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 & Chat Rooms
(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
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Knowreason, Jeff Wickham, michaeljav, Nrothe, Theophilus
1300 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics8,847
Posts190,199
Members1,300
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 60
kland 44
Daryl 23
APL 20
April
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
Member Spotlight
Green Cochoa
Green Cochoa
The Orient
Posts: 6,812
Joined: April 2008
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
11 registered members (Daryl, dedication, Wendell Slattery, D R, ProdigalOne, Karen Y, 5 invisible), 682 guests, and 10 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 13 of 14 1 2 11 12 13 14
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134845
06/30/11 06:25 PM
06/30/11 06:25 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Elle
You know we are getting out of Topic and Cephalopod is properly bringing the discussion back on track.


Our discussion here was pointedly on Free Will, so I see that is it quite on topic. Establishing the Biblical validity of Arminian’s view is fundamental to this discussion. If it is proven to not be valid, as you are endeavoring to show, then the topic would become: “Why SDA’s absolutely should not be Arminian.”

Originally Posted By: Elle
Anyway we had progressed in discussing the GC which we can bring your comments to other topics.


This discussion inevitably comes to involve the GC, especially for an SDA. And truthfully, without the contribution of the SOP, we would be in complete darkness, or at best, a dense fog, as other non-SDA Christians on this GC topic. Apart from John 1 & 2 and (assumedly) parts of Rev 12 and (hopefully) Ezek 28:12-14 & Isa 14:12-14; and some statement by Jesus (Luke 10:18; 22:31), there really is nothing much in the Bible that is explicit of this ongoing behind the scenes tangible war. Indeed without the SOP, such an ongoing tangible battle cannot be honestly assumed and claimed.

Originally Posted By: Elle
NJK we both interpret texts in the Bible according to a view. Anyone does that and anyone believes they are exegetically correct.


The actual fact is that proper, exhaustive and deep Biblical exegesis will only lead to one truth (i.e., what the author actually only had in mind when making a statement. So it is incontrovertible that such a precise undertaking be engaged and seen through to its end.

Originally Posted By: Elle
What will tell us whose view is correct? Again it will be via seeing if our view is in harmony with the Type.


That “Type” requirement in itself is a hermeneutical supposition on you part for which, as I said in that other discussion, (Post #134293 - which you have not answered), I do not see a Biblical basis/requirement for it. If there is no Biblical basis for your limitation here then there is no point trying to determine what is (doctrinal) Truth (solely) by it.

God is not limited to the Law of Moses. He is fully free to “a new thing” (i.e., respond in a way He has never had before), as, and whenever, He sees fit. (E.g., the Flood). As I theologically understand it, that harmonizes perfectly with the fact that the future is not known and sinful man can conceive an evil and/or go to a level of extreme wickedness that God did not think they would do, and so must then intervene to most fittingly deal with the situation (also e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah). The people who went on to build the tower of Babel thought they had figured God out and “limited” His possible judgement to only a flood and thus built a tower to be able to escape this as they continued to live in their sins. Well God here “did something new” to still bring about, an even quite hampering lasting, judgement on them.

The “Prophets” are just as much a part of his binding revelation, and even greater than the law, because it is only by a truly prophetic word (i.e., a further thus saith the Lord) that a previous Law (of Moses) can be said to be superceded. That is what happened with Jesus and Paul and why we no longer sacrifice animals or do other ceremonial laws in the law of Moses.

Originally Posted By: Elle
If you "will" we can proceed this discussion at Is the Hell Doctrine in the Type(Laws of Moses)


As I showed from the Bible in Post #134293, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a “type” of God’s destruction on the wicked (i.e., the Second Death punishment). And if you must see a Law of Moses precedence, that builds upon the instances during the “days” of Moses when God stepped in an effectuated judgement Himself by burning people alive with fire.

And, you may not see so, but according to your view on free will, if you actually really believe it as you claim, I have absolutely no choice of “will” in this matter. If I do so, that is only because God is making me do so. If I don’t then that is also because God is also making me not do so. So, according to your view, what I personally choose/will here is completely futile, and isn’t just to think that I could do so ‘complete heresy’ as you variously have decried throughout this thread!?? It’s, especially as you see it, all or absolutely nothing in this matter of one’s will. And just stating “will” this in quotes does/should not affect anything. You should have rather said: “if God wills...” Just implying that I have a/the choice here, in my view completely sinks your claimed view here. If I chose not to continue to engage in that discussion (I was/am actually waiting for your response to my Post in #134293, thinking you were going to answer it when had the time), then really you should be understanding it to mean that God does not want me to continue to challenge your view (as I (personally) “plan” and “want” to). And like the Free Will issue in Heaven, that leads to the question that “Lucifer” posed: “What is God afraid of by letting His created being operate outside of His “will”! As I see it, you just cannot escape the reality of free will.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134854
07/01/11 12:02 AM
07/01/11 12:02 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
That it's within ones own power to loose their salvation has been codified by God's Sock Puppet...
...So it's strange classification is being sought on this.

Sister White was explicit that creature god Christ could very well have lost "HIS" salvation...
...And if creature god Christ was tempted as we are tempted.
...We could ALSO loose our salvation just like creature god could have lost His.
...Which defaults into the antithesis of Arminianism being false.
...Which does not indicate Arminianism is absolutely true.

Arminianism teaches that "God Himself" came to save us and impossible that Christ could have failed....
...Dear Sister White has codified such teachings as blasphemy, with her teaching Diety COULDN'T DIE.
...So for us the matter should be settled without question.

We are not better than creature god who risked EVERYTHING to save us....
...And that right there PROVES calvinism is FALSE, even worse than the papal system.

If we LOOSE our relationship to the Father we will loose our gift of salvation....
...Just like "IF" creature god would have sinned He would have lost His conferred diety.
...The only difference would be that there would be no "second death by fire" had creature god failed.
...The flesh would have simply been consumed by maggots and cease to exist.




Last edited by cephalopod; 07/01/11 12:06 AM.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: Elle] #134859
07/01/11 03:40 AM
07/01/11 03:40 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
[Apparently this earlier posting was not previously successfull]

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
And, you may not see so, but according to your view on free will, if you actually really believe it as you claim, I have absolutely no choice of “will” in this matter.


....Indeed my simple thinking and adamant believing that I have freewill would, according to your view be coming from God. And that cannot (circularly) be 'so that He can humble me, because, again according to your view, I would not have those thoughts and beliefs if it was not both God's will and express doing. Where can one start having a "valid" discussion in this closed circular loop!! Furthermore why have any discussion with anyone about what they may unbiblically think. Isn't it all God's will. You should really just let everything play out and not expend your time on seeking to convince someone (indeed "against God's will") especially as it will all work out in the end and everyone will be saved. These are not “facetious” comments but merely the actual implications of what you claim to believe on this issue.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: cephalopod] #134860
07/01/11 04:05 AM
07/01/11 04:05 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec

Originally Posted By: Cephalopod
That it's within ones own power to loose their salvation has been codified by God's Sock Puppet...
...So it's strange classification is being sought on this.

Sister White was explicit that creature god Christ could very well have lost "HIS" salvation...
...And if creature god Christ was tempted as we are tempted.
...We could ALSO loose our salvation just like creature god could have lost His.
...Which defaults into the antithesis of Arminianism being false.
...Which does not indicate Arminianism is absolutely true.

Arminianism teaches that "God Himself" came to save us and impossible that Christ could have failed....
...Dear Sister White has codified such teachings as blasphemy, with her teaching Diety COULDN'T DIE.
...So for us the matter should be settled without question.

We are not better than creature god who risked EVERYTHING to save us....
...And that right there PROVES calvinism is FALSE, even worse than the papal system.

If we LOOSE our relationship to the Father we will loose our gift of salvation....
...Just like "IF" creature god would have sinned He would have lost His conferred diety.
...The only difference would be that there would be no "second death by fire" had creature god failed.
...The flesh would have simply been consumed by maggots and cease to exist.


You’ve referred to several corroborating points which are addressed/discussed in other threads. I do not necessarily agree with all of them (e.g., the “level/substance” of the Deity of Jesus, and also that, (even if EGW has stated so), it could not (nor did not) die*), however I get your main gist which manifestly is: “If Jesus could have “chosen” to sin, then we also have this “choice”. As regrettable as it “defaulty/wholesalely” is, I am not sure however that you’ll convince Elle through such SOP-based arguments.


*Succinctly said here, my (albeit, working thesis) view is that, and as an utter surprise to Jesus (cf. Matt 27:46), when God placed the sins of the world upon Jesus, His Diety was “stained” and thus became mortal and was indeed sacrifice as the full ransom price for man. It is there that I see that the wrath of God was poured out upon the Divine nature of Jesus to fully pay the Second Death (Hell Fire’s mental and physical torment) price. As I see it His Human nature only paid the First Death penalty. And had this not so “fully” been done involving the Divine Nature, including if Jesus had actually failed in His mission, then a Plan B involving only a First Death substitution element in the sacrifice of spotless lambs would have only paid for that First Death price and even then redeemed man would have to suffer the Second Death torment for their sins before being permitted to live on eternally. So I see that Jesus’s Total (I.e., Human and Divine Nature) “Valid Payment” averted any such Plan B options and paid the due penalty and punishment for a redeemed sinner in full.... But that is really a discussion for another thread.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134863
07/01/11 06:32 AM
07/01/11 06:32 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: NJK

You’ve referred to several corroborating points which are addressed/discussed in other threads. I do not necessarily agree with all of them (e.g., the “level/substance” of the Deity of Jesus, and also that, (even if EGW has stated so), it could not (nor did not) die*),


We both agree ( if I'm not mistaken ) that Christ's diety was only his in a "conferred" sense....
...I.E. "on loan" as an investiture provided he remained 'loyal to his loyality'.

If Sister White said it that's it, the total end of it...
...Her works are either of the enemy OR God Himself.
...There is no half-way in this matter.

Originally Posted By: NJK

I am not sure however that you’ll convince Elle through such SOP-based arguments.


Does Ellie not believe that SOP was in reality God's Own Sock Puppet....
...God's own hand was controlling Sister White's mouth.
...And w/out her the Bible is so much fish wrap.
...Just look at what those w/out Sister White have done.
...They have all been identified as apostate and part of the beast power.

Originally Posted By: NJK

*Succinctly said here, my (albeit, working thesis) view is that, and as an utter surprise to Jesus (cf. Matt 27:46), when God placed the sins of the world upon Jesus, His Diety was “stained” and thus became mortal and was indeed sacrifice as the full ransom price for man. It is there that I see that the wrath of God was poured out upon the Divine nature of Jesus to fully pay the Second Death (Hell Fire’s mental and physical torment) price. As I see it His Human nature only paid the First Death penalty. And had this not so “fully” been done involving the Divine Nature, including if Jesus had actually failed in His mission, then a Plan B involving only a First Death substitution element in the sacrifice of spotless lambs would have only paid for that First Death price and even then redeemed man would have to suffer the Second Death torment for their sins before being permitted to live on eternally. So I see that Jesus’s Total (I.e., Human and Divine Nature) “Valid Payment” averted any such Plan B options and paid the due penalty and punishment for a redeemed sinner in full.... But that is really a discussion for another thread.


I would agree that his "conferred diety" was stained and it was a total shock...
...SOP says he thought Ultimate God had turned His back on him.
...And he felt it was eternally over.

The papal army suggests that Jesus was quoting the 22nd Psalm...
...Which incepts with "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me".
...And terminates with.

"They SHALL come, and SHALL declare His righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that HE hath done this".

The part of your quote I highlighted is interesting...
...I'll have to get back with you on that NJK.





Last edited by cephalopod; 07/01/11 07:05 AM.
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134866
07/01/11 05:43 PM
07/01/11 05:43 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,867
Midland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
....Indeed my simple thinking and adamant believing that I have freewill would, according to your view be coming from God. And that cannot (circularly) be 'so that He can humble me, because, again according to your view, I would not have those thoughts and beliefs if it was not both God's will and express doing. Where can one start having a "valid" discussion in this closed circular loop!! Furthermore why have any discussion with anyone about what they may unbiblically think. Isn't it all God's will. You should really just let everything play out and not expend your time on seeking to convince someone (indeed "against God's will") especially as it will all work out in the end and everyone will be saved. These are not “facetious” comments but merely the actual implications of what you claim to believe on this issue.

I think you said that well. Maybe what I was attempting to say, but I have to admit, this seems clear and rather concise.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: cephalopod] #134871
07/01/11 07:28 PM
07/01/11 07:28 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: cephalopod
We both agree ( if I'm not mistaken ) that Christ's diety was only his in a "conferred" sense....
...I.E. "on loan" as an investiture provided he remained 'loyal to his loyality'.


In my view, I would say that Deity was Christ’s own and upon his incarnation it was just given to him in the conception process and joined the Mary-provided human nature. I agree that it was “conditional” in that, indeed if Jesus had sinned, He would have lost it, on top of course of losing the possibility of living eternally.

I see that EGW’s statements that:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 530.3
In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.


speak to Him outrightly owning that Divine Nature, especially in His pre-incarnate Life. It was only for tangible incarnation process reasons that it had to be “(re)-injected”/transferred for His earthly conception.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
If Sister White said it that's it, the total end of it...
...Her works are either of the enemy OR God Himself.
...There is no half-way in this matter.


I understand that this is your view of EGW/SOP, for the many reasons already given to you, I do not see it to be so. My view is that the Bible (the “Greater Light”) has final authority over what EGW has written/said (the “lesser Light”) which I further see to fall into the two “Biblical” (= 1 Cor 7:6; 25; 2 Cor 8:7-10) categories of “statements in harmony with one’s knowledge [= (expert) opinion]” (‘syn-gnome’ - Strong’s #4774) and “statements of (Divine) authority/commandment” (see e.g., 1Tim 1:1; Titus 1:3; Rom 16:24, 25). It is those ‘statements according to one’s knowledge’ that can be challenged when either more knowledge obtained or a “commandment” of God is explicitly pronounced upon it. And in many ways this has occurred, and continues to do so with the substantive level/“quality” of “Biblical knowledge” that EGW and/or others in her day had compared to the validly more advanced and precise Biblical exegesis today. Even EGW corrected her prior statements when she obtain more/further knowledge.

Quote:
NJK: I am not sure however that you’ll convince Elle through such SOP-based arguments.

Cephalopod: Does Ellie not believe that SOP was in reality God's Own Sock Puppet....
...God's own hand was controlling Sister White's mouth.
...And w/out her the Bible is so much fish wrap.


From what I have read from Elle, I don’t think she shares this underlying view. I also do not at all.

(You may want to look at the example in this post of how EGW produced her writing. If your “Sock Puppet” theory/view/claim is true then God is responsible for all of those post-initial writing and/or revelation, substantive deficiencies, mistakes and omissions. I am not ready to claim that ‘God makes mistakes’. To me the human aspect is always present in Divine-Human interactions/communications. [You can post any response you may have to this point, in that pertinent thread.)

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
...Just look at what those w/out Sister White have done.
...They have all been identified as apostate and part of the beast power.


I agree here that (a) ‘without such prophetic visions and light, God’s people are literally on their own and thus quite vulnerable to failure’ (Pro 29:18; cf. 2 Chr 20:20).

In a GYC 2005 sermon on the SOP [09:25-12:14], the EGW Estate’s Cindy Tutsch makes an interesting reckoning of this fact by a comparison made with what other “Millerites/Adventists” have done since 1844 compared to SDA. And keep in mind that most of these “Adventists” are observing the popular Sunday day of worship and also do not believe in the SOP. So there is no reason why they are not more “popular” to the main group of Christians, interestingly enough, as SDA’s relatively actually are, with most of those joining the Church coming from Sunday Keeping, no SOP, Churches. I see the main reason is that those adventists have never been able to shed so valid “light” upon their 1844 disappointment/“mistake”, whereas SDA were, ultimately Biblically able to do (i.e., following ORL Crosier’s October 23, 1844 Heavenly Sanctuary impression) and all of this was confirmed by the Light given to EGW.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
I would agree that his "conferred diety" was stained and it was a total shock...
...SOP says he thought Ultimate God had turned His back on him.
...And he felt it was eternally over.


God did not “deliberately” (i.e., for a fickle reason) turn his back on Him, however that was just an inevitable necessity when the sins of the world were placed on Christ and also when God poured out His wrath on this. (Isa 53:10a). And this indeed “shock” is seen in the fact that Jesus had previously confidently (and confidence buildingly = John 8:30) said, speaking of His death:

Originally Posted By: Bible John 8:28, 29 (NASB)
When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."


So clearly, when this event actually transpired, He truly felt that God had ‘left Him alone’. And adding to the “shock”, He was actually doing all of this according to God’s will and plan. So why indeed did it suddenly seem that ‘God had left/abandoned Him.’

Added to the genuine belief of this here, Christ’s said this in a “loud voice” and not only did the opposing priests, with some of them probably being the one who were opposing Him in John 8, clearly heard this, but others also, probably here leading many to disbelieve in Him. Indeed just recall that He had previously said that this would be God’s will and that God would not leave Him alone, now saying and expressing feelings of the exact opposite is quite rationally/logically faith shattering. Clearly, the last thing on Jesus’ mind and intent was to cause any fragile people/believers to stumble and lose faith (cf. Mark 9:42). So this clearly was what He truly felt and this was therefore based upon a concrete reality that sudden, and not before experience God-void had suddenly occurred in Him. This is where I see that His Divinity was fully sacrificed as a due payment for the Second Death Penalty. And to be tempted in all points like we are (Heb 4:15), indeed in fairness to us, God did not tell Him in advance, at all that this would occur, thus testing His faith to the uttermost then, as the simple thought then of giving up would have been sin, as it would moreoverly have shown that Jesus had only been so faithful in God because from His Birth He was told He was most special and later God had given Him special revelations of His Divinity (e.g., Luke 3:22). SO here He was to remain faithful, like we are expected to in our sudden tragic trials, without any notion of special relationship to, or even feeling of favor or grace from, God.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
The papal army suggests that Jesus was quoting the 22nd Psalm...
...Which incepts with "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me".



I also do not agree with a common view here that Jesus was merely quoting Psa 22. However I do see that Jesus was so full of the Scriptures, that in this hour of genuine and utter despair and feeling of Divine abandonment, that He trustingly still clung to God, holding Him at His word and thus say this statement as the most appropriate/“Biblical” thing to say in such a situation. I.e., He was earnest prayerfully asking ‘Is this (Biblical) Psa 22 episode what is happening here’; and since so, indeed, “Why”?? I see that it is the common expression of people of faith, when in such despairing situations to similarly and almost automatically, quote a most appropriate Scripture. So that is what Jesus found most appropriate for His situation and He (loudly) expressed it with its full, candid and genuine meaning.

Originally Posted By: cephalopod
...And terminates with.

"They SHALL come, and SHALL declare His righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that HE hath done this".


I have also heard, and that from an SDA Preacher, that this last portion was quoted by Jesus when He “punctuatingly” said: “It is Finished”. (i.e., “Done” = “Finished”), however I do not see any exegetical support for this claim at all. This concluding statement in Psa 22 is just speaking of the expected Deliverance, as expressed by David in vss 19-30, that God would bring to this present oppressing/persecutive/assaulting situation.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134941
07/03/11 11:06 PM
07/03/11 11:06 PM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: NJK

In my view, I would say that Deity was Christ’s own and upon his incarnation it was just given to him in the conception process and joined the Mary-provided human nature. I agree that it was “conditional” in that, indeed if Jesus had sinned, He would have lost it, on top of course of losing the possibility of living eternally.

I see that EGW’s statements that:


Ellen White
IN Christ IS life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.

Originally Posted By: NJK

speak to Him outrightly owning that Divine Nature, especially in His pre-incarnate Life. It was only for tangible incarnation process reasons that it had to be “(re)-injected”/transferred for His earthly conception


As Sister White cleary said

Sister White
Christ's humanity could NOT be separated from His divinity.” Signs of the Times, 14th April 1898, ‘Christ and the law’)

Sister White
Nature sympathized with the suffering of its Author. The heaving earth, the rent rocks, proclaimed that IT WAS the Son of God WHO died.” ( 2nd Vol. Testimonies page 211, ‘The sufferings of Christ’)

Sister White
He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient TO His Father's will. Manuscript 99, 1903, pp. 3, 4. "Christian Education in Our Schools", September 1, 1903, see also Selected Messages book 3, page 141, chapter 19, ‘The incarnation'

The ONLY reason Michael had infinite power was BECAUSE he was perfectly obedient....
...To His Father's ( aka Ultimate God's ) will.

That familiar verse just jumps out at this time...
..."For God so love the world that He sent His only begotten "Son".
...If the Son was the Son prior to coming to earth then the Son's diety was conferred absolutely.
...Just like SOP and the Pioneers said it was.
...Michaels diety was NOT intrinsic to Michael's nature.
...Which is why Sister White so boldly states that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Diety to sink and die.

Sister White however just as boldly said it was VERY possible for Michael to SINK and DIE....
...And addiing to that it was possible for the pre-Incarnate Son to eternally cease to exist.

It's for those reasons ( and a whole bunch more ) that Ultimate God ( The Father ) is spoken of in the following texts....
...And NOT the Son who had his diety contingent on his being a good Son.

Psalm 102,12
But thou, O LORD, shall endure for EVER; and thy remembrance unto all generations.

Isaiah 40,28
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding

And of course many many more. The point being that only God is absolutely eternal...
...Michael could have FAILED to endure forever by not properly vindicating God's holy law.
...Therefore since it's impossible for diety to die but possible for God's Son to die.
...The diety "IN" Christ was absolutely the Father's who could have pulled it away as easy as an adult taking candy from a kid.



Originally Posted By: NJK

I understand that this is your view of EGW/SOP, for the many reasons already given to you, I do not see it to be so. My view is that the Bible (the “Greater Light”) has final authority over what EGW has written/said (the “lesser Light”) which I further see to fall into the two “Biblical” (= 1 Cor 7:6; 25; 2 Cor 8:7-10) categories of “statements in harmony with one’s knowledge [= (expert) opinion]” (‘syn-gnome’ - Strong’s #4774) and “statements of (Divine) authority/commandment” (see e.g., 1Tim 1:1; Titus 1:3; Rom 16:24, 25). It is those ‘statements according to one’s knowledge’ that can be challenged when either more knowledge obtained or a “commandment” of God is explicitly pronounced upon it. And in many ways this has occurred, and continues to do so with the substantive level/“quality” of “Biblical knowledge” that EGW and/or others in her day had compared to the validly more advanced and precise Biblical exegesis today. Even EGW corrected her prior statements when she obtain more/further knowledge


If we can take what the Bible says to be true we are instructed by the SOP....
...To pay EVEN MORE attention to what God says through SOP.

Sister White, Testimonies Vol 4, p 147
In ancient time God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His spirit. There never was a time when God instructed His people more earnestly the He instructs them NOW concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue. But will they profit by His teachings? Will they receive His reproofs and heed His warnings? God will accept no partial obedience; He will sanction no compromise with self.

The teachings from Sister White are not really from Sister White...
...They are God's holy Word and we are not now in ancient time.


Originally Posted By: NJK

From what I have read from Elle, I don’t think she shares this underlying view. I also do not at all.

(You may want to look at the example in this post of how EGW produced her writing. If your “Sock Puppet” theory/view/claim is true then God is responsible for all of those post-initial writing and/or revelation, substantive deficiencies, mistakes and omissions. I am not ready to claim that ‘God makes mistakes’. To me the human aspect is always present in Divine-Human interactions/communications. [You can post any response you may have to this point, in that pertinent thread.)


Yes, I'm certain Sister White was in reality nothing more than a Sock Puppet controlled directly by God....
...God does not make mistakes and it's clear that many things that have been altered in Sister Whites texts.
...Were done so because they were believed to be mistakes.
...Not that they were in reality mistakes.


"The Lord has seen fit to give me a view of the needs and errors of His people. Painful though it has been to me, I have faithfully set before the offenders their faults and the means of remedying them, according to the dictates of the Spirit of God."[Ellen White, Testimonies, (1876) vol. 4, p.14.]


Sister White, Testimonies page 691
I am only an instrument in the Lord�s hands to do the work He has set for me to do. The instructions that I have given by pen or voice have been an expression of the light God has given me. I have tried to place before you the principles that the spirit of God has for years been impressing upon my mind and writing on my heart.

Sister White was a mere "instrument" which God's hand was within, controlling the writing hand and mouth...
...Of the Puppet itself.



Originally Posted By: NJK

I agree here that (a) ‘without such prophetic visions and light, God’s people are literally on their own and thus quite vulnerable to failure’ (Pro 29:18; cf. 2 Chr 20:20).

In a GYC 2005 sermon on the SOP [09:25-12:14], the EGW Estate’s Cindy Tutsch makes an interesting reckoning of this fact by a comparison made with what other “Millerites/Adventists” have done since 1844 compared to SDA. And keep in mind that most of these “Adventists” are observing the popular Sunday day of worship and also do not believe in the SOP. So there is no reason why they are not more “popular” to the main group of Christians, interestingly enough, as SDA’s relatively actually are, with most of those joining the Church coming from Sunday Keeping, no SOP, Churches. I see the main reason is that those adventists have never been able to shed so valid “light” upon their 1844 disappointment/“mistake”, whereas SDA were, ultimately Biblically able to do (i.e., following ORL Crosier’s October 23, 1844 Heavenly Sanctuary impression) and all of this was confirmed by the Light given to EGW.


Those other groups simply joined the already existing "fallen churches" by rejecting God's Sock Puppet...
...Sister White was explicit about that in 1847 and I think ( will have to confirm ) even prior to that.


I'll be back later NJK - I'm still reading up on your blog attempting to get my mind around it.

Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: cephalopod] #134945
07/04/11 12:50 AM
07/04/11 12:50 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Cephalopod, I appreciate your desire and effort to discuss the nature of Christ, however I personally cannot afford to engage in a discussion on this topic at this time. (It is also actually not relevant at all to this thread’s discussion.) I’ll however say the following few points on what your posted:

-When studying out this topic, as with any topic all texts on the matter, in both the Bible and the SOP have to be taken into full and proper (i.e., exegetical) consideration. I see that you may not have generally considered/included passages such as: Isa 9:6 and DA 469.4-470.2 (=Exod 3:14), which clearly indicate that Jesus outrightly owned an Eternal Diety.

-The texts and arguments you used to claim that a pre-incarnate Jesus only had a Divinity be remaining faithful actually are speaking of the post-incarnate Christ. E.g, the Ms 99, 1903, pp. 3, 4. ("Christian Education in Our Schools," September 1, 1903.) {8MR 38.5} which is speaking of the John 15:10 statement which was in regards to ‘Christ’s Earthly Life’.

-Speaking of God as Eternal in some verses does not preclude, as shown above, this being said of the Son who was of the same substance as the Father (John 1:1-4; Phil 2:6-8)

John 3:16 says “gave” (#1325) not “sent” (#3992). The “send” in vs. 17 (#649) has the notion of commissioned as in the mission of an apostle.

-If a Divine Being sins they indeed are susceptible to death.

4T 147.4 - This statement is actually speaking to how God now communicates directly to all and any recipient believer and not just EGW. And also How God is more earnest in this, indeed which is why he has opened this divine communication avenue to any and all. God wants to wrap things up. So this is not saying anything proprietarily special in regards to EGW herself.

-EGW herself edited all or part of that sample manuscript and, at the very least, approved all that was added as corrections and were also all published in her time. So nothing was done here without her knowledge nor against her will. She herself saw and believed that they were mistakes in her initial draft from things God had impressed her to write either specifically or more generally.

-4T 14 & 5T 691.1 - to not imply that ‘everything EGW wrote was either all by the “commission of God or directly from God or verbatim (=verbal inspiration).

-As far as I see it, retracing a denominations historical path, those Adventist groups remained their own distinct denominations, although they did in spirit “join” the “fallen churches”. The point I was making was that the did not grow and flourish as those Adventist who went on to form the SDA Church.

I have not noticed a matching visit to my blog that fits your various criteria (e.g., location and blog post visited in a while (i.e., since June 27), so if you had printed that page to read/study it offline, I would recommend, as much as possible reading from the online post as I occasionally make key amendments to my posts and also for access to related post.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Is Adventism absolutely Arminian (Free will)? [Re: NJK Project] #134949
07/04/11 09:20 AM
07/04/11 09:20 AM
cephalopod  Offline
Active Member 2014
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 252
Washington, USA
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Cephalopod, I appreciate your desire and effort to discuss the nature of Christ, however I personally cannot afford to engage in a discussion on this topic at this time. (It is also actually not relevant at all to this thread’s discussion.) I’ll however say the following few points on what your posted:

-When studying out this topic, as with any topic all texts on the matter, in both the Bible and the SOP have to be taken into full and proper (i.e., exegetical) consideration. I see that you may not have generally considered/included passages such as: Isa 9:6 and DA 469.4-470.2 (=Exod 3:14), which clearly indicate that Jesus outrightly owned an Eternal Diety.


Provided he remained loyal to his loyality just as SOP stated...
...He could have chosen to sin in heaven as easily as he could have on earth in human flesh.

Originally Posted By: NJK

-The texts and arguments you used to claim that a pre-incarnate Jesus only had a Divinity be remaining faithful actually are speaking of the post-incarnate Christ. E.g, the Ms 99, 1903, pp. 3, 4. ("Christian Education in Our Schools," September 1, 1903.) {8MR 38.5} which is speaking of the John 15:10 statement which was in regards to ‘Christ’s Earthly Life’.

-Speaking of God as Eternal in some verses does not preclude, as shown above, this being said of the Son who was of the same substance as the Father (John 1:1-4; Phil 2:6-8)


Had Christ "sinned" it was the identity of the pre-Incarnate Michael that would have ceased to exist...
...The human flesh of Michael was just a husk - no big deal.
...Sister White was explicit that whatever it was that was Michael prior to Incarnation.
...Was what Risked it's "Future" eternal existence.

Originally Posted By: NJK

John 3:16 says “gave” (#1325) not “sent” (#3992). The “send” in vs. 17 (#649) has the notion of commissioned as in the mission of an apostle.


I meant to say 1 John 4:9....
...Which does say "SENT".

Originally Posted By: NJK

-If a Divine Being sins they indeed are susceptible to death.


A Divine Being that's Devine due to conferred deity being given to them....
...Sister White said it would be impossible for Diety to sink and die.
...But absolutely possible for Michael the archangel to sink and die.


Originally Posted By: NJK

4T 147.4 - This statement is actually speaking to how God now communicates directly to all and any recipient believer and not just EGW. And also How God is more earnest in this, indeed which is why he has opened this divine communication avenue to any and all. God wants to wrap things up. So this is not saying anything proprietarily special in regards to EGW herself.


In ancient times God spoke through the apostles and prophets ( the Bible )....
...In Sister White's times God spoke to the people via Sister White.
...Who had more visions than ALL the people mentioned in the so called Bible put together.
...That's a fact many in the SDA church are now trying to push under the carpet.




Originally Posted By: NJK

-EGW herself edited all or part of that sample manuscript and, at the very least, approved all that was added as corrections and were also all published in her time. So nothing was done here without her knowledge nor against her will. She herself saw and believed that they were mistakes in her initial draft from things God had impressed her to write either specifically or more generally.


Her actual writings were inspired, the human agencies pushing "corrected paper-work to Sister White were not....
...And I don't think Sister White signing off on things was absolutely inspired either.
...Which is why I've taken pains to get 1st edition works of Sister White.


Originally Posted By: NJK

-4T 14 & 5T 691.1 - to not imply that ‘everything EGW wrote was either all by the “commission of God or directly from God or verbatim (=verbal inspiration).


Well, I see we just won't be agreeing on this part....
...I see Sister White as an actual Sock Puppet with God's hand up in her.
...Controlling just when the mouth opens and what comes out of that mouth.

When I first heard this way of thinking of it I was shocked and disturbed.....
...However when the person produced a sock puppet and started reading the SOP, I GOT it.


Originally Posted By: NJK

-As far as I see it, retracing a denominations historical path, those Adventist groups remained their own distinct denominations, although they did in spirit “join” the “fallen churches”. The point I was making was that the did not grow and flourish as those Adventist who went on to form the SDA Church.

I have not noticed a matching visit to my blog that fits your various criteria (e.g., location and blog post visited in a while (i.e., since June 27), so if you had printed that page to read/study it offline, I would recommend, as much as possible reading from the online post as I occasionally make key amendments to my posts and also for access to related post.


The JW's have done pretty well I'd say, at least the actual headquarters has nearly a billion in liquid cash...
...With around 16 million members with approx 8 million being active members.
..That's not that bad I'd say.

Page 13 of 14 1 2 11 12 13 14

Moderator  Green Cochoa 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Should Churches Close Because Of Pandemic?
by kland. 04/02/20 11:21 AM
Why Bible Believers Should Oppose Vaccines
by kland. 04/02/20 11:05 AM
Coronavirus - potential impacts
by kland. 04/02/20 11:01 AM
The Constitution Is Being Repudiated!
by ProdigalOne. 03/31/20 01:36 AM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 03/30/20 10:47 PM
Vaccine Credibility
by kland. 03/30/20 11:49 AM
It Is Time To Repair The Breach!
by dedication. 03/29/20 11:57 AM
Meeting People Online: Current Tools
by kland. 03/27/20 11:24 AM
The Simple Cure for Coronavirus: COVID-19
by Rick H. 03/25/20 03:20 PM
Money in the Bank
by Rick H. 03/15/20 05:30 AM
The Lost Sanctuary Bible Study Guide
by dedication. 03/14/20 09:59 PM
Fires, fires and more fires
by Rick H. 03/14/20 07:32 AM
Music before probation closes
by Rick H. 03/09/20 08:12 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
Church Closure Puts Latter Rain on Hold
by kland. 04/02/20 11:13 AM
::S:: Nihar Justins dreams
by Rick H. 03/31/20 09:33 AM
What is the daily in Daniel 8:11?
by dedication. 03/30/20 01:29 AM
An Experience With a False Prophet
by Rick H. 03/28/20 06:55 PM
What is the Time of Jacob's Trouble
by Rick H. 03/23/20 12:57 PM
Ten Kings - One Hour
by dedication. 03/21/20 09:31 PM
Pioneers' Beliefs about the Godhead
by APL. 03/20/20 12:16 PM
Churches Closing
by APL. 03/19/20 04:02 PM
Walter Veith Discusses Religious Freedom Movement
by ProdigalOne. 03/13/20 12:15 PM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by kland. 03/11/20 12:36 PM
Pope Francis Is in Control
by Wendell Slattery. 03/07/20 10:00 PM
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