Questions on Doctrine

[Sulla]

Read something interesting today so thought I would share it.

Article

[fccool]

thank you for posting this. I have wrestled with this issue a lot as some of it makes more sense as I've read the article.

[Woody]

Thanks for the article. It gave me hope that I am not the only one who was critical of Joe Crews. Don't mean to speak ill of the dead ... but it was in the article.

[Sulla]

Well Adams was critical of Crews but not the writer of the article. Neither am I for that matter:)

[Neil D]

Ok, guys...I have looked at the legal wrangling over the book Questions on Doctrine, and I know there is a problem with it...For the life of me, I can not see what the problem is....with the exception that Adventist traded in one of our doctrines for some sort of legitamacy among the Christian community....and that this doctrine was over the concept of sin....

Could someone explain, in the simplist of terms what that 'sin doctrine' was and contrast it to current thinking ?

[David Koot]

It's good to see this article. Certainly, the issue was a huge one. As I recall, the Christological controversy, arising out of teachings in QOD was addressed, and resolved, in the '80's. Now, we see this. Very encouraging.

Dave

[Sulla]

Really it is all part of the big question that every one is still split over. Does a converted Christian still live in known sin. And part of that discussion is...

1. The Nature Of Christ - Did he come with the nature of Adam before sin or the same weak human nature we have. Or in other words was he a true example for us. Can a sin predisposed person with the help of God overcome known sin.

2. What is sin - Are we guilty of the sins of Adam and those that came before (original sin). Or are we just predisposed to sin and only guilty of the sins we commit.

And the reason its still important is because depending on the adventist church you go into you can get completly different views on the subject.

And this subject is very important because it has to do with the day to day life of Christians. It has had to with how you see known sin in your life.....

One view would be that God is working with you to help you over come known sins in your life. And over your life you will slowly get better and stop doing more and more of them. Then some how even tho you choose to sin know you will not when you get to heaven.

The other main view is that the Christian will give up known sin as soon as he God shows it to him. He will repent, surrender and thru Gods power stop doing the sin. And that even tho we will probably fall at times we still need to repent and put away the sin. But that we will not be living in known sins as Christians. But also never feeling without sin on the contrary the closer you get to God the more you have the feeling of sin. But its a general one and one knowing your weakness and tendency to sin and past. Not about the huge amount of known sin in your life you will not let go of.

[Sulla]

Some more on the subject....

Satan had claimed that it was impossible for man to obey God's commandments; and in our own strength it is true that we cannot obey them. But Christ came in the form of humanity, and by His perfect obedience He proved that humanity and divinity combined can obey every one of God's precepts. {COL 314.4}

God requires perfection of His children. His law is a transcript of His own character, and it is the standard of all character. This infinite standard is presented to all that there may be no mistake in regard to the kind of people whom God will have to compose His kingdom. The life of Christ on earth was a perfect expression of God's law, and when those who claim to be children of God become Christlike in character, they will be obedient to God's commandments. Then the Lord can trust them to be of the number who shall compose the family of heaven. Clothed in the glorious apparel of Christ's righteousness, they have a place at the King's feast. They have a right to join the blood-washed throng. {COL 315.1}

The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin. A man may be a law-breaker in heart; yet if he commits no outward act of transgression, he may be regarded by the world as possessing great integrity. But God's law looks into the secrets of the heart. Every act is judged by the motives that prompt it. Only that which is in accord with the principles of God's law will stand in the judgment. {COL 316.2}

God is love. He has shown that love in the gift of Christ. When "He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life," He withheld nothing from His purchased possession. (John 3:16.) He gave all heaven, from which we may draw strength and efficiency, that we be not repulsed or overcome by our great adversary. But the love of God does not lead Him to excuse sin. He did not excuse it in Satan; He did not excuse it in Adam or in Cain; nor will He excuse it in any other of the children of men. He will not connive at our sins or overlook our defects of character. He expects us to overcome in His name. {COL 316.3}

Those who reject the gift of Christ's righteousness are

317

rejecting the attributes of character which would constitute them the sons and daughters of God. They are rejecting that which alone could give them a fitness for a place at the marriage feast. {COL 316.4}

[fccool]

As I said I really wrestled with this issue, and there are couple things I'd like to point out in addition to the paper. It is interesting to see that the doctrine of the "original sin" is only reading into half of the Biblical position on the issue and makes that conclusion out of context. For example:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Romans 5:18)

The proponents of the original sin use the Red part of the verse to justify their position for universal condemnation of mankind at birth. But if you interpret it that way, then the blue part would also mean that there is universal salvation .

I never thought about this issue until I've had conversation with my parents about issue of salvation. Well, I've held the "Baptist" or Calvinist position on nature of men, which is Total Depravity... and they asked me how do I account for any good things that non-Christians do, if they are totally depraved of any good in them? I thought to myself, well it's semi-depravity then. Then they asked me how would a just God look only at the negative things that people did and did not take into account the positive? So, if person lived all of their life doing mostly "good" not even hearing about Christ, and then the person would screw up a couple of times... would that mean they would stand condemned in light of the aggregate good they did. I told them that we can't earn our way to heaven, but it was a "leaned" response. I thought about it a lot, and I came to conclusion that I don't know. It's not as black and white as I thought it was. So I got to think about one of my childhood friends who was born into family of alcoholic parents and he had hardly a chance as his parents were mixing alcohol in his milk to keep him quite as a baby. He got cirrhosis of liver and he was only 15. I think his ability to think clearly was impaired by his parents actions, and later by his own as he did see what he was doing as damaging or "sinful". He would be a normal kid if he would be born into a different family. I'm sure there are millions of cases like this.

So the question is even deeper that this. Is sin something hereditary as in baldness, or bad sight... or is it something that we learn while growing up with no Godly guidance in a world ruled by Satan who is the original sinner? Let's put it that way... would Eve sinned if Satan did not tempt her. Would she sinned if Satan did not exist?

The follow up question is, why would not we want to sin in Heaven? Would we have a choice to sin, and not do it... or will we be physically incapable of it?

So from the above I've concluded that:

1) Adam and Eve sinned because they did not follow God's law. It was more than eating a piece of fruit, it was a councious choice on their part not to trust God's wisdom on subject matter.

2) The mechanism of transmission of sin is not sexual conception, but mental because sin is a transgression of the law. There were early experiments on the "original language" of human race. It was suspected that the original language could be found by not speaking to the child, just feeding it and see what comes out after a couple of years. The experiments failed as children did not live past the age of two, and that emotional deprivation that caused "hospitalism" and would kill the babies due to lack of human touch and interaction.

So we learn that babies die without human touch, just like the original humans would die without touch of God. Therefore, sin nature could not be a sexual transmitted disease that is attached to every living creature at birth. It is a result of separation from God and his law by which the universe if operating. If you go against physical laws... you can die. The same with God's law. Since at birth we are separated from God and stand to make a choice between "good" and "evil", God or Satan, it makes more sense to believe that we are born with predisposition to do both good and evil. Therefore we will be condemned in eyes of God for doing evil, because we choose to be separated and going our own way and thus following Satan. I still don't know what happens to those, who like my friend had a predisposed environment which they could not overcome without any knowledge or help of God. Would God still hold those accountable. I don't know, and I hope not.

3) We need Christ because we will sin in this world. It

s as sure as walking into a casino with rigged tables and slot machines. This world was well rigged by Satan. We are born into the "sinful nature", because as a whole the world rejects God's law. We learn from our parents, thus we have a mindset that is predisposed to do evil because of our learned distrust and want for self-preservation and comfort apart from God.

4) Christ covers not only our past, but also our future sins if we are willing to admit that God's way is the best way to go and go about worshiping God by continually transforming our minds. We all know this one, but it is so deep that I really appreciate this verse as it is my favorite one.

1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Here we have the entire doctrine of regeneration in 2 verses. Once we know God's mercy, we should be living our lives according to God's desires and OUR MINDS are transformed as a result. Then we will be able to live out God's will in our lives.

5) Many proponents of the transmitted bodily sinful nature argue that "the desires of the flesh" that Paul frequently refers to proves that we have sexually transmitted sinful nature, and thus we are sinful by conception and our bodies go against our minds.

After some research I've concluded that there is no such evidence in the Bible, and what Paul referring here is a habitual sin that is hard to break away from. As a well know example, we are not born with desire to smoke. We have to try it first, then like it, then love it, and then be addicted to it to the point of going crazy without it. So it is with sin. We experience it, we like it, we love it, and then it's hard to break away from it even after we have decided to follow God. That's what the "old man" is referred to as by Paul.

The ramification of the doctrine of "original sin" as in TULIP are staggering. I found out that you can't be a 4 point Calvinist. Each of these logically demand other 4 in one way or another. So this is what I believed before:

Total depravity - all men are depraved of any goodness through birth and can not choose nor seek God. They don't have any ability to do good, and thus need God to initiate the response before they even choose God.

Unconditional Election(predestination) - God chooses some people just because, not based on their good deeds or their choices, but because he simply likes some people more than other. So he chooses some from heaven, and some for hell. The list was made up before the creation of the world and it is unchangeable.

Limited Atonement - Jesus did not die for everybody, but only for those who God elected to be on the "chosen roster".

Irresistible Grace - God sends the spirit only to those on the roster BEFORE they make decision to follow God. The Spirit enables them to make that choice.

Perseverance of the Saints - Once saved, always saved. No matter what you do from then on you can not be lost, because of the point #4, God's grace is irresistible.

When I first accepted Christ, I was indoctrinated into believing all 5. Now, I don't believe in any, because if you drop one... then all of the other fall apart.

So, it might seem that the doctrine of total depravity is a minor issue, but it is HUGE and not paid enough attention to IMO. Pastors today accept it "as is" without any proper evaluation. Most believe that "sinful nature" is a sexually transmitted disease so to speak that we inherit at birth. I don't believe that Biblical view demonstrates that, and I would urge you to examine it for yourselves.

Forgive me for my lengthy sermon of a post, but I thought I would share my struggle and my observations and conclusions.

[Woody]

All I know is that I will be sinning "known sins" until the day I die. So, some may declare me lost and some have. I've been told that I am of the Devil because of this belief. It is interesting how people can think how right they are. In fact they are SO right that they can condemn the rest of God's family.

But there you have it. So, some here think I am of the Devil. But it is what GOD thinks of me that matters. And HE happens to LOVE me.

[Sulla]

fccool one basic idea that might help is this. There is NEVER an excuse for sin PERIOD. If there was Jesus would not have had to die on the cross.

Corinthians Chapter Ten.

10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

The strongest temptation is no excuse for sin. No matter how severe the pressure brought to bear upon you, sin is your own act. The seat of the difficulty is the unrenewed heart. {AH 331.1}

Had He even admitted that there could be an excuse for sin, Satan would have triumphed, and the world would have been lost. This is why the tempter worked to make His life as trying as possible, that He might be led to sin. {DA 88.2}

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

Also its clear its clear sinful nature is not just ideas past on from parents to children. We are predisposed to sin. We have NO good in us. Its only from the holy spirit. The below explains it better than I can..

We are to know the meaning of the words: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The enmity that exists in the heart against evil has no natural existence, but is an enmity that has been created through the agency of the Holy Spirit. "As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name." The natural man is in transgression, and his nature is in harmony with that of the first transgressor. There is no natural enmity between fallen men and fallen angels; both are partakers of the same spirit through indulgence in evil. It is according to the law of the synagogue of Satan that in the controversy of the evil against the good, fallen men and fallen angels shall unite in a desperate companionship. From the beginning Satan has worked continually to dethrone the Creator, and whatever may be the divisions among evil men and evil angels, there is no division in their opposition to God. They are banded together as with iron cords to oppose the Creator and Redeemer of man. Satan is determined to utterly deprave human nature through making of none effect the commandments of God. He originates traditions, and through his maxims he succeeds in assimilating to his own nature the nature of those who do not yield allegiance to the law of God. {ST, June 11, 1894 par. 4}

Quote:

Forgive me for my lengthy sermon of a post, but I thought I would share my struggle and my observations and conclusions.

Also thanks for sharing:)

[fccool]

fccool one basic idea that might help is this. There is NEVER an excuse for sin PERIOD. If there was Jesus would not have had to die on the cross.

Forgive me if I insinuated that there is EXCUSE for sin that does not need Christ's blood to cover it up. The question is weather Christs blood will cover those who never accepted Him because they simply have not heard of Him. This might be due to environment, or due to prohibitive actions of the parents. Either way, what is the standard for judgment in this case? For you to reject Christ, there has to be an opportunity to do so. Does EVERYONE have this opportunity? I think that we honestly can answer... NO! The nature is simply not enough, as you can only deduce that there is a creator. If people can deduce that without Word of God, then in this case why do we need Christ at all? If they can not, then what is the standard? That's why I can only speculate in such cases and I leave it up to God without drawing conclusions based on my limited understanding.

Corinthians Chapter Ten.

10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

The strongest temptation is no excuse for sin. No matter how severe the pressure brought to bear upon you, sin is your own act. The seat of the difficulty is the unrenewed heart. {AH 331.1}

I don't disagree.

Also its clear its clear sinful nature is not just ideas past on from parents to children. We are predisposed to sin. We have NO good in us. Its only from the holy spirit. The below explains it better than I can..

I'd like to see some scriptural support for this view. As I have pointed out before, this view will lead to inevitable paradox of choice. If we have no good in us and we only predisposed to do evil, then it means we can not choose God, which would require ability for us to make a "good choice". If we can make a good choice to follow God, then it means we are not predisposed to evil, but predisposed to chose either. If we are predisposed to chose either, then we are not predisposed at all, as it is a matter of personal choice then.

IF we ARE predisposed to do evil, and there is NO good in us, then it means that Holy Spirit would have to be the initiator, and not us. Which once again leads to the paradox of choice, and would mean that Calvin was right, and there is no choice and God is playing favorites.

If sin is an inward nature transmitted by birth as a genetic "mindset" and we have no good in us prior to Salvation... how do you explain the following?

1And there was a certain man in Cesarea, by name Cornelius, a centurion from a band called Italian, 2pious, and fearing God with all his house, doing also many kind acts to the people, and beseeching God always, 3he saw in a vision manifestly, as it were the ninth hour of the day, a messenger of God coming in unto him, and saying to him, `Cornelius;' 4and he having looked earnestly on him, and becoming afraid, said, `What is it, Lord?' And he said to him, `Thy prayers and thy kind acts came up for a memorial before God,

....

13he declared also to us how he saw the messenger in his house standing, and saying to him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, who is surnamed Peter, 14who shall speak sayings by which thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. 15`And in my beginning to speak, the Holy Spirit did fall upon them, even as also upon us in the beginning,

What are "the kind and favorable acts" that God is speaking about in BLUE portion, when in red portion it is clear that the man did not have Holy Spirit and needed to be saved through Gospel? Did Cornelius seek God because it was God's initiative, or otherwise? Just wondering what your thoughts on this one?

What part do human beings play in salvation experience? Who initiates? I'm not talking here about God making the first move and opening opportunity for people to accept Him. I'm asking the thought process here. If men by nature can do NO good on their own, how can they make a choice that is "good"? If God makes that choice for them, then what part do they play at all in "keeping in faith" and rejection? Why don't we hold to "once saved, always saved" doctrine that logically flows out of such theology?

12So that, my beloved, as ye always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling your own salvation work out,

It seems to me that we do have a choice that is uninterrupted by our inclination. Otherwise it would be hard to condemn anyone. It's like condemning AIDS patient who got AIDS by birth.

This would also mean that Jesus, through Mary was a partaker of the fallen nature of Adam. How did he avoid sin through his childhood years? If babies automatically sin by crying and being selfish... unconsciously... how did Jesus avoid it by partaking in nature of Mary? Virginity does not negate the fallen nature. It was regarded that women did not participate in birth and were only the ground that children grow once the seed is planted, but we know it's not true.

If Jesus did not partake in sin nature, then he had advantage in overcoming sin that we do not have. Then His demands for us not to sin are unreasonable as we have sinful nature that still remains with us after salvation experience (the "old man" described by Paul). -- I realize that we will not experience life without sin on Earth, but the "inherited nature" view would reason that it is because we physically can not, even with the help of the Holy Spirit... because Holy Spirit does not simply replaces our Old Nature, which is present with us and is a struggle till we die.

In light of such view, the choice is not in hands of man, but in hands of God:

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

How do you explain the following verses in light of our belief of free choice, and loosing salvation?

16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. ... 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

I'd like to see how you can reconcile the doctrine of inbred sin, doctrine of choice, and doctrine of loosing salvation in light of the above verses. Please let me know your thoughts on these.

[Neil D]

A lot of what you guys are thinking out is dependant upon your definition of sin....

I have determined that sin is not defined as "transgression of the law"

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

because if sin is transgression of the law, then what is transgression? Willful sin? It then becomes a circular arguement... So, one has to define Sin, iniquity and transgression to get a better concept of what sin is.....

So, define sin-

Transgression-

Iniquity-

[fccool]

I think I've described my position as the one that is consitent with the verse that you quoted...

The mechanism of transmission of sin is not sexual conception, but mental because sin is a transgression of the law.

So my reasoning is... can you transgress the law if you can not make conscious decision to do it, or to do otherwise? Forgive me for using this example, but if you have "wet dreams"... would it be considered transgression of the law? I know it's not a comparable example, but I'll edit it out if I think of something better as nothing comes to mind right now

I'd still would like to hear your thoughts on Romans 9, in light of our choice to gain or to loose savlation.

[David Koot]

Neil, Neil . . . Theologian, are you? SIN is transgression of the law, which means, breaking the law, violating the law. Iniquity essentially refers to a state of mind, an evil state of mind, an immoral state of mind, etc., whereas SIN refers to ACTS. The element of intent is not required for transgression of the law. The daily covers unknowing transgressions. The daily does not cover wilfull transgression of the law. Thus, your lesson for today.

Dave

[Neil D]

Quote:

SIN is transgression of the law, which means, breaking the law, violating the law. Iniquity essentially refers to a state of mind, an evil state of mind, an immoral state of mind, etc., whereas SIN refers to ACTS.

David, what is transgression????? Where is your definiton of transgression????

Right now, Sin, by what you have said, is your behavior.....And the remedy for your behavior is to be perfect...And I am sorry, but God doesn't require you to be perfect outside your sphere of influence...And perfect behavior is totally outside the sphere of anyone's behavior...

I would need biblical definitions gentlemen...And none of you have done so...I would like a biblical definition...best biblical definition for each word wins ClubAdventist Bucks to be used at the ClubAdventist Virtual Store....

[Neil D]

The mechanism of transmission of sin is not sexual conception, but mental because sin is a transgression of the law.

AS I have said, Sin is NOT transgression of the law....Transgression of the law is only PART of the concept of sin.....

The remedy to this concept is perfect behavior....which is anthema to the gospel....

[fccool]

Sin - act of transgression of the law

Its pretty simple, yet complex as definition goes beyond simple transgression of the law.

God ordering to kill people falls outside of such transgression. The same goes for merely contemplating murder or adultery, which is not a physical act... is considered to be a sin "pre facto". Thus you can transgress the law by merely thinking about it. Either way, sin is of both mental in absence of physical, and physical in absence of mental nature. But the condition is that you are the agent... your parents can not make decisions for you to sin on your behalf. You may suffer the consequences of their sin, thus be born in "iniquity"... but you are not ascribed the blame for their choices.

Iniquity - absence of moral values

Result of continuing practice of sin.

Some Biblical definitions :

17all unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not unto death.

18We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him;

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.

"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

"Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.'

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

What do you think?

[Neil D]

And the biblical texts supporting your definitions....?

[Neil D]

Let me help you guys and see if this figures into your biblical perspective....and biblical concepts...

Sin- Coming short of God's character. Roman 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Transgression- willful violation of God's law. I John 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Iniquity- Selfishness-Isaiah 53:6

All of us like sheep have gone astray,

Each of us has turned to his own way;

But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all

To fall on Him.

Sin, therefore, is a relationship problem...not a behavioral problem....And that is why, regarding the conflict over Question on Doctrine is moot....because neither concept has an accurate biblical definition of the concept of sin...

[Sulla]

Quote:

Forgive me if I insinuated that there is EXCUSE for sin that does not need Christ's blood to cover it up. The question is weather Christs blood will cover those who never accepted Him because they simply have not heard of Him.

Ahhh ok I see sorry for the misunderstanding. I know Ellen White believed people are judged on the light they recieved. And even people who do not accept the truth as we know it can go to heaven. For example William Miller who never accepted the sabbath.

Quote:

I'd like to see some scriptural support for this view. As I have pointed out before, this view will lead to inevitable paradox of choice. If we have no good in us and we only predisposed to do evil, then it means we can not choose God

Being prone to sin does not mean you do not have a choice. You choose to follow God to let God unite with man and Gods power help you overcome sin. See the passages from Romans below.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

When God came to inquire of Adam, He laid all the blame upon Eve. God said, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The enemy cannot touch you unless you let him. But here is the enmity which God puts against the serpent. There is no enmity between evil men and the angels, but there is enmity between those that serve the Lord and the hosts of darkness. {Te 284.1}

Quote:

What are "the kind and favorable acts" that God is speaking about in BLUE portion, when in red portion it is clear that the man did not have Holy Spirit and needed to be saved through Gospel? Did Cornelius seek God because it was God's initiative, or otherwise? Just wondering what your thoughts on this one?

The acts are not exact kind things he did are not important. It clear he feared and prayed to God. And the kind acts were just the natural actions of someone that loves God. But he did not know the full truth. And when it says "who shall speak sayings by which thou shalt be saved" it is not saying he was lost but that it will give him more of the truth. See...

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Quote:

I'm asking the thought process here. If men by nature can do NO good on their own, how can they make a choice that is "good"?

The simple problem is you are not understanding what sinful nature means. It does not make you a robot. But it does make your natural choice sin. Sin is easy its the path of least resistance. But we can always choose. And here is what God is asking us to choose. Can he help you. The sinner says no the Christian says yes.

Quote:

This would also mean that Jesus, through Mary was a partaker of the fallen nature of Adam. How did he avoid sin through his childhood years? If babies automatically sin by crying and being selfish... unconsciously... how did Jesus avoid it by partaking in nature of Mary? Virginity does not negate the fallen nature. It was regarded that women did not participate in birth and were only the ground that children grow once the seed is planted, but we know it's not true.

Your running into a problem here because of your understanding of sin. Sin is you understanding there is a choice and not choosing God. Babies are not making a conscious choice. But at some point the child get to a point where they understand and can make that choice. Just like the gentile spoken about above in Romans. The gentile was not choosing to break Gods law on say the Sabbath he just did not know about it. And babies do not know what they are doing they are not making a conscious choice for good or evil.

Quote:

If Jesus did not partake in sin nature, then he had advantage in overcoming sin that we do not have. Then His demands for us not to sin are unreasonable as we have sinful nature that still remains with us after salvation experience (the "old man" described by Paul). -- I realize that we will not experience life without sin on Earth, but the "inherited nature" view would reason that it is because we physically can not, even with the help of the Holy Spirit... because Holy Spirit does not simply replaces our Old Nature, which is present with us and is a struggle till we die.

Jesus did it the same way we can do it. We can choose to let an all powerful God help us.

"The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. There is a death to self and sin, and a new life altogether. This change can be brought about only by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit. {DA 172.1}"

Quote:

How do you explain the following verses in light of our belief of free choice, and loosing salvation?

Can you post this with the chapter, verse and bible version please.

fccool how long have you been an Adventist?

[Sulla]

Quote:

The remedy to this concept is perfect behavior....which is anthema to the gospel....

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Seems someone forgot to tell the apostles.

[fccool]

I appreciate you taking your time to type out the response. I don't think that our view of sin changes our salvation experience (either way we are sinners and in need of Christ's blood), but as I've shown with Calvinist view... it can greatly impact our view of God. And I don't think you have addressed the issue of total depravity that most of the Christian world holds to.

If we can "do no good" from birth as you have stated earlier... wouldn't the act of choosing God constitute "good"? I don't see how you can logically reconcile the position of choice, and that of total depravity.

For example... if you are born disabled, and you can not see... can you at any point choose to see? How can you be expected to read, unless somebody reads something to you?

Now, to carry the analogy a couple steps further... based on our view of sin, we are born spiritually blind yet we are expected to make a choice that requires some kind of spiritual discernment? What I'm questioning here is not that ALL have sinned, but how is that we all come to sin?

Another example. Some people have a unnatural tendency to be attracted to men and not to women. It is debated whether this tendency is acquired or inborn. Nevertheless,does that make them homosexuals, even if they do not act on that tendency? What makes them homosexuals, is precisely that... acting based on their tendency. Prior to that, they are somebody with a choice to be or not to be a "homosexual". I know it's a bit vague analogy, but I hope you where I'm going with this.

Ahhh ok I see sorry for the misunderstanding. I know Ellen White believed people are judged on the light they recieved. And even people who do not accept the truth as we know it can go to heaven. For example William Miller who never accepted the sabbath.

True

Being prone to sin does not mean you do not have a choice. You choose to follow God to let God unite with man and Gods power help you overcome sin. See the passages from Romans below.

When God came to inquire of Adam, He laid all the blame upon Eve. God said, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The enemy cannot touch you unless you let him. But here is the enmity which God puts against the serpent. There is no enmity between evil men and the angels, but there is enmity between those that serve the Lord and the hosts of darkness. {Te 284.1}

Kind of goes along with what you and she is saying here:

14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women(Greek - she, Eve) will be saved(greek - restored) through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 2

So Paul was touching on this issue. Eve was restored through childbearing. Adam was not deceived, and it was a willful and calculated choice that he made to side with his wife rather than with God. Hypothetically, if Adam did not side with Eve... what do you think would happen? Therefore, just like Adam, we have a choice when we are faced with temptation. The choice that Adam faced was pretty clear. I don't think he had any delusions that he is not following God's law. He knowingly made that choice. Do you agree or disagree?

Just like Adam, and just like Jesus we are faced with decisions which ultimately lead us either to accept or reject God. The tendency is NOT due the "inborn" nature, but is a result of God's partial withdrawal.

I guess the problem that I have is with definition of "natural predisposition to sin". We can have a natural predisposition to eat. We can have natural predisposition to sleep. Please explain to me how anybody have natural predisposition to gamble? How can anyone have a natural predisposition to hate, steal, murder? The whole point of the sin and condemnation of sin is that sin is something unnatural and thus should be punished. Just like it is unnatural for us to fly and we would step out of the airplane in attempt to do so. Death is a result from such unnatural predisposition. Not because something changed within the body, but because God withdrawn his presence and "life support" system due to the breach of contract which applies to us all. Jesus is a clause written in the contract that God wrote because he realized that we alone can not keep our part of it...

PS, I've been Adventist for a year and a half.

Also, the passage I've Cut and pasted is from Romans 9

[Neil D]

Quote:

The remedy to this concept is perfect behavior....which is anthema to the gospel....

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Seems someone forgot to tell the apostles.

Most of the New testament is written from Paul's perspective that good works [aka behavior] doesn't earn you the right to be in heaven....Your verse from Jesus on perfection is not about working your way into heaven...

[Pearly]

I have heard that Joe Crews before he died admitted that he no doubt had been too extreme.

I worked with Joe several times in Chattanooga Tenn in Evangelistic meetings.

Pearly