tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post5440970453180861516..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Seventh Day Adventism's Anti-Trinitarianism and its Claim to be the Restored True ChurchKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8596470454515636022020-01-31T19:33:53.523-08:002020-01-31T19:33:53.523-08:00Well said. I used to be an Adventist until i start...Well said. I used to be an Adventist until i started seeing MAJOR flaws in Whites so called inspired writings that didnt match Scripture...<br />Then to be told she wrote mistakes as an excuse or no copyright laws back in 1800's still made me think who in the Old Prophets got stuff wrong?<br />It was all about Jesus and he fulfilled the Prophecies so for.me there isnt any feau pars by Prophets as God is their guiding light....<br />I wish more would put their pride away and compare her plagiarism to Scriptures... why do we need any interpreters when its in plain language...<br />Praise Jesus not Ellen White please!!<br />He saves NOT her!!đđđđAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06957622112126434744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74874862933358681722018-11-13T18:54:54.076-08:002018-11-13T18:54:54.076-08:00Anonymous @ 11:45 PM multiplies words, showing SDA...Anonymous @ 11:45 PM multiplies words, showing SDA's to be the very same fools who are incapable of obeying Jesus' command at Matt 7:15,23 -- to beware of false prophets such as Wm Miller and Ellen White. Their reward is found in verse 23, NO forgiveness hinted at. It is impossible for an SDA to apply this command of Jesus to Ellen White; it is impossible for SDA's to obey Jesus!<br /><br />Jesus plainly taught in John 5:19 that He was ONLY capable of doing what the Father did, so we are faced with SDA's, the friendly enemy, hearing the Word, but not able to DO the word, verbally, spiritually or logically, thereby showing themselves to be very, very decieved. See James 1:22 to confirm this. But they have always been decieved ever since Millers faux 2nd coming prophecy of a false christ in 1844. They heartily disobey Jesus' command to not be decieved, plunging face first into their own brand of heresy & deception.<br /><br />So we are faced with a fork-in-the-road at John 5:19. Either:<br /><br />A) The SDA version of "jesus" was not exactly telling the truth (even though He taught that His words are spirit and life)<br /><br />B) The SDA prophetess and her minions are decieved liars, they possess a foreign spirit and their words are death. Ellen White being a minister of satan, see 2 Cor 11:4,13-15 for exact proof.<br /><br />Satan is capable of sinning and the SDA's have been tricked into worshipping that which is capable of sinning. It is clear to the true Christian who Ellen White was decieved into promoting, idolizing and worshipping. Pretty pathetic for a remnant, "spirit-of-prophecy", one-true-church. But there is a remnant mentioned in Rev. 19:21 (KJV) that are slain with the sword of His mouth.<br /><br />SDA's wander from Christ's teachings all the time, showing they do not have God. That is not just me talking, that is 2 John 1:9-11<br /><br />Then on top of all that, SDA's claim they are 10 commandment keepers, keeping a day HOLY every week! How do their lies about the True Jesus, their rebellion to His simple command in Matt 7:15, plus the lie of Investigative Judgement and promoting a condemned prophetess make them commandment keepers? How do SDA's being decieved by a false she-prophet make them Christ obeyers? Liars and decievers keep nothing holy, not even their precious sabbath! Even the SDA's pretending that they keep a day holy is a lie acted out. Satan is the father of all their lies.<br /><br />It's pretty sad that SDA's are quick to quote heretical sources and scholars who have no interest in Adventism whatsoever, when their own prophetess claimed that in the 1800's "satan has taken full possession of the churches". SDA's demonize all their opponents (Catholics, Sunday-Protestants) and then quote them as truth later on! It is their unintended way of telling true Christians who they are really aligned with (satan, full possession), and that their cup of hypocrisy overflows. Good thing they keep that cup clean and polished on the outside!Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36294916658076448432018-07-14T09:17:23.149-07:002018-07-14T09:17:23.149-07:00In looking deeply at their beliefs throughout the ...In looking deeply at their beliefs throughout the ministry of Ellen White it became most obvious that the group as a whole taught that the Trinity Doctrine as believed by the Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Protestant Churches was indeed heretical BECAUSE the Historical Christian Creeds didn't admit that God the Father, Michael & Lucifer the archangels and all rest of the angels had BODIES of flesh with bone, organs and members - this lack of "flesh" on God the Father was an absolute no-go with the early Adventists through to the death of their prophet. Muttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07193868151520028517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-38476804589844583292015-06-21T02:21:29.231-07:002015-06-21T02:21:29.231-07:00Note that this blog post is now linked to here:
h...Note that this blog post is now linked to here:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/seventh-day-adventism-and-saturday-sabbath-keeping/KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-42691091899940370102015-06-21T02:17:28.661-07:002015-06-21T02:17:28.661-07:00SDA: How about John the Baptist who asked Jesus, a...<br />SDA: How about John the Baptist who asked Jesus, are you the one or should we look for another? He clearly doubted the messianship of Jesus, let alone His divinity. Hell as well?<br /><br /><br />John the Baptist was politely asking Christ "Could you please get on with bringing in the kingdom? Aren't you the Messiah? So why am I in jail and the heathen still in charge?" John boldly preached that he was the messenger preparing the way for Jehovah predicted in the OT, and thus that Christ, for whom he was preparing the way, was Jehovah. Even if we ignored the fact that this is what the first Baptist was actually saying in the passage you allude to, if John actually struggled with doubt, he went to Christ and got the doubt resolved. There is a huge difference between someone who has boldly preached the Deity of Christ for years having a temporary conflict with doubt and the SDA denomination preaching for decade after decade that the Trinity is pagan, evil, blasphemy and leading people who joined their movement to reject the Trinity.<br /><br />SDA: Now to your question. Did early Adventists die in their sins? This is for God to judge and He will judge them in truth. <br /><br />Yes, he will judge them in truth, just the way He said He would in John 8:58. We should agree with His judgment and "judge righteous judgment" ourselves, John 7:24, as Christ commanded. The SDAs, Watchtower Society, Muslims, etc. who deny Christ is the I AM, the eternal Jehovah of Exodus 3, will die in their sins. That is what He has judged, and that is what we need to agree with and boldly proclaim along with every other truth in the Bible. Do you agree with Christ's judgment in John 8:58, and preach to others the truth in that verse, and boldly apply God's Word to those who deny that He is the I AM?KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67814744178313048602015-06-21T02:17:14.963-07:002015-06-21T02:17:14.963-07:00SDA: How about the 12 disciples of Acts 19 who had...SDA: How about the 12 disciples of Acts 19 who had only received the baptism of John but had never heard of the Holy Spirit? You would probably have consigned to hell as well, but Luke calls them âdisciplesâ.<br /><br />Please note the context of Acts 19 at the end of Acts 18:<br /><br />24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.<br /><br />25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.<br /><br />26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.<br /><br />27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:<br /><br />28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.<br /><br /> 1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,<br />2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.<br /><br />3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.<br /><br />4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.<br /><br />5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.<br /><br />6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.<br /><br />7 And all the men were about twelve.<br /><br /><br />John the Baptist preached about the Holy Spirit (and the Deity of Christ), so who were these "disciples" who had never heard of the Holy Spirit? And why were they "rebaptized" when someone in Acts 18:24-28 was not, although he only knew the baptism of John? And why didn't Paul in Acts 19:1-7 say, "listen, guys, John the Baptist's message has passed away and we have a new message and a new baptism now"? Why did Paul tell them what John the Baptist's message actually was, and then the people believed, were baptized, and received the Holy Spirit? The answer is clear--they were sincere people who had heard something about John but had never understood the gospel of Christ preached by the first Baptist. They were sincere but unregenerate "disciples" just like the people in John 6 are called "disciples" but were not born again, evidenced by their following Christ only for food and their turning away from Him at the end of the chapter. The people in Acts 19 receive baptism after hearing Paul explain the gospel because they were sincere but unsaved people who are converted after hearing John's true message and then receiving baptism. The passage actually shows that people who don't believe in God the Holy Spirit are unsaved; it doesn't help your case that the anti-Trinitarian adventist denomination was pleasing to God and God saves people who preached against and hated the true Christ who is the eternal Jehovah, equal to the Father and the the Holy Spirit, and even made these anti-Christ's Deity people into His true remnant church while forsaking those who believed in the Trinity and worshipped the true God and made them into Mystery Babylon.<br /><br />KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-34025766262900008152015-06-21T02:16:23.226-07:002015-06-21T02:16:23.226-07:00I am currently discussing this topic with an Adven...I am currently discussing this topic with an Adventist Ph. D. He argued that a number of passages in the NT show that the disciples did not believe in the Deity of Christ or the Trinity, so the SDAs could be saved and be the true remnant church while still denying both doctrines, although they believe in them now. His questions and my answers are below.<br /><br />SDA: You have avoided answering the question about some of the disciples not believing in the divinity of Jesus.<br /><br />Let's keep in mind what we are talking about in the SDA denomination. . . . [strong, bold hatred of the Trinity, condemnation of it as pagan and evil in every way.] <br /><br /><br />Please give me the examples in the Bible where Christ's true disciples did what the SDA leaders did for over 50 years, that is, where the disciples called Christ's Deity (or that of the Holy Spirit) nauseating, pagan, a perversion of Scripture, etc. and boldly preached and warned against it as heresy. I'm not sure what reference you are talking about. The closest I can think of is Matthew 28:17, where the Bible says "some doubted." The verse doesn't even say that it was the disciples who were doubting, and it doesn't say what they were doubting, so concluding from a text that doesn't even say disciples were doubting that disciples were the ones doubting, and that they were doubting Christ's Deity when that isn't stated, is a big stretch--especially when the disciples are worshipping Christ in that very verse. Jews who denied the Deity of Christ would want to stone to death those that worshipped Christ--they wouldn't just have a little doubt here and there and keep it to themselves.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-4793127126070485572013-06-29T19:39:58.146-07:002013-06-29T19:39:58.146-07:00"in in" should have been "it in&quo..."in in" should have been "it in"--please excuse the typoKJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6711729606717827772013-06-29T11:25:29.653-07:002013-06-29T11:25:29.653-07:00Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for the references. Of co...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the references. Of course, I believe every word of them, having read Romans in English many times, memorized the book in English, and taught in in Greek a number of times.<br /><br />If your intention with these references is to deny that justification is by repentant faith alone, or that SDA's hold a true gospel instead of a false one, you are going to have to do a lot more than post two references.<br /><br />I hope that the above is not your intention, and that you yourself have been justified by faith without the deeds of the law, Romans 3:28, and consequently reject the false gospel of the SDA cult.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69942780837888200272013-06-23T23:37:32.513-07:002013-06-23T23:37:32.513-07:00Also Romans 6:1-2 "what then shall we continu... Also Romans 6:1-2 "what then shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-30333846293496033202013-06-23T23:24:10.315-07:002013-06-23T23:24:10.315-07:00To Thomas Ross read Romans 3:31To Thomas Ross read Romans 3:31Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-25001608258002513922013-03-21T11:36:30.044-07:002013-03-21T11:36:30.044-07:00Here is a link that demonstrates that Ellen White ...Here is a link that demonstrates that Ellen White was an anti-Trinitarian idolator and false prophet:<br /><br />http://www.worldslastchance.com/for-sdas-only/solid-proof-that-ellen-white-never-became-trinitarian.html<br /><br />Warning: The people who wrote the post are anti-Trinitarian themselves because they recognize what Ellen White taught. Also, those in the comment section, both those who are arguing for a form of Trinitarianism (that seems more like tritheism), and those arguing against the Trinity, seem to have a very poor understanding of what Trinitarianism actually is. Those who comment are largely idolators themselves who would do well to listen to the lectures on Trinitarianism at http://faithsaves.net so they are no longer talking about things they know nothing about. <br /><br />In any case, the evidence is clear--the early SDA movement was anti-Trinitarian, so either the "remnant church" was worshipping the devil then or they are worshipping the devil now-or they both were and are worshipping the devil because of their false gospel of salvation by works, Sabbath keeping, and investigative judgment.<br />KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-85019778719809298182013-03-10T21:20:44.516-07:002013-03-10T21:20:44.516-07:00You should also check out the resources on Seventh...You should also check out the resources on Seventh Day Adventism and the Gospel at faithsaves.net, specifically at:<br /><br />ttp://faithsaves.net/seventh-day-adventism-and-saturday-sabbath-keeping/KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56152314233292531382013-03-08T21:13:15.419-08:002013-03-08T21:13:15.419-08:00Actually, it is not âhuman conjectureâ to say that...Actually, it is not âhuman conjectureâ to say that a sinful nature is sinful, and a sinless nature is sinless. It is not just an absurdity to deny this fact, but the plain teaching of Scripture. For example:<br /><br />The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jer 17:9)<br /><br />Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Ps 51:5)<br /><br />And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were BY NATURE the children of wrath, even as others.â (Eph 2:1-3)<br /><br />Why is it that sinners are unable to come to Christ apart from His supernatural grace if they donât have a sinful nature that corrupts their will, affections, etc.? For example:<br /><br />No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)<br /><br />There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (Rom 3:11)<br /><br />Why are even the âgoodâ deeds of people like filthy rags before God, if not because of the corruption of their sinful natures (or are âfilthy ragsâ not really filthy?)<br /><br />But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isa 64:6)<br /><br />Anonymous, do you believe in justification by faith alone? Have you personally been born again? Is your only hope for eternal salvation the blood and righteousness of Christ, freely credited to you, apart from any works, merit, or anything else you have ever done, are doing, or will do?<br /><br />Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:28)<br /><br />I would also like to know if everyone in the New Jerusalem has a sinless human nature, and, if so, if it would make any difference to the holiness of the place if they all had sinful human natures instead.<br /><br />If you answer all these questions, I will answer you again, Lord willing. If you ignore some or all of them, I cannot guarantee that I will answer you again.<br />KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69336843048012986072013-03-08T21:12:45.691-08:002013-03-08T21:12:45.691-08:00Dear Anonymous,
So if it doesnât matter what SDAâ...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />So if it doesnât matter what SDAâs believe, do you reject the SDA organization as a cult following a false prophetess, and preaching a false gospel of salvation by works based on a legendary âinvestigative judgmentâ that began in 1844? Do you recongize the anti-Trinitarian SDA founders as worshippers of the devil?<br /><br />Your argument is: <br /><br />âlikenessâ = âidentityâ so Romans 8:3 proves Christ had a sinful nature.<br /><br />Your argument from Romans 8:3 makes that verse your proof-text, not mine. The burden of proof is on you to show that Romans 8:3 REQUIRES that Christ had a sinful nature. I simply must show that the text does not REQUIRE that view. I have successfully done this by showing that the word âlikenessâ does not require the meaning âidentity.â You must show, not only that at times the word âlikenessâ can mean âidentity,â but that it does so in Romans 8:3, despite the fact that other Greek words that actually meant âidentityâ existed and were easily available for Paul to use. You have not done this, and you cannot do this. Whether it does in Philippians 2 or not is not relevent to your proof from Romans 8âeven if I granted you everything you could possibly desire from Philippians 2, the only legitimate conclusion would be that the word can, at times, mean âidentityâânot that this meaning is REQUIRED in Romans 8:3, but only such a proof validates your conclusion.<br /><br />Christâs humanity is the same as our humanity. Sin is not inherent to humanity; it is not part of the human substance like having two legs, two arms, a stomach, etc. Christ condemned sin in the flesh by paying the price for it in full on the cross, not by living the way a good SDA wishes to in order to earn salvation despite having a sinful nature.<br /><br />You can say that Christâs temptation could not be like ours unless He had a sinful nature, but you cannot prove it from Scripture. Hebrews 4:15 does not say it. The âall thingsâ of Hebrews 2:16-17 is defined as âflesh and bloodâ in Hebrews 2:14. Christ had the same flesh and blood as Abraham. If you really want to press the âall thingsâ beyond what the context states, then you would have to say that Christ committed actual sins also, because every person who is of the seed of Abraham committed actual sins also.<br /><br />James 1:15 is neither affirming nor denying that a sinful nature is sinful. James is talking about how sin grows in the practical life of a person. That is the point of the context, not a denial of the imputation of Adamâs sin or the sinfulness of the sin nature. You could as well conclude that there is no such thing as a human nature at all from James 1:15 as prove that the verse teaches that a sinful nature is not sinfulâafter all, James 1:15 says nothing about a human nature, so there must be no such thing. Q. E. D. <br />Similarly, Ezekiel 18 is talking about the various evils oneâs papa and mama commit. Christians who hold the orthodox doctrine of sin, rather than the SDA heresy on the matter, agree with everything that Ezekiel 18 says. Ezekiel would have been shocked to find out that his words in chapter 18 were actually a denial of the doctrine of the sinfulness of the sin nature, rather than an affirmation of what the chapter actually means in context. <br />KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59141135695867673692013-03-07T23:45:04.888-08:002013-03-07T23:45:04.888-08:00Dear KJB1611,
It doesnât really matter what SDAâs...Dear KJB1611,<br /><br />It doesnât really matter what SDAâs believe. I want to believe what the Bible says.<br /><br />If your âlikenessâ comparisons are anything to go by, then Christ human nature is not really human, it is something like human â He is an ALIEN to humanity â not REAL! <br /><br />Romans 1:23 is comparing an image with man and Romans 6:5 is comparing Christâs death and resurrection to baptism. In both instances, it speaks in terms of similaritude, and no sameness â I agree. <br /><br />However, âLIKENESSâ in Romans 8:3 and made in the "LIKENESS of men" in Philippians 2:7 is not speaking of similar-tude, but sameness of His HUMANITY to ours (not to objects or metaphors)! <br /><br />If He took any other nature than our nature in its fallen state, then He cannot be âtouched with the FEELINGS of OUR infirmitiesâ and cannot be âin all points tempted like as WE AREâ. Hebrews 4:15 <br /><br />"For verily he took NOT on him the NATURE of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in ALL THINGS it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." Hebrews 2:16,17<br /><br />Hebrews 2:16,17 is very clear: He did not take the perfect nature of angels (OR Adam), but took the seed of Abraham (He is also called the âseed of Davidâ). If Christ is the âseed of Abrahamâ, we are TO earnestly inquire, what nature did the children of Abraham receive? The nature they inherited from the Abraham was the same nature that Christ was born with if not because He was âmade like unto His brethren in ALL THINGSâ! <br /><br />I know why you got a problem with a fallen human nature because you assume that to have a fallen nature means to be condemned and guilty (the famous Calvinist position) â this is however, pure human conjecture. I donât believe that simply because we are born with a fallen human nature, we are condemned guilty sinners (So is Christ!). We become guilty for hell by choice not by birth. The idea that we are guilty for hell for Adamâs sin is ridiculous. Because of Adam, we receive fallen a nature, upon exercising it only, we become sinners; therefore condemnation and death - the soul that sinneth it shall die â to be tempted is not sin â Jesus was tempted like us and yet he did not yield to sin. According to you it is sin to have a sinful nature. James 1:15 disagrees: sin is when a temptation is âconceived, it bringeth forth sinâ. Iâll stick to this definition! Furhter, Rom 8:3 says He âcondemned sin in the flesh.â Now does it wouldnât really make sense for Christ to condemn sin in an unfallen flesh â no, he did it in âsinfulâ flesh! You say Paul should have written âChrist took sinful fleshâ. Actually, He should have simply said âHe took fleshâ without the âsinfulâ part if he wanted to really communicate that Christâs human nature was not like ours! <br /><br />Kenton Sparks, Ph.D., an ordained Baptist serving currently as Interim Provost at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania says it all well. âAs a rule, the fathers were not comfortable with the idea that Jesus had a fallen nature, but I find it more reasonable and more Scriptural, to affirm that Jesus was both finite and fallen, in all respects like us, âsin exceptedâ (Heb 4:15). This is possible because the sinful nature and sinful deeds are two different things (infants may have a sinful nature, for instance, but they are not yet âsinnersâ). Thus the implication of ancient orthodoxy and explicit judgment of many modern theologians is that Jesus did have a fallen nature. After all, what victory did Christ win for us if fallen flesh itself were not redeemed and resurrected?â (Source: Sacred word, Broken word, pg 25,26).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-49424686060139785292013-03-07T11:14:23.697-08:002013-03-07T11:14:23.697-08:00Dear Anonymous,
SDAâs are not correct at all, but...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />SDAâs are not correct at all, but are idolatrous, when they say Christ took âsinfulâ flesh.<br /><br />The word âlikenessâ in Romans 8:3 does by no means prove that Christ took âsinfulâ flesh to Himself. Here are a few other texts with the word, which show that âlikenessâ does not prove âidentityâ:<br /><br />Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. <br /><br />The image was not identical with man, but shared some features with man.<br /><br />Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: <br /><br />Christâs bodily resurrection, and someone getting immersed in baptism, are âlikeâ in a variety of ways, but they are obviously not identical.<br /><br />Those examples suffice to show that there is not a shred of proof in Romans 8:3 that Christ actually took a sinful human nature to Himself. He took to Himself a nature that was a true human nature, that was âlikeâ sinful flesh in that both those with sinful flesh and Christ were truly human. If the Bible had wanted to say that Christ took sinful flesh, it would have done so. It did not.<br /><br />You misunderstand the Expositorâs Greek Testament. Christians believe that Christ took a human nature that is like the one that sinful men have. That is all the commentary is saying. Your quote does not prove that the commentary teaches SDA doctrineâeven apart from the fact that the Expositorâs Greek Testament set was written by many theological liberals who denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture.<br /><br />In relation to the rest of your statement, yes, if Christ took a sinful nature, He would be sinful. A sinful nature is sinful. The SDA position obliterates the gospel and is idolatry, and it makes the Son of God into a sinner.<br /><br />The real reason SDAâs teach that Christ took a sinful nature is the âinspiredâ visions of the prophetess Ellen White, not the Bible. Furthermore, their doctrine fits in with their works salvation heresyâChrist had a sin nature but did not sin, so people are (allegedly) saved by doing good works and keeping the ten commandments despite having a sinful nature.<br /><br />The SDA religion is an idolatrous false religion, not a true âremnant church.â<br />KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78816737122798339032013-03-06T03:01:27.999-08:002013-03-06T03:01:27.999-08:00SDA's are correct when they say He took "...SDA's are correct when they say He took "sinful" flesh. This is exactly what the Bible says:<br /><br />"God sending his own Son in the likeness of SINFUL flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Romans 8:3<br /><br />The first thing to understand is that the word "flesh" in this text, and in many other New Testament references, means fallen nature as we know it in our own natures. It refers to the basic equipment we all inherit as a result of Adam's sin.<br /><br />Now, one might argue that "LIKNESS" in Rom 8:3 means similar not same. <br /><br />But there should not be room for preconceived ideas as to the word "LIKENESS" becuase:<br /><br />"And took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the LIKENESS of men." Philippians 2:7<br /><br /><br />Was Jesus made similar to human beings or did He become a real human being? I think all would agree that when Jesus came down to this earth He became a real man. <br /><br />The Expositors Greek Testament comments on this verse: "But the emphasis...is on Christ's likeness to us, not His unlikeness;...what he (Paul) means by it is that God sent His Son in that nature which in us is identified with sin." (Vol. 2, pp. 645,646).<br /><br />"Peccable" means "able to sin," not actually "sinful." <br /><br />If Christ was "able to sin", with a perfect human nature like that of Adam before the fall, yet He did not sin, then how incredible it is if He took a fallen nature like that of us, yet He did not sin. (Remeber, to be tempted is not sin!). <br /><br />The issue here is really orginal sin. If assuming a fallen nature means one is guilty or condemned for Hell? The fact is "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity" Ezekiel 18:20. <br /><br />Wayne Jackson, a leading author at Christ Church has a pretty good articel at Christian Courier on this topic: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78755677248248212362013-01-21T12:44:09.571-08:002013-01-21T12:44:09.571-08:00Thomas,
Thanks for the clarification. :-)
Jonath...Thomas,<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. :-)<br /><br />JonathanJonathan Speerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948005615737546620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23028099760981654172013-01-20T20:04:55.444-08:002013-01-20T20:04:55.444-08:00Dear jonathan,
"Peccable" means "a...Dear jonathan,<br /><br />"Peccable" means "able to sin," not actually "sinful." Christ's human nature, considered independently of His Divine Person, was able to sin, but it was not sinful, and He did not have a sinful, fallen human nature. Seventh Day Adventism, on the contrary, teaches that Christ actually had a fallen, sinful human nature, like Adam did AFTER the fall.<br /><br />While the terms "sinful nature" are not specifically found in Scripture, the idea is all over the place. Not only are specific willful acts of sin sinful, but the "heart that is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" is itself sinful. The flesh that lusts agains the Spirit (Gal 5:17)--even in the Christian--is itself sinful. Fallen Adam, and all those who sinned in Him, have such a nature--Christ had, and has, the spotless and sinless (but temptable) human nature like that of unfallen Adam.<br /><br />I am glad you agree with Shedd--if you do, you agree with Christianity, and you disagree with Ellen White and Seventh Day Adventism on this topic.<br /><br />Thanks for the comment.Thomas Rossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18050931604730035352013-01-20T13:39:52.474-08:002013-01-20T13:39:52.474-08:00Thomas,
I agree with you that Christ was absolute...Thomas,<br /><br />I agree with you that Christ was absolutely sinless. I affirm that, as the God-man, he never once partook in the vile portion of humanity that we know as sin.<br /><br />I just wanted to point out to you one seeming discrepancy in how you made your point.<br /><br />You said -<br /><br />"For Christ's sinlessness, I commend to you pgs.330ff. of Shedd's Dogmatic Theology here:<br /><br />http://ia600409.us.archive.org/11/items/cu31924092342546/cu31924092342546.pdf<br /><br />For more on the gospel, please visit:<br /><br />http://sites.google.com/site/faithalonesaves/salvation.<br /><br />I am afraid that the "jesus" <b>that has a fallen and sinful human nature is not the Jesus of the Bible</b>, and only the real Jesus can save anyone."<br /><br />(emphasis mine)<br /><br />In the text of the book you reccomended by Shedd, the following quote can be found on p. 333 - <br /><br />"When, therefore, it is asked if the person named Jesus Christ, and constituted of two natures, was peccable, the answer mnst be in the negative. For in this case the divine nature comes into the account. As this is confessedly omnipotent, it imparts to the person Jesus Christ this divine characteristic. The omnipotence of the Logos preserves the finite human nature from falling, however great may be the stress of temptation to which this finite nature is exposed. Consequently, <b>Christ while having a peccable human <i>nature</i> in his constitution, was an impeccable <i>person</i></b>. Impeccability characterizes the God-man as a totality, while peccability is a property of his humanity."<br /><br />(emphasis mine)<br /><br />How do you resolve this?<br /><br />Is it that you denoted the "fallen and sinful nature" as though Christ's humanity had indeed been compromised by an act of willful sin?<br /><br />In my view, the issue of Christ Jesus' humanity is paramount because of passages like I John 4. Either he was totally God and totally man or he was not. According to all of scripture, he was indeed fully both. There is no indication in the Bible that he was constituted by any other mixture of the divine and the human. Shedd's discription of the relationship between these two natures is indeed adequate and, as far as I can tell, soundly scriptural.<br /><br />(On a related side note, we all must be careful about using terms that are "theologically loaded" by their origins in false doctrines such as those taught by Catholics and Calvinists. Such terms are not found in scripture and, if we use them without clearly defining them, they are typically confounding to our efforts to clearly articulate sound doctrine properly. Such terms would be sin nature, the fall, original sin, etc. I have made it my personal goal to limit the terms I use to articulate sound doctrine to those found explicitly in scripture as much as possible.)<br /><br />Anyway, keep up the good writing. :-)<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Jonathan SpeerJonathan Speerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948005615737546620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59829677206706215262013-01-19T09:31:20.679-08:002013-01-19T09:31:20.679-08:00Dear Anonymous,
I had never heard of David Pawson...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />I had never heard of David Pawson until you mentioned him, but people like Barth, etc. are very well known people who are certainly going to be in church history textbooks in time to come--and they are definitely false teachers. Do you wish to defend any of the men I pointed out from the list?<br /><br />Of course Jesus took our human nature and He can help us when we are tempted. Christians believe this. He did not take a sinful nature, but took our real and genuine human nature.<br /><br />Please read pgs. 330ff. from Shedd in the link above. If you have done so/will do so, I'll be glad to talk about this with you, but otherwise I feel like I would just be re-typing what Shedd already proved in a masterly way a long time ago.<br /><br />The SDA doctrine that Christ took a sinful nature obliterates the true gospel of salvation based on the substitutionary work of a sinless Christ and received through faith alone (2 Cor 5:21; Rom 3-4), although it fits well with the SDA false gospel of salvation by works, by imitating Christ until you become perfect and can survive an Investigative Judgment.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78664683379061659572013-01-18T06:55:08.481-08:002013-01-18T06:55:08.481-08:00Thomas, take a look at the list again. Are you cal...Thomas, take a look at the list again. Are you calling people like David Pawson and other Christians unconverted false teachers? Well it really doesn't matter what others believe. An honest reading of the Scriptures makes one thing clear, that Jesus took our nature and hence he can help us when we are tempted. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15955492384862864092012-07-29T11:50:54.950-07:002012-07-29T11:50:54.950-07:00By the way, Anonymous, the people listed at your b...By the way, Anonymous, the people listed at your blogspot link are unconverted false teachers (like Barth). For instance, Irving was a demon-possessed idolator; Torrance and Pennenberg deny the infallible inspiration of Scripture (like Barth); Nygren believed baptism washed away sin; etc. Either the person who wrote the article had a severe lack of discernment about who he was posting, or he deliberately concealed the fact that the people he listed were false teachers who are unconverted and under the wrath of God.Thomas Rosshttp://sites.google.com/site/thross7noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-39304527815277722362012-07-29T11:50:35.439-07:002012-07-29T11:50:35.439-07:00By the way, Anonymous, the people listed at your b...By the way, Anonymous, the people listed at your blogspot link are unconverted false teachers (like Barth). For instance, Irving was a demon-possessed idolator; Torrance and Pennenberg deny the infallible inspiration of Scripture (like Barth); Nygren believed baptism washed away sin; etc. Either the person who wrote the article had a severe lack of discernment about who he was posting, or he deliberately concealed the fact that the people he listed were false teachers who are unconverted and under the wrath of God.Thomas Rosshttp://sites.google.com/site/thross7noreply@blogger.com