OMEGA of Apostasy - what do you think it is?

[Twilight II]

I understand why people think that Christ had tendencies to sin in Him, but I do not believe it is biblical.

Twilight

________________

The tendencies were in His flesh, sinful flesh, for He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh and that is sinful flesh. (Romans 1:3)

The sinful tendencies that were in His flesh were yours and mine and that of the other person and yet He never yielded to them. We have yielded to the flesh many times. But his human mind never yielded and that is why He is the perfect man. He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh.

sky

The problem is Sky, it seems you do not understand the alternative argument, I doubt you have even considered it properly.

But insist that it is "The Omega of Apostasy"...

Sort of destroys discussion.

[skyblue888]

To this I will only reply by saying that there are no two sides to the truth.

sky

[skyblue888]

miz, faith can lay hold of the merits of Christ, the remedy provided for sin. How can anyone be justified if he refuses to lay hold upon the remedy?

sky

[Twilight II]

To this I will only reply by saying that there are no two sides to the truth.

sky

But I doubt you have even considered the other side have you Sky?

Do you understand why the "other side" believe what they do?

What the scriptural argument is?

[BobRyan]

Ok so Sky has introduced a 3rd or possibly 4th suggestion for the "Omega" candidate.

To which Twilight responds

Was any of this a quote from Ellen White, or was it an understanding that those that produced the Bible Readings for the home had?

[Twilight II]

Ok so Sky has introduced a 3rd or possibly 4th suggestion for the "Omega" candidate.

To which Twilight responds

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Was any of this a quote from Ellen White, or was it an understanding that those that produced the Bible Readings for the home had?

No “tendencies to evil in His lower nature” – ever attributed to Christ by Ellen White

No “Evil Passions” – ever attributed to Christ by Ellen White

No “sinful, corrupt propensities” – attributed to Christ by Ellen White

No “inclination to corruption” - - ever attributed to Christ by Ellen White

No “feeling responded to temptation” Claim ever made about Christ by Ellen White

And not once does Ellen White say of the “birth of sinful humans” that it is the birth of “that holy thing”.

Not once does Ellen White say of fallen mankind “make no mistake about the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of” fallen man.

Christ had “no taint of corruption” and no “inclination to sin” as a direct result of his birth – his nature – his incarnation status:

We must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas

we must not think that the liability of Christ to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity

and that He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man.

Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 33

Christ "vanguished satan in the same nature (of Adam) over which in Eden Satan obtained

the victory" Youth's Instructor April 25, 1901.

In taking upon himself man's nature in it's fallen condition Christ did not in the

least participate in its sin.... We should have no misgivivings in regard to the

perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ 5BC 1131 (7a BC 447)

"as the sinless one his nature recoiled from sin" 2T202

Christ is our "brother in our infirmities but not in possessing like passions" 2T202

Christ was sinless "not possessing the passions of our human, fallen

nature" 2T509

And finally

Quote:

Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God; for, said the angel, "Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, ..., The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." {5BC 1128.5}

These words do not refer to any human being, except to the Son of the infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing."

...

The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the Rock Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity. {5BC 1128.6}

Be exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of

Christ. Do not set him before the people as a man with propensities of sin.

He is the second Adam. The first was created a pure, sinless being,

without the taint of sin upon him; He was in the image of God. He could

fall and He did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity

was born with propensities of disobedience (sin)). But Jesus Christ was

the only begotten Son of God

....

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 (7a BC 447).

in Christ,

Bob

That is an excellent argument Bob.

And this is what I see is the issue here.

Many Adventists had that erroneous belief, that Christ had "sin in Him".

That was carried through in the literature.

But when it was challenged (maybe in not the best manner), those that held the belief started casting words around like "omega of apostasy".

I have little time for the following argument, which this is in essence:

"If you do not agree with me, then you are a heretic."

No time for it at all actually, it is this spirit that brings disunity into the church.

What it should be is this:

"I do not think that is correct because the bible says this."

With that in mind, I also reject Skys interpretation of the Omega of Apostasy because:

A. It is not biblical.

B. The spirit it is presented in.

Which brings us back to the biblical examples as a basis for further investation.

Alpha = Eden.

Omega = Sunday Law.

[skyblue888]

Like I said, the sinful tendencies came from our sinful flesh which He took. There were no propensities to sin in his mind. His mind never yielded. That is what Mrs. White is talking about.

sky

[BobRyan]

If sin is a choice to do evil - and your toe can make a choice to be good or evil - but has an inclination to choose evil - then you have a problem with your toe.

But if sin is a choice and your mind has an inclination - a propensity to choose evil -- then you have a problem with your mind.

Ellen White claims that Christ's mind was not morally corrupt, had no inclination to sin. Rather for Christ sin was a choice that would have to be made apart from a mind that naturally desired or was inclined to sin, because He did not have it.

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight II]

If sin is a choice to do evil - and your toe can make a choice to be good or evil - but has an inclination to choose evil - then you have a problem with your toe.

But if sin is a choice and your mind has an inclination - a propensity to choose evil -- then you have a problem with your mind.

Ellen White claims that Christ's mind was not morally corrupt, had no inclination to sin. Rather for Christ sin was a choice that would have to be made apart from a mind that naturally desired or was inclined to sin, because He did not have it.

in Christ,

Bob

The same way Adam was tempted pre-fall.

Except Christ did not take a body fresh from creation, but a body degenerated by thousands of years of sin...

[BobRyan]

Which brings us back to the biblical examples as a basis for further investation.

Alpha = Eden.

Omega = Sunday Law.

Eve did not just "wake up one day - with an apple in her hand"

Some event - some deception lead to Eve eating forbidden fruit. It was a combination of the following primary deceptions:

1. higher criticism (critic of God's word),

2. theosophy (making a claim to god-wisdom),

3. evolutionism (you will evolve to become like God),

4. spiritualism (you will not die)

5. Witchcraft (communicating with demons - even if unaware of it)

6. Pantheism (god-powers are IN nature -- (in that fruit))

Eve did not just suddenly wake up with an apple in her hand.

That combination of 6 deceptions created an event that LEAD TO eating the Apple.

Thus the ALPHA for mankind (not the ALPHA of error within the SDA church as was the "Living Temple") - was that combination of 6 above - that lead TO eating the Apple.

In the end we know that Sunday legislation is the final "apple".

But there is an "OMEGA" of error that is the same combination of the sane 6 deceptions in Gen 3 - that LEADS to the act of Sunday legislation.

BTW - notice that when we talk about Sunday Legislation as the final problem - we predict something very very different than the state Sunday Laws.

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight II]

Some event - some deception lead to Eve eating forbidden fruit. It was a combination of the following primary deceptions:

1. higher criticism (critic of God's word),

2. theosophy (making a claim to god-wisdom),

3. evolutionism (you will evolve to become like God),

4. spiritualism (you will not die)

5. Witchcraft (communicating with demons - even if unaware of it)

6. Pantheism (god-powers are IN nature -- (in that fruit))

Eve did not just suddenly wake up with an apple in her hand.

That combination of 6 deceptions created an event that LEAD TO eating the Apple.

Thus the ALPHA for mankind (not the ALPHA of error within the SDA church as was the "Living Temple") - was that combination of 6 above - that lead TO eating the Apple.

Bob

Some good points there Bob.

As many of the truths of the Bible are "fractal" in nature (pattern within a pattern), then the Alpha and Omega of apostasy in the church will match the biblical pattern, but on a smaller scale.

With that in mind, we can start to look for the points of attack as you have suggested above.

[skyblue888]

If sin is a choice to do evil - and your toe can make a choice to be good or evil - but has an inclination to choose evil - then you have a problem with your toe.

But if sin is a choice and your mind has an inclination - a propensity to choose evil -- then you have a problem with your mind.

Ellen White claims that Christ's mind was not morally corrupt, had no inclination to sin. Rather for Christ sin was a choice that would have to be made apart from a mind that naturally desired or was inclined to sin, because He did not have it.

in Christ,

Bob

Did I ever say that his mind had an inclination to sin or was corrupt? On the contrary. The tendencies to sin were in his flesh, not in his mind. He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. I twice stated that his mind never yielded to the drawings of the flesh. Our minds did and that is why we have carnal minds. There lies the difference.

The Bible says, "let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."

He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh.

sky

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Which brings us back to the biblical examples as a basis for further investation.

Alpha = Eden.

Omega = Sunday Law.

Eve did not just "wake up one day - with an apple in her hand"

Some event - some deception lead to Eve eating forbidden fruit. It was a combination of the following primary deceptions:

1. higher criticism (critic of God's word),

2. theosophy (making a claim to god-wisdom),

3. evolutionism (you will evolve to become like God),

4. spiritualism (you will not die)

5. Witchcraft (communicating with demons - even if unaware of it)

6. Pantheism (god-powers are IN nature -- (in that fruit))

Eve did not just suddenly wake up with an apple in her hand.

That combination of 6 deceptions created an event that LEAD TO eating the Apple.

Thus the ALPHA for mankind (not the ALPHA of error within the SDA church as was the "Living Temple") - was that combination of 6 above - that lead TO eating the Apple.

In the end we know that Sunday legislation is the final "apple".

But there is an "OMEGA" of error that is the same combination of the sane 6 deceptions in Gen 3 - that LEADS to the act of Sunday legislation.

BTW - notice that when we talk about Sunday Legislation as the final problem - we predict something very very different than the state Sunday Laws.

in Christ,

Bob

Excellent points Bob.

[miz3]

I see lots of word games!

1. Christ did not have "sinful nature"!

2. Christ had a "sinless nature"!

3. Christ did not take on our "sinful nature" UNTIL God placed all of our sin on Jesus Christ at the Cross!

[BobRyan]

While I agree that Christ did not have a sinful nature and that means that Christ did have a sinless nature --- I am not at all convinced that Christ had a sinful nature at the cross or at any time -- in all of time.

At the cross - Christ took upon himself the punishment for the sins for which we are guilty.

However IF he had taken upon himself the inner "inclination" to rebell against God of every human that has ever lived - then the result would have been "rebellion" -- stepping down from the cross... forsaking God's plan.

His actions show that at no point did He take on our sinful propensities.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

While I agree that Christ did not have a sinful nature and that means that Christ did have a sinless nature --- I am not at all convinced that Christ had a sinful nature at the cross or at any time -- in all of time.

At the cross - Christ took upon himself the punishment for the sins for which we are guilty.

However IF he had taken upon himself the inner "inclination" to rebell against God of every human that has ever lived - then the result would have been "rebellion" -- stepping down from the cross... forsaking God's plan.

His actions show that at no point did He take on our sinful propensities.

in Christ,

Bob

The Bible says that God "made Him sin who had no sin"! That happened at the Cross!

[skyblue888]

If Christ did not take our sinful flesh from birth, He could not be our Saviour. Period.

Romans 1:3.

sky

[miz3]

The FACT is that Jesus Christ did not take our sinful nature at His birth. It was not until the Cross that Jesus Christ took upon Himself our sins. Yes whether we want to believe it or not Jesus Christ is our Savior!

[Lysimachus]

One can have a sinful nature yet be without sin. A sinful nature simply means that your nature has the propensity and desire to sin. Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. To not have a sinful nature would mean to not be tempted in any point.

In other words, the "nature" is the desire to sin. Hence "sinful nature". It doesn't mean that Jesus was sinful.

[miz3]

One can have a sinful nature yet be without sin. A sinful nature simply means that your nature has the propensity and desire to sin. Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. To not have a sinful nature would mean to not be tempted in any point.

In other words, the "nature" is the desire to sin. Hence "sinful nature". It doesn't mean that Jesus was sinful.

That is not what Paul preaches in the Book of Romans!

Once again you are wrong!

[BobRyan]

The FACT is that Jesus Christ did not take our sinful nature at His birth. It was not until the Cross that Jesus Christ took upon Himself our sins. Yes whether we want to believe it or not Jesus Christ is our Savior!

He took our sin upon him as in the guilt and the penalty due --

But he did not become morally corrupt, morally depraved etc.

In fact Ellen White makes the point that he refused any intoxicant given to dull the pain - for fear that it would lessen his senses and deter him from his steadfast course in choosing to endure as Paul says in Heb 12:1-3.

Christ's example on the cross is one of faithful endurance - not one of moral depravity.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

If sin is a choice to do evil - and your toe can make a choice to be good or evil - but has an inclination to choose evil - then you have a problem with your toe.

But if sin is a choice and your mind has an inclination - a propensity to choose evil -- then you have a problem with your mind.

Ellen White claims that Christ's mind was not morally corrupt, had no inclination to sin. Rather for Christ sin was a choice that would have to be made apart from a mind that naturally desired or was inclined to sin, because He did not have it.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

The FACT is that Jesus Christ did not take our sinful nature at His birth. It was not until the Cross that Jesus Christ took upon Himself our sins. Yes whether we want to believe it or not Jesus Christ is our Savior!

[BobRyan]

You just repeated your prior post without answering the problem that was raised for your proposal about the morally depravity of Christ at the cross that is hinted at in your view of this topic.

You need to find an actual answer for that problem if you want your view to survive it.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

You just repeated your prior post without answering the problem that was raised for your proposal about the morally depravity of Christ at the cross that is hinted at in your view of this topic.

You need to find an actual answer for that problem if you want your view to survive it.

in Christ,

Bob

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

2Corinthians 5:21.