Adventists' fundamental beliefs

[Theopesta]

Dear all friends,

I need your ideas and opinions in this phrase:

10. The Experience of Salvation: In infinite love and mercy God made Christ

I feel it is arian phrase. and not correct except if we speak about the humanity. also, in the same point --no.10:

Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment

I feel also, this statment need to more clarify to prevent the misunderstanding of the union with GOD --theosis. the link is:
www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html) belif no. 10

many thanks, theopesta

[Father David Moser]

Dear Theopesta,

I cannot comment in depth at this moment on these statements however, I can give you a "first blush" reaction to them.

The first statement regarding the experience of salvation is definitely heretical - God did not make Christ, that is at best Arian for it demotes our Lord Jesus Christ from God incarnate to simply a creature.

The second statement is also problematic since the fathers are quite clear that we do not participate in (nor can we know) the essence of God, but only His energies. It needs to be somewhat clarified to insure the clear understanding that God remains unknowable in His essence and the Jesus Christ is the self-revelation of God which bridges that unknowability. Our salvation then is to participate in the life of the Trinity, not in the essence, but in the energies of God.

Fr David Moser

[Theopesta]

our venerable father David,
many thanks this first blush is what I need,I will be grateful for more.
pray for me, theopesta

[Theopesta]

Dear all,

in the same link above in their belif no. 4 about the Son, I find this phrase:

God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ

this statment give me nestorian impression because the prepostion in after the word incarnate also, it is give the the result of their belif no. 10 that: God made christ.

I do not know If I understand well or not,
I am grateful to any opinion, theopesta

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Theopesta, Fr David and others,

It is interesting to note that several teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses have been recognised as essentially 'Arian' in form in fairly broad circles for a long time. What is particularly interesting is that they seem to promote these ideas for similar soteriological reasons as some scholars hypothesise motivated Arius; so there is a unique chance at 'motivation study' here. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

If I might follow on a bit from earlier comments. Regarding the first premise:


The Experience of Salvation: In infinite love and mercy God made Christ.
The idea that the Father 'made' or 'created' the Son is generally taken as the basic tenet of Arius' thought. It is notoriously difficulty to discern what Arius actually said, but he is fairly clear in at least this regard. From his letter to the bishop Alexander, with whom his entire dispute began, we find:

We acknowledge one God [...] who begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten [...]

[...] created before times and ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him.

[...] For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all things as being Monad and Beginning of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son.
In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (who was sympathetic to his views), he clarifies:

[...] by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, ot established, He was not.
It becomes clear in this little snippet not only that Arius regards 'begotten' as equivalent to or synonymous with 'created'; and also that the logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that before the Son was begotten, 'he was not'.

These sentiments are generally what form the heart of 'Arianism' as that term is commonly used. The Church's response was rather definitive in the council of Nicaea: to declare that begotten does not equate to createdness (more properly 'made-ness': gennethenta ou poiethenta), and that this proper understanding of the Son's begottenness equates to an co-eternity with the Father, which does not allow Arius, or anyone else, to claim that there 'was when the Son was not'.

The second claim was as follows:


Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment.

As Fr David pointed out, caution needs to be exercised here. It is not technically wrong to say this, and many fathers do; but primarily in contexts that do not deal directly with the clarification put forward by Palamas as to how 'nature/essence' and 'energy' are distinct in our experience of God. So one must be careful: the statement is valid when 'partakers of the divine nature' is understood in a general sense, and not the technical meaning of 'essence' set alongside 'energy', which causes problems.

The last statement Theopesta provided was:


God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ

followed with the comment:


this statment give me nestorian impression because the prepostion in after the word incarnate

I would be a little more cautious with this phrase. Again, it depends on how technically one assumes the word 'in' is being used. In a general sense, i.e. that in Jesus Christ we experience the eternal Son become incarnate, there is nothing in error -- and many fathers use this phrase. It is if one thinks that 'in' is being used in a technical grammar of 'composition' that it causes problems; perhaps more over adoptionism than Nestorianism!

It strikes me that the main problem with the statements taken in their context of the chief beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses is that, as you say, the latter two are framed in as further explanations of what is the key belief that the Father creates the Son. What happens to the Son after that is, in a theological sense, irrelevant, since from the Christian standpoint it all becomes a non-starter. Unless the Son is co-eternal, con-substantial God with the Father, then how we 'abide in him' or what we find/see in him, becomes meaningless.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mina,

The article which you posted (which I've not had time to read in full as yet) caught my eye in as much as it raised the question of what qualifies under the title 'Christian'. I am not speaking here of what qualifies one as 'the Church', which from an Orthodox standpoint is rather clear. There are some who would draw precisely the same line for definition of Christian more broadly; though most would argue and agree that 'Christian' transcends the borders and stability of the one Church. But of course, there are countless religious groups calling themselves 'Christian'. What the current discussion in particular brings out is that a basic 'qualifier' for the title is not simply that 'Christ is confessed', which can mean almost anything, but that he is confessed as God.

INXC, Matthew

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dearest to Christ M.C. Steenberg,

Peace and blessings to you:


What the current discussion in particular brings out is that a basic 'qualifier' for the title is not simply that 'Christ is confessed', which can mean almost anything, but that he is confessed as God.

I understand that the Orthodox Church as defined by both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches - according to their common ecclesiological understanding of The Church - necessarily excludes all other churches existing outside their respective canonical boundaries from identity with The Church***; however, with respect to the title “Christian”, I for one, would find it rather arbitrary to restrict its application to those merely adhering to true Christology, let alone those who merely confess one of many true Christological principles i.e. Christ’s divinity. It should, I believe, apply at the very most to those who at the very least hold to fullness of truth of the Orthodox Christian faith – a criterion still rather arbitrary, but nonetheless to a much lesser extent. As such, I, as an OO Christian, could only consider my EO brethren to be true Christians apart from The Church as understood according to my OO perspective.

*** I am ofcourse open to correction if I have mistakenly misrepresented the EO position. I do recall a statement made by Bishop Kallistos Ware of the EO Church, where he states something along the lines, or to the effect of: "we know where the Church is, though we do not know where it is not"; however, I am not sure how representative this is of general EO thought.

Forgive me for sidetracking the thread,

In IC XC
-Athanasius

[Mina Monir]

dear rev.Steenberg

in fact , I have to revise my english vocabulary because I could not understand your message very well as I had a problem in some words. but because I did not have time ... all I want to say is that :

Catholic are christian group ... maybe they are not orthodox .. maybe they have heresies but christians.I think also you consider me as a christian , however there is no difference in faith. the Holy Synod here considered Adventists and Jehovah witnesses are NON CHRISTIANS they are different groups. I hope I could managed to refer to this point it is not enough to believe in Christ's divinity to be christian ... but u must recognize him well through the apostolic dogma which is absent to the adventists who follow a woman and consider her as a prophet and her book is not less holy than the scriptures unfortunatly, the catholic consider adventists as christian group!

IC XC
Mina

[Mina Monir]

dear Rev.Mathew

I know that the article needs much time and your rev. is busy . so, I will cut the important part about classification of the adventists ... thanks and I need your prays for the next exmas.

IC XC
Mina
-------------------------------------------------
The Holy Synod’s decisions

The Holy Synod of our Coptic Orthodox Church, under the auspices of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, during its session held on Saturday June 17, 1989, officially declared that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Adventist sects as Non-Christian. The synod warned against attending their meetings or allowing their entrance into our Coptic Orthodox homes, as with all heretics and innovators.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have published their own interpretation of the Holy Bible called, “The New World Interpretation”. We do not regard this interpretation as genuine, because it attempted to distort many sections from both the Old Testament, and the New Testament. The Holy Synod also warns against accepting this interpretation.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Athanasius, Mina and others,

Interesting to read your responses, above. Yes, my point was indeed related to the specific question of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as brought up earlier in the discussion; clearly not to the Oriental Orthodox. To that original point: there are some who feel the history of the early Christian controversies and councils is just that: history, dead, done and dusted. The quotations provided in this conversation, from a group very much alive and active in the modern world, show just how relevant those centuries-old discussions and statements still are. Nicaea, the first council to be granted ecumenical status (well over a century after it had taken place), set a basic standard of 'Christian' that still applies. Those who say the Son is of another essence than the Father, are anathema. Confession of the divinity of the Son, not merely as 'holy' but as fully God in the same essential manner as the Father is God, One divine nature with him, is the basic bedrock of the title 'Christian'.

INXC, Matthew

[Theopesta]

Dear Dr. Matth., and young theologians Mina and Athanasius:

I am very grateful Dr. Matth. to your comment in post no. 880 it is very helpful to understand and discern many expressions about the incarnation, also I find in some books under my hand here whay your rev. said:


in Jesus Christ we experience the eternal Son become incarnate, there is nothing in error -- and many fathers use this phrase.

truly I feel that all the heresies appeared in the early church, re-appear agin in another uniform --I do not konw this right or not

warmly thanks to you all to your intelligent posts
IN ONE CHRIST, theopesta

[Olympiada]

Matthew wrote,


What the current discussion in particular brings out is that a basic 'qualifier' for the title is not simply that 'Christ is confessed', which can mean almost anything, but that he is confessed as God.

Thank you for this simple definition of a Christian, one who confesses Christ as God. Although I have been a member of the church since 1999, I think I became a conscious Christian this year. In fact I am sure of it. Interesting how one can participate in the sacramental life of the church and not really be a Christian. This is a matter for another thread. I will have to think on it and see if I can start another discussion.

In Christ
Olympiada

[Moses Anthony]

Dear ones in Christ,

I learned a long time ago, an important lesson about "religious discussions": Never assume that the person you're in conversation with, while using the same words as you, utters them with the same meaning -and understanding- as you.

It would have been, and in very fact, was quite simple for the Fathers of the Early Church to say who was a Christian. Their determination should be the same as ours today: they called it The Rule of Faith.

The Protestants have a saying: "All I really need to know about life, I learned in Sunday School. If you move it, put it back. If it's not yours, ask to use it. Say please and thank you, etc., etc.... Apply that to how we Orthodox define a Christian. "All I need to know about how to define a Christian, I learned from The Rule of Faith."

As Dirty Harry would say, "...It works for me..."

[Mina Monir]

Dear Anthony , as I always say , my very weak english makes me cannot understand well the others' meanings ... so, would you please explain more what do u really refer to .. because I find it interesting.

besides, I have AN INDIVIDUAL OPINION ... I belive the Nice rule of faith covers the christian faith. but for the protestant groups who do not believe in ecumenical councils and creeds , I DOUBT THAT THEY ARE CHRISTIANS and I really need to know from you father Mathew to tell me about the eo understanding towards protestant heretics.
beside, a question out side the topic ... why does the greek church write 'Ni Ka' on the cross? does it refer to a certain greek word? we 'copts' put 'IC XC , EBSHEERY EMEFNOUTY ( english :JESUS CHRIST son of god)' besides , I find the russian cross little different than all other crosses I've ever seen ... could u tell me the reason please? thanks father and merry christmass.

in IC XC
Mina

[Antonios]

Dear Mina,

Are you referring to one with the three bars with the footrest being slanted? This is called the Slavonic Cross and it contains the bar at the top to represent the inscription "King of the Jews". The bottom crossbar represents the foot rest. The difference between this and a Byzantine Cross is that it's footrest is slanted. This has several meanings:

1) from being wrenched loose from the Christ's writhing in intense physical suffering
2) the lower side pointing "down," represents the fate of sinners, while the elevated side represents Heaven;
3) the lower side represents the bad thief (known to us as Gestas through the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate" ("Gospel of Nicodemus") while the elevated side to Christ's right represents the thief who would be with Him in Paradise (St. Dismas)

Here's a website (http://www.symbols.net/christian/) which has links to many site of Christian symbolism.