|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,629
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (Karen Y, Daryl, dedication, 2 invisible),
2,933
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75060
07/11/06 01:09 AM
07/11/06 01:09 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Christ not only napped as a human, he slept all night. His divinity slept with him don't you think Tom? Why would you think it would be different in death? If Christ's divinity was at rest when he slept why not when he slept in death? Look at the following quote from the DA. Again, this is unquestionably the climax of the life of Christ. His heart is broken from the weight of our sins and suffering under a sense of separation from God. Even as His heart is literally breaking, His faith still clings to God. But at the very end in His dying moments He finds peace as He trusts himself to God. Quote:
Suddenly the gloom lifted from the cross, and in clear, trumpetlike tones, that seemed to resound throughout creation, Jesus cried, "It is finished." "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit." A light encircled the cross, and the face of the Saviour shone with a glory like the sun. He then bowed His head upon His breast, and died.
Amid the awful darkness, apparently forsaken of God, Christ had drained the last dregs in the cup of human woe. In those dreadful hours He had relied upon the evidence of His Father's acceptance heretofore given Him. He was acquainted with the character of His Father; He understood His justice, His mercy, and His great love. By faith He rested in Him whom it had ever been His joy to obey. And as in submission He committed Himself to God, the sense of the loss of His Father's favor was withdrawn. By faith, Christ was victor. {DA 756.3}
Last edited by Mark Shipowick; 07/11/06 01:29 AM.
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75061
07/11/06 03:54 AM
07/11/06 03:54 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
What makes you think Christ's divinity slept with Him when He slept. I have to admit I'm in deep water here, although I did complete the course work for a Masters in Divinity.  The concept of divinity sleeping makes no sense at all to me. We are told that when Christ died, divinity did not die, and, indeed, could not die. I don't see how divinity could sleep either, by the same logic. Christ was fully human and fully divine. Divinity didn't die, because divinity cannot die. Divinity also doesn't sleep, nor can it sleep. Is divinity contained in a human brain? If it is, then why didn't it die when Christ died? If it isn't, how could it sleep? I'm not understanding the siginificance of the quote you cited. I did notice something interesting about it, however. It shows that the wrath of God was not something God was doing to Him, but was the effect of sin, because when Christ won the victory and committed His trust to God, the sense of loss went away. If the wrath of God which Christ felt was due to God's doing something to Him, like being angry or hating Him or some such thing, the sense of loss wouldn't have subsided. Notice earlier that she said that hope did not tell Him of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice, nor could Christ see the Father's (not angry, but) reconciling face. So I see evidence supporting the atonement position of Waggoner and Gibson I've been presenting, but I'm missing the point you were wishing to make.
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.
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75062
07/11/06 11:46 AM
07/11/06 11:46 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
I’m glad you’re challenging this idea of the divine/human nature of Christ because the view that Christ was fully human and fully divine has always been an important doctrine to the church. So how did He combine both? Your suggestion would lead to the view that he had two identities and two consciousnesses, the divine one being active 24/7 and the human one being active only in his waking moments. The biblical evidence, even though it is a mystery, is that Christ’s humanity limited the functions of His divinity. As a child do you think Christ was aware of all His divine authority? Did Christ know he was God right from the womb? What impact would the wilderness temptations have had on Him if His divinity immediately told Him; yes you are the Son of God. Satan’s suggestions to the contrary would have been immediately dismissed without a second thought. At night as a man, did he run the universe? Was being human only a day job? In other words, was he fully integrated into humanity? Did He have a divine/human mind, or did he have two minds? His complete integration combining humanity with divinity is bedrock Christianity as is the doctrine of His expiatory atonement that you’ve been questioning since becoming a member. But I know from prophecy that a true knowledge of the atonement of Christ will blaze with unprecedented glory before He returns. That His atonement is being more widely questioned in the church is a sign that we are near the time when it will shine with the greatest clarity from behind the clouds of false doctrine. It is a pattern in sacred history that gross error precedes revival. The Holy Spirit will enliven the spiritual vision of everyone who follows the counsel of Ellen White and spends time on their knees and especially in contemplating the final scenes of the life of Christ. I’ve referred the readers to the last struggle/victory of Christ because this is where we see Him in faith submitting His entire being to God. If He did that even while suffering under the wrath of God, what excuse do we have for distrusting God when we have an every present intercessor in every trial? Christ trod the wine press of God’s wrath alone. He could not see the reconciling face of the Father. It was hidden from Him. It was no delusion on Christ’s part. The Father drew near to the Son, but hid His face from Him. In contrast to the hopelessness Christ suffered for us, we, though the Holy Spirit, we have Christ and God with us in every trial. Quote:
In that thick darkness God's presence was hidden. He makes darkness His pavilion, and conceals His glory from human eyes. God and His holy angels were beside the cross. The Father was with His Son. Yet His presence was not revealed. Had His glory flashed forth from the cloud, every human beholder would have been destroyed. And in that dreadful hour Christ was not to be comforted with the Father's presence. He trod the wine press alone, and of the people there was none with Him. {DA 753.4}
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75063
07/11/06 02:09 PM
07/11/06 02:09 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
It's easy to ask questions, but harder to answer them. I see no answer, for example, to my question as to how divinity can be unconscious. If divinity is limited by humanity, then why couldn't divinity die? What about when Christ was a zygote? How could a zygote be fully divine? Quote:
His complete integration combining humanity with divinity is bedrock Christianity as is the doctrine of His expiatory atonement that you’ve been questioning since becoming a member.
How Christ combined divinity and humanity is a mystery beyond human comprehension. We aren't told very much about it in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy. There have been dozens of different theories. For you to assert that I am presenting a complete integration combining humanity and divinity because I'm asking how divinity could be unconscious is unwarranted.
I've not claimed to have all the answers to this question. I'll readily admit to being as a little child when it comes to these questions. I'm asking a simple question. How can divinity by unconscious? And if divinity can be conscious, why can't it die? I guess that's two questions. It would be more helpful for you to answer my questions than to throw baseless accusations my way.
I'm making no claims that my views regarding Christ's humanity and divinity are correct. I'm only sharing things as I understand them, as they make sense to me. What else can I do? Should I believe how you do, even though it doesn't make sense to me, because you think it's orthodox? What exactly do you want me to do?
Your Calvinistic views are far less orthodox than my views. I make no accusations towards you regarding your unorthodox views. I wouldn't mention them now, except in the hope that you will see that you are being inconsistent in that you hold views that are more unorthdox than mine, yet appeal to orthodoxy to argue against me, when all I've done is ask some questions.
None of the pioneers were Calvinistic in their ideas as you are, not a one. My ideas of the atonement are the same, as far as I can tell, to Waggoner's, who was given "the most precious truths ever committed to mortals." EGW endorsed his views of justification by faith over a thousand times. I'm not presenting anything different than what he taught. Were his ideas against "bedrock Christianity?" Was Ellen White confused in endorsing him?
Quote:
But I know from prophecy that a true knowledge of the atonement of Christ will blaze with unprecedented glory before He returns.
The traditional view of the atonement theories goes something like this:
a)The original NT authors had a theory of the atonement which was like Anselm's.
b)The early Christian father's either had no developed theory of the atonement, or they were woefully ignornant in their views, holding naive ideas.
c)The true idea of the atonement (which was founded on the doctrine of pennance, by the way) started to be developed in time.
d)It was given full expression by Anselm, during the noontime of the papacy, which was the midnight of the world.
So you think the correct theory of the atonement was developed by a Catholic monk during the greatest darkness the world has even known, but the "most precious truths ever committed to mortals" is faulty?
Isn't it more likely that the following is the case?
a)The original NT authors had a view of the atonement similar to "the most precious message ever committed to mortals", the "light which is to lighten the earth with glory"
b)The early fathers started to stray away from this view, but still had elements in common with it
c)The truth was lost during the darkness of the Middle Ages
d)It started to be recovered during the Reformation
e)It found true expression in our movement.
The pattern of history you are suggesting seems highly unlikely to me, whereas the pattern of history I'm suggesting is the same as what we see over and over again. I'll also add that my theory of the atonement is the same that Christ presented. I'm in good company.
All I'm doing is sharing the truth as I perceive it.
Mark, instead of making accusations, please just present your ideas. If you think I'm in error, please present evidence that I'm in error. If you make claims, please present evidence to back up your claims.
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.
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75064
07/11/06 02:15 PM
07/11/06 02:15 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Quote:
I’ve referred the readers to the last struggle/victory of Christ because this is where we see Him in faith submitting His entire being to God. If He did that even while suffering under the wrath of God, what excuse do we have for distrusting God when we have an every present intercessor in every trial? Christ trod the wine press of God’s wrath alone. He could not see the reconciling face of the Father. It was hidden from Him. It was no delusion on Christ’s part. The Father drew near to the Son, but hid His face from Him. In contrast to the hopelessness Christ suffered for us, we, though the Holy Spirit, we have Christ and God with us in every trial.
It's a wonderful thought that Christ overcame by faith in His most difficult struggle. I didn't see the connection, and still don't, between the quote you presented and what we've been discussing.
The reason Christ couldn't see the Father's reconciling face is because He was bearing our sin. God hid His face from Christ by allowing Christ to bear our sin. If the idea you are presented were true, wouldn't God have been hiding His "angry" face? Also, when Christ overcame by faith, the sense of His being separated from His Father was lifted. If God were really doing something to Christ, rather than deliving Him to our offenses, Christ's sense could not have changed, unless it changed to something which wasn't true.
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.
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75065
07/12/06 01:29 AM
07/12/06 01:29 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Tom, your views are similar to Darius'. We've reviewed them in detail from different angles over a long period of time and done a lot of study and the staff unanimously agrees that the main thrusts of your teaching on God not punishing, on Christ not making an expiatory atonement, on Christ not suffering under the wrath of God in our place and possibly others I can't think of right now are unbiblical. The members of the forum can look at the most recent examples of our dialogues in the New Light forum where we examined your views on whether God directly punishes and on the atonement. These are just a part of the in-depth dialogue we've had together. They can review the threads in this forum as well. (And while they are doing that they're welcome to review what I've said on the doctrine of the election. It is true, I agree on some points with Calvin but I'm by no stretch of the imagination a Calvinist. I agree with many points of Catholicism as well, but of course I’m not Catholic.)
In the New Light forum I suggested you voluntarily limit your comments on these things. I think it’s only being courteous to not scatter your ideas throughout a forum where they have been given a fair hearing and the staff are unanimous in their position. You’ve done us a good service by challenging our ideas, and I hope you’ll keep doing that, but not those ideas that have been reviewed and rejected. So, I’m asking you a second time to put yourself in our place and voluntarily limit yourself to things that have not been addressed and not continue to promote ideas that have been reviewed in depth and been rejected.
As far as the views of the ancients go that is no concern of ours. As Luther taught, the scripture is to be used to interpret the church Father's not the other way around.
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75066
07/12/06 11:57 AM
07/12/06 11:57 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
You were asking about the connection between the thread and my recent posts on the final moments of Christ’s life. In His dying moments Christ yielded not only His will and His breath of life to God, He yielded His entire being, His spirit, His character. If this was the greatest act of His faith, then it is the pattern for us in yielding our spirits to God as well in our worship of Him. His example, His final legacy teaches the meaning of worshipping God in spirit and in truth.
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75067
07/12/06 01:32 PM
07/12/06 01:32 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Quote:
Tom, your views are similar to Darius'. We've reviewed them in detail from different angles over a long period of time and done a lot of study and the staff unanimously agrees that the main thrusts of your teaching on God not punishing, on Christ not making an expiatory atonement, on Christ not suffering under the wrath of God in our place and possibly others I can't think of right now are unbiblical. The members of the forum can look at the most recent examples of our dialogues in the New Light forum where we examined your views on whether God directly punishes and on the atonement.
1.You're very confused if you think my ideas are similar to Darius'. They're not. On virturally every area we differ. Our view of inspiration is different, where my view is very similar to yours, and far different than his. He believes in Universalism, which of itself is a hugely different paradigm. He disagrees with virtually every idea I share on the atonement and the Great Controversy. That you would lump me with him shows a shocking. If you were going to lump me with someone, it should be with John B.
2.My ideas, as far as I'm aware, on just about everything (at least, everything important, that's not semantical), are the same as John B's. I agree with everything he writes regarding justification by faith, the atonement, and the Great Controversy.
3.The main idea I'm aware of that I have which is out of the mainstream, if Waggoner's ideas can be accepted as mainstream, are the ideas of God's not killing, where I agree with the ideas that Ikan shared. I'd be happy to refrain from sharing these ideas, if that's requested. I've only spoken of these ideas up to now because I was specifically and repeatedly (many, many times) and directly asked to do so.
4.Regarding the atonement, as far as I'm aware, I'm in complete agreement with what Waggoner presented during the time when he was being strongly and repeatedly endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy. I would be happy to present my ideas on justification by faith and the atonement by just quoting him.
I also agree 100% with Ty Gibson's ideas, who is an SDA is good and regular standing, and appears on 3ABN, and works in conjunction with with organized church. I'd be happy to present my ideas by quoting him as well.
5.You said you're asking me a "second time." When was the first? I missed that. Please point that out to me.
6.a.Just to be clear, I do believe that God punishes us. He reproves, chasens, and disciplines those He loves. I only differ on what I perceive the means He uses, not on the fact.
b.I absolutely believe and have stated as much many times that Christ suffered under the wrath of God in our place. For you to state I have been teaching something different than this is to severely misrepresent my position. My ideas are the same as Waggoner's and Gibson's (and John B.), and it should go without saying that I believe they are completely Biblical and in harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy. I just don't agree with Anselm.
c.Regarding expiatory atonement, I agree that Christ received the punishment for our sins, the penalty for sin, that He died as our substitute, that He suffered God's wrath against sin, that He died as a propitiation for our sins. I don't agree with Anselm, but I do agree with Waggoner. I don't agree with you, but I do agree with Gibson.
7.Among the main posters in this forum are Mark, Rosangela, John B., Mike and myself.
a.Mike holds views regarding the God's character and sanctification which are far outside of the mainstream. I don't think I need to quote him to substantiate this, but I certainly can.
b.Rosangela holds ideas regarding temptation which are outside of the mainstream. I've never heard the idea that we are only tempted by Satan before, within Adventism, or outside of Adventism.
c.Mark holds Calvistic views which I gave up when I was a Calvinist and became an Adventist. It surprises me that any SDA could hold these views.
d.John B's views, baring semantics, are the same as mine, as far as I can tell. I haven't talked to him specifically about many different themes, but I have had long conversations with him, and as to what he posts here on line, excluding semantics, I say "Amen!" to everything he says.
Ok, my reason for bringing out these things is to point out that I'm not unique in my role in this forum as far as having different ideas is concerned. Everyone who regularly posts presents ideas which are out of the norm. And this is one of the nice things about forums. You get an opportunity to present ideas which others may not be familiar with, and to learn from discussing new ideas.
In your rules section, you mention the 28 fundamental beliefs. I agree with these beliefs (unlike others who have posted here, e.g. discussions regarding the Trinity). If there is some specific topic you don't want discussed, shouldn't that be clearly spelled out in the rules section?
I'm happy to abide by whatever rules you want to establish. Just make them public, and I'll abide by them. Let me know specifically what I can and can't say, and I'll abide by that. I'm just asking that you be specific.
Tom
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.
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75068
07/12/06 10:34 PM
07/12/06 10:34 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
I thought you and Darius were close in your view of the meaning of the atonement. His view was that Christ did not die for our sins as our substitute. Isn't that a common belief between the two of you? I had a vague idea that Darius was quite a distance from basic Christianity and not in agreement with you on some things but I didn't know exactly where because I haven't followed most of his posts. That summary you gave of his views helps to explain things better. I knew you were dissimilar on some issues, but I didn't know how wide the gap was.
You're right though that you share most things in common with John. I thought that for a long time. But John isn't posting his views of no substitionary atonement in many places of the forum and I think he's set a good example of someone who disagrees on important points with the staff but is not evangelical in promoting the ideas we disagree with. I listed three things that were specific. Those are the main ones - God does not punish directly or kill, no substitionary atonement and the other one that I can't remember. The most important one is substitionary atonement which is the heart and soul of Christianity. I hope you and Rosangela will come to an understanding before long. In the mean time how if I ask you to follow John's example?
|
|
|
Re: What is the spirit of a man?
#75069
07/12/06 11:36 PM
07/12/06 11:36 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I thought you and Darius were close in your view of the meaning of the atonement. His view was that Christ did not die for our sins as our substitute. Isn't that a common belief between the two of you?
I have affirmed dozens of times that I believe that Christ died for our sins as our substitute. Darius believes in Universalism. How could he *possibly* have the same view of the atonement as I have? Think about it. To the best of my knowledge, my beliefs are the same as Waggoner's on this subject, as well as John B.'s.
I had a vague idea that Darius was quite a distance from basic Christianity and not in agreement with you on some things but I didn't know exactly where because I haven't followed most of his posts. That summary you gave of his views helps to explain things better. I knew you were dissimilar on some issues, but I didn't know how wide the gap was.
I agree with some of the points Darius made, regarding how we should investigate truth, and some other ideas here and there. But as I have affirmed many times, I believe in our 28 fundamental beliefs, which obviously Darius did not. I am an elder in my church. I majored in religion at Andrews and studied for a Masters of Divinity at the seminary. I understand Adventist history, and my beliefs are more in harmony with what our church traditionally taught than yours are!
On the question of justification by faith, for example, my view is *much* closer to what our pioneers taught than what you believe, which accords more with reformation theology, whereas our roots are Wesleyan.
On the question of the atonement, my beliefs are the same as what several of our pioneers taught, including George Fifield, and E. J. Waggoner. I haven't studied what Prescott and Jones taught regarding this specific topic, but strongly suspect that I'm in agreement with what they taught as well. Given how closely justification by faith is related to the atonement, I don't see how my thoughts could be different from theirs. Given that Ellen White endorsed their views of justification by faith, by the same reasoning, I don't see how my views could be different than hers.
You're right though that you share most things in common with John. I thought that for a long time. But John isn't posting his views of no substitionary atonement in many places of the forum and I think he's set a good example of someone who disagrees on important points with the staff but is not evangelical in promoting the ideas we disagree with.
Who started the threads I'm posting on? The reason John B. hasn't been posting on the Atonement thread is because he doesn't have access to that thread. John has posted his views many times, which is how I know what they are.
I listed three things that were specific. Those are the main ones - God does not punish directly or kill, no substitionary atonement and the other one that I can't remember.
I refrained from posting at all on the God killing question for a long time, and only finally posted because I was repeatedly over and over and over asked to post. This is not something I initiated!!
Regarding substitutionary atonement, I believe Christ died as a substitute for our sins. I have affirmed this many times. I can't quit posting something I never believed in the first place.
I can't comment on the one you don't remember.
The most important one is substitionary atonement which is the heart and soul of Christianity. I hope you and Rosangela will come to an understanding before long. In the mean time how if I ask you to follow John's example?
Certainly. I won't post on any threads I don't have access to.
Better than this, I'll do whatever you ask. However, I asked you to be specific. You haven't been very specific. For example, regarding the atonement, you have suggested I not post against substitutionary atonement. Of course I won't do this, since I believe Christ was our substitute and died for our sins.
You've also suggested I not post on God's directly punishing or killing, which I'll agree to. That is, I won't start any threads on the subject, and won't be "evangelical" about it. If someone asks me questions about it, I would tend to answer them, unless you don't want me to.
Also I don't think you should have a specific standard which only affects me. Post something publicly as a part of your rules. So far, the only specific thing you've posted is to respect our fundamental beliefs and the Spirit of Prophecy. I believe our 28 fundmental beliefs, and believe Ellen White was a prophetess.
If there are some views regarding the atonement, or other things, that you don't want mentioned, shouldn't that be publicly stated? Don't you agree that this is a reasonable request?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
