When Christ's character shall be perfectly reproduced in his people...

[pnattmbtc]

p:There's also a word for "kidneys," which, like "heart" depicts mental functions. Do you wish to argue that the kidneys have "mental" functions as well? This would be consistent with your logic so far.

Twilight:Yes to the first question, as this is the only biblical interpretation available.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Let me ask you a question, as I have taken the time to answer yours pnat.

If you do not mind.

Why are their different words for heart and mind, if they mean the same thing?

They don't mean the same thing. For example, if I say to my wife, "I love you with all my mind," that doesn't convey the same thought as "I love you with all my heart," even though both involve functions of the mind.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Yes, that is what the bible said.

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

I think you may have got confused what exactly the issue with Kellog was...

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is biblical, as we have shown you from the texts.

What is unbiblical is that the Holy Spirit is not an "individual".

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here...

Mark :-)

perhaps you could show us a specific quote where kellogg believed, as you say, that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual...

you are pretty much saying the same thing kellogg believed as well as sky believes, including being in chairs, tables, glasses, etc.

As you bought Kellog into the discussion and his beliefs, maybe you should find the quote and then counsel from Ellen White that states that the idea of a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit is "wrong".

It is your argument to defend, not mine to attack.

I suggest you go and research this fully, when you have anything that even remotely serves to prove your point, I will take heed with all dilligence.

[Twilight]

Mark, this is from a conversation on the other thread:

Quote:

p:Let's get back to the Holy Spirit dwelling in the heart. Let's assume that the heart here is the literal heart, in the chest region. How does the Holy Spirit literally dwell in it?

M:I do not know.

The bible does not say.

But it says He does.

That is sufficient for me.

Christ dwells in my heart by faith.

He pours His love into my heart through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

How He does this is a spiritual mystery.

But He does do this.

From what you wrote, I understood you to mean the chest region when speaking of the heart. You affirmed this understanding here. When I asked you how the Holy Spirit dwells in the chest region heart, you said you don't know, but affirmed several times that he does.

I asked you:

Quote:

2.This means the literal chest region, and has nothing to do with the mind.

To which you responded, "No." You explained:

Quote:

But I am not arguing that "heart" does not sometimes refer to the whole of the inner workings of mans thoughts and feelings.

I appreciate your helping me to understand correctly your view. Are you disagreeing with my point 2 above because I said it had nothing to do with the mind? That is, if I had simply written:

Quote:

2.This means the literal chest region.

Would you have agreed with this? If not, then what is it you understand "heart" to be referring to?

I have started a new thread to discuss this with you Pnat.

And any others that are interested:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/398896.html

It will be easier if we start afresh.

Please bring all of your questions there.

Mark :-)

[teresaq]

mark, could you please show the evidence for your statements from kellogg himself?

Yes, that is what the bible said.

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

I think you may have got confused what exactly the issue with Kellog was...

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is biblical, as we have shown you from the texts.

What is unbiblical is that the Holy Spirit is not an "individual".

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here...

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

mark, could you please show the evidence for your statements from kellogg himself?

I do not need to Teresa.

You have intimated that you fear that what I am teaching is what Kellog was teaching.

I am aware that Kellog accepted Pantheism.

Which I reject.

But that is not the same as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is biblical.

If you want to change my mind on this, you have to show that I am wrong and I am indeed guilty of the same crime as Kellog.

It is like this:

You have said:

"This is what Kellog teaches, now prove it isn't!"

How am I supposed to deal with that? :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Mark, you stated:

Quote:

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

Teresa is asking for evidence that what you stated is indeed the case, that is, evidence that this specific statement that you made is true. She's not saying, "This is what Kellog teaches, now prove it isn't!", which wouldn't be a reasonable request, but for you to provide support for a specific statement that you made, which is a reasonable request.

[Twilight]

Mark, you stated:

Quote:

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

Teresa is asking for evidence that what you stated is indeed the case, that is, evidence that this specific statement that you made is true. She's not saying, "This is what Kellog teaches, now prove it isn't!", which wouldn't be a reasonable request, but for you to provide support for a specific statement that you made, which is a reasonable request.

It has been a long time since I looked at this and I do not have the time to go back over it.

The real issue however is when Teresa intimates that what I believe and what Kellog got in trouble over are the same thing.

As Teresa has made that case, surely it is up to Teresa to first establish what exactly Kellog was guilty of and show it to us here.

Then she can show how she thinks what I believe is the same.

Teresa has made the claim, so she should back it up.

Why should I have to defend against an unfounded claim?

[teresaq]

mark, at least a few times you have said this. i am asking for you to please show the evidence that what you state is true...

Yes, that is what the bible said.

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

I think you may have got confused what exactly the issue with Kellog was...

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is biblical, as we have shown you from the texts.

What is unbiblical is that the Holy Spirit is not an "individual".

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here...

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

I am not playing this game Teresa.

You have tried to link what I have stated here as biblical truth to the teachings offered by Kellogg, which Ellen White called into question.

If you have some evidence to present to support that fact, then please present it.

As to the issue with Kellogg, I "assume" the issue was Pantheism until someone shows me different.

As this was the charge laid against him at the time.

And no, I am not going to spend all evening defending this position.

If you want to make your point, then please make it with evidence.

[Twilight]

You have made the charge Teresa, that I am teaching what Kellogg taught and was pulled up by Ellen White on.

Now either prove it or withdraw it.

[teresaq]

there is no game, mark. you made this statement. please back it up.

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

I think you may have got confused what exactly the issue with Kellog was...

[Twilight]

there is no game, mark. you made this statement. please back it up.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

I think you may have got confused what exactly the issue with Kellog was...

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

perhaps you could show us a specific quote where kellogg believed, as you say, that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual...

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I am not playing this game Teresa.

You have tried to link what I have stated here as biblical truth to the teachings offered by Kellogg, which Ellen White called into question.

I have looked a little deeper into this issue as to what Kellogg was teaching.

The White Estate specifically states it was Pantheism:

http://www.whiteestate.org/pathways/jkellogg.asp

As Pantheism is basically the belief that God is in impersonal force in all things, then I assume this is what they mean.

But a quick scout of the internet and I can see this is a much debated topic, which I am not about to get into.

My question is this Teresa.

You have stated that I taught what Kellogg was rejected for.

Please back this charge up.

If not, this conversation is over.

[teresaq]

mark, you still have not shown where kellogg states what you say he does.

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

I think you may have got confused what exactly the issue with Kellog was...

[Twilight]

mark, you still have not shown where kellogg states what you say he does.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

I think you may have got confused what exactly the issue with Kellog was...

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

perhaps you could show us a specific quote where kellogg believed, as you say, that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual...

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I am not playing this game Teresa.

You have tried to link what I have stated here as biblical truth to the teachings offered by Kellogg, which Ellen White called into question.

You are right to correct me, I do not have a direct statement from him.

I will amend this to state, this is my conclusion of the issue from a very perfunctory examination.

Which of course can change.

[teresaq]

thank you, mark. i appreciate that.

given the serious warnings about going into spiritualism, of which pantheism is a part, it seems we need to be very careful that that is not where we are heading...

on another note, it seems that pantheism became the agreed on term since ellen white said she didnt know what to call this, and in another statement she said it was "akin to pantheism".

apparently you need to teach we seventh-day adventists this "important" issue, (see bottom quote)since it keeps coming up again and again as evidenced by these threads, http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post398630

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post398622

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post398617

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post398607

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post398605

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post398604

and this very one we are now on.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

kellogg also said,

What a wonderful thought, that this mighty God that keeps

the whole universe in order, is in us! . . .

But in addition to the fact that God is in every man, ....--Ibid.,p. 120. {5BIO 285.8}

he said he meant the Holy Spirit...

Yes, that is what the bible said.

Kellog was in error because he started to believe the Holy Spirit was an impersonal "power", rather than an individual.

I think you may have got confused what exactly the issue with Kellog was...

[Ellen]

You notice she says "character" is perfect - not ACTIONS. We have been studying David - he was perfect, yet the actions he did were atrocious - I would never think of doing what he did. But his HEART was right. He took chastisement and adjusted his thinking as he saw his mistakes.

We put so much emphasis on actions like the vegetarianism you referred to. There can be a perfect meat eater and a perfect vegan - God sees on the inside and our neighbors tend to see that too (when we don't think they are looking).

[skyblue888]

In the book Ministry of Healing, p.416, Mrs. White writes these words:

"Nature in her work testifies of an intelligent presence and active Agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will."

In Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.294, we read, "It is through the immediate agency of God that every tiny seed breaks through the earth, and springs up into life. Every leaf appears, every flower blooms, by the power of God."

In Testimonies, Vol.8, p.326, we read:

"The Lord puts His own Spirit into the seed, causing it to spring into life. Under His care the germ breaks through the case enclosing it and springs up to develop and bear fruit."

These statements interpret themselves, don't they?

On page 132 of the book Education, we read:

"The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. 'The Lord's throne is in Heaven' (Ps.11:4); yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. He has an intimate knowledge of and a personal interest in all the works of His hand."

So all can see with the eyes of the understanding what these statements are saying, and that is that the Holy Spirit is "the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all." Education, p.14. That the Holy Spirit is the "immediate Agency of God" (Ministry of Healing, p.417) "who moves in all things according to His will." Ministry of Healing, p.417.

And then we read these words: "The heart not yet hardened by contact with evil is quick to recognize the Presence that pervades all created things." Education, p.101.

This "Presence" is an "intelligent Presence." It is the Holy Spirit.

Now here is an excerpt of what Dr. Kellogg taught:

"There is a clear, complete, satisfactory explanation of the most subtle, the most marvelous phenomena of nature,--an infinite Intelligence working out its purposes. God is the explanation of nature,--not a God outside of nature, but in nature, manifesting Himself through and in all the objects, movements, and varied phenomena of the universe." J. H. Kellogg.

Mrs. White wrote: "Life is mysterious and sacred. It is the manifestation of God Himself, the source of all life." Ministry of Healing, p.397.

And then this: "All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God." Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.301.

So where did W.C. White and the leaders of the General Conference, who had started a campaign against Dr. Kellogg, get this idea that Dr. Kellogg taught that God was an "impersonal essence pervading all created things"?

Mrs. White herself acknowledged that she had not read the book The Living Temple but that her son Willie had shown her some excerpts but we were never shown what these excerpts were!

One thing I do know is that the leaders of the General Conference at that time, led on by A.G. Daniels, were opposed to Dr. Kellogg because he was not amenable to them but W.C. White was amenable to them. And remember that Mrs White herself warned that these men were bent on bringing men under their control. When brother Jones refused to join them in their war against Dr. Kellogg, they began another camgaign against him as well.

sky

[Guest]

We put so much emphasis on actions like the vegetarianism you referred to. There can be a perfect meat eater and a perfect vegan - God sees on the inside and our neighbors tend to see that too (when we don't think they are looking).

I can assure you that the neighbors don't see the inside. Only God can see that. All they can see is what is shown by your outward actions, and that is what they go by.

I can't see your true motives and thoughts. And you can't see mine. That is why we are not to judge one another.

[skyblue888]

Only what a person teaches we are to judge by the Word of God.

[Guest]

That is correct....

[skyblue888]

okay good :)

[Tammy]

You know the quote I'm talking about... Could someone please find it for me?

It talks about that Christ will come only after His character is perfectly reproduced in His people.

He's been waiting a long time...

What do you think of this quote?

[John317]

I believe that verse means God doesn't have a particular time when Christ will come. SDAs used to have the belief that Christ would come before a particular generation died off-- at first it was the generation which saw the falling of the stars in 1833, and then it was the generation that saw the first world war-- but COL 69 shows that such an idea is wrong. He's waiting for a certain spiritual condition in the church, and this condition has to do with all Seventh-day Adventists. The real question is, how much do each one of us want to see Jesus?

[phkrause]

I believe that verse means God doesn't have a particular time when Christ will come. SDAs used to have the belief that Christ would come before a particular generation died off-- at first it was the generation which saw the falling of the stars in 1833, and then it was the generation that saw the first world war-- but COL 69 shows that such an idea is wrong. He's waiting for a certain spiritual condition in the church, and this condition has to do with all Seventh-day Adventists. The real question is, how much do each one of us want to see Jesus?

I've always wondered about that statement. Do you really think that it is just talking about SDAs, or do you think it also includes many in other churches who actually have this spiritual condition.