What is the Gospel?

[oldsailor29]

I agree with what John317 wrote, in general, although the word "nature" can be used in a non-static way, as a synonym for "character." For example, before knowing Christ, one could say that James and John had a rough nature, but they came to have a more gentle nature. So the context could indicate the word was being used differently.

"Nature" is one of those words which have quite a few definitions. So "it depends."

If we use "nature" to mean the same thing as "character," then we lose the ability to communicate clearly about our sinful nature, inherited because of original sin, and our character development and growth. It is a difficult thing to always use the correct word. In fact EGW used the word "nature" two or three times when she actually meant "character." However, if we want to have any meaningful discussion, we must agree on the different definitions of the words we use. Our sinful natures will be changed when Jesus comes again. Our characters will be fully developed before then.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I agree with what John317 wrote, in general, although the word "nature" can be used in a non-static way, as a synonym for "character." For example, before knowing Christ, one could say that James and John had a rough nature, but they came to have a more gentle nature. So the context could indicate the word was being used differently.

Sure you can use it that way. But as you say the context will indicate that the meaning is synonymous with "character."

When we talk of God's "nature," we may be talking about his character & attributes but we might also be signifying his essence or substance. This distinction becomes important in Col. 2: 9 where it says that in Christ lives the whole fullness of the Godhead [theotetos] bodily. Here it's talking about the nature, or essence, of God; not the characteristics of God. There's a huge difference, and if it's not understood, it can lead to a very significant misinterpretation.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, for this reason, misstranslate the word theotetos as "the divine quality," instead of "deity," or "Godhead." "Divine quality" is the same as God's characteristics such as love and holiness. People also can have those qualities as we become more and more like Him. But we will never have the very nature of God. Col. 2: 9, then, is talking about the fact that Christ is the exact reproduction of God's essence, just as Hebrews 1: 3 says. He is God Himself. So John 1: 1; Hebrews 1: 3; and Col. 2: 9 are all saying the same thing. They speak of God's essential nature, or His very being, not His character.

[Twilight]

This raises an interesting question.

What does it mean when it says we are to be "partakers of the divine nature"?

[John317]

Quote:

Twilight: What does it mean when it says we are to be "partakers of the divine nature"?

Yes, excellent question and it gets to the very issue I brought up about the difference between divine quality (characteristics) and divine essence, or nature.

"Divine nature" in 2 Peter 1:4 is translated from the Greek words, theios (Strongs #2304) and physis (Strongs #5449). Theios occurs only here and in Acts 17: 29. It is in contrast to the word that occurs in Col. 2: 9, theotes/ theotetos.

We can never become God, but we can become like Him in our characteristics. We partake of God's nature in terms of what God is like-- goodness, knowledge, kindness, patience, all qualities that 2 Peter 1 says we should acquire and possess through God's power according to His promises.

[Dr. Rich]

Good discussion here. Can we then change our character but not our nature?

I naturally (by nature) do not have any sexual desire for men or children can't comprehend how others do. I have tried to figure this out, but can't since my mind just does not understand. (I am not putting down anyone who feel different here.) I do not think this has anything to do with character, but then who knows?

If we all are searching for God's character and wanting to be like God, and character can change, could God's character also change? The reason I bring this up is because many people believe that God of the OT is different than the NT.

[pnattmbtc]

This is quite interesting. If we said, "partaker of the divine character" would that mean anything different than "partaker of the divine nature"?

Quote:

I naturally (by nature) do not have any sexual desire for men or children can't comprehend how others do. I have tried to figure this out, but can't since my mind just does not understand. (I am not putting down anyone who feel different here.) I do not think this has anything to do with character, but then who knows?

This is quite a complex question, I think. Our appetites, whether they be sexual or not, must have to do with character. I don't see how this could be otherwise. We need to train our appetites, by God's grace, to be in harmony with His will. Let's leave sexual appetite aside for the moment, as I think the concept can be discussed as well with food, which is a less charged subject.

If we have a desire for something unhealthful, that could be due to genetic factors, or environmental factors. These are very difficult to distinguish, and there's a lot of debate regarding this. In either case, these could be factors that we have no control over, as we obviously have no control over our genes, and the environmental part may have been imposed upon us. So while we had no control over this, and God, of course, will not hold us accountable for that over which we have no control, these things still can exert a negative influence upon us, which must be overcome.

So I wouldn't say these things don't have anything to do with character, but that there are factors for which we may not have control (over which we aren't held accountable), but we have an obligation to control the things we can control. Because of our sinful natures, we have experience desires (the root desire is a desire to do one's own will; to put self first), or perhaps better said temptations, over which we have no control (i.e., over feeling the temptation), but we can control how we respond. The temptation is not sin of itself. As EGW put it, "The flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God."

I think we can learn to understand this better as we consider Christ. Christ took our sinful nature, and experienced the temptations we experience, but never sinned in so doing, and was able to develop a perfect character by faith.

Quote:

If we all are searching for God's character and wanting to be like God, and character can change, could God's character also change? The reason I bring this up is because many people believe that God of the OT is different than the NT.

This is an interesting question too. God said, "I am the Lord. I change not." In what sense does God not change? What makes the most sense to me would be in the sense of character. So think this Scripture is telling us that God's character does not change.

Regarding many people believing that God is different in the OT than in the NT, I think everyone perceives God to be different than Jesus Christ. I think our recognizing that we have this proclivity is the first step to developing a view of God which is like that which Christ revealed. It's like when Christ said:

Quote:

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.(John 9:41)

I this as saying that if we think we see, then that can be a problem. But if we recognize our blindness, then there's hope for us. If we recognize our need, God can help us. But if we see no need, what can God do?

[Musicman1228]

Was Jesus the Passover Lamb sacrificed on the day of Passover for the sins of His Kingdom? If He was (rhetorical, again) then He had to be absolutely PERFECT in EVERY aspect of His body, mind and spirit. Therefore, there is no possible way for this to be true IF He took onto Himself sin in any form, including sinful human nature. Jesus Christ was/is GOD in all aspects. What Satan was trying to get Jesus to do by tempting Him in the wilderness was to take on our sinful human nature.

Also, if we are to be "partakers of the Divine Nature" then that nature must be Divine and NOT the sinful human kind. What good would it do for us to take on the Divine nature if that nature had taken on sinful human nature. Would we be then taking on our own old sinful nature by taking on the nature of Jesus Christ, who Himself had taken on our sinful human nature?

What we must do is exchange our sinful human nature for the Divine nature. This is not done for us outside of our control. We CHOOSE the nature we want to have, either Divine or sinful. That is why Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would 'lead' us into ALL truth. Jesus never said that gaining this truth would happen instantly and without effort on our part.

[Guest]

Richard, behave!!! Everyone of the verses you provided I agree with and agree with what I wrote--can't you see that or are you jaded in your understanding? Mat.1:21 see the word "HIS"? 1Jn3:5 see the word "OUR"? 1Jn 1:7 see the word "US"? Zec 3:3 see the word "HIM"? And Rev. 1:5 see the word "US"?

I know it is hard for you to see this, but in every verse your provided it is NOT talking about everyone on the face of the earth! It is talking to those who have become righteous by obedience to God's word.

[Dr. Rich]

Ok Richard, thanks for the correction. I am sorry. I guess I just got mixed up some how thinking you believe one is saved by grace and not by keeping the law. My mistake.

I was not trying to use a code or anything, just trying to say that Jesus' death was not to save those who refuse to 'save themselves' by repenting and asking for forgiveness. Several places He said that He came to save the lost sheep of Israel and proved this by His un-christian-like treatment to the Canaanite woman. The verses you gave showed that His death was for those who have repented and asked for forgiveness and obeyed the commandments.

People say that we can't make the choice on our own to repent and ask for forgiveness and then not sin anymore, but God did not say other wise to Cain.

So my question is, why do we need to know God's character or nature when it is our own choice to obey or not?

[Guest]

You are one confused individual Rich. But I will still send you my sister's recipe. You don't have the power to keep the law on your own. Jesus plainly told us this in John 15:5

Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

You act like we don't even need to know Jesus. But knowing him is the key to eternal life.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

[Musicman1228]

Richard,

When did we EVER say that you could do 'it' alone? It is only through the power of the true Holy Spirit that anyone can be obedient to the Law of God. The fact that people have said that 'no one can keep the Commandments', or 'Jesus kept the Commandments for you' does not make those statements true. They are NOT true. God will never allow a 'lawless' person to enter His Kingdom. This is why there are two kingdoms in the world; the kingdom of lawlessness, which is the kingdom of the world, and the Kingdom of Lawfulness, which is the Kingdom of Heaven (this kingdom if IN the world but not OF the world).

If you think that Jesus is going let you into His Kingdom while still believing the lie that you do not need to obey His commandments then in spite of what you say you DO NOT KNOW HIM.

[Guest]

Why do you keep saying I believe this when you know I don't? You are either being deceitful and dishonest, or you have some sort of severe mental block.

[Guest]

Richard,

When did we EVER say that you could do 'it' alone?

Rich said it within the last two days. I will go find it, and show you the quote.

[Guest]

It is fiction to believe that anyone can get to heaven who has not overcome sin themselves just because someone taught that Jesus' robe of righteousness (blood) will cover up your own filthy rags (sins). God is not blind!

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Was Jesus the Passover Lamb sacrificed on the day of Passover for the sins of His Kingdom? If He was (rhetorical, again) then He had to be absolutely PERFECT in EVERY aspect of His body, mind and spirit.

Yes, of course.

Quote:

Therefore, there is no possible way for this to be true IF He took onto Himself sin in any form, including sinful human nature.

This doesn't follow. Scripture is very clear that Christ took sin. Many places tell us this. For example, Isaiah tells us, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."(Isa. 53:4,5). John quotes John the Baptist saying, "Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John also tells us of Jesus saying, "I came not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." Christ had a will to be denied.

Quote:

Jesus Christ was/is GOD in all aspects.

Human also, in all aspects.

Quote:

What Satan was trying to get Jesus to do by tempting Him in the wilderness was to take on our sinful human nature.

What Satan was trying to do by tempting Jesus in the wilderness was to tempt Him to sin. Taking our sinful nature He did when He became flesh. When Christ became flesh, what flesh did He take, but the flesh which existed at that time?

That Christ took our sinful nature is clear from His teaching that we should deny our self, take up our cross, and *follow* Him. If He did not deny Himself, then how can we follow Him? It is because He took a sinful nature that He needed to deny Himself.

Quote:

Also, if we are to be "partakers of the Divine Nature" then that nature must be Divine and NOT the sinful human kind.

Christ was both human and divine. His own nature was divine and sinless. That is the nature that *we* partake of. We don't have to partake of a sinful nature (or sinful flesh, which is synonymous) because we have sinful flesh. *He* partook or our nature (or flesh), which is sinful. He had, of Himself, a sinless nature (also divine). *We* have, of ourselves, a sinful nature (also human), so, of course, we wouldn't partake of that nature from Christ (we already have it).

Quote:

What good would it do for us to take on the Divine nature if that nature had taken on sinful human nature.

There are two separate natures. One nature doesn't take on another nature. A person, or being, has a nature. Christ had a sinless nature. He partook of a nature which He didn't have of Himself. Not His nature, by He, Himself.

Quote:

Would we be then taking on our own old sinful nature by taking on the nature of Jesus Christ, who Himself had taken on our sinful human nature?

No.

Quote:

What we must do is exchange our sinful human nature for the Divine nature.

Sinful nature is the same thing as sinful flesh. We can't exchange our flesh for some other kind of flesh. We're stuck with it until glorification.

Quote:

This is not done for us outside of our control. We CHOOSE the nature we want to have, either Divine or sinful. That is why Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would 'lead' us into ALL truth. Jesus never said that gaining this truth would happen instantly and without effort on our part.

I think if you used the phrase "sinful flesh" instead of "sinful nature," that would help clarify the issue here. There are two different things going on. One is genetic. Our genes don't change when we're converted. Jesus Christ genetically was like we are. He had the same flesh we have. If you examined His DNA, it would like like the DNA we have. He accepted the workings of the law of heredity.

We have a different character developed as a result of sinning. If you have nature in this sense in mind, then, yes, we need to exchange this "nature" for a different nature, which happens when we're born again. But when we say that Christ took sinful nature upon Him, that is not speaking of this, but rather of sinful flesh, or a genetic heritage, which is not something we have control over.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Several places He said that He came to save the lost sheep of Israel and proved this by His un-christian-like treatment to the Canaanite woman. The verses you gave showed that His death was for those who have repented and asked for forgiveness and obeyed the commandments.

His treatment of the Canaanite woman was an object lesson. He, for a short time, treated her the way the Pharisees and other bigoted Jews typically treated such, as a lesson for His disciples. You seem to have forgotten that He actually healed the woman! If you have the idea that Christ treated the woman in an un-Chritian-like manner, there's something wrong here! Think about it. Christ acting un-Christ-like?

Consider the woman at the well. She was not a Jew, but how did Jesus treat her? What did He teach her? We see that Christ taught her that He was "the Savior of the world" by the response of those with whom she met.

Quote:

And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. (John 4:42)

John repeats this, that Christ was the "Savior of the world," in his first epistle.

Also Jesus, in John 3:16, tells us that God so loved the *world* that He gave His only son, that *whosoever* believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Quote:

People say that we can't make the choice on our own to repent and ask for forgiveness and then not sin anymore, but God did not say other wise to Cain.

God didn't say anything one way or the other to Cain. If you're going to make an argument from silence like this, you can "prove" anything. In Gen. 3:15, it was explained that God would cause there to be enmity between man and the serpent. Had God not acted, man would have been without hope.

Quote:

So my question is, why do we need to know God's character or nature when it is our own choice to obey or not?

Because if we don't know God's character, we can't obey. Our choice would be a robotic, Pharisee type obedience, which isn't obedience at all.

[Dr. Rich]

1) I did not say 'un-Christ like', I said 'unchristian like'.

2) You don't know how long this took.

3) Please don't assume anything.

4) Her daughter was healed.

5) Jesus taught the woman at the well that HIS words are living water, meaning one must obey what He says and only then can they be saved.

6) Jesus did not and will not save the world! Try understanding Revelation.

7) John the Baptist is the one who said what he did because John thought Jesus was going to be the king asap which was the life road, but the Jews did not follow the life road and chose the death road instead, so what John the Baptist said was truth that was conditional.

8) WHAT? You said God did not say anything to Cain? Excuse me! I guess Gen. 4:6 and 7 in your belief is not the truth. Hmmm?

9) Look, I know you have an agenda against what Jesus taught and a strong belief that you are saved by faith because we can't obey, but there are warnings all through Revelation for people who think like that. I did not write Revelation so don't blame me.

10) It is my opinion that too much emphasis is placed upon knowing the character of God and not enough on obeying what He commands. One can philosophize all they want about the character of God and yet they can't see and understand the 7 messages to the Kingdom of Heaven in the last days about the characteristics of the KOH.

[Dr. Rich]

There is no such thing as sinful flesh! How do you split the spirit from the flesh? If you say that the word mortal means sin, then I would agree, but it doesn't. Mortal is not the same as sinful.

What MM was attempting to make known is that Adam's sin, and his only is what put all of us born of Adam's seed, into a penalty that sooner or later had to be paid. Jesus paid this penalty for Adam's sin, and everyone else that accepts what He did under the condition that they overcome sin and become righteous. We all have been given that choice. Therefore, one can say that the death of Jesus paid the penalty for those in the world who believed in the words of Jesus and kept them. But Jesus did NOT take away the sins of the world as many want to believe--why--because there still is sin!

And Richard, I do not agree with MM on this because God told Cain he had to overcome himself and it is our job to do this too. Once you overcome, then the Holy Spirit can abide in you. Having said this, without the Holy Spirit we all would probably be toast.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Good discussion here. Can we then change our character but not our nature?

Seems similar to the question in Isaiah, "Can the leopard change its spots? Can a good thing come out of a bad? So then can he who is evil do good."

I don't believe that we can truly change our character, although it may seem like some people have. But in the final analysis only God's Spirit can really change our character radically and profoundly for the better. The Bible refers to it as the New Birth, or being born of God. His Spirit comes to us and makes us a new creation.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: I naturally (by nature) do not have any sexual desire for men or children can't comprehend how others do. I have tried to figure this out, but can't since my mind just does not understand. (I am not putting down anyone who feel different here.) I do not think this has anything to do with character, but then who knows?

Not too many people wake up one morning and plan consciously on being attracted to girls. Neither do many people wake up and decide to be attracted to members of their own gender.

There's no relationship between being attracted to men and being attracted to children. There are many heterosexuals who are attracted to children, and the percentage of homosexuals who are attacted to children is very small.

The part that has to do with character is the acting out of one's sinful desires. But if one confesses them to God instead, and overcomes them by His power, God slowly takes those desires away and replaces them with His thoughts and desires. It doesn't happen overnight but it does happen as we daily walk with Him and invite Him into our heart and mind.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: If we all are searching for God's character and wanting to be like God, and character can change, could God's character also change? The reason I bring this up is because many people believe that God of the OT is different than the NT.

God's character doesn't change. Any change would be cause for concern, since all change must the either for the good or the bad.

The God of the OT is the same God as appears in the NT.

[oldsailor29]

only God's Spirit can really change our character radically and profoundly for the better. The Bible refers to it as the New Birth, or being born of God. His Spirit comes to us and makes us a new creation.

The gospel is not contained within some disagreement about the meaning of words, like "character" and "nature." It is much broader than that.

Change of character is not new birth. We can have a character change without being born again. And it ain't conversion or being born again when the Holy Spirit takes away certain sinful desires either. We can only be born again by "eating His flesh" and "drinking His blood." This is what the gospel is all about.

We cannot be saved by putting a "Jesus" patch on our old suit. "New wine" does not mix well with "old wine," as hard as SDAs and Messianic Jews try to mix them and make them fit. That ain't conversion. Jesus said we should stop eating the manna, and start eating the living bread which He provides. And there He is talking about conversion and His gospel message.

This month will be the last time I will post. Most SDAs are followers of Moses, manna eaters, on the wrong path. Most are on the ever narrowing path which curves up the side of the mountain. And they even have a serious problem traveling that road, because they are stopped, refusing to go further up the path where they will have to get off it.

I encourage everyone to get off that path, not into the abyss of unbelief, but onto the straight and narrow path, following Jesus. Concentrate study on the gospel printed in red in your new testaments. If distracted by other parts of the Bible, cut out the red parts and paste them on separate pages. Read what Jesus said over and over, until the Holy Spirit starts giving a more complete understanding.

Don't give up the pillars, but let them stand behind us on our path, providing the lesser light from behind, all the way to the holy city. And look to Jesus, the greater light who is leading us, to light our path ahead. And when Jesus raises His glorious right arm, holding in His right hand the seven stars, (seven is a symbolic number signifying completeness) illuminating our path ahead, we will all shout hallelujah as we see the beautiful gems of truth waiting for us to discover there, on our way to the holy city.

There is still more beautiful gems of truth than cannot be numbered, awaiting discovery on the straight and narrow path ahead. Like the "great multitude," they cannot be numbered because they are still arriving. So, be converted. Be born again. Stop eating manna and start your pure diet of the living bread, Jesus Christ.

[Guest]

We cannot be saved by....

Your belief that everyone will be saved, conflicts with what you are trying to say here. Unless you have changed your theology?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

1) I did not say 'un-Christ like', I said 'unchristian like'.

So did I.

Quote:

You seem to have forgotten that He actually healed the woman! If you have the idea that Christ treated the woman in an un-Christian-like manner, there's something wrong here!

I used "un-Christian-like" and "un-Christ-like" as synonyms. In order to make the distinction you are making, you'd have to have the idea that Christ didn't act as a Christian would act. That is, if "un-Christian-like" is different than "un-Christ-like" then Christ could act in an un-Christian-like manner without acting in an un-Christ-like manner. Given these are two different things, being Christ-like must be good, and being Christian-like must be bad. Therefore being un-Christian-like must be good, so you're arguing that Christ demonstrated that He only came for a subset of humans by treating the woman he healed well, which doesn't make sense.

Quote:

2) You don't know how long this took.

How long what took?

Quote:

3) Please don't assume anything.

Please don't write cryptically.

Quote:

4) Her daughter was healed.

Ok. Doesn't matter to the point, right?

Quote:

5) Jesus taught the woman at the well that HIS words are living water, meaning one must obey what He says and only then can they be saved.

This doesn't matter to the point either, right? He taught He was the Savior of the world. That's what I was bringing out.

Quote:

6) Jesus did not and will not save the world!

He taught that He was the Savior of the world, as I quoted. John 4:42. John repeats this in His epistle:

Quote:

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. (1 John 4:14)

Quote:

Try understanding Revelation.

This strikes me as rather rude. Do you disagree?

John, who wrote revelation, taught that Jesus Christ was "the Savior of the World." He wouldn't contradict himself in Revelation, would he?

Quote:

7) John the Baptist is the one who said what he did because John thought Jesus was going to be the king asap which was the life road, but the Jews did not follow the life road and chose the death road instead, so what John the Baptist said was truth that was conditional.

Please flesh this out a bit. This seems very unclear. For one thing, it's not clear to me what point you're trying to make, nor is it clear why you are trying to make this point. That is, how does this tie into the discussion?

Quote:

8) WHAT? You said God did not say anything to Cain? Excuse me! I guess Gen. 4:6 and 7 in your belief is not the truth. Hmmm?

Anything about what we're talking about. Not anything at all. It's not obvious what I meant? You thought I meant God didn't say anything at all to Cain? You didn't understand that I meant anything about what we were talking about? You didn't understand the point that you were making an argument from silence? You didn't understand what this meant, or how you were doing this?

Quote:

9) Look, I know you have an agenda against what Jesus taught

You must not have read what I've written. I've been the one on this forum who's most strongly advocated that we should go to the Gospels to see what Jesus Christ revealed as the basis for our theology. You can ask anyone. I've made this point over and over again.

Quote:

and a strong belief that you are saved by faith because we can't obey,

I've never said this.

Quote:

but there are warnings all through Revelation for people who think like that. I did not write Revelation so don't blame me.

This is incomprehensible. You're making accusations which are simply untrue. You're just calling black white and white black. I've not done any of the things you're accusing me of, and you've made no attempt to explain how your accusations tie into anything.

Quote:

10) It is my opinion that too much emphasis is placed upon knowing the character of God and not enough on obeying what He commands.

Our picture of God is the foundation for all that we do an think. If we have a wrong idea of God's character, that can lead to the type of "obedience" that the Pharisees had. It can lead to us deluding ourselves into thinking we are obeying when we're in reality doing the very opposite of God's will. Again, the Pharisees are examples of this.

Quote:

One can philosophize all they want about the character of God and yet they can't see and understand the 7 messages to the Kingdom of Heaven in the last days about the characteristics of the KOH.

The Great Controversy is in regards to the character of God. This is the heart of Scripture, and the heart of the Gospels, which John, in particular, makes very clear.

The following is from out official web page dealing with what SDA's believe:

Quote:

As a Christian church, Seventh-day Adventists are a faith community rooted in the beliefs described by the Holy Scriptures. Adventists describe these beliefs in the following ways:

God's greatest desire is for you to see a clear picture of His character. When you see Him clearly, you will find His love irresistible.

For many, "seeing God clearly" requires that they see God's face. However, how He looks is not the issue. Seeing and understanding His character is what's most important. The more clearly we understand Him, the more we will find His love irresistible. As we begin to experience His love, our own lives will begin to make more sense.(http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/;emphasis mine)

What makes the SDA church unique is this emphasis on God's character.

[Musicman1228]

What makes the SDA church unique is this emphasis on God's character.

I beg to differ.

What makes the SDA church different, or SHOULD make the SDA church different is that we not only 'profess' to keep the Commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev.12:17) but that we actually DO. We are the Kingdom of Heaven on earth today (for crying out loud) and we are behaving just as any other Christian denomination is behaving. So instead of being as God designed us to be we are being just like the kingdom of the world actually is. How sad. It is going to change soon with the 'shaking', I hope you are up for this.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

There is no such thing as sinful flesh!

This is Romans 8:3

Quote:

to gar adunaton tou nomou en ō ēsthenei dia tēs sarkos o theos ton eautou uion pempsas en omoiōmati sarkos amartias kai peri amartias katekrinen tēn amartian en tē sarki

The words, "sarkos amartias" are "sinful flesh" (or, literally, "of flesh" and "sinful").

Quote:

How do you split the spirit from the flesh? If you say that the word mortal means sin, then I would agree, but it doesn't. Mortal is not the same as sinful.

What do you mean, split the spirit from the flesh? Where do you think this is being done. Why was the word "mortal" brought up?

Quote:

What MM was attempting to make known is that Adam's sin, and his only is what put all of us born of Adam's seed, into a penalty that sooner or later had to be paid.

We weren't talking about this.

Quote:

Jesus paid this penalty for Adam's sin, and everyone else that accepts what He did under the condition that they overcome sin and become righteous.

Where do you think this is taught?

Quote:

We all have been given that choice. Therefore, one can say that the death of Jesus paid the penalty for those in the world who believed in the words of Jesus and kept them.

Where do you see this being taught? What words of Jesus convey this idea? Mark 10:45? Or something else?

Quote:

But Jesus did NOT take away the sins of the world as many want to believe--why--because there still is sin!

John 1:14 says, "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world."

[Dr. Rich]

Wow Oldsailor, Good words my friend. It has been pleasure to read your posts and this one is the bottom line. The words of Jesus will never lead anyone astray. Blessings!