HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina, Nelson
1323 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,631
Members1,323
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
Rick H 20
kland 5
Daryl 2
May
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Member Spotlight
dedication
dedication
Canada
Posts: 6,441
Joined: April 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
4 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, Kevin H), 3,309 guests, and 10 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
New Reply
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 11 of 17 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 16 17
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: Tom] #105596
12/05/08 05:56 AM
12/05/08 05:56 AM
asygo  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
The mind is not a part of the nature which is taken by Jesus Christ, so to any extent that Christ's assumed human nature supposedly differed from ours, to that extent a prelapsarian is disagreeing that Christ took our nature (excluding His mind).

Who says that Christ's nature, excluding the mind, is different from ours?

Originally Posted By: Tom
The controversy is not of Christ's mind, but His flesh.

But temptation happens in the mind, not the flesh. So what's all the fuss about the flesh?

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you agree that Christ took our nature, including its capacity to tempts us from within, the we are in agreement. If you disagree, then there's no need for a quote.

There's no problem with "capacity." Who taught that Jesus "could not" (as opposed to "was not") tempted from within? The only one I could think of that came close was Waggoner.

BTW, all temptation, comes through our own lusts - within.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. {DA 172.1}

Obviously our sinful nature cannot be transformed. So this is irrelevant. This is just an example of her using the word "nature" in one of its different meanings. This is exactly why I like speaking of "flesh" when dealing with Christ's assumed human nature. It avoids this sort of ambiguity.

And this is why I think most postlapsarians who spend a lot of time on this topic are wasting their time. Here, in one of the strongest statements of present truth - our need of transformation - postlapsarians consider it "difficult to understand" or ambiguous.

And what is the other meaning of "nature" that causes it to be ambiguous? It is the "nothing to do with morality" nature. If it has nothing to do with morality, then it has nothing to do with reflecting Christ's character in our own, and therefore, worthy of little attention, if any.

Originally Posted By: Tom
At any rate, this is not an example of a post-lapsarian using the word "nature" differently then EGW used it. Any post-lapsarian would agree with her use of "nature" here. Or any pre-lapsarian. This is scratching where it doesn't itch. No one disagrees that our nature, as she's using the term, needs to be transformed.

Really? So if I say, as I often do, that Christ's nature was not like ours, and we need a transformation of nature so that we can BECOME like Him, you wouldn't have any problem? You would say Amen? You would be the first. Never have I seen a postlapsarian agree without a long treatise on why "nature" is the wrong word to use there, and to a quote from the most comprehensive book on Christ.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Reply Quote
Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: asygo] #105598
12/05/08 07:00 AM
12/05/08 07:00 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
T:The mind is not a part of the nature which is taken by Jesus Christ, so to any extent that Christ's assumed human nature supposedly differed from ours, to that extent a prelapsarian is disagreeing that Christ took our nature (excluding His mind).

A:Who says that Christ's nature, excluding the mind, is different from ours?


Since the mind has not to do with Christ's assumed human nature, anyone who says Christ's assumed human nature is different than ours does.

Quote:
The controversy is not of Christ's mind, but His flesh.

But temptation happens in the mind, not the flesh. So what's all the fuss about the flesh?


Have you read A.T. Jones 1895 GCB? He treats this in detail. In brief, temptations reach the mind through the flesh. EGW speaks about this in the AH quote I cited. The "fuss" is that Christ was tempted as we are, thus He overcame the very same temptations that we are to overcome. Thus when He says, "Be of good cheer! I have overcome the world." we can do what He says, since, as a contemporary of Jones and Waggoner said, "the world which Christ overcame was in His flesh."

Quote:
T:If you agree that Christ took our nature, including its capacity to tempts us from within, the we are in agreement. If you disagree, then there's no need for a quote.

A:There's no problem with "capacity." Who taught that Jesus "could not" (as opposed to "was not") tempted from within? The only one I could think of that came close was Waggoner.

BTW, all temptation, comes through our own lusts - within.


This is hard to follow. If Christ took our flesh, then He was tempted from within, as we are. That's the post-lapsarian position, which all SDA's held before around 1947.

Quote:
T:Obviously our sinful nature cannot be transformed. So this is irrelevant. This is just an example of her using the word "nature" in one of its different meanings. This is exactly why I like speaking of "flesh" when dealing with Christ's assumed human nature. It avoids this sort of ambiguity.

A:And this is why I think most postlapsarians who spend a lot of time on this topic are wasting their time. Here, in one of the strongest statements of present truth - our need of transformation - postlapsarians consider it "difficult to understand" or ambiguous.


I don't know anyone, post-lapsarian or pre-lapsarian, who has any trouble with the concept that we must be transformed.

Quote:
And what is the other meaning of "nature" that causes it to be ambiguous?


It's the word "nature" which is ambiguous; not some specific meaning of the word, but which meaning is intended.

Quote:
It is the "nothing to do with morality" nature. If it has nothing to do with morality, then it has nothing to do with reflecting Christ's character in our own, and therefore, worthy of little attention, if any.


If Christ took our flesh, then He was tempted as we are, and we overcome as He overcame. What's worthy of attention is that Christ took our flesh, and overcame in that flesh, the same flesh we have. An often considered text in the 1888 message was Romans 8:3. Here is an example:

Quote:
There is a common idea that this means that Christ simulated sinful flesh; that he did not take upon himself actual sinful flesh, but only what appeared to be such. But the Scriptures do not teach such a thing. "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb. 2:17. He was "born of a woman, born under the law," that he might redeem them that were under the law. Gal. 4:4, 5.

He took the same flesh that all have who are born of woman. A parallel text to Romans 8:3, 4 is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. The former says that Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." The latter says that God "made him to be sin for us," although he knew no sin, "that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

"Compassed with Infirmity." All the comfort that we can get from Christ lies in the knowledge that he was made in all things as we are. Otherwise we should hesitate to tell him of our weaknesses and failures. The priest who makes sacrifices for sins must be one "who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity." Heb. 5:2.

This applies perfectly to Christ; "for we have not an High Priest which can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15. This is why we may come boldly to the throne of grace for mercy. So perfectly has Christ identified himself with us, that he even now feels our sufferings.

The Flesh and the Spirit. "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." Note that this depends on the preceding statement, "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The things of the Spirit are the commandments of God, because the law is spiritual. The flesh serves the law of sin (see the preceding chapter, and Galatians 5:19-21, where the works of the flesh are described). But Christ came in the same flesh, to show the power of the Spirit over the flesh. "They that are in the flesh can not please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of Christ dwell in you."

Now no one will claim that the flesh of a man is any different after his conversion from what it was before. Least of all will the converted man himself say so; for he has continual evidence of its perversity. But if he is really converted, and the Spirit of Christ dwells in him, he is no more in the power of the flesh. Even so Christ came in the same sinful flesh, yet he was without sin, because he was always led by the Spirit. (Waggoner on Romans)


Quote:
Really? So if I say, as I often do, that Christ's nature was not like ours, and we need a transformation of nature so that we can BECOME like Him, you wouldn't have any problem?


Not necessarily. Your statement is ambiguous, but if you aren't referring to Christ's assumed human nature, no, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

Quote:
You would say Amen?


Maybe "Am." Or "en."

Quote:
You would be the first. Never have I seen a postlapsarian agree without a long treatise on why "nature" is the wrong word to use there, and to a quote from the most comprehensive book on Christ.


I don't personally know any post-lapsarians who would have a problem with this. Every one I know would respond along the same lines I have, which is that your statement is not very clear, but depending on what meaning of the word "nature" you had in mind, it could be fine.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Reply Quote
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: Tom] #105601
12/05/08 07:44 AM
12/05/08 07:44 AM
asygo  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
Really? So if I say, as I often do, that Christ's nature was not like ours, and we need a transformation of nature so that we can BECOME like Him, you wouldn't have any problem?

Not necessarily. Your statement is ambiguous, but if you aren't referring to Christ's assumed human nature, no, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

Quote:
You would say Amen?

Maybe "Am." Or "en."

Quote:
You would be the first. Never have I seen a postlapsarian agree without a long treatise on why "nature" is the wrong word to use there, and to a quote from the most comprehensive book on Christ.

I don't personally know any post-lapsarians who would have a problem with this. Every one I know would respond along the same lines I have, which is that your statement is not very clear, but depending on what meaning of the word "nature" you had in mind, it could be fine.

And that's why, since I started significant discussions with postlapsarians about 3 years ago, that I have become more convinced not to be postlapsarian. You guys don't know DA very well, if you are not quite sure what I mean when I say, "We need a transformation of nature." That is so basic to Christianity, and how to become a Christian. Maybe that explains why postlapsarians do not spend as much time evangelizing as do their non-postlapsarian counterparts.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Reply Quote
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: asygo] #105604
12/05/08 12:03 PM
12/05/08 12:03 PM
C
Colin  Offline
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
Quote:

And that's why, since I started significant discussions with postlapsarians about 3 years ago, that I have become more convinced not to be postlapsarian. You guys don't know DA very well, if you are not quite sure what I mean when I say, "We need a transformation of nature." That is so basic to Christianity, and how to become a Christian. Maybe that explains why postlapsarians do not spend as much time evangelizing as do their non-postlapsarian counterparts.

3 years' discussions - how much do you know of the salvific, eschatological issues behind the dispute, or is that genuinely old hat? That "transformation" is two fold: mind and character, justification and sanctification, respectively, and until that is clear this dispute in the church continues - beyond October last year (the QOD 50th anniversary meeting at the seminary, here: http://qod.andrews.edu).

You worried about lack of evangelism among your counterparts. What of the continuing, now muted confusion within the church over Christology??? How healthy is that - how settled are you??...It is good to reach out as well as reach in, but we cannot only reach out while the house is unwell.

Reply Quote
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: Colin] #105615
12/05/08 05:11 PM
12/05/08 05:11 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
And that's why, since I started significant discussions with postlapsarians about 3 years ago, that I have become more convinced not to be postlapsarian. You guys don't know DA very well, if you are not quite sure what I mean when I say, "We need a transformation of nature." That is so basic to Christianity, and how to become a Christian.


The reason to be a post-lapsarian should be because it is true! Not because you think someone does or does not know DA very well.

Btw, it's interesting that you should mention DA, since that's the reason I became a post-lapsarian. Before becoming an SDA, I wasn't. After reading DA, I became the point of view she presented regarding Christ's human nature, that Christ took human nature after 6,000 years of sin, accepting the workings of the law of heredity, was true.

If people don't understand what you are saying, the reason might not be related to how well DA is known, but to how well you are expressing yourself.

Quote:
Maybe that explains why postlapsarians do not spend as much time evangelizing as do their non-postlapsarian counterparts.


Wouldn't it be better to skip comments like this?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Reply Quote
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: Colin] #105624
12/05/08 07:58 PM
12/05/08 07:58 PM
asygo  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
Originally Posted By: Colin
3 years' discussions - how much do you know of the salvific, eschatological issues behind the dispute, or is that genuinely old hat?

I don't know if this will ever become old hat for me. To me, there are parts that remain an unfathomable mystery. Of all the ones I have discussed this with, only postlapsarians seem to ever believe they've got it all down pat, and that only idiots or Jesuits can be asking questions about it at this late date.

But let's briefly look at your two issues.

Salvific - What are the salvific implications of discussing, ad infinitum, that which has "nothing to do with morality"? If the nature/flesh which postlapsarians talk about is "neither moral nor immoral," what role does it play in our salvation? From my perspective, seeing that our problem is primarily a moral problem, discussions of amoral things are of little import.

Eschatological
- What will be the condition of the 144k, those who will be alive when Jesus comes? Will they "hate sin with a perfect hatred"? Will they still have sinful desires?

Let's look at our prophet's experience:
Quote:
I continued to resist the desire for vinegar, and at last I conquered. Now I have no inclination to taste anything of the kind. This experience has been of great value to me in many ways. I obtained a complete victory. {CD 485.2}

Will the 144k achieve this complete victory, where there is no longer an inclination for it, in all sinful things?

Then the question at hand: Did Jesus experience this level of victory?

Originally Posted By: Colin
That "transformation" is two fold: mind and character, justification and sanctification

Eureka!!! You have just discovered the focus of my ministry - effecting the transformation of mind and character. Hence, discussions of that which is not mind and character are a waste of time. And those who believe that transformation is unneeded or impossible are simply wrong.

BTW, do you agree that the "mind and character" that you say need transformation was clearly referred to by EGW as "nature"? Therefore, if someone chooses to think of "nature" in this way, they are solidly standing on SOP ground.

Originally Posted By: Colin
You worried about lack of evangelism among your counterparts. What of the continuing, now muted confusion within the church over Christology???

I think the controversy over Christology has overshadowed the conflict to become Christlike. There are those who spend so much time talking about what Christ was like, that they seem to have forgotten that walking like Christ is the goal to be reached. They don't seem to realize that the most powerful argument in favor of Christianity is not telling people what Jesus was like, but showing people what Jesus was like. And the unchristlike attitudes of those who are "correct" toward their "erring" brethren is indicative of the fact that by beholding we are changed.

Review Steps to Christ. How much of that book is "postlapsarian ammo," telling us how Christ's flesh is like ours, how He had the same tendencies we do, how His passions were like ours, etc? Not much. Instead, it talks about how Jesus was not like us, so we have to be changed into His image. That's the fundamental step to becoming like Christ - know that you are not.

Originally Posted By: Colin
How healthy is that - how settled are you??

The church is pretty unhealthy, from what I see. There's a big group that preaches a "gospel" that offers "peace" but no freedom from the bondage of sin. Then there's a group that knows about being redeemed from sin, yet spends its energies preaching about things which have "nothing to do with morality," leaving those in bondage to sin still in bondage to sin. We need to enlarge that small group who knows about freedom from sin, and is willing to preach about it. I am fully settled that I want to be in that third group.

Originally Posted By: Colin
It is good to reach out as well as reach in, but we cannot only reach out while the house is unwell.

Right. It's unfortunate that so few are qualified to reach out.

But if you really want to reach in and fix what's wrong, do you say, "You are like Jesus" or "You are not like Jesus"?


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Reply Quote
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: Tom] #105625
12/05/08 08:09 PM
12/05/08 08:09 PM
asygo  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
Quote:
And that's why, since I started significant discussions with postlapsarians about 3 years ago, that I have become more convinced not to be postlapsarian. You guys don't know DA very well, if you are not quite sure what I mean when I say, "We need a transformation of nature." That is so basic to Christianity, and how to become a Christian.

The reason to be a post-lapsarian should be because it is true! Not because you think someone does or does not know DA very well.

Well, I have been called a "postlapsarian plus" before. However, if there are postlapsarians who balk at the phrase "we need a transformation of nature," I don't want to be that kind of postlapsarian.

Can't even get a decent Amen.... Those who really know our true condition and the heights Christ has called us to don't even have to think twice about it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If people don't understand what you are saying, the reason might not be related to how well DA is known, but to how well you are expressing yourself.

"We need a transformation of nature." That is almost a direct quote. If you're confused by me, you'd also be confused by EGW, especially since she can't clarify herself anymore.

Maybe the problem is that postlapsarians simply find it hard to be generous to one who is a proclaimed non-postlapsarian. So much so that I can quote from the SOP and they still have difficulty agreeing. It's a shame, and really not reflective of the Jesus they claim to be like.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Reply Quote
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: asygo] #105630
12/05/08 09:10 PM
12/05/08 09:10 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
Well, I have been called a "postlapsarian plus" before. However, if there are postlapsarians who balk at the phrase "we need a transformation of nature," I don't want to be that kind of postlapsarian.

Can't even get a decent Amen.... Those who really know our true condition and the heights Christ has called us to don't even have to think twice about it.


I don't know any postlapsarians that disagree with the concept. It's simply the clarity of expression of the concept that's in question. If you simply say, "We need transformation" you can get a hearty "Amen!" without having to clarify what you mean. If you say "we need a transformation of nature" in the context of a discussion of Christology, you'll like get a clarification question: "What do you mean by 'nature'? Do you mean 'sinful nature'? If so, that's not transformed." etc.

Quote:
T:If people don't understand what you are saying, the reason might not be related to how well DA is known, but to how well you are expressing yourself.

A:"We need a transformation of nature." That is almost a direct quote. If you're confused by me, you'd also be confused by EGW, especially since she can't clarify herself anymore.


No, I don't think it's EGW that's the issue. It's your use of her. This quote is in a context. If you read enough of the quote to get the context, there won't be confusion. If you take a snippet, and introduce it into a discussion about Christology, that's likely to be confusing.

Don't just use me as a yardstick though. If you try to communicate something to a number of people, and they have trouble understanding you, it's not likely to be a problem that they have with Ellen White. It's more likely to be a problem you are having in communicating your ideas.

If I were the only one having trouble understanding you, then the problem would likely be on my side.

Quote:
Maybe the problem is that postlapsarians simply find it hard to be generous to one who is a proclaimed non-postlapsarian. So much so that I can quote from the SOP and they still have difficulty agreeing. It's a shame, and really not reflective of the Jesus they claim to be like.


I think you may be misdiagnosing the problem here. If this is a problem that "postlapsarians" have, then it seems like you may be communicating something differently than Ellen White, because postlapsarians really, really like Ellen White.

Also the postlapsarians I have know personally I would characterize as being very generous to non-postlapsarians, although I have known of postlapsarians who are not.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Reply Quote
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: asygo] #105640
12/06/08 02:43 AM
12/06/08 02:43 AM
C
Colin  Offline
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Colin
That "transformation" is two fold: mind and character, justification and sanctification


Eureka!!! You have just discovered the focus of my ministry - effecting the transformation of mind and character. Hence, discussions of that which is not mind and character are a waste of time. And those who believe that transformation is unneeded or impossible are simply wrong.

Simply wrong? Real issue is: why a need, actually, and what transformation? Sinful nature is the need for change, and Christ's adaptation of our sinful nature with his righteous mind for the production of righteous character is the change gifted us by justification by faith. My point is that our need for change is met by the Saviour who fashioned a solution adaptable to sinful humans. This adaptability is no nonsense: any dilution of the possible experience of the 144k for us is due to Christ having an alternative type of humanity to us - perfection of character, even with God's grace, is out of the question, as you must have heard by now follows from the official belief that Jesus' humanity is "sinful, but without sin".
Quote:
BTW, do you agree that the "mind and character" that you say need transformation was clearly referred to by EGW as "nature"? Therefore, if someone chooses to think of "nature" in this way, they are solidly standing on SOP ground.

Likely only in Adventism as 'monotonous' on Christ's humanity as in her day - it doesn't sit so unambiguously anymore. How do you get round the inference that our sinful nature is only changeable in certain aspects, the mind and character but not the flesh? - what is the context of her statement; is this detail clarified?
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Colin

You worried about lack of evangelism among your counterparts. What of the continuing, now muted confusion within the church over Christology???


I think the controversy over Christology has overshadowed the conflict to become Christlike.

Conflict??? You mean Christian struggle/goal, teaching? I would say...: this Christological point has veritably cancelled that teaching and obliterated any general awareness of that goal. There is confusion about becoming Christlike because we are taught it is impossible, so simply stating it as a belief of practical Godliness will produce a discussion unless you're very lucky merely to be confronted by a local revival.

The Australian clash between Ford and the Concerned Brethern, and Brinsmead, over no victory or victory indeed over sin by faith, boiled down to Christ taking sinless humanity or sinful humanity, respectively. Brinsmead wasn't totally accurate throughout, but his basic starting point was correct. Closer to your wording, I'd allow also that this Christological difference clouded certainty on the Gospel's practical Christlikeness for us.

Bad attitude is clearly no way to solve the dispute on details! Equally Steps to Christ is fully about the appeal of his righteous character & compassion for us; since the clash on Christology dates 'officially' from 1949 (see "Touched With Our Feelings), there is a confusion about precisely what Christ wants to do with us, in us, with his character, and why...The rest of what you say is roughly agreeable (that "nothing to do with morality" I didn't really spot in the first place); Your last line, here
Quote:
But if you really want to reach in and fix what's wrong, do you say, "You are like Jesus" or "You are not like Jesus"?

My response is neither of those, rather: "Jesus became like us! - including having to overcome the pull of sinful flesh." Thus we can reach for him, for true Christlikeness, once he is in us. I don't go for the detail of any description of Christlikeness, for Godliness is the ideal of God for his children - need one say anymore. Tit 2:11-15 says it, too...

Reply Quote
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION [Re: Colin] #105645
12/06/08 05:46 AM
12/06/08 05:46 AM
asygo  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2023

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
Originally Posted By: Colin
perfection of character, even with God's grace, is out of the question, as you must have heard by now follows from the official belief that Jesus' humanity is "sinful, but without sin".

I've heard it, more times than I care to recount. However, it is based on faulty logic, whether promoted by antimonians or disparaged by postlapsarians. And the constant wrangling between the two groups shows that they both do not realize what the problem is, and where the solution lies.

The problem: We are selfish by nature.
The solution: We must partake of the divine nature.

When the First Adam fell, selfishness took the place of love. When the Second Adam came, He showed us what it looks like when love is in its rightful place in our hearts. That, in a nutshell, is the Gospel of redemption from that which enslaves us. Anything outside of that is not worth spending much time on.


By God's grace,
Arnold

There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
Reply Quote
Page 11 of 17 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 16 17
Quick Reply

Options
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
CAPTCHA Verification



Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
The Gospel According To John
by dedication. 05/12/24 10:01 AM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 05/06/24 12:18 PM
2nd Quarter 2024 The Great Controversy
by dedication. 05/03/24 02:55 AM
Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?
by Rick H. 04/26/24 06:05 PM
Nebuchadnezzar Speaks: The Sunday Law
by dedication. 04/22/24 05:15 PM
Nebuchadnezzar Speaks: Part Two
by TruthinTypes. 04/21/24 11:14 PM
Where is the crises with Climate mandates?
by dedication. 04/21/24 09:25 PM
Iran strikes Israel as War Expands
by dedication. 04/21/24 05:07 PM
What Happens at the End.
by Rick H. 04/20/24 11:39 AM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 04/18/24 05:51 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
What Does EGW Say About Ordination?
by dedication. 05/06/24 02:37 PM
Who is the AntiChrist? (Identifying Him)
by Rick H. 05/06/24 12:33 PM
Are we seeing a outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
by Rick H. 05/06/24 12:29 PM
A Second American Civil War?
by Rick H. 05/06/24 12:27 PM
The Wound Is Healed! The Mark Is Forming!
by kland. 05/06/24 10:32 AM
When Does Satan Impersonate Christ?
by Rick H. 05/03/24 10:09 AM
Is There A Connection Between WO & LGBTQ?
by dedication. 05/02/24 08:58 PM
The Papacy And The American Election
by Rick H. 04/30/24 09:34 AM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1