What Kind of SDA are We

[aka]

My Adventistic existance is not jellied in any mold one can label and say ..aha... that's what she is.

I am still looking at all the various Adventist fragmentations, wishing I could identify with one of them, wishing I could find my nitch and get all zealous about it. It hasn't happened yet and I'm still sitting high on the fence observing both sides of the right and left wing SDA's. However, I sit on the fence edge with my feet dangling on over in the LGT group hoping maybe to feel my calling there. I am studying the matter.

Larry Kirkpatrick was interviewed in another Forum. I post the interview here with the hope to get comments that will help me ponder my future walk in theology.

.............

In this interview, Kirkpatrick explains how the last generation theology is different from “historic Adventism,” discusses his view on why some Adventist pastors and theologians should stop working for the church, and shares the personal journey that led him to his present convictions.

----------------------------

Several have observed that there are Adventists of different stripes such Historic, Mainstream, Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, Moderate, Cultural, Reformed, Evangelical, etc. How would you describe your “brand” of Adventism?

Conservative and Liberal are inadequate shorthands. I prefer to define Adventism along a five point scale, with small groups on the ends and larger groups in the middle. These are: 1. New-modelers, 2. Misguided, 3. Place-holders, 4. Preservers, 5. Preserver-extenders. The new-modelers are consciously seeking to change parts of the Adventist base line that should not be changed. The misguided are those who follow them, but are sincere. The place-holders are the largest group and are clueless. The preservers are bent on preserving, whether it is Ellen White or the investigative judgment, but they sometimes do it with anger. The last group is the preserver-extender, aiming to be true to what God has revealed in Bible and Ellen White, but also open to following anything consistent with this that God may reveal. So I would endeavor to be a preserver-extender.

In another sense, I am an LGT believer. The term “Last Generation Theology” (what we just call “LGT”) is one that in recent decades has been consistently used as a pejorative by those who disdain its ideas. Some in mainstream and liberal Adventism have no place for the concepts. They, correctly, see LGT as a package. That is, its doctrine of sin, humanity of Christ, positive (but not salvific) concept of law, sanctification package, delay and hastening concepts, and other pieces, are seen by them to be the wrong stuff for Adventism. We noticed this and wanted to promote those very Adventist concepts, but what term to use? “Last Generation Theology” was already there as a negative, but we decided to run with it and simply restate it as a positive, and we came up with the shorthand “LGT.” The only problem we have discovered is that acronymns often do not translate well into other languages. But we are working around that.

Could you describe LGT in a nutshell? Is this essentially the same concept advanced by M. L. Andreasen in mid-20th century?

Last Generation Theology teaches that Jesus Christ is not only fully our Substitute but fully our Example, affirms that Christ overcame sin in flesh like ours, insists that the gospel plan is for Christians to cease from sin before the Second Coming (indeed, before the Close of Probation), and confesses that the close of the age has been delayed by unconsecration in God’s people but can be accelerated by their living holy lives.

LGT has tremendous pulling power, because many of those who are theologically and historically astute recognize that it represents core Adventism, particularly that which obtained for the generation that coincided with and followed Andreasen. Andreasen did much to develop the implications of Adventism, and LGT was the result.

Interestingly, Herbert E. Douglass developed essentially the very same concepts but independently of Andreasen. Douglass told me that when he was writing his editorials in the Review in favor of the same ideas, people kept suggesting that he was echoing Andreasen, but he had never read Andreasen. Finally, after these repeated questions, he did sit down and read Andreasen. He did find much commonality. But Douglass had developed his concepts–just as Andreasen had—via his careful study of Scripture and reading of the Ellen G. White writings.

Likewise, I developed most of my understanding in the same way. It was mostly by following up key ideas in the Bible that I developed my view. Of course, the Ellen White elements came strongly to the fore. I recall in one of Woodrow Whidden’s books he follows the development of Mrs. White’s theology up to about the turn of the century, and claims that he goes no further because there were no serious points of development after that time. But Christ’s Object Lessons (COL) came out in 1905 and certainly represents a further ripening of her concepts in these areas. We might even say that COL represents White’s working-out of the implications of Adventist theology—and landing with LGT.

So Andreasen, Douglass, myself, and even Ellen White, seeking to draw the strands together into a developed whole, all land at LGT. This is Adventism. We might say much more, but I would only add that we have especially developed the gospel concepts. Look again; its not the grinch under the bridge it has been portrayed as!

How is LGT different from “Historic Adventism”?

LGT is similar but indeed different. Whereas Historic Adventists (HA) tend to fall into the “preserver”‘ mentality, LGT is more “extender.” Yes, let’s preserve, but let’s also advance as God leads. Heaven did not arbitrarily stop giving help and insight to the church. Has Heaven gone silent? I don’t think so. Dennis Priebe helped the church by pointing to the issue of the doctrine of sin. This is the fountainhead. Get it right or get it wrong, and a whole theology rises from it.

LGT is different because it has a different mindset. There is the Youth Conferences movement, there is the web, there is the publishing of books and booklets. LGT people feel empowered. The HA people did some publishing, but they lacked the sense of empowerment. Some developed an antagonism toward the church. LGT is kinder, more understand-it-then-do-it oriented. We are not waiting for the church to do what we think should be done. That’s fine. If some are uninterested, then we will just keep supporting the church and go forward and address things ourselves. What did we expect?

What do you see as the reason for theological diversity within Adventism today?

The 1888 and Questions on Doctrine debacles would have a lot to do with it. There is also the unflattering trans-generational dynamic Ellen White explained in Great Controversy, pages 384 and 385, where the descendants of the pioneers endeavor to remake the church in a different image. There are also the tensions introduced by smart people who are not smart enough going out and attaining their PhDs from universities where they mute their Adventism or worse, come back bent on correcting Adventism.

What should the limits of theological diversity be in the church?

The measure should not be what is allowed, or a thus saith the church, but rather the historical and theological package that has been delivered to us. If we do not maintain an Adventist DNA, we won’t be Adventists. I agree with Cliff Goldstein when he says that if you don’t believe the teachings of the church, you should have the integrity to get out. If you don’t believe in a literal six-day creation, then get out. If you don’t believe in the investigative judgment, then get out. Just get out. Go do something that you can believe in instead of being an insurgent. I don’t offer this in anger, but just in practical terms. You’ll sleep better, you’ll be more at peace with yourself, if you work within different expectations and boundaries elsewhere. It is deadly for the church to pay for the sack lunches of those who would new-model the faith. The limits should be edges as defined by the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy writings. Yes, that’s doctrine-centric, and may not seem very satisfying to some of your readers.

How would you answer the charge (that someone like myself might raise) that you’re building theology out of Ellen White and not directly from Scripture and that your view of Adventism seems too narrow and restrictive?

Julius, the principles of LGT are very clear in Scripture. No one needs Ellen White to get it, although I do think it is fair to say she has jogged us. But look at your Bible. Genesis starts with “In the beginning,” and that implies an ending. In Numbers 14 you have the aborted entry of Israel into Canaan and their faithlessness forces a delay. This is undisputed Bible history. You have texts pointing to the vindication of God’s character, like Romans 3:4, texts showing a cooperative human role in the plan of redemption (compare Genesis 3:15 with Romans 16:20), you have direct discussion of hastening in 2 Peter 3:11, 12, and beyond this several lines of approach in the gospels and Revelation. There is no shortage of sustenance for LGT ideas in the Bible, doubtless the original source.

But what if we were building theology from the Bible and EGW? Inspired is inspired, revealed is revealed; there are no degrees of inspiration. That would not be a problem to me, except from the standpoint of sharing; obviously sharing with others who have not been introduced to the concept of contemporary prophecy would be a problem. We are always better off making our whole case from the Bible.

On the narrow and restrictive question, try this. The church exists to facilitate the completion of God’s goals. It has a definite message. And yet, the tendency in certain kinds of denominational institutions in the North American setting is to defenestrate the message. That is a basic, parasitical relationship. If the view of mission in certain kinds of institutions is so radically different than that of your basic serious Bible and Spirit of Prophecy believing SDA, then that very different mission should be pursued under another entity. Go ahead and see whether a message of doubt can pay for itself. If a too broad definition of what Adventism is undermines the very mission of the church, then the church is neutralizing herself. Without boundaries and definitions there is no Adventist mission. Few join because they want to belong to a vanilla evangelical church. Without the tighter definition of what Adventism is, we die.

As the masthead of your website, “GreatControversy.org,” says, you seek to provide “a positive place on the web for the third angel’s message.” What led you to create the website? Please tell us also about your partners in this ministry.

The website began in 1997 as “Voice in the Wilderness,” when I was pastoring in the desert in Nevada. the first thing we published was the 1973-1974 Annual Council Appeals of the General Conference, foundational documents for the last generation perspective. Later, C. Mervyn Maxwell urged me to write out my sermons so that I would have something to share afterwards. It was a natural thing to do to hang them on the internet. Later, the website become the center of a kind of resistance to certain trends. Maxwell would have called it “The Queen’s loyal opposition.” We also offer a positive perspective. There was a time when there were a swarm of anti-SDA attack websites and very little pro-SDA out there. But we were there upholding the church and its message. As we organized more carefully we grew in content and as a team. We have published items from laymen, pastors, theology professors, administrators, and conference presidents. Mostly, we publish our own materials. The present team is centered in Loma Linda area and in Oklahoma. We now have a family of six websites in various languages and a print ministry.

Another avenue of ministry that you’ve been part of recently is the General Youth Conference. What specifically has been your role in relation to GYC and what does GYC mean for you?

GYC has a history of initiation both in Michigan and in southern California. When the first GYC was held in 2002 at Pine Springs Ranch here in SECC, my church voted to endorse the meeting as a Seventh-day Adventist sponsored meeting. At the time, without going into the details, that was quite important. Later, I was asked to serve on the board of directors for GYC, which I did for awhile. Mostly my role has been unofficial and as an encourager. As you may know, right at the very first meeting we outgrew the conventional Adventist meeting hall and ever since have been meeting at large venues like convention centers. I just returned from the 2006 GYC in Baltimore and we had another large crowd, something like 5,000 or more at the height. The majority are Adventist young people who are tired of entertainment-based youth ministry and want to do a serious kind of Adventism. GYC and the regional Youth Conferences in North America and overseas are providing just such a venue. The movement is grassroots. It is the future and it is here now. Entertainment-based youth ministers are reevaluating because the handwriting is one the wall. Mene mene tekel upharsin! Most of the young people I have met or worked with are remarkably open to LGT. We have noticed that our internet and print ministry has been very well received by many in this group. Our base line theology book, Cleanse and Close has been very popular among a wide ranging group in the Youth Conferences. God-willing, these are the people who will take the ball and run with it all the way to the finish line.

Could you share a little about your spiritual/theological journey that led you to the present convictions?

Julius, I did not grow up in the church. I’m a convert. We all know there is a difference in perspective between the grew-up-in-the-church and the convert. Some who grow up in the church spend a lot of energy vitiating the core theology of the movement. They somehow see it as their duty to upend things. The convert comes in because he sees something that best reflects the teaching of Scripture. He sees something beautiful. After he’s been in awhile, the various trends in the church become apparent. So he has to figure out where he fits. Shortly after I came in my church friends urged me to go to school to become a pastor—a thought that had not crossed my mind.

To make a long story short, I landed at Walla Walla College where the professors basically told us that Adventism was wrong about a whole list of doctrines. The unfaithfulness was beyond the pale. That was a dark year, but it did prompt me to study for myself, learn to think for myself, and recognize that there was Adventism and there was Adventism. I was anxious to leave before the ground opened up to swallow the place. I moved on to Southern Adventist University. While there, the purple Issues book came out [from the North American Division against the teachings and practices of many independent ministries], again leading me to further study. Actually, the core theological positions I hold today developed as I systematically rejected key theological points in the purple book. So I learned early on that there is often a great difference between the Adventism of the pioneers and Ellen White with those who developed its implications like C. Mervyn Maxwell, and the Adventism that passed for Adventism in the main publications olf the church.

Who are the mentors and close confidantes in your life? How have they impacted your life?

They include Joe Crews, Dennis Priebe, William Fagal, P. Gerard Damsteegt, C. Mervyn Maxwell, Jim Brackett, and Herbert Douglass. These workers showed me that we must stand for our convictions even if it invites bullets. We must be willing to think outside the box especially when the box is artificially constructed. If the box is really a pseudo-Adventism, we have no business limiting ourselves to the box. Rather, we should get a big hammer and start pounding on it. The truth will set you free.

Please tell us about the Mentone church.

I understand there is a history of its being a conservative church. It was born in the 1960s. Somewhere along the way before my arrival it went through a hard time and some developed a hard spirit. We came 5.5 years ago. Today, the church is largely composed of members who have come since I accepted that call. I think we are well on our way to a place where the church has become more family-friendly, kinder, and stronger theologically. I would like to think we have moved from a kind of Historic Adventist mindset toward an LGT one.

Southeastern California Conference to which your church belongs might be the most theologically diverse, if not liberal, Adventist conference in the world. What is it like personally to be pastoring in this conference in relation to the administration as well as to those who hold views and vision of Adventism that are radically different from yours?

When we came here, we thought we would be face to face with the liberal dragon in its very lair. As it turns out, we have spent more of our energies addressing the shortcomings that sometimes go with conservatism. But I think we have made progress. The liberals mostly leave us alone. As for the conference, I have had a very good experience working with the officers. Although it may be that we do not share identical theological perspectives, the conference officers, in my experience have always been very supportive, professional, kind, very willing to work with us and with the Mentone congregation. I have had some very interesting conversations with some of our conference officers, including on occasion disagreement, but they have always respected that. I think that some welcome a voice that they do not see as vanilla.

I’ve heard many observe that different wings of Adventism are “preaching to the choir” and “mobilizing the bases,” leading to greater polarization of the church. Is all hope lost for dialogue and cooperation between Adventists from different wings? How can conversation “across the aisle” take place?

Ugh. What a potentially dark question to finish with. The truth is that there is a lot of fatigue among the different wings of Adventism, and in many cases, a sense that they have missed the curve and that their burdens have not been transmitted to the next generation. Liberal Adventists do not reproduce well, while conservative Adventists reproduce in each generation. Most of us who are talking are probably doing so in order to expose our ideas to those who may be willing to receive them. Let’s be honest; there are likely but few PhD theologians in the church that do not have a coherent theological viewpoint that is essentially settled. So we aren’t sharing to try and flip a George Knight or a Jon Paulien; we are sharing so that John and Sally Smith from Everyman, North Dakota, will have opportunity to consider something that might be fresh to them.

We would certainly hope for some dialogue, and there are one or two positive signs out there that, just possibly, something can be accomplished. But it may also be that we will have to endure while the current generation passes to retirement and wait for the new day. We hope toward the positive, without holding our breath. We are marching to Zion. The theologians need to lead, follow, or get out of the way. There are a lot of them that just need to get out of the way. The train is coming fast.

/end

[aka]

Last Generation Theology of Adventists is in contrast to the One Project movement.

Sadly, I'm feeling unbalanced with exposure to all the fragmentisms of SDAisms.

[Kevin H]

Part 1:

I did a quick read. I do need to read slower to get a better feel. But I am fairly familiar with Elder Kirkpatrick's thought, at least from how it was 11 years ago. I already see one point of growing. He has gone from a black and white either you believe just like him or else you believe exactly like Desmond Ford mentality to seeing 5 different subgroups. I still don't like my quick reading of them but at least it has shown some growth. Also, he was very much identifying himself with the so called "Historic Adventists" and when awake I need to try to understand clearer why he now sees himself as more "last generation" and what the difference is between what he sees as "Last Generation" and the rest of "Historic Adventism" If you can help clarify these points to me I'd really appreciate it. "Last Generation" had been a mainstay of "Historic Adventism". However both Elder Andreasen and Elder Douglass were more moderate than the traditional "Historic Adventists" are But on his list of influences; the rejecting the "Purple Issues Book" and following Joe Crews, Dennis Priebe, William Fagal, P. Gerard Damsteegt, C. Mervyn Maxwell, Jim Brackett, and Herbert Douglass.  It is only Maxwell and Douglass who I would not consider as "Historic Adventists"

Now like the Historic Adventists/ "Last Generation" people I do see an issue in the last generation. However from my understanding of Mrs. White and the Bible we have some major differences.

The article above said "Dennis Priebe helped the church by pointing to the issue of the doctrine of sin. This is the fountainhead. Get it right or get it wrong, and a whole theology rises from it." While there is much that I like about Priebe's work, he has a gearing error that he got wrong and a whole theology rises from this error.

For centuries the church debated the nature of Jesus. It finally came to, what I believe was a correct conclusion that Jesus had his own unique nature and while there were some similar qualities in both, we cannot say that Jesus had the nature of Adam before the fall nor ours after the fall. Before the fall Adam's appetites desires and passions were under the control of reason. His body did not tire, he did not suffer from things such as hunger and thirst. And he did not have what Mrs. White describes in the communion chapter of Desire of Ages as "There is in man a disposition to esteem himself more highly than his breathern, to serve self, to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit."  or as the poet philosopher Eli Siegel put it "There is in every person a disposition to think they are for themselves by making less of the outside world."

 

For us after sin we do tire, suffer from things such as hunger and thirst. Our appetites, desires and passions are not naturally under the control of reason, and we do have the disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world. This last point is what makes us a sinner. This disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world IS THE SINFUL NATURE.

Jesus was able to tire, hunger, thirst and his appetites, desires and passions were not naturally and automatically under the control of reason. However Jesus differs from us in that he did NOT have in him the disposition to think he was for himself by making less of the outside world. Jesus did NOT have the sinful nature.

Our Adventist pioneers held some views from Luther and even more so John Wesley, as well as applying to religion the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. They then had these views colored by understandings that they were coming to about the law of God. Since they were dealing with people with similar views from Luther, Wesley and Jefferson, they would point out the additional things they were learning. However, also, among our pioneers the trinity was an optional doctrine and a minority view. There were things about Jesus and the Atonement that were crowded out of their minds by their rejection of the trinity, and would look at Jesus more as our example rather than our substitute.

The second generation of Adventists were taking what they were learning from the first generation, however did not have the exposure that the first generation had to Luther, Wesley and Jefferson. Thus there were two different mindsets for looking at the information. Two different directions to approach what they were learning from the law.  We ended up preaching the law the law the law until we were as dry as the hills of gilboah and we had the 1888 crisis.

 

[Kevin H]

Part 2:

Towards the end of his life James White wrote a letter saying that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those that opposed the trinity. Mrs. White's Great Controversy Philosophy is that we have the 3 aspects of God. God as impersonal power both inside and outside of time and space. Yet, God as personal friend one of us, and angel to the angels, a human to humans and inferred as appearing to the beings on the different planets as one of them, until he actually became the person Jesus Christ. These two aspects are both objective revelations of God, but we are objective and subjective so God the Holy Spirit as God working with our subjective. That we need all three in tension. The 3 beasts of Revelation are the 3 aspects of the trinity but not in a oneness as the Biblical trinity is, but where they are either independent of each other, or united for their own selfish purposes:

The red dragon or spiritualism, live as you please for heaven is your home. there is no right or wrong except for what is right or wrong for you. the philosophy of Existentialism. (not to be confused with say labeling things such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs or William Glasser's "Choice Theory"" and needs assessment as existential psychologies). Existentialism is saying that what is important for you is the only truth there is and your truth might be completely different than someone else's. It is the philosophy of the French Revolution that freedom is being free from law. This is a counterfeit of the Holy Spirit who is working with our personal situation.

The beast is the opposite of the dragon. While the dragon goes for absence of law beyond what is law to you in your own experience. The beast is something from outside ourselves that tells us what to do. The Roman government, Kings and popes, Nazism. Anything we use in our life to replace Christ and to do our thinking for us. This is a counterfeit God the Father.

The lamblike beast is the individual making choices based on what they understand of the law and their existential situation (not allowing the existential situation be the final authority but seeing how to apply God's law to their life). Thus it is represented in the priest head of all believers and the independence of the United States. But it ends up making an image to the beast. While the demons prefer the philosophy of  spiritualism and the French Revolution, they find it a lot of hard work to temp every person with their own tailor made temptations. They found the group work of everyone bowing to the golden image, everyone obeying Greece or Rome or the Pope or Hitler much easier. So they compromise between the two by saying that it is to our advantage (the spiritualism message) to follow those telling us what to do, despite us all needing to compromise one principle or another to go along with the system. A false deliverance, a false Christ.

In the trinity the 3 aspects work together: There is an all-knowing creator upon the throne with ultimate truth. A Savior to follow to come into this relationship and the Holy Spirit to work with our own existential qualities and situations, realizing that our existential qualities and situations, or hierarchy of needs or our needs assessments and choice theory are ways for us to strive towards a goal.

The trinity live together in a righteousness by faith relationship based on the law of self sacrificing love. We may ask what that means so we have the two great principles of loving God supremely and loving our neighbor as our selves. How do we do this? We have the 10 commandments. Now there is evidence that God only said 10 words on the mountain. There are a few lists of 10 based on the 10 words. Some of the places where it says "Do not boil a calf in it's mother's milk" are in lists of 10 based on the 10 words. But the best known list is found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. What is interesting is that the Exodus 20 version breaks into 3 thirds. The first third deals with 3 commandments on how to love God supremely, the role of God the Father. The last third deals with 6 commandments that describes the work of the Holy Spirit in making us loving and loveable people. The middle third consists of one commandment that tells us that the only way we can love God supremely and love our neighbor as our selves is through resting in a friendship with God. This is the ministry of Jesus. (No wonder Satan hates the middle third of the 10 commandments).

Mrs. White pictures Satan as having 3 deceptions. Each is an attack on the trinity. First that God is not really God but just a higher life form that has become a cruel arbitrary tyrant. Second and third is that if God is God then God claims to be both just and merciful. He can't be both. He has to be one or the other. If he is just then he has to get us for our sins. If he is merciful then he has to forgive us and do away with the law.  The second deception (which had more emphases before the cross) attacks Jesus who died for us. The third (which he brought forward after the cross) attacks the Holy Spirit who changes us.

To make a oneness out of this, we find that Jesus died the second death on the cross (and could have died it in the wilderness or the garden). I could go and discuss more about hell fire here, but I've discussed this in other threads. I'll just summarize that "the glory of him that is love will consume the wicked" Jesus is our deepest desire. Hell fire is the beauty glory and love of God. Prophets felt like they were being burned alive when they first saw God in person, but learned that they could not only survive the fire but thrived in it and hated to leave it. Outside of vision Moses was only able to see the back of God and from that he glowed. Our deepest desire is to love the world as Jesus has loved it, or to be like and with Jesus. Being with Jesus is our deepest desire. He is the desire of all nations, Daniel and Song of Solomon calls him "The one beloved of women" the desire of ages, the one more desirable than gold and sweeter than honey. Although this is our deepest desire, it is not necessarily the one in power. We are constantly choosing between our deepest desire to  love the world as Jesus has loved it, to be like and with him, and our sinful nature, the disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world.  Everything we do are affected by these 2 drives. Even at our best there is a taint of selfishness and even at our worst we are trying to arrange things so that we can like the world around us better. In hell fire those who have the sinful nature in control will want to come to Jesus but refuse and have destroyed their will to be able to choose to yield to their deepest desire and thus the glory of him that is love will consume them. (the "God does not kill" people see half the truth but use it against the rest of the truth.)

While God the Father is seen as a great power, and God the Holy Spirit is understood through his work on our subconscious and thus hard to understand, God the son to Lucifer appeared as another angel. God as one of us, and the Sabbath Commandment is us resting in a friendship with God as our friend, thus Jesus is a special target of Satan, which we see in the constant attacks on the doctrine of the trinity.

[Kevin H]

Part 3:

As the trinity moved from an optional minority belief to a more central position as Mrs.  White developed more of the Great Controversy especially in light of 1888, then there was more interest in the atonement and Jesus being not only our example but also our substitute. And there of course came a changing from the non-Trinitarian view of Jesus to accepting that traditional Christian view. It is wise here to read the source (I'm sorry I can't remember the author's name, but there are people here who can add it here) where it beautifully describes the truth of the nature of Jesus. Mrs. White picked some of his best sayings.

However the anti-trinity people were not thrown out of the church. People talk about unity and fracturing of the church. But God has always used unity in diversity. A careful reading of the Bible shows 3 groups in the Old Testament, those based on the priesthood of Moses, those based on the priest hood of Aaron and those based on the royal theology. These 3 groups got along as well as we do. Sometime contrast say Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We find similar things in the New Testament with Peter and Paul, and if we did not have John holding the two together we probably would have had 2 very different Christian churches by the end of the first century. Sometime contrast Mark and Luke. (due to fundamentalism we fear contrast and say that we have to throw out the Bible if we find any contradictions in it, and close our eyes to the contradictions, but they are there for a reason and teach us different truths that we would not have were it not for the contradictions).

 

Our pioneers were from different churches and thrown out for thinking differently on some points. They came together to form a church where they could agree on a HANDFUL of landmarks, and outside of that agree to disagree and follow the dictates of their own conscience, just as long as they were not fanatical. Thus our church was designed among fragments and to encourage fragments. Fragmentation at the expense of unity is wrong, and unity at the expense of fragmentation is equally wrong. We use to move pastors around every few years so that our members could learn different aspects and fragments of Adventism to help them piece together their own understanding of Adventism. Mrs. White wanted a conservative and a liberal publishing house independent of each other. We have rejected her advice and the pioneers by wanting to make our ministers and publishing house workers clones of each other.

So we came to a time where the trinity was more central but there were also brothers and sisters who did not believe the trinity. Both theologies were in the church. Then came the fight against fundamentalism in the church, with an ageing Mrs. White, an ageing Elder Butler, as well as A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott, Willie White and the religion faculty of Washington Missionary College who were fighting against fundamentalism. People like Elder Spicer who believed in fundamentalism when it came to the Bible but believed that Mrs. White's inspiration was different from the Bibles and thus a anti-fundamentalist towards her work. People like Stephen Haskell who was a fundamentalist towards the Bible and Mrs. White and had a moderate view of 1888, and people like Elders Washburn and Wilkinson who were fundamentalists towards Mrs. White and the Bible and were anti-Trinitarian and were anti-Jones and Wagner (however their followers found ways of re-editing Jones and Wagner to make it appear that they fully believed like Elders Washburn and Wilkinson and the others from this group.) By the way Elder Butler was Elder Washburn's uncle. They were united in 1888 against Jones and Wagner, but in the 1900s were on opposite sides of the fundamentalism question. As early as the early 1880s Elder Butler wrote against fundamentalism.

Mrs. White and Willie White wrote some scorching letters to Washburn and Wilkinson and others from their views. I wish the church would publish them. I came across several of them when reading in the White Estate vault at Andrews. She  and Willie attacked their fundamentalism ideas and their works orientation and said that although they loved to give massive quotations from her writings that they were missing the larger view and that they knew many of her quotes but did not understand her message. That they were using her words to spread their views and to make it look like she agreed with them and to give be an authority to force their views on to others and she and Willie did not approve of how they were using her words.

Mrs. White lost this battle. She died in 1915. Elder Butler died in 1917. In 1919 there was an interdenominational Bible conference held by the fundamentalists in 1919. Since many of our people were going to attend that conference Elder Daniels and Elder Prescott asked them to stop by Washington D. C on their way to Philadelphia, where they talked about some topics such as the eastern question (there were things that they expected with Turkey to bring about the end of the world. Those things happened in W. W. 1 but the war ended, all the prophecies were fulfilled to the letter except that Jesus did not come). and to make an attempt to attack the ideas that they were going to go to Philadelphia to listen to. Willie White was to help them, but probably realizing that they were fighting a loosing battle, he discovered that he had to be out of town the days of the conference.

At first the Washington D. C conference looked successful. It appeared  that Elder Daniels and Prescott clarified some questions, there were only a few people, such as Elder Haskell, and of course Washburn and Wilkinson who left unhappy at the anti-fundamentalist message they received from the General Conference leaders. Sadly the delegates did not return home, but Satan encouraged them to not loose the money they spent on their tickets back east to attend the conference in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia the whore of Babylon seduced them so that they rejected the message from Daniels and Prescott and sided with Haskell and/or Washburn and Wilkinson against Daniels, Prescott and White. and they came home preaching not what they learned in Washington DC but what they learned in Philadelphia. This lead to the 1923 General conference where Daniels and Prescott were demoted. Willie got to keep his job but his position was striped of any power or influence (basically he was fired but allowed to come to his office and bring home a pay check). They threw out the religion faculty of Washington Missionary College and had a witch hunt for professors and pastors who sided with Daniels, Prescott, White and Washington Missionary College. Now they replaced Daniels with Elder Spicer who was seen as almost as big a heretic as Daniels. But Daniels believed that fundamentalism would destroy the church and believed in fighting against it. Prescott was a fundamentalist towards the Bible but a anti-fundamentalist when it came to Mrs. White and he was willing to keep his heresy to himself. He did not hold with Daniels that Fundamentalism could destroy the church and would allow the members to believe it.

[Kevin H]

Part 4

Thus through the 20s and 30s and 40s fundamentalism grew in the church. Instead of seeing growth in Mrs. White and look for context and what and who and why she was writing, they saw her writings as the final word of almighty God that did not need to grow. And they saw her views as God's perfect desire for all people. People would turn to her early writings and saw them as final.

Mrs. White went from a shut door Adventist into becoming a very popular speaker in Sunday keeping churches.

People read her quotes but lost the historical context of the quotes. For example Mrs. White wrote quiet a bit about novels and fiction. She did not write it in a vacuum. She was sharing views that were also being taught by people such as Nathaniel Hawthorn and  Herman Melville and other serious writers at the time. Now wait a minute. Hawthorn and Melville and these others who Mrs. White was quoting were novelists and fiction writers. Were they condemning their own work? Were they saying that their work is wrong to read? Or could they have been talking about something else? But not knowing the historical context we end up condemning the works of Hawthorn and Melville and use their words (as borrowed by Mrs. White) against them but end up accepting what they were all complaining about.

Higher education was learning all there was about the romance languages Greek mythology and Shakespeare. It was luxury for the idol rich to become sophisticated. In the 1800s there was a debate over whether higher education should continue in this path or if it should be more practical and where people could learn how to do real jobs. They called the colleges that were focused on learning a life's work as agricultural programs rather than classical programs. The church debated over which Battle Creek should be. Mrs. White took her stand. She wrote things about classical education, including things about Shakespeare.  They closed Battle creek and Willie White went to California and Stephen Haskell went to South Lancaster MA were they were racing each other as to who would start a school first. White won with what became PUC. Haskell's school became Atlantic Union College. Now both Willie and Haskell were in touch with Mrs. White in the planning of these schools. While I don't know about PUC (maybe someone else can check it out and let us know) but at AUC they did not have the Greek myths. They focused on developing job skills and they moved Shakespeare from being a major study in the classroom to performing his plays on Saturday night. Thus we find that among those implementing Mrs. White's counsel about Shakespeare not doing away with him completely but making him a side issue instead of central to study. However, we read Mrs. White's counsel on Shakespeare and think we need to become ignorant of his work. (Well, maybe someone will show that as Mrs. White came to see how the schools were running that the facility of AUC  were careful to get her a Sabbath afternoon ticket out of town so that she would not realize that they were having Shakespeare plays for their Saturday night programs).

Mrs. White wrote a criticism of the circus. It was held by many religious leaders. P. T. Barnum was a Christian and was concerned about why religious leaders spoke and wrote against the circus and purposely worked to reform the circus. Now I read in the White estate vault that Barnum and Mrs. White were acquaintances with each other, on good terms and that he helped to sponsor her in temperance meeting. But I read that only in a secondary source, I don't know how much to trust the author and the author did not give a foot note for that statement. But I have found that it could be correct since Adventists had a place set up to witness to those coming to Barnum's circus. He did rent her some of his tents for some of her meetings. But anyway, Willie White believed that Barnum's circus was different from what he mother was criticizing and saw nothing wrong with attending the Barnum show. He was planning to bring his children to see it. But people quote Mrs. White's comment and said how can her son and grandchildren attend the circus and thus they decided not to go because they did not want to bring shame to the name of Jesus.

If you were to read files in the White estate of different topics and standards you would find in say Jewelry, or dancing or topic after topic this pattern: Things written by Mrs. White and the pioneers. But then through the 1920s and 30s you would find someone writing to the Review and asking "Since Adventist don't do this, why do we do that?" Then there would be a big complain arguing that what we were doing was so much like what we did not do that we should stop doing something we were doing. When the dust would settle down and we would stop doing this and also have stopped doing that then sure enough someone else would write in "Now that we no longer do that, what about this other thing over here, isn't it too close to doing that so we should also stop doing this other thing" and like throwing a stone into a lake and the circles go wider, so the circle of things we did not do grew wider and the things that we did do became lesser and lesser.

Thus by the 1940s we had different ideas about novels and fiction from the context of what Mrs. White was writing in. We had different ideas on how to apply her counsel on Shakespeare than those who were working with her on that topic applied it, and had a much longer list of don'ts and a much shorter list of do's than Mrs. White and the pioneers had.

 

[Kevin H]

Part 5

We now come to the 1950s and the book Questions on Doctrine [QOD]. This book is far from perfect. For example when asked about the nature of Jesus they gave a half answer. The contributors were taken off guard. By this time we had taken the traditional view of the nature of Jesus. That he had his own unique nature unlike Adam before the fall or us after the fall. If they replied "There were questions about the trinity but as we came to embrace the trinity more we came to hold the traditional view on the nature of Christ" and let them read Mrs. White's quotes and the books she was quoting from all would have been well.

Sadly, and maybe wanting to avoid the anti-trinity views that was popular at one time and still held by some our members the contributors emphasized the divinity of Christ at the expense of his humanity.

A Methodist archaeologist who I studied with and quote a lot, Dr. Jim Fleming tells about interviewing for a job with a church. They worried about higher criticism wanted to know if he saw Jesus as God. While Fleming agreed with them, he pointed out that they were asking only half the message about who Jesus is and reminded them to the traditional view. They people apologized to him and realized that they only had half of what we need to believe in the question.

Like Fleming, Elder Andresen pointed out that the contributors to QOD only gave a half answer. Unlike Fleming where both parties understood that only a part answer was given, we split the truth with in Adventism. A number of people took Andresen's missing half and separated it from the half that was in QOD and made the missing half the whole truth.

And we have people who have taken the views of people like Elder's Washburn and Wilkinson. filtered it through the book Questions on Doctrine to remove anything from their thoughts that might sound vaguely like QOD. (a spirit of "If QOD says it, then I don't believe it and that settles it for me) with ideas that had developed from the 1920s and 30s that I have been discussing. This became the so called "Historic Adventist movement" (and it is not the only version of true historic Adventism but one branch) This is the school of thought that Joe Crews, Dennis Priebe, William Fagal, P. Gerard Damsteegt, and Elder Kirkpatrick (at least 10 years ago)  agree with. I am not familiar with Jim Brackett,  C. Mervyn Maxwell and Elder Douglass are more mainline but have some points in common with.  And while I need to learn the differences this is where Elder Kirkpatrick's Last Generation movement came from.

They are wrong on the nature of Christ. They want to have him have a full sinful nature just like ours and for him to be our example in overcoming. They see the ideal as a fundamentalist with all the don't that developed in the 1920s to 40s, who are ignorant of Shakespeare, the circus, reads only things that really happened and not Moby Dick, They see the last generation perfection as greater than any generation before. They are looking for a different quality than ever before. They have a very  Greek view of perfection very static. Unfortunately this approach can cause us to use religion to feed the sinful nature. That we can end up esteeming our selves more highly than others. To see the good news as I'm a part of the chosen few while the church is going to hell in a hand basket.  They see a hierarchy were everyone has their place and role that they are to fulfill and not try to get higher than they think you should be. They use religion to shut away the outside world.

Meanwhile, Mrs. White pictures a very Hebrew view of perfection. A dynamic. A perfection that is expected at it's state of growth. Mrs. White pictures all generations as having some who become so settled into the truth that nothing can shake them. Some have noticed that when she describes perfection that she seems to be describing John Wesley. Her view of last generation perfection is that a larger quantity of people will reach what only a few in previous generations have reached. People like Joseph and Job and Daniel. People who were part of the world but went for respect and to love the world as Jesus has loved it and to choose against letting our sinful nature control us. Knowing our sinful nature to death. To care more for others. To treat others the way Jesus did, to become like the one beloved of women.

I hope this helps.

 

[Kevin H]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:54 AM, aka said:

Last Generation Theology of Adventists is in contrast to the One Project movement.

Sadly, I'm feeling unbalanced with exposure to all the fragmentisms of SDAisms.

Sadly many feel this way. We shouldn't feel unbalanced by it. Remember our pioneers were the thrown away fragments from their beloved churches and our church was formed as a refuge for fragments, or as they preferred to see themselves as a collection of remnants.

There are times in which we choose to get a long better with each other and  sadly other  times where we want to make a uniformity in the church and make us like the other churches around us, and make our version of Adventism the only true version. For some sad reason there is a neurotic need in Adventism to try to prove to the world that we are good Baptists.

[Kevin H]

I see the big difference between at least myself and the "Historic Adventists" (and from this the LGT people) is that they want Jesus to have a sinful nature, I understand us to believe what became the traditional view that Jesus had his own unique nature unlike Adam before the fall and us after the fall. They are Fundamentalists, and they have the wrong understanding of hell, so they are trying to see how to get Jesus to let them into heaven, and lastly they are looking at all the different traditons that had developed in the church between 1923 and the 40s as the ideal. While I understand that it is the issue between wanting to esteem ourselves more highly than others, of making less of the outside world. As opposed to loving the world as Jesus has loved it.

We are both Wesleyans. But like Dr. David Larson said they are on Wesley's right and we are on Wesley's left. But we have the Wesleyan connection unlike the more evangelicals like Ford who are more Lutheran and Calvinistic in their approach.

[aka]

Kevin,

Yes, indeed I for one have been helped by your 5 part contribution of explanation for the chronical happenings in the SDA camp over the decades. Now I have an almost orderly version in my mind of Adventism development. Thank you for teaching us here with your postings.

You wrote.....

"While I understand that it is the issue between wanting to esteem ourselves more highly than others, of making less of the outside world. As opposed to loving the world as Jesus has loved it.

We are both Wesleyans. But like Dr. David Larson said they are on Wesley's right and we are on Wesley's left. But we have the Wesleyan connection unlike the more evangelicals like Ford who are more Lutheran and Calvinistic in their approach."

One thing is for sure in my psyche is that I am opposed to most all of Calvinism and reject the present day system of Lutheranism. That leaves the community of Wesleyism which is more as to how I tend to lean. There are no Methodist churches anywhere around us where we live that honor the holiness of the seventh day, and also accept the sleep-death of the dead. So I would never feel at all comfortable in Methodist church services for various reasons.

[aka]

Kevin,

One thing is for sure in my psyche is that I am opposed to most all of Calvinism and reject the present day system of Lutheranism. That leaves the community of Wesleyism which is more as to how I tend to lean. There are no Methodist churches anywhere around us where we live that honor the holiness of the seventh day, and also accept the sleep-death of the dead. So I would never feel at all comfortable in Methodist church services for various reasons.

My first being taken aback in a small level of shock when I starting fellowshipping with SDA's was their elitest pompousness of boasting of their being God's chosen ones who are better than all other denomonations or christian-called groups.

You wrote.....

"While I understand that it is the issue between wanting to esteem ourselves more highly than others, of making less of the outside world. As opposed to loving the world as Jesus has loved it.

We are both Wesleyans. But like Dr. David Larson said they are on Wesley's right and we are on Wesley's left. But we have the Wesleyan connection unlike the more evangelicals like Ford who are more Lutheran and Calvinistic in their approach."

Yes, indeed I for one have been helped by your 5 part contribution of explanation for the chronological happenings in the SDA camp over the decades. Now I have an almost orderly version in my mind of Adventism development. Thank you for teaching us here with your postings.

[GayatfootofCross]

1 hour ago, aka said:

Kevin,

 

Yes, indeed I for one have been helped by your 5 part contribution of explanation for the chronological happenings in the SDA camp over the decades. Now I have an almost orderly version in my mind of Adventism development. Thank you for teaching us here with your postings.

I concur !

How I wish we as a Church can sit side by side understanding differently as we do with Jesus as the foundation. Learning from each other and growing up in Him!

I heard from an Author of a Christian book say that our Church was once pluralistic. People now get upset when differing views are shared. We had a very elderly couple who were told they can't come (or they will call police) if they say anything more about EGW. Compelling individual conscious. That is not our work. We are to love on and the TRUTH can hold up to scrutiny and questions. No need to fear and control. A  God derived supernatural Love for each other not only heals and grows us up .. but places empathy in our hearts toward people who don't believe every little thing as we personally believe and unifies us understanding we are as creation- diverse and working in harmony to win souls over to His love together!

May the Joy of the Lord be your Strength to all here!

 

 

On 12/22/2015 at 6:54 PM, Kevin H said:

 

 

[Kevin H]

Well even the pioneers did have to fight fanaticism as well as people trying to monopolize time and discussions.

[Gail]

Thanks, Kevin, for the insight. I have mentioned it on the board before that there is more to Jesus than we can EVER understand. For me it is not a matter to be fought over but one where we sit at His feet in awe and praise God.

I like the point about making more of ourselves and less of the world. AMEN! It is this point which brings me over and over to square one in my faith, simplistic as it seems. I don't view it as a bad thing; it is what keeps me in a state of wonder in contemplation of our Heavenly Father. I agree with the concept as where sin originates. It is a marvel how deeply-rooted sin is in our hearts, but it is, and God knows it way better than we know ourselves.

I have always enjoyed the freedom of diversity to be found among our brethren. I draw a line where the differences make us angry and argumentative. God is love and He gives us freedom of choice. By beholding we should ideally reflect that.

[LifeHiscost]

11 hours ago, GayatfootofCross said:

 How I wish we as a Church can sit side by side understanding differently as we do with Jesus as the foundation.  

 

 

 

I've learned to find much of what is sought in these two foundational principles.

5.....be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.....Hebrews 13

165....Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.....Psalms 119

God is Love!~Jesus saves!   

[Kevin H]

These views and other quotes by Mrs. White that those holding that view tend to over look have been discussed in a number of life and writings of Ellen G. White classes at our colleges and seminary. I definitely see Elder Andresen and Elder Douglass as closer to the truth than say Desmond Ford or others who are evangelicals.  Yes there is a different experience in the last generation, however it is a difference in QUANTITY NOT a difference in Quality. 

[Unchained]

20 hours ago, jackson said:

Kevin, You may be interested in an article by Paul  M. Evans, titled, "Ellen White's Views Regarding the Final Generation: Is She in Andreasen's Camp"

http://www.gospelstudygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/EGW-and-Final-Generation-2010-10-17.pdf

Regarding Paul M. Evans... His dissertation was in fact about this topic:

 

A Historical-Contextual Analysis of the Final-Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen

http://adventbeliefs.com/images/b/b6/A_HISTORICAL-CONTEXTUAL_ANALYSIS_OF_THE_FINAL-GENERATION_THEOLOGY_OF_M._L._ANDREASEN_by_Paul_M._Evans.pdf

[Robert]

On 12/20/2015 at 2:55 AM, Kevin H said:

....we cannot say that Jesus had the nature of Adam .... after the fall.

"Had" assumes it was His by native right.  Jesus as God united Himself to our fallen life in the womb of Mary and that product was Jesus as the Son of Man. The Immaculate Conception and its hybrids are an attack upon the gospel itself and therefore these heresies belong to the kingdom of Satan.

As the Son of man Christ was identical to us, but without sin. "Without sin" simply means without transgression.  Jesus never sinned even though He assumed our nature for approximately 33 years.  (See 2 Cor 5:12-17, especially the last part of verse 16).

At the resurrection Christ as God left our life from Adam, indwelt by our bent, in the grave.  Sunday morning Christ's Deity (which never died) was united to a glorified humanity, free from our sin nature and free from mortality.  Therefore "in Christ" we have a "new creation" that stands before God and His law perfect and holy in every detail.  Those who accept the gospel are therefore righteous by faith.

[Robert]

This whole "nature of Christ" thing could be settled if we asked ourselves who died with Christ on His cross?

1] Our humanity before the fall 

or 

2] Our humanity after the fall indwelt with our "bent-to-self" (i.e., our fallen nature)?

Let's look at Romans 6:6 NASB  

 "our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with...."

Here's how I read it:

Our old life from Adam was crucified with Christ so that our body, indwelt with our fallen nature, might be done away with.

There's only one kind of humanity and that's fallen humanity indwelt with our fallen nature.

That life, our shared life with Adam, was crucified with Christ and hence "you died to the law" in the humanity of Christ (see Rom 7:4).

You see our fallen life had to die.  The law of God says, "the soul that sins it must die".  Christ's death instead of yours doesn't answer the justice of God's law.  Your life that you obtained from Adam, after the fall, had to die and it did "in Christ Jesus". 

That's the gospel.  That's the only legal way that you and I could be delivered from under law to under grace.

[Kevin H]

Despite Dr. Larson's quotes, he missed some (and yes he and I talked about this) and a careful study shows that Mrs. White's views were very balanced on the traditional view that Jesus had his own unique nature, in some points like but also unlike Adam before the fall and both like and also unlike us after the fall. Adam's appetites, desires and passions were naturally under the control of reason and his body could not suffer or tire. Jesus could be tired and hungry and suffer. His appetites desires and passions were not naturally under the control of reason he had to moment by moment keep it under the control of reason just as we need to. But there is in us a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world, to esteem ourselves more highly than others. Jesus did NOT have the slightest aspect of this in his nature.

[GayatfootofCross]

44 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Despite Dr. Larson's quotes, he missed some (and yes he and I talked about this) and a careful study shows that Mrs. White's views were very balanced on the traditional view that Jesus had his own unique nature, in some points like but also unlike Adam before the fall and both like and also unlike us after the fall. Adam's appetites, desires and passions were naturally under the control of reason and his body could not suffer or tire. Jesus could be tired and hungry and suffer. His appetites desires and passions were not naturally under the control of reason he had to moment by moment keep it under the control of reason just as we need to. But there is in us a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world, to esteem ourselves more highly than others. Jesus did NOT have the slightest aspect of this in his nature.

praise God!

"I am Meek and Lowly of Heart" says the Heart of GOD

His Authority and Power are found in that.

To Serve!

The Altogether Lovely and theEE  OMNI!

 

# How can we not fall in love with HIM?

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Kevin H said:

But there is in us a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world, to esteem ourselves more highly than others. Jesus did NOT have the slightest aspect of this in his nature.

"The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus, the Son of God, and the Son of man." E.G. White, Ms. 141, 1901.

"He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature...." E.G. White, Medical Ministry, 1902, p. 181.

As God, Christ's nature was and is, sinless.  But as the Son of man, He assumed "our sinful nature".  Notice how Ellen White states it was "our" nature, not Christ's.  It belonged not to Him, but fallen man.  

"To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption." SDA Commentary, Vol 7, p 927

Ellen White apparently understood the gospel. This proves to me that Ellen White was not a false prophet, even though she has somethings that are hard to understand (especially in the area of Christian living).

 

[Robert]

20 minutes ago, Robert said:

"The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus, the Son of God, and the Son of man." E.G. White, Ms. 141, 1901.

"He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature...." E.G. White, Medical Ministry, 1902, p. 181.

As God, Christ's nature was and is, sinless.  But as the Son of man, He assumed "our sinful nature".  Notice how Ellen White states it was "our" nature, not Christ's.  It belonged not to Him, but fallen man.  

"To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption." SDA Commentary, Vol 7, p 927

Ellen White apparently understood the gospel. This proves to me that Ellen White was not a false prophet, even though she has somethings that are hard to understand (especially in the area of Christian living).

 

Now if Christ as the son of man didn't assumed our fallen life, indwelt by our fallen nature, then temptation becomes meaningless.  

Adam and Eve were not tempted to disobey God.  Eve, states Paul, was deceived.  Adam's error was that he loved Eve more than himself (BTW, that's agape) and chose to die with her.  In so doing Adam turned his back on God.  But neither were tempted to disobey.  If I am wrong, show me in the book of Genesis.

We are tempted to disobey God's moral law.  Why?  Because all of us have received from Adam a nature that opposes God's agape.  We are born with self-love or a u-turn agape.  Therefore we are tempted from within.

Was Christ, as the Son of man, tempted?

He "was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin". Heb 4:15

You can't be tempted from within unless there's something in your humanity that opposes God's agape.  

Jesus, as the son of man, was tempted, but in His case He never sinned (transgressed). 

I can give an example where Christ was tempted to go against His Father's will in saving the fallen race, but then caught Himself:

“O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup (i.e., the curse, the 2nd death) pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Matthew 26:29)

Christ was tempted, by our nature that He assumed at the incarnation, to love Himself and bypass the cross, but instead He denied self, and said: "not as I will, but as You will."

 

[Robert]

20 minutes ago, Robert said:

Now if Christ as the son of man didn't assumed our fallen life, indwelt by our fallen nature, then temptation becomes meaningless.  

Adam and Eve were not tempted to disobey God.  Eve, states Paul, was deceived.  Adam's error was that he loved Eve more than himself (BTW, that's agape) and chose to die with her.  In so doing Adam turned his back on God.  But neither were tempted to disobey.  If I am wrong, show me in the book of Genesis.

We are tempted to disobey God's moral law.  Why?  Because all of us have received from Adam a nature that opposes God's agape.  We are born with self-love or a u-turn agape.  Therefore we are tempted from within.

Was Christ, as the Son of man, tempted?

He "was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin". Heb 4:15

You can't be tempted from within unless there's something in your humanity that opposes God's agape.  

Jesus, as the son of man, was tempted, but in His case He never sinned (transgressed). 

I can give an example where Christ was tempted to go against His Father's will in saving the fallen race, but then caught Himself:

“O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup (i.e., the curse, the 2nd death) pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Matthew 26:29)

Christ was tempted, by our nature that He assumed at the incarnation, to love Himself and bypass the cross, but instead He denied self, and said: "not as I will, but as You will."

 

BTW, the Immaculate Conception denies this truth and therefore it attacks the very gospel the Apostle Paul preached. A hybrid of this heresy is taught in most Protestant churches, even the SDA denomination. 

Now, within Adventism, I understand why this doctrine on the nature of Christ has been largely shunned.  It is because most SDA who teach the post-fall nature of Christ do so from a legalistic point of view.  They say that Christ took our fallen nature and overcame it so that we too can overcome our natures and thus be saved.  This is subtle legalism.

Christ primarily came to save the human race from the curse, legally.  He assumed us in order to rewrite our history from one of condemnation to justification of life.  

 

 

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Christ was tempted, by our nature that He assumed at the incarnation, to love Himself and bypass the cross, but instead He denied self, and said: "not as I will, but as You will."

And, BTW, none of us can say we have been tempted as Christ was tempted.  Christ's temptation was far beyond anything we can fathom.  I'll tell you why:

Keep in mind Christ, as the son of man, was still God.  He was the God/man.  As the son of man, Christ had handed over the independent use of His Deity to His Father.  That's why Christ as a man could state,

"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me." [John 5:30]

The Bible also states,

"Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Luke 2:52

As God, Christ is omniscient. He is all-knowing, but as one of us He grew in His knowledge.  

These two verses prove that as the son of man He had handed the independent use of His Deity over to His Father. 

Now think about it....As the son of man His greatest temptation was on the cross.  He was tempted, in His humanity, to use His Divinity (against His Father's will) and come down  off the cross and save Himself.  What tempted Him?  Our love of self....Our fallen nature, that as a man, He assumed at the incarnation.

That's why Paul states, "You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin" Heb 12:4