prior to officially joining the SDA Church.
…Have you looked at their fundamental beliefs as listed on their official website?

I’m fairly certain the SDA appologist present in the thread is a better measure of what is fundamental to the faith than the guy with the axe to grind, just saying.

 

[Pythons]

I’m fairly certain the SDA appologist present in the thread is a better measure of what is fundamental to the faith than the guy with the axe to grind, just saying.

Just saying

adventist.org/fileadmin/adventist.org/files/articles/official-statements/28Beliefs-English.pdf

See “Fundamental Belief” # 18 and be sure and get back with me as to the wording of exactly what kind of authority Ellen White has.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut BTW.