This is the thing that I have found so infuriating to me; Every deviation from typical Christian orthodoxy that the SDA church makes, seems to diminish the holiness of God when compared to the opposing view: Jesus couldn't sin because he was still fully God while in the flesh. Vs Jesus had the possibility to sin and risked his own life to try his best to save us. God created the world knowing full well from the beginning that he would have to later send his son and it was all in his plan before creation. Vs God had devise a plan after his original plan with Adam and Eve failed. When we are saved we are saved once and we cannot lose our salvation because we have eternal life right now. Vs When we are saved we are only saved in that moment and can lose it at anytime based on our actions, and we hope to have eternal life one day soon after our death. Whatever we eat cannot destroy our relationship with God. Vs Whatever we eat can affect our relationship with God and cause us to reject God. Jesus is our eternal rest. Vs The sabbath is eternal and will always be our once a week rest. ...I could go on with more examples, but this is enough. As you can see the SDA church makes the story less about jesus and his perfection and more about us and our ability to perfect ourselves. Once I realized the SDA church diminishes the holiness of Christ and increases our own self righteousness, I quickly left the SDA church.
@@stever574 exactly! Once I realized Christians outside of Adventism believe Jesus is the scapegoat I flipped out, because if the SDA church was right that makes all other denominations a cult which I knew could not be the case, and it makes Satan the final sin bearer in place of Jesus. Once I realized this I could no longer attend an SDA church period.
Mark 3:11 KJV And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. Was that before or after the resurrection?
Adventism doesn't preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Savior. Adventism is moralism. It is the modern day Pharisee, that says you can do it because you are good enough. Except with a twist of maybe one can be, because you know, the IJ.
@@BibleTruthsAndBeyond "Moralism is a philosophy that arose in the 19th century that concerns itself with imbuing society with a certain set of morals, usually traditional behaviour, but also 'justice, freedom, and equality'.... The term has been used in a pejorative sense to describe the attitude of 'being overly concerned with making moral judgments or being *illiberal* in the judgments one makes.'" illiberal adjective - Narrow-minded; bigoted. - Ungenerous, mean, or stingy. - Lacking education in the liberal arts. Some examples of 19th century moralism are the temperance movement, abolitionism, etc. You really need to look words up before spouting off 👍
Read the 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church. It clearly states that we believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God. He has always existed with the Father and the Spirit. He was begotten of the Father at His incarnation. He is 100% God and also became 100% human. Myles has no understanding of what SDA's believe because he has no understanding of truth. He is a deceiver.
John G. Madison was half right, in the sense that Jesus did not become a divine being, but was already a divine being from the beginning. Jesus only *proved* his Divinity at the resurrection, "Who being in the form of God (already), thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Eph 2:6). Madison's intention was obviously not to contradict Romans 1:4, but rather to explain by contrast of terms the semi-Arian view. My thoughts are that the semi-arian view was probably an attempt to better understand 1 Corinthians 15:28, in contrast to the conventional trinitarianism which resembles modalism. “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” - 1 Corinthians 15:28 (KJV)
You're half right and half wrong. The word monogenēs (monos-ginomai) is comprised of TWO different words. G3441 μόνος monos mon'-os Probably from G3306; remaining, that is, sole or single; by implication mere: - alone, only, by themselves. Total KJV occurrences: 45 And: G1096 γίνομαι ginomai ghin'-om-ahee A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought. Total KJV occurrences: 672
You guys have it all wrong. Adventists believe Jesus is our Creator. He has existed for all eternity in the past. He was made flesh for the sole reason of being able to be a valid sacrifice for sin. It was Jesus that formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. It was Jesus that appeared to Abraham to discuss the destruction of Sodom. Jesus appeared to Joshua 5:13-15. Jesus was the burning bush and gave the law on Mt. Sinai. Adventists do not believe Michael is a created being.
Non of what you stated was claimed was actually claimed. Where was it claimed that SDAs believe Jesus was created? You guys just assume things and then parrot out standard assertions that are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with what was stated. Furthermore-this was about John G Mattesons horrible take and the historicity of SDA christological development.
@@answeringadventism Don't play the fool. It just makes you look ridiculous. You know SDAs believe Jesus and Michael are the same person. But, like I said, we do not believe Michael is a created being. The title of your video says it all, yet you ignore the fact that Jesus was the Son of God even BEFORE He was born. He did not BECOME the Son of God at His resurrection. He DID, however, become the Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent God He was before after He was resurrected.
Then why can't you see that you shouldn't be an Adventist after all if YOU believe those things? Because SDA teaching is not built on those foundations
Let us not be to quick to say ‘Heretic’ when we are discussing the Trinity. Is the concept of eternal generation taught by Scripture? “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” John v, 26. This text says that the Son was begotten with life in himself. He says: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again.” It is in His power to give life. This power is not generated by the Father. He was begotten with this power. It is completely His own power as it is the Fathers own power to give life. This live is not eternally generated by the father. It was given to Him, it belongs to Him, it is underived. He is the way, the truth and the live. The Father gave it to the Son to have live in Himself. He does not have to generate it eternally. The Father begot the Son as a fountain of life just as He is. The Son is a fountain of life that exists in itself. It is a continual self existing life a life that is not generated by an outward source. So Christ received life from His Father as He confirms saying: “I live by the Father.” In this the Father gave Him to have live in Himself. He was begotten like that. So as the Father has life in Himself so has the Son. The Godhead then is a complexity of three co-eternal persons that have in themselves live underived. Shall I call those who believe in eternal generation heretics? I rather refrain from that. Let God do the judging in this matter.
Its simple are you going to accept the word for what it means or are you going to change its definition so that it can fit into your theology eternally begotten does it mean eternally "unique" or eternally "generated"
As Seventh-day Adventists , We believe that scripture teaches that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, meaning the only literal Son of God and the only Son of God by birth . John 3:16 Proverbs 8:22-30 Hebrews 1:1-5
@@levangiledestroisanges that isn’t what begotten means. Jesus isn’t a son like a human being has a son. Monogenese (begotten) doesn’t mean that. And that’s the problem-you have a false Christ that isn’t Yahweh and isn’t the real God. Jesus was not born of the Father. Jesus PROCEEDS from the Father. Like the rays from the sun proceed from it, but as substantively the same thing as the sun itself-so too the Son of God proceeds from the Father sharing in all of the same essence, nature and substance. But also-you don’t speak for all Adventists. Which is another problem. Countless SDAs will disagree with what you just said yet you guys are supposed to be the “commandment keepers.” You can’t both be right which means you have a false god (an idol-violating the first 4 of the 10 commandments) and theological division, which is supposed to be unique to “Babylon.”
@@answeringadventism The Bible says that Jesus “proceeded forth and came from God” John 8:42 . But You contradict this by saying that begotten doesn’t mean only born. Unfortunately, you reject the Bible . Jesus himself declares “ The Father is granted than I” - John 14:28 He also states “as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26. The Father alone is without beginning (1 Timothy 6:16, Revelation 1:4,8), but Jesus was brought forth before there was anything (Proverbs 8:22-24 ) . He was born of the Father in eternity past. We believe that “ Jesus was made one with God - {Ellen G. White, 17LtMs,Ms 1, 1902, par. 2) “He has been made equal with the Father. {Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the church vol 8, p. 268 par. 3} He was one with God before the World was (John 17:5) “Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,-one in nature, in character, and in purpose,…- {The Great controversy , page 493.1, Ellen G. White }
@@answeringadventismname one church where all members agree on the Bible. There is none. So all are Babylon according to your reasoning. Does it not suffice that we believe that the Son of God is part of the Godhead and thereby bears in Himself all the qualities of it. That He became a man in full subjection to the father, conquered the foe and secured eternal life for everyone who believes in Him?
@@FraeDen the SDA church has disagreements on major foundational doctrines such as the trinity, while Christian churches at large agree on the foundational things such as the Trinity. Where Christian denominations differ is on less important matters such end time events, church governance, and acceptable methods of baptism. What the SDA church is doing is both disagreeing with the foundational doctrines of Christianity at large as well as not being unified in their beliefs in their own denomination. Many members of the SDA church believe in the biblical orthodox positions on important matters while others believe the official teachings of the SDA organization. I remember vividly getting into arguments with pastors and elders of the SDA church I grew up attending, and we would disagree on certain topics, I come to find out later that I was defending was backed up by Ellen White and the founders of the SDA organization.
@@bradleyhite3476 thx for your comment. It is true that in the SDA church there is a lot of discussion on the Trinity aswell as other doctrines held by the church. But this does not make the Church Babylon. SDAs can still talk and listen to each other, sometimes agree to disagree and continue to,study the Bible because they believe they always can come to a better understanding of the Word. On the other side agreement does not mean having the truth. Most churches agree on the idea that only begotten means that somewhere Christ was generated by the Father. Does the Bible really say that? Jesus calls Himself I AM; the One who has no beginning and no end. He is. If something is generated it still means that it has a beginning somewhere. The term ‘only begotten’ is only found in the NT. It is translated from the Greek word monogenes. A word that is mostly used to refer to something unique or irreplaceable. In some cases it is translated by ‘only one’ Luke 7:12; 8:42;9:38. The translaters from the Greek choose to translate the monogenes in only begotten for Christ. Maybe they were influenced by the idea that Christ was generated.
This guy belongs to Sunday worshippers. 2Th 2:10-12. He doesn’t even understand the quote he post in Roman, it doesn’t state that the son is God, but God through His Spirit guided His son till the cross and by dying without sin allowed for the resurrection by the Father.
Pretty funny to claim others don't understand scripture or what they read after you equate "Sunday worshipers" with 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. We don't lose sleep over opinions like this. No, that isn't what Romans 1:4 says. "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord," Your claim: "it doesn’t state that the son is God, but God through His Spirit guided His son till the cross and by dying without sin allowed for the resurrection by the Father." Yeah, that isn't what the text is saying. This is Paul's sign on where he gives his credentials as always. And he is speaking about the one whose name He comes in-the name of the One True God. In that he states that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by virtue of His resurrection-meaning, the resurrection demonstrated that Jesus was who He claimed to be. The Son of God. Had he not resurrected, He wouldn't have been who he claimed. It would have proved he was a sinner like anyone else and remained dead. So you have no clue what you're talking about. Furthermore, no, Jesus wasn't only resurrected by the Father. The resurrection was a Triune act by all three Persons. Jesus said he would resurrect himself (John 2, 10).
@@answeringadventism like I said, you don’t no how to read. Your just lipping off. The Bible is very clear on the only begotten son. There is no such thing as a triune God, accept in Paganism. Anytime scripture says Gods Spirit means just that, His own presence, not some other being as you claim. Just because the world wants to follow paganism, doesn’t mean it’s correct. Your friend Sam is a believer in Catholicism now, I assume your becoming one soon? If Catholicism isn’t Antichrist, then could you show me one Dogma from them that prove they are Christians, since you believe in what they set as standard for Christianity, which is Sunday and Trinity.
No offense, but I'd be careful about talking about how poor someone's understanding was, or questioning how bright they were. I say that because Matteson's statement (which I don't necessarily agree with) appears to make much more sense than your explanation of Romans 1:4, or your citing of Tabletalk Magazine's unbiblical OPINIONS. Moreover, you seem to be splitting hairs in regard to your interpretation of "begotten". I've always interpreted that as simply meaning "brought forth". Whereas, you seem to be going with the idea of it meaning "to be generated"; which, in a broad sense, essentially mean the same thing. So then, what really separates us is the idea of Yeshua/Jesus being "ETERNALLY generated/begotten". Which, and please correct me if I wrong, means that you (as well as the Doctrine of the Trinity) are essentially saying that "this" came from "that", but there was never a time that "this" and "that" were apart. Well, I'm sorry, but that sounds like nonsense to me! Oh, that's right! My mind is simply too finite to grasp such a "mystery". To which I say: "Yeah, it's a mystery alright! A mystery as to why anyone would believe such nonsense." The bottom line is that the Doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical. According to the Scriptures, there is only One God, and that is the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV 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 by him. 👉there is but one God, the Father👈 Now, of course, you will immediately and incorrectly suppose that I am denying the Divinity of Christ! Nope! On the contrary, I suppose that YOU'RE the one who's denying the true Divinity of the Messiah! You see, you believe that Yeshua is "the Son of God". Whereas, I believe that Yeshua is "God" in the Form of a Man. So then, which is He? Is He the Son of God, or is He God? And, mind you, unlike Trinitarians, I don't see "God" as a "What". No, I see Him as a "Who", and that "Who" is the "Father" - exactly as the Scriptures teach! Shalom
@@sourmilkministries9445 Mattesons statement makes more sense to you because you have an Adventist worldview. Because it’s basic reasoning skills that conclude what I said about Romans. If Jesus wasn’t who he claimed to be, the Son of God, He wouldn’t have been resurrected. He would have remained in the grave like any other sinner. The fact that He did raise proves He was who He said He was. This isn’t confusing for a basic reader. Acting like it is is ridiculous. No, this isn’t compatible with Mattesons blasphemous statement. You call it “splitting hairs” which shows the issue-you don’t see how we’re talking about fundamentally different Jesus’s. Which was the point of the stream this clip is from. Christians know this. And this stream was for Christian’s, not Adventists. Christian’s easily can pinpoint why what he claimed was damnable heresy. This was about educating them on the roots of Adventism and the people at the helm of allegedly restoring the true church.
@@answeringadventism Brother, I admire your zeal, but your rebuttal started off on the wrong foot! I am NOT a SDA. And, as such, I do not have "an Adventist worldview". Moreover, because of your (blinding) zeal, you're missing the point concerning Romans 1:4. The issue there is not about Yeshua's Divinity, it's about whether or not He's eternal. Here, even though I'm apparently a little slow and don't have basic reading skills, let me ask you this question: If I make a snowball out of a pile of eternal snow, did the snowball always exist? Of course, the answer is no. The same can be said about Yeshua. In other words, if Yeshua was begotten at some point in time, He, in fact, did not always exist. Now, of course, you will insist that He has always existed, but that is nothing more than *CIRCULAR REASONING.* So then, please prove your case using the only thing that matters, which are the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone. And, for the love of God, please don't talk to me about orthodoxy. Again, the only thing I care about is SCRIPTURE. So, simply cite some of the passages that you suppose proves that Yeshua is eternal. It's just that simple.
@@sourmilkministries9445 then you shouldn’t be defending Mattesons statement as you are defending a concept from an SDA framework that has specific and special nuances. Nothing you said refuted the point that was being made. You realize multiple things can be stated from a singular claim, yes? No, Romans 1:4 isn’t focused on strictly eternality. But this tends to be the struggle with anti-Trinitarian heresy. It results in this sort of stuff. “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,”-Romans 1:1-4 This isn’t only about eternality. And yet you claim your belief is obvious and what I said is a stretch. The exact opposite is true. Jesus was declared the Son of God by His resurrection. Which was my point. Mattesons says he wasn’t. You don’t believe Jesus is Almighty, yet you’re trying to tell me we are splitting hairs over words but saying the same thing. Absolutely not the case. Far from it. And we aren’t brothers. You worship a different god. That’s the severity of difference here.
@@answeringadventism Whatever your "point" is/was, it's convoluted, as are your replies. Moreover, you seem to be fighting battles that don't exist. I also noticed that you completely ignore the questions you're asked. You know, like is Yeshua God, or is He the Son of God? As for me, I believe that Yeshua is exactly Who the Scriptures say He is, which is the Image of the invisible God. Whereas, you apparently believe that He's 1 of 3 co-equal and co-eternal "Persons" that make up some nonsensical and completely unbiblical corporate "What" called God. You are aware that according to Trinitarians, God is a What, right? Even though the Scriptures say that God is the Father. Whatever! You may be good at bashing Seventh Day Adventists. But, outside of that, thus far you've been nothing but a trainwreck. Humble yourself young man, because you still have a lot to learn.
Eternal sonship/eternal generation the teachings of Origen is heresy. The word became the son at the incarnation. Hebrews 1. A change in relationship is not a change in person. He was the son with power at ressurecction.
@swordthroughsoul @ the incarnation. read hebrews 1:5. I will be a father (future tense) He will be a son (future tense). These are terms to show God's relationship to us. Jesus said it best. God is Spirit. Within the One nature of YHWH are three distinct and undivided personas.
@swordthroughsoul john 1:1 the word/Jesus was (past tense)with God in union face to face with God and was deity, divine, God. Since the incarnation, YHWH the second persona, the logos or memra, the word became flesh, became son, the only unique son. Since the incarnation the second persona now and forever has two natures. Prior to incarnation the logos/word/Jesus/YHWH had only one nature. The other two personas still have one nature. Only Jesus has two natures. There is only One God one Deity and that is YHWH. The new testament reveals three personas share the one name YHWH read mattew 28:19
@swordthroughsoul the person of the son existed from eternity but did not become son until the incarnation. Hebrews 1. He WILL BE to Me a Son. A change in function/relationship is not a change in person. Example. I am a father. Before my children I am still same person.
@@RocknRollStrutnStroll “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” (1Jn 4:9, KJV) if God sent His only begotten Son, it must be that He was the only begotten before He was send. Thus we can speak of the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God. “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Psa 2:7, KJV) refers to the ressurection. (See Acts 13:33). I
@Bereafrank everything in the old testament regarding the son was prophetic. Begotten meaning only unique son. At the incarnation, hebrews 1 and hebrews 10. Son is what the word became at incarnation. Before the incarnation the person of the son existed but as the logos. He did not have a human nature until the incarnation.
I was asd by 16 years! But God open my eyes!
Brilliant 😊
Yet another heretical disturbing SDA pioneer that the Adventist church has ✨never renounced✨ and continues to uphold and praise.
This is the thing that I have found so infuriating to me; Every deviation from typical Christian orthodoxy that the SDA church makes, seems to diminish the holiness of God when compared to the opposing view:
Jesus couldn't sin because he was still fully God while in the flesh. Vs Jesus had the possibility to sin and risked his own life to try his best to save us.
God created the world knowing full well from the beginning that he would have to later send his son and it was all in his plan before creation. Vs God had devise a plan after his original plan with Adam and Eve failed.
When we are saved we are saved once and we cannot lose our salvation because we have eternal life right now. Vs When we are saved we are only saved in that moment and can lose it at anytime based on our actions, and we hope to have eternal life one day soon after our death.
Whatever we eat cannot destroy our relationship with God. Vs Whatever we eat can affect our relationship with God and cause us to reject God.
Jesus is our eternal rest. Vs The sabbath is eternal and will always be our once a week rest.
...I could go on with more examples, but this is enough. As you can see the SDA church makes the story less about jesus and his perfection and more about us and our ability to perfect ourselves. Once I realized the SDA church diminishes the holiness of Christ and increases our own self righteousness, I quickly left the SDA church.
Very well said!
That is a very good point. Then they end with the ultimate diminishment of Christ: Satan as the scapegoat.
@@stever574 exactly! Once I realized Christians outside of Adventism believe Jesus is the scapegoat I flipped out, because if the SDA church was right that makes all other denominations a cult which I knew could not be the case, and it makes Satan the final sin bearer in place of Jesus. Once I realized this I could no longer attend an SDA church period.
@@bradleyhite3476 Praise be to the Lord for opening your eyes and blessing you with the true Gospel.
Exactly
Mark 3:11 KJV
And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Was that before or after the resurrection?
Adventism doesn't preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Savior. Adventism is moralism. It is the modern day Pharisee, that says you can do it because you are good enough. Except with a twist of maybe one can be, because you know, the IJ.
Yes the moralism that is a direct product of legalism 😔
Moralism is in the bible!
But you guys believe in immoralism, yet think you are following Christ!
@@BibleTruthsAndBeyond "Moralism is a philosophy that arose in the 19th century that concerns itself with imbuing society with a certain set of morals, usually traditional behaviour, but also 'justice, freedom, and equality'.... The term has been used in a pejorative sense to describe the attitude of 'being overly concerned with making moral judgments or being *illiberal* in the judgments one makes.'"
illiberal
adjective
- Narrow-minded; bigoted.
- Ungenerous, mean, or stingy.
- Lacking education in the liberal arts.
Some examples of 19th century moralism are the temperance movement, abolitionism, etc.
You really need to look words up before spouting off 👍
Yep, more Arian Adventism.
Read the 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church. It clearly states that we believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God. He has always existed with the Father and the Spirit. He was begotten of the Father at His incarnation. He is 100% God and also became 100% human. Myles has no understanding of what SDA's believe because he has no understanding of truth. He is a deceiver.
Go read about what your goddess has to say about your SDA jesus and realized Myles is not the one deceived here, but you.
John G. Madison was half right, in the sense that Jesus did not become a divine being, but was already a divine being from the beginning.
Jesus only *proved* his Divinity at the resurrection, "Who being in the form of God (already), thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Eph 2:6).
Madison's intention was obviously not to contradict Romans 1:4, but rather to explain by contrast of terms the semi-Arian view.
My thoughts are that the semi-arian view was probably an attempt to better understand 1 Corinthians 15:28, in contrast to the conventional trinitarianism which resembles modalism.
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
- 1 Corinthians 15:28 (KJV)
Monogeneis is best translated as "unique" or "one of a kind" and does not imply a beginning point
You're half right and half wrong. The word monogenēs (monos-ginomai) is comprised of TWO different words.
G3441
μόνος
monos
mon'-os
Probably from G3306; remaining, that is, sole or single; by implication mere: - alone, only, by themselves.
Total KJV occurrences: 45
And:
G1096
γίνομαι
ginomai
ghin'-om-ahee
A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.
Total KJV occurrences: 672
You guys have it all wrong. Adventists believe Jesus is our Creator. He has existed for all eternity in the past. He was made flesh for the sole reason of being able to be a valid sacrifice for sin. It was Jesus that formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. It was Jesus that appeared to Abraham to discuss the destruction of Sodom. Jesus appeared to Joshua 5:13-15. Jesus was the burning bush and gave the law on Mt. Sinai. Adventists do not believe Michael is a created being.
Non of what you stated was claimed was actually claimed. Where was it claimed that SDAs believe Jesus was created?
You guys just assume things and then parrot out standard assertions that are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with what was stated.
Furthermore-this was about John G Mattesons horrible take and the historicity of SDA christological development.
@@answeringadventism Don't play the fool. It just makes you look ridiculous. You know SDAs believe Jesus and Michael are the same person. But, like I said, we do not believe Michael is a created being.
The title of your video says it all, yet you ignore the fact that Jesus was the Son of God even BEFORE He was born. He did not BECOME the Son of God at His resurrection. He DID, however, become the Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent God He was before after He was resurrected.
@@davidstarr6604 Belief that Jesus is Michael puts SDAs firmly outside the ken of Christianity, so why are you even here?
@@kimartist How do you figure that?
Then why can't you see that you shouldn't be an Adventist after all if YOU believe those things? Because SDA teaching is not built on those foundations
Let us not be to quick to say ‘Heretic’ when we are discussing the Trinity. Is the concept of eternal generation taught by Scripture? “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” John v, 26. This text says that the Son was begotten with life in himself. He says:
“I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again.” It is in His power to give life. This power is not generated by the Father. He was begotten with this power. It is completely His own power as it is the Fathers own power to give life.
This live is not eternally generated by the father. It was given to Him, it belongs to Him, it is underived. He is the way, the truth and the live.
The Father gave it to the Son to have live in Himself. He does not have to generate it eternally.
The Father begot the Son as a fountain of life just as He is. The Son is a fountain of life that exists in itself. It is a continual self existing life a life that is not generated by an outward source.
So Christ received life from His Father as He confirms saying: “I live by the Father.” In this the Father gave Him to have live in Himself.
He was begotten like that. So as the Father has life in Himself so has the Son. The Godhead then is a complexity of three co-eternal persons that have in themselves live underived. Shall I call those who believe in eternal generation heretics? I rather refrain from that. Let God do the judging in this matter.
Its simple are you going to accept the word for what it means or are you going to change its definition so that it can fit into your theology
eternally begotten does it mean eternally "unique" or eternally "generated"
Psalms 2 is where God has begotten you this day. Is God talking about another ?
When was Jesus born (begotten) from God ?
Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. Begotten does not mean created, made or that He had a beginning.
As Seventh-day Adventists , We believe that scripture teaches that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, meaning the only literal Son of God and the only Son of God by birth . John 3:16
Proverbs 8:22-30
Hebrews 1:1-5
@@levangiledestroisanges that isn’t what begotten means. Jesus isn’t a son like a human being has a son. Monogenese (begotten) doesn’t mean that. And that’s the problem-you have a false Christ that isn’t Yahweh and isn’t the real God.
Jesus was not born of the Father. Jesus PROCEEDS from the Father. Like the rays from the sun proceed from it, but as substantively the same thing as the sun itself-so too the Son of God proceeds from the Father sharing in all of the same essence, nature and substance.
But also-you don’t speak for all Adventists. Which is another problem. Countless SDAs will disagree with what you just said yet you guys are supposed to be the “commandment keepers.” You can’t both be right which means you have a false god (an idol-violating the first 4 of the 10 commandments) and theological division, which is supposed to be unique to “Babylon.”
@@answeringadventism The Bible says that Jesus “proceeded forth and came from God” John 8:42 . But You contradict this by saying that begotten doesn’t mean only born.
Unfortunately, you reject the Bible .
Jesus himself declares “ The Father is granted than I” - John 14:28
He also states “as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26.
The Father alone is without beginning (1 Timothy 6:16, Revelation 1:4,8), but Jesus was brought forth before there was anything (Proverbs 8:22-24 ) . He was born of the Father in eternity past.
We believe that “ Jesus was made one with God - {Ellen G. White, 17LtMs,Ms 1, 1902, par. 2)
“He has been made equal with the Father.
{Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the church vol 8, p. 268 par. 3}
He was one with God before the World was (John 17:5) “Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,-one in nature, in character, and in purpose,…- {The Great controversy , page 493.1, Ellen G. White }
@@answeringadventismname one church where all members agree on the Bible. There is none. So all are Babylon according to your reasoning. Does it not suffice that we believe that the Son of God is part of the Godhead and thereby bears in Himself all the qualities of it. That He became a man in full subjection to the father, conquered the foe and secured eternal life for everyone who believes in Him?
@@FraeDen the SDA church has disagreements on major foundational doctrines such as the trinity, while Christian churches at large agree on the foundational things such as the Trinity. Where Christian denominations differ is on less important matters such end time events, church governance, and acceptable methods of baptism. What the SDA church is doing is both disagreeing with the foundational doctrines of Christianity at large as well as not being unified in their beliefs in their own denomination.
Many members of the SDA church believe in the biblical orthodox positions on important matters while others believe the official teachings of the SDA organization. I remember vividly getting into arguments with pastors and elders of the SDA church I grew up attending, and we would disagree on certain topics, I come to find out later that I was defending was backed up by Ellen White and the founders of the SDA organization.
@@bradleyhite3476 thx for your comment. It is true that in the SDA church there is a lot of discussion on the Trinity aswell as other doctrines held by the church. But this does not make the Church Babylon. SDAs can still talk and listen to each other, sometimes agree to disagree and continue to,study the Bible because they believe they always can come to a better understanding of the Word.
On the other side agreement does not mean having the truth. Most churches agree on the idea that only begotten means that somewhere Christ was generated by the Father. Does the Bible really say that? Jesus calls Himself I AM; the One who has no beginning and no end. He is. If something is generated it still means that it has a beginning somewhere. The term ‘only begotten’ is only found in the NT. It is translated from the Greek word monogenes. A word that is mostly used to refer to something unique or irreplaceable. In some cases it is translated by ‘only one’ Luke 7:12; 8:42;9:38.
The translaters from the Greek choose to translate the monogenes in only begotten for Christ. Maybe they were influenced by the idea that Christ was generated.
This guy belongs to Sunday worshippers. 2Th 2:10-12. He doesn’t even understand the quote he post in Roman, it doesn’t state that the son is God, but God through His Spirit guided His son till the cross and by dying without sin allowed for the resurrection by the Father.
Pretty funny to claim others don't understand scripture or what they read after you equate "Sunday worshipers" with 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. We don't lose sleep over opinions like this.
No, that isn't what Romans 1:4 says.
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,"
Your claim: "it doesn’t state that the son is God, but God through His Spirit guided His son till the cross and by dying without sin allowed for the resurrection by the Father."
Yeah, that isn't what the text is saying. This is Paul's sign on where he gives his credentials as always. And he is speaking about the one whose name He comes in-the name of the One True God.
In that he states that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by virtue of His resurrection-meaning, the resurrection demonstrated that Jesus was who He claimed to be. The Son of God. Had he not resurrected, He wouldn't have been who he claimed. It would have proved he was a sinner like anyone else and remained dead.
So you have no clue what you're talking about.
Furthermore, no, Jesus wasn't only resurrected by the Father. The resurrection was a Triune act by all three Persons. Jesus said he would resurrect himself (John 2, 10).
@@answeringadventism like I said, you don’t no how to read. Your just lipping off. The Bible is very clear on the only begotten son. There is no such thing as a triune God, accept in Paganism. Anytime scripture says Gods Spirit means just that, His own presence, not some other being as you claim.
Just because the world wants to follow paganism, doesn’t mean it’s correct. Your friend Sam is a believer in Catholicism now, I assume your becoming one soon? If Catholicism isn’t Antichrist, then could you show me one Dogma from them that prove they are Christians, since you believe in what they set as standard for Christianity, which is Sunday and Trinity.
No offense, but I'd be careful about talking about how poor someone's understanding was, or questioning how bright they were. I say that because Matteson's statement (which I don't necessarily agree with) appears to make much more sense than your explanation of Romans 1:4, or your citing of Tabletalk Magazine's unbiblical OPINIONS. Moreover, you seem to be splitting hairs in regard to your interpretation of "begotten". I've always interpreted that as simply meaning "brought forth". Whereas, you seem to be going with the idea of it meaning "to be generated"; which, in a broad sense, essentially mean the same thing.
So then, what really separates us is the idea of Yeshua/Jesus being "ETERNALLY generated/begotten". Which, and please correct me if I wrong, means that you (as well as the Doctrine of the Trinity) are essentially saying that "this" came from "that", but there was never a time that "this" and "that" were apart. Well, I'm sorry, but that sounds like nonsense to me!
Oh, that's right! My mind is simply too finite to grasp such a "mystery". To which I say:
"Yeah, it's a mystery alright! A mystery as to why anyone would believe such nonsense."
The bottom line is that the Doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical. According to the Scriptures, there is only One God, and that is the Father.
1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV 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 by him.
👉there is but one God, the Father👈
Now, of course, you will immediately and incorrectly suppose that I am denying the Divinity of Christ! Nope! On the contrary, I suppose that YOU'RE the one who's denying the true Divinity of the Messiah! You see, you believe that Yeshua is "the Son of God". Whereas, I believe that Yeshua is "God" in the Form of a Man. So then, which is He? Is He the Son of God, or is He God? And, mind you, unlike Trinitarians, I don't see "God" as a "What". No, I see Him as a "Who", and that "Who" is the "Father" - exactly as the Scriptures teach!
Shalom
@@sourmilkministries9445 Mattesons statement makes more sense to you because you have an Adventist worldview. Because it’s basic reasoning skills that conclude what I said about Romans. If Jesus wasn’t who he claimed to be, the Son of God, He wouldn’t have been resurrected. He would have remained in the grave like any other sinner. The fact that He did raise proves He was who He said He was. This isn’t confusing for a basic reader. Acting like it is is ridiculous.
No, this isn’t compatible with Mattesons blasphemous statement.
You call it “splitting hairs” which shows the issue-you don’t see how we’re talking about fundamentally different Jesus’s. Which was the point of the stream this clip is from. Christians know this. And this stream was for Christian’s, not Adventists. Christian’s easily can pinpoint why what he claimed was damnable heresy. This was about educating them on the roots of Adventism and the people at the helm of allegedly restoring the true church.
@@answeringadventism Brother, I admire your zeal, but your rebuttal started off on the wrong foot! I am NOT a SDA. And, as such, I do not have "an Adventist worldview". Moreover, because of your (blinding) zeal, you're missing the point concerning Romans 1:4. The issue there is not about Yeshua's Divinity, it's about whether or not He's eternal. Here, even though I'm apparently a little slow and don't have basic reading skills, let me ask you this question:
If I make a snowball out of a pile of eternal snow, did the snowball always exist?
Of course, the answer is no. The same can be said about Yeshua. In other words, if Yeshua was begotten at some point in time, He, in fact, did not always exist.
Now, of course, you will insist that He has always existed, but that is nothing more than *CIRCULAR REASONING.* So then, please prove your case using the only thing that matters, which are the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone. And, for the love of God, please don't talk to me about orthodoxy. Again, the only thing I care about is SCRIPTURE. So, simply cite some of the passages that you suppose proves that Yeshua is eternal. It's just that simple.
@@sourmilkministries9445 then you shouldn’t be defending Mattesons statement as you are defending a concept from an SDA framework that has specific and special nuances.
Nothing you said refuted the point that was being made. You realize multiple things can be stated from a singular claim, yes? No, Romans 1:4 isn’t focused on strictly eternality. But this tends to be the struggle with anti-Trinitarian heresy. It results in this sort of stuff.
“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,”-Romans 1:1-4
This isn’t only about eternality. And yet you claim your belief is obvious and what I said is a stretch. The exact opposite is true. Jesus was declared the Son of God by His resurrection. Which was my point. Mattesons says he wasn’t.
You don’t believe Jesus is Almighty, yet you’re trying to tell me we are splitting hairs over words but saying the same thing. Absolutely not the case. Far from it. And we aren’t brothers. You worship a different god. That’s the severity of difference here.
@@answeringadventism Whatever your "point" is/was, it's convoluted, as are your replies. Moreover, you seem to be fighting battles that don't exist. I also noticed that you completely ignore the questions you're asked. You know, like is Yeshua God, or is He the Son of God? As for me, I believe that Yeshua is exactly Who the Scriptures say He is, which is the Image of the invisible God.
Whereas, you apparently believe that He's 1 of 3 co-equal and co-eternal "Persons" that make up some nonsensical and completely unbiblical corporate "What" called God. You are aware that according to Trinitarians, God is a What, right? Even though the Scriptures say that God is the Father.
Whatever! You may be good at bashing Seventh Day Adventists. But, outside of that, thus far you've been nothing but a trainwreck. Humble yourself young man, because you still have a lot to learn.
@@sourmilkministries9445 Read, John 1:1-3, 17:5, colossian 1:15-17,
Eternal sonship/eternal generation the teachings of Origen is heresy.
The word became the son at the incarnation. Hebrews 1. A change in relationship is not a change in person.
He was the son with power at ressurecction.
@swordthroughsoul @ the incarnation. read hebrews 1:5. I will be a father (future tense) He will be a son (future tense). These are terms to show God's relationship to us. Jesus said it best. God is Spirit. Within the One nature of YHWH are three distinct and undivided personas.
@swordthroughsoul john 1:1 the word/Jesus was (past tense)with God in union face to face with God and was deity, divine, God. Since the incarnation, YHWH the second persona, the logos or memra, the word became flesh, became son, the only unique son. Since the incarnation the second persona now and forever has two natures. Prior to incarnation the logos/word/Jesus/YHWH had only one nature. The other two personas still have one nature. Only Jesus has two natures. There is only One God one Deity and that is YHWH. The new testament reveals three personas share the one name YHWH read mattew 28:19
@swordthroughsoul the person of the son existed from eternity but did not become son until the incarnation. Hebrews 1. He WILL BE to Me a Son.
A change in function/relationship is not a change in person. Example. I am a father. Before my children I am still same person.
@@RocknRollStrutnStroll “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” (1Jn 4:9, KJV) if God sent His only begotten Son, it must be that He was the only begotten before He was send. Thus we can speak of the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God. “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Psa 2:7, KJV) refers to the ressurection. (See Acts 13:33).
I
@Bereafrank everything in the old testament regarding the son was prophetic. Begotten meaning only unique son. At the incarnation, hebrews 1 and hebrews 10. Son is what the word became at incarnation. Before the incarnation the person of the son existed but as the logos. He did not have a human nature until the incarnation.