| Author | Message | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 4 Registered: 1-2006 |
The original 1872 statement of faith included the phrase "the only infallible rule of faith and practice". The current statement of faith has removed this phrase. The original 1872 statement of faith included the phrase "That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being". The current statement of faith has removed this phrase and states that God is a unity of three co-eternal persons who is above all. Eph 4:6 says that there is one God and Father who is above all, not a unity of three co-eternal persons. The current Seventh-day Adventist church Manual allows divorce because of abandonment without fornication whereas the Son of the only true God taught that divorce is only allowed in the case of fornication. The current Seventh-day Adventist Biblical Research Institute teaches the doctrine of "original sin" i.e. a baby is born with a recorded sin on his record because of Adam and Eve's sin, not his or her own. The pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church never taught this doctrine. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 363 Registered: 7-2004  |
Are you suggesting the original SDA beliefs are correct? There are major problems with SDA doctrines from Day 1, and everyday through today. That's what happens when a church is founded on the interpretations of a false prophet instead of on God's Word alone. EGW miserably fails the test of a prophet, her visions are not supported by the Bible, and therefore I would throw out anything and everything connected to EGW (which includes the early SDA pioneers and the current SDA teachings) and stick with the Bible alone. | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 5 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Raven: I think the original SDA statement of beliefs is more in line with what the Bible teaches than what the current statement of beliefs state especially in regard what is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Read "The Scriptures a Safeguard" in the book Great Controversy. EGW said that God would have a people in these last days that will maintain the Bible and the Bible only as their rule of faith and practice. She did not say that they would maintain her writings as the only rule of faith and practice. In the 5th book of the testimonies she says to reject her writings if they do not speak in accordance with the Bible. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2245 Registered: 3-2004  |
Yes, Grwaitemd, the original SDA statement of beliefs are more in line with the Bible, but there are too many other beliefs that are not. As for reading the Great Controversy, I cannot. I threw it away about a year ago with all other EGW books. I consider her a false prophet. She may have written some good things and even Biblical, but there are too many other things that are plagiarized. So, I will stick to the Bible only. Diana | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 364 Registered: 7-2004 |
EGW also says the SDA church stands or falls on the sanctuary doctrine--and I find that doctrine is totally unsupported by the Bible. EGW insisted it is up to us to remedy our defects in character and that we cannot hope to be saved with one spot or wrinkle on our character. The Bible tells me that while our lives will be changed by the Holy Spirit, our characters have nothing to do with being ready for heaven. Only do we or don't we have Jesus. Have we or have we not been born again. The only character that counts for heaven is Jesus Himself in our place. All of our righteousness is filthy rags and there is not one example of any person in the history of the earth who has eventually attained perfection of character. EGW said that keeping the seventh-day Sabbath is the seal of God when the Bible tells us the Holy Spirit is the seal of God. She had numerous predictions that failed. It doesn't matter how many good or correct things EGW wrote, she cannot be any source for truth because she is a false prophet. I too will stick to the Bible only, not because EGW says to, but because the Bible tells me that's the standard for all truth. Any truths EGW may have stated are already in the Bible anyway, and it just confuses the mind to sort through all the error. | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Raven: You say you don't believe in the sanctuary doctrine and this doctrine is totally unsupported by the Bible. What about the book of Hebrews? It talks about the Son of God being our high priest and being a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec who was a priest to the Most High God. I believe in the sanctuary doctrine as taught in the Bible, but I don't accept the trinity doctrine which denies that there is one being who is the Most High God. How can the Son of God be a priest to the Most High God if there is no being who is the Most High God? The trinity doctrine says that there are three gods and and none of the three is the Most High God. It rather says that a unity of three co-eternal persons is above all. The Bible says that there is one God and Father who is above all. You are on the correct course to accept the Bible and the Bible only as your rule of faith and practice. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 903 Registered: 7-2004 |
Dear Grwaitemd, The book of Hebrews has our Lord, Jesus Christ, seated at the right hand of God. Read carefully the 9th chapter. Also, read the account of the stoning of Stephen, when he surrendered his spirit to Jesus, he stated that he saw Jesus at the right hand of God. Jesus was not curtained off from the presence of God when he returned to heaven. He and the Father occupy the very same place in heaven. His sacrificial and blood offering duties were complete when he ascended to the Father with the blood of the sacrifice in his own body. There was no need to wait another 1800 years and plead his blood all over again. Remember, at the cross Jesus said, and meant, "It is finished." Our redemption was bought and paid for at the cross, and when Jesus arose, that was God's acceptance of the completed work of salvation. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1023 Registered: 10-2004  |
Grwaitemd, EGW may have said that the Bible and the Bible only is to be the rule of faith and practice in one place, but she contradicted this in other places (which I will show below)! Also, if she really meant that, then we wouldn't need her in addition to "the Bible only"--which would just be an oxymoron! That statement about the Bible only is just a subtle deception tactic from the one who did inspire her--Satan! Her true sentiments are shown in these quotes:
She clearly did NOT teach the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura! Regarding the Trinity, the early SDA statement that God is one Being and that Jesus is not Him is absolutely heretical. But you are right that the current SDA belief in God as three Beings is wrong, also. But that is NOT what the Christian Trinity doctrine teaches. The true Trinitarian belief (which does come from the Bible, by the way) is that God is one Being--but Three Persons. One God--not three. But to deny that Jesus is God is to deny Jesus altogether, and there is no hope for eternal life unless you believe that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty, the I AM (John 8:24). Jeremy | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 8 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Jeremy: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is the spokeman for his Father (Hebrews 1:2) said that his Father is the only true God (John 17:3) - not three persons. There is one God and Father who is above all,through all, and in you all (Ephesians 4:6)- not three persons. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we in him (1 Corinthians 8:6) - not three persons. | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 9 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Jeremy: I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus is divine because He is the literal Son of the Living God, but the source of his divinity (having life within himself) came from the Father who is the only true God (John 5:26). He received a commandment from his Father that he could lay down his life and take it up again. He could give back to the Father this "life within himself", die on the cross on Friday, and then take back again the "life within himself" on sunday morning. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1024 Registered: 10-2004 |
Yes, the Father is God. But Jesus is also God, and the Holy Spirit is also God. The Bible makes this absolutely clear. John 17:3 does not deny that Jesus is also the only true God. 1 John 5:20 says that Jesus is the true God. Regarding 1 Corinthians 8:6, allow me to quote from Robert Bowman's The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity:
The same is also true of the Ephesians text (if you include verse 5 of Ephesians 4, rather than taking verse 6 out of context). If Jesus ceased to exist when He died or if He no longer had "life within Himself"--then how could He have possibly still had the power to take up His life again? Jeremy | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 904 Registered: 7-2004 |
Didn't we already have the "son of God" discussion on here where it was determined that the original text could easily have been translated to say "one-of-a-kind" rather than "Son of God." Jesus, the agent of ALL creation, through the agency of the Holy Spirit (Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit) became a unique, one-of-a-kind being, completely human while remaining completely God. When he died, he died a mortal death, but the God aspect of Jesus is said to have preached to souls in hell, or sheol, the grave, during the time that his mortal body lay in the tomb (Paul said this). You will notice, too, that though his body lay in the tomb for three days, it did not see corruption. Human bodies begin to decay almost immediately. I will agree that the eternal, Creator-God aspect of Jesus did not die, indeed could not die, still his mortal body saw death without corruption. That does not diminish the fact that He spilled his own God-blood as a ransom for fallen man. Jesus was never false, nor could he be false. His body while on earth was like unto Adam's body prior to the fall of the human race. Jesus triumphed over sin and temptation while inhabiting a body just like the one that Adam, as the father of our race, failed in. These points have already been thoroughly discussed on this site, and recently as well. Grwaitemd, I recommend that you do a little research on prior threads. Better still, using http://www.blueletterbible.org/ you might want to do some searches on the nature of Jesus. | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 11 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Belvalew: If there was a part of Jesus that did not die, then he was not a perfect sacrifice - i.e. he bore false witness in Revelation 1:18 where he says that he is the one who lives and was dead and am now alive for evermore. The big dispute between Jesus and the Devil is whether or not he is the literal divine Son of God. The Devil said that if he was really the divine son of God then turn these stones into bread. He answered that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. The big dispute between those who do accept the trinity doctrine and those who do not accept it is not whether Jesus Christ is divine, but rather what is the source of his divinity. The trinity doctrine people say that he is a God just like his Father in every respect, but he is not actually the literal divine Son of God - he is acting a role. Those that do not accept the trinity doctrine say that he is divine but his divinity came from the fact that he is literally the divine Son of God. The Bible says that we are "joint heirs with Christ". Are we joint heirs because he is the human son of Mary? or are we joint heirs because he is the begotten divine Son of his Father who is in heaven? Jesus told Nicodemis that he must be born again. It is a spirit rebirth not a human re-birth. When we have the spirit re-birth we become the adopted Son of God and joint heirs with Christ - the literal divine Son of God. | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 12 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Belvalew: What was the criminal charge the religious leaders accused Jesus Christ of before they had the Roman government kill him? Jesus Christ claimed to be the literal begotten divine Son of the Living God. With their own eyes they could see that he was a human being and therefore he was guilty of blasphemy because he claimed to be the literal begotten divine Son of God making himself equal with God. The religious leaders did not really believe that he was the literal divine Son of God. Likewise, those who believe in the trinity doctrine do not really believe that Jesus Christ is the literal divine Son of God as he claims to be. What do you believe? Jesus said: "He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God". If a person does not believe that Jesus is the literal "only begotten Son of God", how can he believe in his name? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3295 Registered: 12-2003  |
Grwaitemd, Jesus Himself claimed to be God. That claim was what made the Pharisees so angry. In John 8:58 he tells the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was born, I am!" They were outraged becuase he was using the name of Godóthe same name God used when He appeared to Moses at the burning bush and identified Himself as, "I Am that I Am". When Jesus claimed to be I Am before Abraham was born, He wasn't just claiming existence. He was using the traditional name of God that all Jews recognized. This fact also explains why He doesn't reply, "Before Abraham was born, I was." Jesus identified Himself as the One True Godóand that is why the Phairsees were so angry; he was claiming for himself the identity of God. The Trinity appears repeatedly throughout the Bible: "Eph 2:18ó"For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit." Eph 4:4-5ó"There is one body and one Spiritójust as you were called to one hope when you were calledóone Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of allÖ" Eph 3:14-17ó"For this reason I kneel before the FatherÖI pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen yo with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." 1 Cor. 12:4-6ó"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men." And so on. The fact is that NT Scripture repeatedly teams up the three Persons of the Trinity, demonstrating how all that is accomplished is the work of all three. There is mystery here that is not revealed to us, but all three Persons are the One True God. The fact that they have different roles does not make any of them less God. Arguing about the sonship of Jesus completely eclipses the reality of His eternal power, sacrifice, and intercession. He is eternally our High Priest. He is eternally our Lord, He is eternally the I AMóas if the Father. Praise Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1028 Registered: 10-2004 |
Just to add to what Colleen said about John 8:58--if Jesus had not always been, if He is not eternal, then He WOULD have said, "Before Abraham was born, I was"--meaning that He had already been around for some period of time before Abraham was born. But that is not what He said. He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM" because He is ETERNAL--He has ALWAYS been. I AM means thats he just IS--He always has been there. There was never a time that He didn't exist or that He was "born" of the Father. Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1233 Registered: 3-2005 |
Welcome back Jeremy! Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 909 Registered: 7-2004 |
Grwaitemd, as you can see, you don't have to get an answer from me to get the correct answer. Other people referred to Jesus as the Son of God, but he always called himself Son of Man. That spoke about his humanity. The truth about calling himself a diety is when he used the most powerful name of God as his own: I AM. That is the forever existent name of God, making him a resident of all time and all space all at once. Once again, Adam failed as a mortal. Jesus triumphed as a mortal. When his mortal body surrendered its spirit, his mortal body died. He was the perfect, sinless sacrifice for sin. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 910 Registered: 7-2004 |
By the way, there is no Controversy between Christ and Satan. When Jesus surrendered up his spirit, the contest was ended. Satan was doomed. Heaven was astonished and held its breath because the greatest example of love ever to be seen had been seen on that cross. Please put away your Great Controversy and read the Gospels. Get the story pure and unembellished. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 419 Registered: 7-2000 |
Jesus, as both God and man, is a tough concept. Here is a passage from the Expositors Bible on John chap.1: 'The Word did not become flesh in the sense that He was turned into flesh ceasing to be what He had previously been, as a boy who becomes a man ceases to be a boy. In addition to what He already was He assumed human nature, at once enlarging His experience and limiting His present manifestations of Divinity to what ws congruous to human nature and earthly circumstance.'. You would have to throw out the gospel of John if you wanted to conclude that Jesus was not divine. John clearly ties together the fact that Jesus was both God and man. |
