Twilight II Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II The appeal was external. No, there's no appeal in a sinless human. You can't be tempted by evil. Keep in mind Adam was made in God's image. He was indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Adam's mind was in perfect harmony with his holy, selfless nature. James 1:13 For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone Since Adam's nature was in complete harmony with God's nature, Adam couldn't be tempted by sin. In fact He didn't know the meaning of sin. Then how did Adam sin? You can't answer that.... We will have to wait. Satan was external to Adam and Eve, the temptation was external in its source. 2Cr 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. If your argument was correct it would have been impossible for Adam to be tempted. That is clearly incorrect, as Adam was tempted and overcome.
Twilight II Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Quote: *Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of HIS EARTHLY ANCESTORS. HE CAME WITH SUCH A HEREDITY..." DA 49; This quote from the Desire of Ages page 49 is Ellen White's opinion which she shared with many others of her day. This opinion does not fit what the Scripture states to be true. The Bible states the opposite of this view. When Ellen White talks about "sinful nature" here, she is talking about the external flesh. We use sinful nature in a different way to how she did, therefore it causes some confusion for us. With that in mind, I do not have a problem reconciling this with scripture. Mark :-)
Twilight II Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Quote: SOP: "could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {5BC 1128.4}" Compare this quote with the one from Desire of Ages page 49 cited above. In this quote here Ellen White says the opposite of what she stated in DA pg.49. Hmmmm! As per my previous post, when Ellen White uses "sinful nature" in relation to Christ, she is referring to His "flesh", His external body. So this does indeed then reconcile. :-)
Twilight II Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight11 When the sin of humanity was laid on Christ at that cross, the Father withdrew Himself. Up to that point, Christ had been the spotless lamb of God, with no taint of sin on Him or indeed in Him. He had no sin in Him. The lusts and desires we experience were not there. But once He took that sin upon Himself on the cross, once that sin entered that bruised and beaten body. Then He became sin for us. Then His Father forsook Him: Psa 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring? Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. Psa 22:3 But thou [art] holy, [O thou] that inhabitest the praises of Israel. Psa 22:4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. Psa 22:5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. Psa 22:6 But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. The part you said which I bolded is not correct...... ....The Father NEVER forsook The Son. ....Again, this is heretical teaching. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Dr. Rich Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 I would not agree. Miz3's view of the mistake EGW made in regards to the 'nature' of Jesus is not one that most Adventists have, but it agrees with the Bible because Jesus could NOT have had any sin in Him or He would not have been the perfect Lamb. He was still Michael, the Angel of the Lord, but now in human form and called Jesus Christ.
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 However, you then go on to pollute that statement by asserting the unBiblical assumption that Jesus Christ had a "sinful nature" like you and I. You state that YOU died in Christ at the cross, right? Your humanity is indwelt with iniquity, right? Now think it out....
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 But he did have the option to choose to not trust God and go another way. That choice to distrust God is sin in its most basic form. But why would Adam chose to distrust God, after all, that choice is a sinful one. Why?
Sonny Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Satan was external to Adam and Eve, the temptation was external in its source.
Gustave Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Read the last part of that Psalm. "They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this". Any Jew who had heard Christ say this would have immediately known..... ....That He was quoting the 22 Psalm. ....It had nothing at all to do w/ Jesus thinking the Father turned away from Him! ....That is maggoty.
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Sonny, The Bible says that God made Jesus Christ "sin for us" on the Cross. It is not hard you just read the Bible and listen to what it says! You don't need your tortured logic and Jack S.'s complex inferences. It's the Cross Sonny! The Cross is the central point of everything! You always have Paul saying the same thing. Paul never says that the Incarnation was the central theme of everything. You believe in Paul don't you?
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 Quote: *Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of HIS EARTHLY ANCESTORS. HE CAME WITH SUCH A HEREDITY..." DA 49; This quote from the Desire of Ages page 49 is Ellen White's opinion which she shared with many others of her day. This opinion does not fit what the Scripture states to be true. The Bible states the opposite of this view. It is you opinion that it is Ellen White's opinion, but it needs to be pointed out that Ellen White categorically denied that she included her private, personal opinions in her writings published for the church. Also, it can be shown that Ellen White did not write something merely because she was going along with a contemporary or popular idea of her time. It is, of course, your right to reject Ellen White writings. I'm glad that at least you let it be known up front how you regard her and her writings. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 It is you opinion that it is Ellen White's opinion, but it needs to be pointed out that Ellen White categorically denied that she included her private, personal opinions in her writings published for the church. Also, it can be shown that Ellen White did not write something merely because she was going along with a contemporary or popular idea of her time.
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight This argument is so culturally ingrained in SDA thought, that many do not really understand what they are in fact saying. BINGO AGAIN! Are you positive? What's the evidence that this is true? I believe the evidence is that those who are making this claim don't have a clear or correct understanding themselves of the positions they're critizing. This comes out clearly in many of the posts on the topic. For instance, it has been frequently stated here that some are arguing that Christ "had sin in Him" or that He had the "lusts of Satan." None of those things are true. It's best to understand what people are saying before attacking their viewpoints. Twilight speaks of the "argument" as being "so culturally ingrained in SDA thought," but if he or you are talking about my arguments, they have nothing to do with "culture." I've come to the viewpoint I hold on this topic through about twenty years of study of the Bible and of Ellen White's writing. There was a time when I believed Christ assumed the nature of Adam before the Fall. I was wrong. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 I have seen it John317, over and over again! Most SDA parrot what they hear quoted from Ellen White by others, or read themselves, or what they hear from the pulpit, or what they read written in SDA publications (filled with paragraph after paragraph of Ellen White comments and parrot like comments of the commentators), or what they hear from the Leaders or what the Leaders stamp as approved just like the Pope and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Most SDA are very confused and don't even know they are confused and contradictory in their views and Doctrine. SDA have been so ingrained to be surface thinkers, surface readers, surface Christians (as long as they show "love" it doesn't matter what you believe). Thus, they never bother to think clearly and truthfully exactly what the consequences are of what they say and believe. Even among the well educated there is so much confusion as witnessed by this singular discussion on the Nature of Jesus Christ. Embarrassment, stubbornness, and pride also are prevalent among the SDA Church humanity. Most SDA do not carefully compare Ellen White with what the Bible says. Most SDA use Ellen White to interpret and tell them what the Bible says rather than study the Bible. Is the Bible unable to interpret itself. I think the Bible is able to interpret itself. However, many SDA do not spend a lot of time in their Bibles and if they do they read on the surface using whatever they have heard from Ellen White, the pulpit, the leaders, authors they find believable, kind, loving, etc., and/or the official church literature. We have CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS FROM ELLEN WHITE! No one comments on them. (at least not yet). Such things are glossed over or are answered with such tortured, confusing, and weak logic that it is hardly credible. Unfortunately, so many don't let such CONTRADICTIONS bother them. They continue as if all were OK. There is a difference between Ellen White's TRULY INSPIRED WORDS and the majority of her expressions that reflect Ellen White's opinion! By the way the "Conflict Series" is not what I would call "Testimonies". They are expressions of Ellen Whites view of those things. I do not castigate her for this because she is entitled to express her opinions and to believe they are correct and true. However, they are merely her opinions and NOT TESTIMONIES! You may certainly comment back your disagreement with me. That of course is your privilege. However, what I have said is true.
Sonny Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 However, you then go on to pollute that statement by asserting the unBiblical assumption that Jesus Christ had a "sinful nature" like you and I. You state that YOU died in Christ at the cross, right? Your humanity is indwelt with iniquity, right? Now think it out.... Why do you ignore this, miz3?
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Sonny, Why do ignore Ellen White's contradictory quotes I posted?
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 Most SDA parrot what they hear quoted from Ellen White by others, or read themselves, or what they hear from the pulpit, or what they read written in SDA publications (filled with paragraph after paragraph of Ellen White comments and parrot like comments of the commentators), or what they hear from the Leaders or what the Leaders stamp as approved just like the Pope and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Seventh-day Adventists quote Ellen White because we as a church believe she was a genuine prophet of God. You may disagree with her, but please don't come on the Forum and put down Ellen White or people who quote her every time she is quoted. You must realize that on an Adventist Forum, people are going to quote her. If you don't like reading them, do not go where you know her writings will be quoted and she will be discussed. That would be a bit like my going to a Mormon forum and complaining about all the Joseph Smith quotes. Speaking of parroting, I have noticed a number of people parroting anti-EGW and anti-SDA things, too. Some of them are on these threads now and then. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 We have CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS FROM ELLEN WHITE! No one comments on them. (at least not yet). Such things are glossed over or are answered with such tortured, confusing, and weak logic that it is hardly credible. Unfortunately, so many don't let such CONTRADICTIONS bother them. They continue as if all were OK. If you want to, you could open up a separate discussion about them, and I can guarantee you that they will be discussed at length and in depth, but it is off topic for this particular discussion. PS. Have you ever noticed that there are whole books written which make the same claim about the Bible and Christians? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Seventh-day Adventists quote Ellen White because we as a church believe she was a genuine prophet of God. You may disagree with her, but please don't come on the Forum and put down Ellen White or people who quote her every time she is quoted. You must realize that on an Adventist Forum, people are going to quote her. If you don't like reading them, do not go where you know her writings will be quoted and she will be discussed. That would be a bit like my going to a Mormon forum and complaining about all the Joseph Smith quotes. Speaking of parroting, I have noticed a number of people parroting anti-EGW and anti-SDA things, too. Some of them are on these threads now and then. I was stating facts as I know them from my own experience. I was not complaining. You and anyone else are free to use Ellen White anytime you please. I have said this before. Again, I was not complaining just stating what I believe to be true from my own experiences. Please do not misstate my position. Also you are free to disagree with everything I said. It is your privilege. What I will object to is misstating my position.
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 ...Most SDA do not carefully compare Ellen White with what the Bible says. Most SDA use Ellen White to interpret and tell them what the Bible says rather than study the Bible. Is the Bible unable to interpret itself. I think the Bible is able to interpret itself. However, many SDA do not spend a lot of time in their Bibles and if they do they read on the surface using whatever they have heard from Ellen White, the pulpit, the leaders, authors they find believable, kind, loving, etc., and/or the official church literature. I don't know about the accuracy of the characterization of "what most SDA do," but I can agree with you that to the extent that any SDAs do these things, it is wrong and they need to change. I like to think that Forums like this help SDAs and others to study their Bibles as well as the SOP much more and also more deeply. My experience is that Adventist Forum is doing that. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 If you want to, you could open up a separate discussion about them, and I can guarantee you that they will be discussed at length and in depth, but it is off topic for this particular discussion. PS. Have you ever noticed that there are whole books written which make the same claim about the Bible and Christians? I don't know if it is off topic because we all have taken so many different off-shoots. However, I do not object to your suggestion. Regardless of my initial sentence of this post, you have made a helpful suggestion.
skyblue888 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 There are many apparent contradictions in the Bible but they are only apparent. It is the same with the Testimonies. sky "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 You make the judgment then between these contradictory statements. Both these statements came from Ellen White. Originally Posted By: StatementOne Christ took the humanity of His mother, Mary, who had a fallen, sinful nature. Christ took the same flesh that we, fallen, sinful humanity, possess. Christ "accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of HIS EARTHLY ANCESTORS. HE CAME WITH SUCH A HEREDITY..." DA 49; Originally Posted By: StatementTwo SOP: "could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {5BC 1128.4}" First, these statements contradict each other in regard to Jesus Christ's inner nature! The first one says that Jesus Christ had a fallen "sinful nature" like you and I. The second statement says that there was no evil propensity (that is no sinful nature). The second statement says that his inner nature was like Adam in Eden (no fallen nature). The first statement says that Jesus Christ had Mary's fallen nature. Mary's nature was totally the opposite of Adam's nature in the Garden of Eden. CONTRADICTION! CONTRADICTION! CONTRADICTION! No wiggle room Ellen White contradicted herself. Is this the sign of "inspiration" or the sign of one person giving their own opinion and getting trapped in a CONTRADICTION! This is an example of people attacking something they don't understand but think they do. What does Ellen White mean by "evil propensity"? You apparently believe that it means "sinful nature." But is this true? You also claim that the second statement is saying that Christ had the human, inner nature of Adam before the Fall. But is this true? Does Ellen White say that Christ's nature in the Wilderness of Temptation was like unfallen Adam's? That is not what theose statements say at all. It is your assumption that they mean this, but you can't blame Ellen White for a false assumption. Please prove or demonstrate from Ellen White's writings that she meant "sinful nature" or "fallen nature" when she referred to "evil propensity." Can you do this? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 John317, I created a new thread as you suggested. You could repeat your post there. I will answer you there. OK?
Recommended Posts