OMEGA of Apostasy - what do you think it is?

[Twilight II]

Mark, the truth is simple. On his human side, Jesus was a descendant of David according to the flesh and that is sinful flesh with all its liabilities to sin. No amount of human reasoning will ever change that.

Enough said.

sky

Again you have inserted your idea of what "flesh" means here and insist everyone else just accepts it Sky...

Without displaying once that Christ had such a "flesh".

That Christ had to contend with "internal lusts and desires".

You see you need that evidence for your argument to be accepted.

Or would you prefer we all just accept what you have said because you are right by "default"?

Mark :-)

[Twilight II]

So you define flesh in this manner.

Then you claim that anyone who does not accept your definition, without biblical support, has entered into the "Omega" of apostasy...

How can anyone accept what you are saying unless you can give a clear example of Christ contending with sinful lusts and desires?

Why is it Sky that the scripture is totally silent on this point?

You are insisting He had an experience of which there is no record in the bible whatsoever...

Then you claim that those that do not accept this viewpoint without evidence to back it up are indulging in the "omega" of apostasy...

That does not seem logical or balanced to me my friend.

[Twilight II]

I see no reason whatsoever to accept what you are presenting.

If I am going to be honest with the bible and honest with the logic of the argument.

[skyblue888]

The problem is not with the Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear. The problem is when we do not accept the Scriptures with the simple faith of a little child. That's the problem right there!

Man's logic or wisdom is foolishness to God.

The clear statement from the Bible itself is that Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Rom.1:3. We all know and understand that David had sinful flesh. It would be a lie to declare that Jesus was a descendant of David according to the flesh and at the same time deny that his flesh was sinful flesh. Jesus had to contend with the drawings of the flesh, the drawings of sinful flesh in all points like as we have to and therefore he was tempted in all points like as we are. Jesus was not exempt of the drawings of our sinful flesh. If we teach that he was exempt, we are teaching the doctrine of antichrist and I need not make any apology for saying that. This teaching is the wine of Babylon, whether we realize it or not.

In order for Jesus, on his human side, to be a descendant of David according to the flesh, he had to partake of the same flesh and blood as David did, as we all do. And this is exactly what Hebrews 2:14 says, "Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same."

Christ took our human nature actualy and literally and in the self-same way that we acquire ours. The ladder did not fail by a single step to reach us where we are.

In his book "Christ and His righteousness," which contains some of his talks given at Minneapolis in 1888, E.J. Waggoner says:

"Some may have thought, while reading thus far, that we were depreciating the character of Jesus, by bringing Him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the Divine power of our blessed Saviour, who Himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man, in order that He might exalt man to His own spotless purity, which He retained under the most adverse circumstances." p.28.

"For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." Heb.2:16-18.

If He was made in all things like unto His brethren, then He must have suffered all the infirmities, and been subject to all the temptations of His brethren.

sky

[Twilight II]

The problem is not with the Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear. The problem is when we do not accept the Scriptures with the simple faith of a little child. That's the problem right there!

[skyblue888]

"I do not accept Waggoner over the Bible"

Twilight

________________

Speaking of Waggoner and Jones, Mrs. White warned:

"If you reject Christ's delegated messengers, you reject Christ." T.M.97. (1896)

sky

[skyblue888]

"Christ was subject to all the external temptations that we must experience as born again believers"

Twilight

________

When we are born again we are still tempted from within and from without.

sky

[Twilight II]

"I do not accept Waggoner over the Bible"

Twilight

________________

Speaking of Waggoner and Jones, Mrs. White warned:

"If you reject Christ's delegated messengers, you reject Christ." T.M.97. (1896)

sky

I do not think this is a blanket command to accept everything they have ever said Sky...

I think to assume it is is very very unbalanced.

I think you are misusing what Ellen White meant here.

[Twilight II]

"Christ was subject to all the external temptations that we must experience as born again believers"

Twilight

________

When we are born again we are still tempted from within and from without.

sky

Have you not crucified your affections and lusts by faith Sky?

Have you not laid hold of the precious promise that your old man, your flesh, with its lusts and affections was crucified?

When the flesh is crucified on a point, when we have received Gods nature on a point, then the only temptation we receive is external.

But if we believe that we have to be one of the "living dead", neither quite dead, or quite alive, then we will never enter into the victory that is in Christ...

[skyblue888]

You mean to teach that a born-again Christian has sinless flesh? or perhaps you mean to say that a born-again Christian cannot be tempted by the drawings of his sinful flesh any more? is not tempted from within any more and only from without?

[Twilight II]

You mean to teach that a born-again Christian has sinless flesh? or perhaps you mean to say that a born-again Christian cannot be tempted by the drawings of his sinful flesh any more? is not tempted from within any more and only from without?

If that sinful lust has been crucified, how can it draw them?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I think miz3 makes a good argument in that the conception was through the Holy Ghost.

But I haven't taken the time to study it in depth.

My initial thoughts are, that whilst the conception was indeed through the Holy Ghost, a human element was used, because it is said that Christ was made under the Law.

But these are only passing thoughts as I have not considered it thoroughly.

I can understand miz3's argument though, whilst understanding the counter argument.

So I would have to refuse to be drawn on this, not having studied it out for myself.

OK, so you evidently do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was actually related to his mother Mary or to David and Abraham and Adam. That is what miz3 is denying. I am suprised that an SDA would take this position. (I'm assuming you're SDA.)

Galatians 4: 4 says that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under [the] law." "Born" is probably the preferable way of translating that word in that context.

Birth is different than the moment of conception. Birth and conception are entirely two different things and events.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

John and I believe the same thing.

"But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was srrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation." D.A.117.

It is not a private opinion but the truth as stated above and in Romans 1:3; Heb.2:14; 4:15.

sky

I believe the above is true as well Sky...

But you have inserted this idea that Christ had sin into Him in the statement above, when it is not there.

What is being said here is that Christ took a human body, a post fallen human body.

There is no reference here to Christ having sinful propensities in Him.

What you are doing is what those in Babylon do with "Sunday keeping".

They use texts that do not support their view, but cannot see it.

In Jesus' time the disciples were wrong about the nature of Christs kingdom.

Many were also wrong about the the second coming of Christ being imminent.

In 1844 the millerites were wrong about Christs second coming.

In the formative days of receiving the Sabbath truth, even Ellen Whites understanding of the Sabbath was wrong.

Their understanding of clean and unclean meat was wrong.

Bible Readings for the home was wrong.

There are many things that we have yet to come into the correct light on and this issue of Christ's nature is one of them.

To hold onto the past as if it is some idol to worship is the mistake many have made throughout the history of Christianity.

Our test should be simple.

Is it biblical...

And unfortunately the view you are presenting is not biblical.

The bible does not state anywhere that Christ had to overcome tendencies to lust and desire, the lusts of the "flesh"...

Christ had to overcome temptation, not sin.

I agree with your whole statement Twilight II especially the enlarged type.

[miz3]

Even the most radical among those who insist that Christ had a sinful nature - have had a hard time claiming that Christ's mind was morally corrupt or that he had our inward bent to sin rather than a bent toward unity with His Father.

Many who oppose the SDA teaching on sinless living required after the close of probation - will claim that since Christ did not have a sinful nature he cannot be our example.

How odd then that those two sides should get together on this idea that the doctrine about sinless living during Rev 16 is destroyed if you do not put a sinful nature in Christ since it only serves to destroy the one side's argument - not the other's.

The fact is that the inward bent, the inward moral corruption described in Rom 3:9-12 is a description of the sinful nature that we have - and that Christ did not have.

There is no way around it.

supposing that this stops Christ from offering his sinless perfect life in our stead - makes no sense.

Rather it is the very thing we need offerred "in our stead".

The drunk in the gutter has no more right to claim that Christ is not his example - because Christ was never a drunk in the gutter than those who insist that Christ have a sinful nature "or else".

The drug addict has no more right to claim that Christ is not his example - because Christ was never a drug addict - than those who insist that Christ have a sinful nature "or else".

We could go on to the zillionth example in this fashion - but you get the point.

Rescue and salvation does not require that the rescuers first "become lost and disoriented like the person lost" in order to save them. All such thinking is misguided and lacks a certain amount of well reasoned argument. All Christ had to do was become human - share our fallen nature and then demonstrate the path of righteousness that a born-again new-covenant new-creation believer must follow.

in Christ,

Bob

Well done!

[Daryl]

Pastor Rick Howard's book, The Omega Rebellion, clearly points to Spiritual Formation as the Omega that EGW was warning us about.

[BobRyan]

In the last Presidential election - nobody was asked "do you believe in spiritual formation - because if you do not you are not qualified to be President of the United States".

However the Republican presidential candidates WERE given that litmus test on the question "do you BELIEVE in Evolutionism".

The fact is that the world has gone over to evolutionism - not to spiritual formation. Most of the world and most Adventists don't even know what spiritual formation is.

Ted Wilson has in the past 3 weeks given yet another sermon condemning Spiritual Formation. Those who promote it within our leadership are dwindling and no SDA educational institution has any question of "accreditation" hinging on whether or not "we stop teaching spiritual formation".

I agree that SF is a bad thing. I agree that it should be wiped out. I agree that it holds some resemblance to the "Living Temple".

But DEALING with SF (like dealing with the "Living Temple") is a relatively minor problem as compared with the 5 alarm blaze that we have going with evolutionism. In the case of the Living Temple - the world was not going after the book nor was America steeped in Pantheism. Nobody's job hinged over the issue of rejecting the Living Temple as if to reject it - was to lose your job.

Still it has to be said that SF is one of several candidates put forward for the "OMEGA".

in Christ,

Bob

[ClubV12]

I'll have to Google that one, "Spiritual Formation", man there are SO many errors running around in the church I can't keep up!

...in some ways, I'm OK with that, I'm a litte to new at this stuff to try and track them all down.

One thing I DO know is that some errors, or should I say the Omega error, will be so subtle that even the very elect WILL be fooled without the power of the Holy Spirit to discern the error. The Holy Spirit and a vital connection is our only hope in the end.

I was profoundly struck by how Sister White appeared to have some difficulty in expressing the danger concerning Dr. Kelloggs work early on, for instance. It was not immediately clear to her, more like a dawning of the morning kind of revelation, before it became clear. We won't have a chance without the Holy Spirit, the delusion will be to great for any man to comprehend.

As it concerns evolution, you make a strong case for that Bob, I too see it as a grave danger. But I'm not sure it's the "Omega", this thing isn't over yet. In some ways, evolution, is to easy to spot, it's not subtle enough to deceive "even the very elect" (if that were possible of course).

[John317]

Pastor Rick Howard's book, The Omega Rebellion, clearly points to Spiritual Formation as the Omega that EGW was warning us about.

I have not read that book but Gail told me about it, and I plan to read it soon.

Is it well documented and does it contain convincing arguments?

[skyblue888]

We only have to ask ourselves one question if we want to know if it is part of the omega. It really doesn't matter what it is but the question is:

Does it undermine the pillars of the advent faith?

If we accept and teach anything that would undermine our pillars, we may be sure that it is part of the "omega of apostasy."

sky

[Twilight II]

We only have to ask ourselves one question if we want to know if it is part of the omega. It really doesn't matter what it is but the question is:

Does it undermine the pillars of the advent faith?

If we accept and teach anything that would undermine our pillars, we may be sure that it is part of the "omega of apostasy."

sky

One mans pillar is another mans tent pole...

You would first have to establish what the "pillars" are...

[12tribes]

We only have to ask ourselves one question if we want to know if it is part of the omega. It really doesn't matter what it is but the question is:

Does it undermine the pillars of the advent faith?

If we accept and teach anything that would undermine our pillars, we may be sure that it is part of the "omega of apostasy."

sky

[Daryl]

I am not certain what you mean by is it well documented, but it does contain convincing material.

Here is a quote from his material:

Quote:

During the entire history of the great controversy, Satan’s greatest success has always been directly related to his ability to control the minds of those he ensnares without their awareness. This is the secret of his success. When he can deceive those under his power into believing that God is working for them, when in truth it is he, he has won the day. This is the fundamental characteristic of the omega apostasy and is likely the reason it caused Ellen White to “tremble” when she beheld it: many leaders in God’s remnant church were carrying on what they perceived as the work of God, while, in fact, they were being directed by the prince of evil.

Originally Posted By: Daryl Fawcett

Pastor Rick Howard's book, The Omega Rebellion, clearly points to Spiritual Formation as the Omega that EGW was warning us about.

I have not read that book but Gail told me about it, and I plan to read it soon.

Is it well documented and does it contain convincing arguments?

[John317]

I am not certain what you mean by is it well documented, but it does contain convincing material.

Here is a quote from his material:

Quote:

During the entire history of the great controversy, Satan’s greatest success has always been directly related to his ability to control the minds of those he ensnares without their awareness. This is the secret of his success. When he can deceive those under his power into believing that God is working for them, when in truth it is he, he has won the day. This is the fundamental characteristic of the omega apostasy and is likely the reason it caused Ellen White to “tremble” when she beheld it: many leaders in God’s remnant church were carrying on what they perceived as the work of God, while, in fact, they were being directed by the prince of evil.

OK, great. Thank you very much.

Sounds like he knows what's he talking about and has written a much needed book for our time.

[skyblue888]

"During the entire history of the great controversy, Satan's greatest success has always been directly related to his ability to control the minds of those he ensnares without their awareness. This is the secret of his success. When he can deceive those under his power into believing that God is working for them, when in truth it is he, he has won the day. This is the fundamental characteristic of the omega apostasy and is likely the reason it caused Ellen White to “tremble” when she beheld it: many leaders in God’s remnant church were carrying on what they perceived as the work of God, while, in fact, they were being directed by the prince of evil."

_________________________

Is this not exactly what I have been saying for a long time John, from Testimonines to Ministers, pp.360,361,366?

sky

[BobRyan]

We only have to ask ourselves one question if we want to know if it is part of the omega. It really doesn't matter what it is but the question is:

Does it undermine the pillars of the advent faith?

If we accept and teach anything that would undermine our pillars, we may be sure that it is part of the "omega of apostasy."

sky