OMEGA of Apostasy - what do you think it is?

[Twilight II]

The truth does not need many words or the speculations of so-called theologians. "Theology as it is studied and taught is but a record of human speculations serving only to darken the understanding." M.H.442.

On his human side, Jesus was a descendant of David according to the flesh and that is sinful flesh.

Unless we become as little children and accept this simple truth, God will not be able to keep is from fatal errors.

sky

Do you have any idea how pompous this sounds my friend?

What you are basically saying is that we should all agree with your point of view, anything else is "theology" and "human speculation".

Why should I accept what you have said here?

Your argument basically assumes you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

There is no reasoning here, no discussion, no explanation.

Just a simple sentiment that you have the truth and those that differ from you are indulging in "human speculation".

I will never accept such an argument from anyone, neither should anyone else...

Mark :-)

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The truth does not need many words or the speculations of so-called theologians. "Theology as it is studied and taught is but a record of human speculations serving only to darken the understanding." M.H.442.

On his human side, Jesus was a descendant of David according to the flesh and that is sinful flesh.

Unless we become as little children and accept this simple truth, God will not be able to keep is from fatal errors.

sky

Do you have any idea how pompous this sounds my friend?

What you are basically saying is that we should all agree with your point of view, anything else is "theology" and "human speculation".

Why should I accept what you have said here?

Your argument basically assumes you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

There is no reasoning here, no discussion, no explanation.

Just a simple sentiment that you have the truth and those that differ from you are indulging in "human speculation".

I will never accept such an argument from anyone, neither should anyone else...

Mark :-)

Not only that but you should be able to define the terms of your correctness.

You are just flinging these terms around and it appears that you have no idea what they mean!

A parrot does the same thing. It repeats words but has no idea what it is actually saying. In addition a parrot does not know the meaning of the words it repeats.

Do you actually know the meaning of:

1. Human nature?

2. Sinful nature?

3. Sinful flesh?

[skyblue888]

It does not sound any more "pompous" than the Word of God:

"A descendant of David according to the flesh."

sky

[John317]

If you or other members want to discuss the issue of Christ's human nature, you should open up a discussion about it or continue the old ones on the same question.

[Twilight II]

If you or other members want to discuss the issue of Christ's human nature, you should open up a discussion about it or continue the old ones on the same question.

Sky has claimed that this is the Alpha and Omega of apostasy John317.

It would therefore seem relevant to discuss why it is or isn't the case?

Mark :-)

[Twilight II]

It does not sound any more "pompous" than the Word of God:

"A descendant of David according to the flesh."

sky

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

We can all quote texts in isolation and "demand" they prove our point Sky, but it is only as we consider the balance of all the texts that pertain to the argument that the truth will come out.

Mark :-)

[John317]

OK, but I just don't want to see it go the way of so many others when it gets on this topic. I'd like to see more discussion about why it could or could not be the Omega. In other words, not so much an argument over the details of the doctrine itself, but over why it would matter what we believe in relation to Christ's human nature. What difference does it make, etc.? Why is it important?

[ClubV12]

John says,

"What difference does it make, etc.? Why is it important?"

AMEN to that! As I've been reading the Testimonies lately I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that much of "this kind" of discussion is best left undiscussed! It is a fearful thing to dig to deep into the nature of God because in the end, it is all foolishness to our weak human concepts.

But more to the point, what difference does it make, is a worthy question!! It needs a worthy answer, not some philosophical and high fallutin' educated sounding biblical reason. Keep it simple, please.

[Twilight II]

OK, but I just don't want to see it go the way of so many others when it gets on this topic. I'd like to see more discussion about why it could or could not be the Omega. In other words, not so much an argument over the details of the doctrine itself, but over why it would matter what we believe in relation to Christ's human nature. What difference does it make, etc.? Why is it important?

Okay, understood. :-)

First of all for it to be the Omega, it has to have an Alpha.

I am not aware of this being an issue in Ellen Whites time when the Alpha was being identified...

But the reason this is so misunderstood is that there are four positions that people take:

1. Christ came with the body of Adam post fall, which included sinful propensities that He inherited. (This is the position Sky adopts).

2. Christ came with the sinless flesh of Adam pre-fall untouched by sin.

3. Christ did not come with a human body at all. (Which John warns against).

4. Christ came with the body of Adam post fall but there were no sinful propensities in that body.

Now that happens is that some in the Adventist church have taken position number 1. (Which is not the official church position - option 4 is).

They then state that any deviation from that viewpoint is the Alpha and Omega of apostasy.

But I fear they do not even begin to understand the other arguments, therefore denying the right to define those as such.

We should never charge someone as indulging in the Omega of apostasy if we cannot understand why that person has come to the understanding they have from the Bible.

I get very frustrated (God forgive me), when people start laying these types of charges around, without understanding why another has taken that position, but rather assumed they are "right" and all further discussion is an attack on "their truth"...

But I digress.

There are solid biblical reasons for choosing option 4, it is the only option that all the texts in the bible will fit into.

To then label that as the Omega of Apostasy is very dangerous.

[Twilight II]

At the very heart of this subject of the nature of Christ is the key to a victorious walk with Jesus Christ.

It is that important.

If we are confused as to Christ's nature and how He overcame, then we will never overcome ourselves.

[John317]

I think that's good counsel.

If the Bible talks about it and gives us God's revelation about it, then it's safe for us to talk about it; but it's true that there is danger in talking about about what God is like in and of Himself because he hasn't revealed those things.

[skyblue888]

I don't know where the difficulty is. The Bible says that Jesus in His human nature was a descendant of David according to the flesh. (Rom.1:3) David had sinful flesh. How can anyone who is in his right mind deny this most important fact? That is why Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are, as these passages of Scripture tell us. Heb.2:14;4:15.

To have sinful flesh does not automatically make one a sinner. The evidence of that is that Jesus had sinful flesh and yet he was not a sinner. He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh.

In their message Jones and Waggoner made that very plain and clear from the Scriptures, especially at the 1895 and 1897 General Conferences and Mrs. White stated that he took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature and yet did no sin.

sky

[skyblue888]

The omega of apostasy consists in repudiating the pillars of our faith, especially the foundation and central pillar, which is the atonement in the light of the sanctuary doctrine, agreeing with the other churches that the atonement was finished at the cross and to deny that Jesus had sinful flesh like those He came to save. To the churches that constitute Babylon, to teach that Jesus had sinful flesh is a heresy just as to teach that Jesus, after His resurrection, ascended up on High to begin the atonement is heresy to them, how much more to teach about a need for a final atonement beginning on Oct.22,1844!!

And to teach that it is possible for a born again Christian to live a sinless life in sinful flesh, like Jesus did, was also found to be heretical by the churches that constitute Babylon.

We know that between 1955 and 1957 the leaders made concessions in regard to these pillars of our faith and that opened the way for us to be reckoned among these churches, to be accepted as a Christian denomination by the WCC. Since these compromises we have had congenial fellowship with them so much so that one of their leaders, adressing an adventist audience, in 1990, declared that we held all things in common and this was received by many as the hand of God!

sky

[Twilight II]

I don't know where the difficulty is. The Bible says that Jesus in His human nature was a descendant of David according to the flesh. (Rom.1:3) David had sinful flesh. How can anyone who is in his right mind deny this most important fact? That is why Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are, as these passages of Scripture tell us. Heb.2:14;4:15.

To have sinful flesh does not automatically make one a sinner. The evidence of that is that Jesus had sinful flesh and yet he was not a sinner. He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh.

In their message Jones and Waggoner made that very plain and clear from the Scriptures, especially at the 1895 and 1897 General Conferences and Mrs. White stated that he took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature and yet did no sin.

sky

The difficulty is Sky is that you are not considering everything on the subject, only those texts and statements that conform to your point of view.

Do you understand why people disagree with your position?

Or do you just think they are all deluded or deceived?

[Twilight II]

The omega of apostasy consists in repudiating the pillars of our faith, especially the foundation and central pillar, which is the atonement in the light of the sanctuary doctrine, agreeing with the other churches that the atonement was finished at the cross and to deny that Jesus had sinful flesh like those He came to save. To the churches that constitute Babylon, to teach that Jesus had sinful flesh is a heresy just as to teach that Jesus, after His resurrection, ascended up on High to begin the atonement is heresy to them, how much more to teach about a need for a final atonement beginning on Oct.22,1844!!

And to teach that it is possible for a born again Christian to live a sinless life in sinful flesh, like Jesus did, was also found to be heretical by the churches that constitute Babylon.

We know that between 1955 and 1957 the leaders made concessions in regard to these pillars of our faith and that opened the way for us to be reckoned among these churches, to be accepted as a Christian denomination by the WCC. Since these compromises we have had congenial fellowship with them so much so that one of their leaders, adressing an adventist audience, in 1990, declared that we held all things in common and this was received by many as the hand of God!

sky

Again Sky, you do not really understand what is being said by others on this point.

And I would try to explain it, but I do not think you are even willing to listen...

[Twilight II]

Just because someone does not agree with Jones and Wagonner, does not make them an apostate Sky.

And to try to claim that the SOP supports one specific view whilst ignoring the plain statements that contradict that view, is not balanced.

And to then claim they are an apostate is very dangerous.

Because if those people are presenting the truth then you would be claiming the truth is the Omega of Apostasy...

I would not want to step on that ground.

When we all learn to come together and discuss the bible without this spirit of "denunciation", we might begin to learn something from one another.

[John317]

..Or do you just think they are all deluded or deceived?

One thing is for sure, there is truth and there is error. And in the topic that we're discussing there, Christ either took on a hereditary nature like ours or else He didn't.

I wouldn't say that people are deliberately choosing the wrong belief, but one side of the issue or other is certainly wrong.

I know what both sides believe on the issue because when I was studying theology at Loma Linda U., I believed that Christ's assumed the sinless human nature of pre-fallen Adam. Later, as a result of further study and consultation with other SDAs, I changed my mind and now believe that Christ assumed a fallen nature.

Since I believed differently about the nature of Christ and know many who still believe that way, I don't think they are evil people or that they are deliberately rejecting truth. I simply believe there are many statements in both the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy that they aren't taking into full consideration.

[John317]

Just because someone does not agree with Jones and Wagonner, does not make them an apostate.

I have great respect for Waggoner and Jones and have no doubt that they were sent by God to our church with a special message that was designed to bring us to the point where we would be prepared for the second coming. Yet they were not prophets and they made mistakes in their writings and sermons. But that shouldn't make us lose confidence in them as God's men at that time.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

..Or do you just think they are all deluded or deceived?

One thing is for sure, there is truth and there is error. And in the topic that we're discussing there, Christ either took on a hereditary nature like ours or else He didn't.

I wouldn't say that people are deliberately choosing the wrong belief, but one side of the issue or other is certainly wrong.

I know what both sides believe on the issue because when I was studying theology at Loma Linda U., I believed that Christ's assumed the sinless human nature of pre-fallen Adam. I changed my mind and now believe that Christ assumed a fallen nature.

Since I believed differently about the nature of Christ and know many who still believe that way, I don't think they are evil people or that they are deliberately rejecting truth. I simply believe there are many statements in both the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy that they aren't taking into full consideration.

What is interestings here John317 is that you have presented two sides to the argument.

Your response indicates that you believe there are only two viewpoints.

And I have found this a common mistake with those that insist that Christ had sinful tendencies in his flesh.

There are in fact 4 positions that I know of, until that is accepted, discussion is very difficult because there is "the right way" and "the wrong way" and the other two options get ignored.

So to repeat my earlier point and outline the four possible positions:

1. Christ came in a non-human form. (This is what John warned against I believe).

2. Christ came with Adams pre-fallen body and untouched moral nature.

3. Christ came with Adams post fallen body and fallen moral nature.

4. Christ came with Adams post fallen body and an unfallen moral nature.

Now you and Sky are clearly exponents of point number 3.

Now the exponents of point number 3 usually think everyone else is a supporter of point number 2.

But the mistake is this:

The exponents of point number 3, such as yourself and Sky, think that those that disagree with them are supporting point number 2.

When in fact they are doing no such thing.

They are supporting point number 4 which is totally different.

And what makes it even worse, is that they are then labelled as the apostates that the bible warns against that support point number 1.

Until yourself and Sky can accept and understand there are at least 4 various viewpoints, these discussions will continue to be confusing.

Because you are not really understanding what is being said.

Mark :-)

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Just because someone does not agree with Jones and Wagonner, does not make them an apostate.

I have great respect for Waggoner and Jones and have no doubt that they were sent by God to our church with a special message that was designed to bring us to the point where we would be prepared for the second coming. Yet they were not prophets and they made mistakes in their writings and sermons. But that shouldn't make us lose confidence in them as God's men at that time.

I would treat their writings the same as I would Wesley's...

With the utmost respect, but checking it very carefully against the Word of God.

We should not use them as an authority on the scriptures, as Sky advocates.

[John317]

...So to repeat my earlier point and outline the four possible positions:

1. Christ came in a non-human form. (This is what John warned against I believe).

2. Christ came with Adams pre-fallen body and untouched moral nature.

3. Christ came with Adams post fallen body and fallen moral nature.

4. Christ came with Adams post fallen body and an unfallen moral nature.

Now you and Sky are clearly exponents of point number 3.

....The exponents of point number 3, such as yourself and Sky, think that those that disagree with them are supporting point number 2.

When in fact they are doing no such thing.

They are supporting point number 4 which is totally different.

I don't know about sky but that is not my assumption at all. I understand the differences.

But I disagree that John the Beloved is only talking about the error of some who believed that Christ didn't come in a human form.

What the warning of John the Beloved shows is that we should be aware that Satan is especially attacking the Bible teaching about Christ's human nature. We know that it will be the subject of great deception. And indeed it has been. Most Christians today believe that in order to help Jesus be able to defeat Satan, Christ's mother was born without sin. Why? In order to keep Jesus "pure." So Jesus was "exempted."

But there are different ways to make Christ exempt. Yet, if true, they all lead to the same results:

(1)Satan's triumph;

(2) the making of Christ as a Savior who cannot genuinely and fully sympathize with our temptations;

3) and making a Christ who is not our true example, because He did not overcome as we are called to overcome.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

...So to repeat my earlier point and outline the four possible positions:

1. Christ came in a non-human form. (This is what John warned against I believe).

2. Christ came with Adams pre-fallen body and untouched moral nature.

3. Christ came with Adams post fallen body and fallen moral nature.

4. Christ came with Adams post fallen body and an unfallen moral nature.

Now you and Sky are clearly exponents of point number 3.

....The exponents of point number 3, such as yourself and Sky, think that those that disagree with them are supporting point number 2.

When in fact they are doing no such thing.

They are supporting point number 4 which is totally different.

I don't know about sky but that is not my assumption at all. I understand the differences.

But I disagree that John the Beloved is only talking about the error of some who believed that Christ didn't come in a human form.

What the warning of John the Beloved shows is that we should be aware that Satan is especially attacking the Bible teaching about Christ's human nature. We know that it will be the subject of great deception. And indeed it has been. Most Christians today believe that in order to help Jesus be able to defeat Satan, Christ's mother was born without sin. Why? In order to keep Jesus "pure." So Jesus was "exempted."

But there are different ways to make Christ exempt. Yet, if true, they all lead to the same result: Satan's triumph.

We have to accept the fact that Christ was different from us John317.

There is not one doctrine out there that can escape that conclusion.

Even the idea that Christ was born with a sinful human nature.

Even when that idea is presented, then the proponents of that idea still have to say that Christ's "mind" was different to ours.

No matter what way you cut it Jesus was different to us.

[Twilight II]

And to claim such is not "apostasy".

[Twilight II]

3) and making a Christ who is not our true example, because He did not overcome as we are called to overcome.

There is a flipside to this:

Making a Christ that is altogether too much like us, because we do not understand how we are supposed to overcome.

And we assume we have to overcome in a fallen state, rather than a born again state.

When we do that, we have to place Christ in a fallen state, but the simple fact of the matter is, that we have just placed ourselves on ground that is not biblical.

We have misunderstood our condition as born again believers and cannot enter fully into the truth on victory over sin.

We are not dead and born again, we are half dead and half alive Christians.

And because we mistakenly think this is correct, we try to make Jesus the same, whilst thinking we are describing the born again experience.

When in fact we are mistakenly presenting a subtle counterfeit.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: John317

One thing is for sure, there is truth and there is error. And in the topic that we're discussing there, Christ either took on a hereditary nature like ours or else He didn't.

I wouldn't say that people are deliberately choosing the wrong belief, but one side of the issue or other is certainly wrong.

I know what both sides believe on the issue because when I was studying theology at Loma Linda U., I believed that Christ's assumed the sinless human nature of pre-fallen Adam. I changed my mind and now believe that Christ assumed a fallen nature.

Since I believed differently about the nature of Christ and know many who still believe that way, I don't think they are evil people or that they are deliberately rejecting truth. I simply believe there are many statements in both the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy that they aren't taking into full consideration.

What is interestings here John317 is that you have presented two sides to the argument.

Your response indicates that you believe there are only two viewpoints.

And I have found this a common mistake with those that insist that Christ had sinful tendencies in his flesh.

There are in fact 4 positions that I know of, until that is accepted, discussion is very difficult because there is "the right way" and "the wrong way" and the other two options get ignored.

So to repeat my earlier point and outline the four possible positions:

1. Christ came in a non-human form. (This is what John warned against I believe).

2. Christ came with Adams pre-fallen body and untouched moral nature.

3. Christ came with Adams post fallen body and fallen moral nature.

4. Christ came with Adams post fallen body and an unfallen moral nature.

Now you and Sky are clearly exponents of point number 3.

Now the exponents of point number 3 usually think everyone else is a supporter of point number 2.

But the mistake is this:

The exponents of point number 3, such as yourself and Sky, think that those that disagree with them are supporting point number 2.

When in fact they are doing no such thing.

They are supporting point number 4 which is totally different.

And what makes it even worse, is that they are then labelled as the apostates that the bible warns against that support point number 1.

Until yourself and Sky can accept and understand there are at least 4 various viewpoints, these discussions will continue to be confusing.

Because you are not really understanding what is being said.

Mark :-)

GOOD POINTS TWILIGHT!