OMEGA of Apostasy - what do you think it is?

[Twilight II]

The 1915 edition of Bible Readings for The Home reads thus:

"In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits--a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every one who is 'born of the Spirit' may gain the victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. Rev.3:211. Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7."

On page 189 of the same book, we read,

"Where did God, in Christ, condemn sin, and gain the victory for us over temptation and sin?

Note: "God in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge on the judgment seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh."

And this is perfect harmonry with this:

sky

[Twilight II]

If you can, get a hold of a wonderful book by Ralph Larsen, The Word Was Made Flesh. I believe that's the title. It contains all the evidence from both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy, as well as all the statements by SDA leaders from 1852 to 1952.

If you would like it, I can get addresses of how to obtain it.

It is essentially an anthology of all the evidence collected together into one book, a great source of information.

Does this book present support for a specific view, or does it treat the whole matter in a historical context?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

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

Of course Christ was different from us. I did not say he was not different from us in any way. First of all, Christ was God. That makes Him different from you and me. He was both divine and human. I, on the other hand, am altogether human.

So we're not claiming Christ was not different from us.

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

But you will only allow for Christ to be different when it conforms to the idea that Christ had a fallen sinful nature...

I believe it is called having your cake and eating it? :-)

I'm going by what the Bible and Ellen White say.

Christ's divine nature made him different from us, of course.

But the area in which he was the same as we are is in the sphere of his ability to resist and overcome temptation. Christ did not resist and overcome sin by relying on his divine nature. He did it by relying only on the Holy Spirit and on the angels, both of which we also may rely on for overcoming tempation and sin.

So, then, what I am saying is that Jesus' human nature-- as opposed to his divine nature-- overcome sin the same way that we must. He inherited the same human nature that his ancestors had. Ellen White makes it clear that Christ was subject to the same hereditary laws that every son or daughter of Adam must deal with.

[John317]

Does this book present support for a specific view, or does it treat the whole matter in a historical context?

You won't be able to find support for any other view in the writings published by the SDA church between 1862 and 1949-50. He gives all of Ellen White's quotes on the topic and all of the quotes from SDA writers, preachers, and leaders who said anything on the subject.

And yes, he does give historical context, for sure.

[Twilight II]

That is like saying it is fully and totally red inside and out! And then at the same time saying it is fully and totally green inside and out!

It cannot be both!

Exactly.

To take the position that Christ "could not have been different", means Christ had to be born fallen.

And then at some point He would have had to be converted.

But that is clearly incorrect, so then the argument is presented that the "mind" of Christ was morally "sinless" from birth.

So now we have a Christ who is different to us.

But when someone comes along and says:

"Christ did not have lusts and desires in His flesh", the cry of "apostasy" is given.

So whilst claiming Christ is different, many of those that hold this view condemn others for stating Christ is different...

[John317]

...Bible readings for the home is not an authorative statement of creed...

True, but it just happens that it was the reading in the book during the lifetime of Ellen White and she never found a bit of fault with it. It was also the view of Jones and Waggoner who went around the country preaching with Ellen White. It harmonizes with Ellen White's writinngs.

Something else to consider is that we can trace the change that occurred in the Bible Readings, and the change was not authoritative, either. It occurred in 1949, and was written by a man named Rebok.

The question is, did the position of the church on this issue between 1862 and 1948-50,-- and the statement in Bible Readings (1914)-- contradict clear Bible testimony or the writings of Ellen White?

[Twilight II]

I'm going by what the Bible and Ellen White say.

[miz3]

This is why I asked sky for "definitions"!

He refused because defining the terms forces people to come down on one side or the other!

They do not want to do this because then they cannot have it both ways!

Maybe the "Omega deception" is wanting to have it both ways and in doing this they nullify the Truth of God!

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

...Bible readings for the home is not an authorative statement of creed...

True, but it just happens that it was the reading in the book during the lifetime of Ellen White and she never found a bit of fault with it. It was also the view of Jones and Waggoner who went around the country preaching with Ellen White. It harmonizes with Ellen White's writinngs.

Something else to consider is that we can trace the change that occurred in the Bible Readings, and the change was not authoritative, either. It occurred in 1949, and was written by a man named Rebok.

The question is, did the position of the church on this issue between 1862 and 1948-50,-- and the statement in Bible Readings (1914)-- contradict clear Bible testimony or the writings of Ellen White?

I do not think an argument from silence is an argument of proof John317.

The most direct quote we have on this issue in the SOP is the Baker Letter.

Where she directly addresses the argument.

We should never assume that we have it "all correct", because we both know that we will be challenged to accept the light from the bible as the time of the end draws closer.

And we will have to come into a fuller understanding of the truth.

Bible readings for the home has no authority for me, unless it explicitly presents the biblical position.

[John317]

The 1915 edition of Bible Readings for The Home reads thus:

"In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits--a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every one who is 'born of the Spirit' may gain the victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. Rev.3:211. Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7."

On page 189 of the same book, we read,

"Where did God, in Christ, condemn sin, and gain the victory for us over temptation and sin?

Note: "God in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge on the judgment seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh."

Does anyone who's taking part in this discussion believe he can prove from the Bible (or Ellen White's writings) that the above statements are plainly contrary to Inspiration?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: John317

I'm going by what the Bible and Ellen White say.

I believe you are sincerely going by what you believe the bible and Ellen White is saying.

I do not however agree that what you are presenting is biblically correct.

I understand why you are presenting it, I understand your argument, but it does not fit all of the biblical texts and therefore I have rejected this argument you have accepted.

Quote:

Christ's divine nature made him different from us, of course.

But the area in which he was the same as we are is in the sphere of his ability to resist and overcome temptation. Christ did not resist and overcome sin by relying on his divine nature. He did it by relying only on the Holy Spirit and on the angels, both of which we also may rely on for overcoming tempation and sin.

Christ did not have to overcome sin, Christ had to overcome temptation...

He walked the same ground Adam walked pre-fall.

And Adam did not have to overcome sin, but temptation.

Christ had no sin to overcome...

Quote:

So, then, what I am saying is that Jesus' human nature-- as opposed to his divine nature-- overcome sin the same way that we must. He inherited the same human nature that his ancestors

I understand what you are saying.

But you are making Christ altogether too "human".

You are arguing that He had sinful propensities in Him that He had to overcome.

That is not biblical, as far as I can see.

Christ had to deal with temptation as a "born again" believer has to deal with temptation.

Christ came to show us how to overcome as a "born again" human.

Christ did not come to show us how to overcome as a "failing" sinner.

He had no sin.

YOU ARE MOST CORRECT TWILIGHT II!

[John317]

I do not think an argument from silence is an argument of proof John317.

The most direct quote we have on this issue in the SOP is the Baker Letter.

Where she directly addresses the argument.

I'm not suggesting that we go by an argument from silence. On the contrary, the Bible and Ellen White give the teaching clearly.

All the statements by Ellen White that are in the Baker Letter are in the book I mentioned. In fact, the entire letter and a discussion is in the book as well.

Until you get the book and actually study all the material dealing with the topic, it is impossible to really do justice to the topic and to all the evidence.

[miz3]

John317 Mary the mother of Jesus is not "immaculate". The Bible does not support that!

However, you and I have discussed Christ's birth before. Matthew chapter one clearly states that the ONLY ENTITY INVOLVED IN THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS CHRIST IS THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Neither Mary or Joseph contributed anything to the conception!

[Twilight II]

This is why I asked sky for "definitions"!

He refused because defining the terms forces people to come down on one side or the other!

They do not want to do this because then they cannot have it both ways!

Maybe the "Omega deception" is wanting to have it both ways and in doing this they nullify the Truth of God!

I think Bobryan outlined what the Omega will be quite well.

I do not believe that this issue is the Omega.

I do believe that trying to make Christ a sinful man that had to overcome sin, through misunderstanding is very detrimental to a sucessful walk with God however.

If not indeed a spreading of a false belief.

[John317]

Christ had to deal with temptation as a "born again" believer has to deal with temptation.

Christ came to show us how to overcome as a "born again" human.

Christ did not come to show us how to overcome as a "failing" sinner.

He had no sin.

All this is true. This is exactly the position that both sky and I take and the position of Ellen White.

When we talk about "fallen nature" we are not talking about a "falling nature."

Christ did not have "sinfulness."

Christ never had an evil habit to overcome.

[skyblue888]

To take the position that Christ "could not have been different", means Christ had to be born fallen.

Miz 3

____________________

Christ was not born fallen but Jesus was. The Christ of God is larger than the man Jesus of Nazareth.

"Satan again rejoiced with his angels that he could by causing man's fall, pull down the Son of God from His exalted position. He told his angels that when Jesus should take man's fallen nature, he could oeverpower Him and hinder the accomplishment of the plan of salvation." Eearly Writings, p.152.

But that did not mean that at some point after His birth He would have to be converted. He was born of the Holy Spirit from the womb just as John the Baptist was just as it is possible for every child of Adam if the parents are truly converted to God.

sky

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

This is why I asked sky for "definitions"!

He refused because defining the terms forces people to come down on one side or the other!

They do not want to do this because then they cannot have it both ways!

Maybe the "Omega deception" is wanting to have it both ways and in doing this they nullify the Truth of God!

I think Bobryan outlined what the Omega will be quite well.

I do not believe that this issue is the Omega.

I do believe that trying to make Christ a sinful man that had to overcome sin, through misunderstanding is very detrimental to a sucessful walk with God however.

If not indeed a spreading of a false belief.

I said "maybe"! I do not have any idea what the Omega deception actually is!

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I do not think an argument from silence is an argument of proof John317.

The most direct quote we have on this issue in the SOP is the Baker Letter.

Where she directly addresses the argument.

I'm not suggesting that we go by an argument from silence. On the contrary, the Bible and Ellen White give the teaching clearly.

All the statements by Ellen White that are in the Baker Letter are in the book I mentioned. In fact, the entire letter and a discussion is in the book as well.

Until you get the book and actually study all the material dealing with the topic, it is impossible to really do justice to the topic and to all the evidence.

[John317]

Twilight, miz3 wrote:

Quote:

John317 Mary the mother of Jesus is not "immaculate". The Bible does not support that!

However, you and I have discussed Christ's birth before. Matthew chapter one clearly states that the ONLY ENTITY INVOLVED IN THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS CHRIST IS THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Neither Mary or Joseph contributed anything to the conception!

Do you believe this?

[miz3]

John317 please define what you mean by "fallen nature"?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I think Bobryan outlined what the Omega will be quite well.

I do not believe that this issue is the Omega.

I do believe that trying to make Christ a sinful man that had to overcome sin, through misunderstanding is very detrimental to a sucessful walk with God however.

If not indeed a spreading of a false belief.

I said "maybe"! I do not have any idea what the Omega deception actually is!

I was very interested in what Bob had to say on this.

My own thoughts are that the Alpha of apostasy was the test in the Garden of Eden.

And the Omega of apostasy will be test of the "mark of the beast".

Why?

Because they are the first and last tests, which is what Alpha and Omega simply mean.

So because prophecy and bible truths are often "fractal" in nature (patterns that repeat in big and small ways), the Alpha and Omega of apostasy in the SDA church should be linked to that.

These are my current thoughts on the matter.

But one thing I am clear about, is this idea that Christ having to overcome temptation but not sin, this idea is not the "Omega"...

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I think Bobryan outlined what the Omega will be quite well.

I do not believe that this issue is the Omega.

I do believe that trying to make Christ a sinful man that had to overcome sin, through misunderstanding is very detrimental to a sucessful walk with God however.

If not indeed a spreading of a false belief.

I said "maybe"! I do not have any idea what the Omega deception actually is!

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The 1915 edition of Bible Readings for The Home reads thus:

"In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits--a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every one who is 'born of the Spirit' may gain the victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. Rev.3:211. Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7."

On page 189 of the same book, we read,

"Where did God, in Christ, condemn sin, and gain the victory for us over temptation and sin?

Note: "God in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge on the judgment seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh."

Do anyone who's taking part in this discussion believe he can prove from the Bible (or Ellen White's writings) that the above statements are plainly contrary to Inspiration?

Yes...

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

The above is a key text.

But the argument that disproves the above is very simple.

If Christ had to overcome "sin" that dwelt in Him.

Then the bible would have mentioned that explicitly.

But there is no reference to that anywhere in the New Testament.

Never is Christ described as having to overcome His sinful tendencies that He inherited.

Not once.

It is not there.

So the simple absence of any description of Christ having to overcome "sin" within Himself, is evidence that it never happened.

Its a bit like worshipping on Sunday, there is nothing there to support the idea.

This teaching comes under the same type of deception.

The ideas are expressed and claimed, yet there is nothing to state that Christ dealt with sin within Himself. Not that I am aware of anyway...

That in itself should be argument enough....

[Twilight II]

Sorry I am derailing your very cogent thoughts on the nature of Christ! I should have left the other alone!

It all weaves in and out.

If we can deal with Pauls weaving in and out, we should be able to allow ourselves the same privilege... :-)

[Twilight II]

Christ did not have "sinfulness."

Christ never had an evil habit to overcome.

Then Christ had no "sin in Him"...

He had no sinful lusts and desires, either hereditary or learned...

Christ never had to overcome sin, ever...