|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,614
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
|
|
|
|
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: Colin]
#104967
11/21/08 09:39 PM
11/21/08 09:39 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
He overcame every one and remained totally
dependent on the Father. No other human being has been, is, or will
be exactly like Him. He was by nature and by personal election sinless.
It is there that we find the very ground of His capacity to save us.
The Sinless One became sin for us in order for us to receive by faith
the righteousness that was not ours but His. The perfect sacrificial
Lamb took on Himself our sin in order to restore us to unity and harmony
with the Creator. (Wednesday, Lesson 8) I've managed to check with the lesson author, and his comments to me differ somewhat with this quote from the lesson, which was indeed edited by the committee chaired by Clifford Goldstein after it was originally drafted. This quote states that the Saviour's humanity is unlike those he has saved: No other human being has been, is, or will
be exactly like Him. This point is emphasised by the next sentence: He was by nature and by personal election sinless. That appears to say that Jesus took the nature of sinless or unfallen Adam, but it is clear that our church teaching is neither that nor fallen Adam's nature: "sinful but without sin," meaning physically but not morally weak, in the flesh. The clear impression remains that whatever that second sentence means, it's different to any other human ever. I assume he is unlike us in terms of perfect obedience, as the first sentence I quoted at the top relates. This is the sight and sound of the new theology view of Christ's humanity, dating from just after WW2. It was conceded at last year's 50th anniversary weekend for Questions on Doctrine that this is new theology, compared to what is the church's original position. A call for better cross party understanding was made last year, and that is what I did with the lesson author this week. He, Angel M. Rodriguez, was at least agreeing with the original church position, so there's a good prospect. The question concerning the human nature of Jesus is not whether He was a sinner or not but whether He took a fallen human nature without being or becoming a sinner. (Angel Rodriguez, in email to me) This sounds basically correct compared to the language of the Quarterly, coming from the Director of the Biblical Research Institute, who wrote the lesson.
|
 Reply
 Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Rosangela]
#104968
11/21/08 09:57 PM
11/21/08 09:57 PM
|
|
|
As I see it, the difference between the first death and the second is just that, in the latter case, the separation from God precedes the cessation of life. So, the suffering resulting from this separation is the essence of the second death. Therefore Christ Death was the second death right? And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Last edited by DebbieB; 11/21/08 09:59 PM.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Rosangela]
#104969
11/21/08 10:01 PM
11/21/08 10:01 PM
|
OP
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
the suffering resulting from this separation is the essence of the second death. I agree with this. Jesus was separated from God, and His purity made the pain of separation very intense. (In contrast, we - impure sinners - are used to separation from God, and don't mind it very much.) That's why I believe Jesus suffered the 2nd death, which was made more painful by his spotless purity and constant one-ness with God.
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]
#104970
11/21/08 10:11 PM
11/21/08 10:11 PM
|
|
|
But I don't see why EGW would say, in the middle of describing what Jesus did, that the Father and Holy Spirit did not die. It seems foreign to the context. Is it? When the Trinitarian doctrine holds them to be one indivisable substance - therefore trinitarian doctrine would conclude that for one to die as God all would die? Ellen White her is affirming a non-trinitarian stance and affirming that though ONE MEMBER of the Godhead died all did not!
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: DebbieB]
#104971
11/21/08 10:23 PM
11/21/08 10:23 PM
|
|
|
How is this a non-trinitarian stance? But I don't see why EGW would say, in the middle of describing what Jesus did, that the Father and Holy Spirit did not die. It seems foreign to the context. Is it? When the Trinitarian doctrine holds them to be one indivisable substance - therefore trinitarian doctrine would conclude that for one to die as God all would die? Ellen White her is affirming a non-trinitarian stance and affirming that though ONE MEMBER of the Godhead died all did not!
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Colin]
#104972
11/21/08 10:26 PM
11/21/08 10:26 PM
|
OP
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
This quote states that the Saviour's humanity is unlike those he has saved: No other human being has been, is, or will be exactly like Him. This point is emphasised by the next sentence: He was by nature and by personal election sinless. That appears to say that Jesus took the nature of sinless or unfallen Adam, but it is clear that our church teaching is neither that nor fallen Adam's nature: "sinful but without sin," meaning physically but not morally weak, in the flesh. I agree. Jesus took neither fallen nor unfallen Adam's nature. Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. {16MR 182.3} If we can find one who is "fallen but not corrupted" that would only be the 2nd one in the history of man.
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]
#104975
11/21/08 10:46 PM
11/21/08 10:46 PM
|
|
|
This quote states that the Saviour's humanity is unlike those he has saved: No other human being has been, is, or will be exactly like Him. This point is emphasised by the next sentence: He was by nature and by personal election sinless. That appears to say that Jesus took the nature of sinless or unfallen Adam, but it is clear that our church teaching is neither that nor fallen Adam's nature: "sinful but without sin," meaning physically but not morally weak, in the flesh. I agree. Jesus took neither fallen nor unfallen Adam's nature. Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. {16MR 182.3} If we can find one who is "fallen but not corrupted" that would only be the 2nd one in the history of man. I'm confused..... For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Hebrews 2:16 What nature did Abraham have then? and what nature did Christ have if it was neither Fallen nor unfallen?
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: asygo]
#104977
11/21/08 10:53 PM
11/21/08 10:53 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
What does "divinity" mean here?...since Adventism at the time of this statement taught the death of the Son of God on the cross which is even today a non-trinitarian teaching (check my post #104904, 19/11), what does she mean by this? There's no simple answer... "Son of God" also applies to humanity. See Luke 3:38, when it was applied to Adam. And applying the Bible concept of being a son of God, I think we can safely say that this refers to unfallen Adam. Therefore, even if only Christ's humanity died, it is still true that the "Son of God" died. Nice try, but inadmissable: there are indeed several types of sons of God in the Bible - created angels (and one son per created planet), adopted sons (& daughters) of the redeemed (rather famously...), and the one and only - yes, unique among the other sons - begotten Son, who alone is worthy...of worship and atoning for his fallen creatures. Only God himself is worthy to die for us...oh, but we don't officially believe God died for us. Oh well:( What of your point that Christ's sacrifice must be of more value than Adam before he sinned? You weren't referring to God's divine Son for this value? This would fall under option #2, that "sacrifice" is not limited to death. And it could refer to either humanity or divinity. Thanks for that point, but personal dedication in service of his Father by God's Son himself isn't synonymous with the worth of divine life given for the fallen, is it.
Last edited by Colin; 11/21/08 11:07 PM.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Daryl]
#104978
11/21/08 10:56 PM
11/21/08 10:56 PM
|
|
|
How is this a non-trinitarian stance? But I don't see why EGW would say, in the middle of describing what Jesus did, that the Father and Holy Spirit did not die. It seems foreign to the context. Is it? When the Trinitarian doctrine holds them to be one indivisable substance - therefore trinitarian doctrine would conclude that for one to die as God all would die? Ellen White her is affirming a non-trinitarian stance and affirming that though ONE MEMBER of the Godhead died all did not! To understand why this is non-trinitarian one must understand what the pioneers objected to in Trinitarianism, and it is thus: In this study, the term ‘orthodox trinitarianism’ is used to denote the original trinity doctrine. This is the ‘formula’ that was eventually decided upon at the second Christian ecumenical council held at Constantinople in AD381 (the first council was at Nicaea in AD325) to explain how God has His existence. This was when it was declared that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each have their subsistence in the ‘one and the same substance’. Theologically speaking, this oneness of substance is known as ‘consubstantiality’ and is the same as that which constitutes, according to trinitarians, ‘the one being of God’ (the one God).
This is very concisely explained in the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia.
This is where it says
"Consubstantiality" describes the relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Christian Trinity and conotes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are "of one Being" in that the Son is "generated" ("born" or "begotten") "before all ages" or "eternally" of the Father's own Being, from which the Spirit also eternally "proceeds." (Wikipedia online encyclopaedia, ‘Consubstantiality)
This same ‘orthodoxy’ also includes the belief that the ‘Son’ is not only begotten of God the Father but is eternally begotten (continually sourced) with the Holy Spirit proceeding.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
