| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1213
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 8:03 pm: |     |
I'm not sure I'm understanding that statement, Colleen. How did God lose "part of Himself" when Jesus died?
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3859
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 8:24 pm: | |
Jeremy, he didn't actually "lose" part of Himself forever. Jesus is alive! What I meant was that God Himself experienced "part of himself" (one finger of the one hand) suffering on that cross. The whole "hand" suffered. It wasn't as if one "hand" hung on the cross and two others looked on in close sympathy. No, the One God suffered when Jesus died.
Does that explain it better?
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 11:42 pm: | |
Erma,
Sorry to disappoint you. I believe RCC and SDA are in the same category, they have some basic Christian doctrines, and Christians in them. So, just to clarify an inconsistency. I don't believe SDA, RCC, and WWCG are true churches. But it is possible to be born again, and still be a part of those groups. LDS, JW, and CS belong in the clearly non-Christian category.
Why is it not enough to call SDA a false gospel, but admit that there are many true born again Christians there? Why do we have to use the word Cult? I am a little bothered that somehow the rest of the evangelical world plus at least one ex-SDA pastor--who has seen the worst Adventism can throw at him, and other well respected pastors that I will not name all seem to say the same thing. Adventism, for all its problems is in a very different category than LDS, JW, and CS.
Stan |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 2:28 am: | |
Hi Stan,
You wrote:
*****
I think as former SDAs (me included) can get so caught up in rightly being angry over deception of the church leaders regarding Ellen White--and I am still angry!. But at the same time, it is not true that the rest of the evangelical world is not teaching some of the same doctrines we see as false. And Finney was the poster boy for works-righteousness, and Ellen White only fell in line.
But Adrian and Agapetos, I appreciate you coming on to give me the chance to rant and rave (smiley)! But, seriously, for those of us who were burned so badly by EGW's perfectionism, that is why I come down so strongly on Finney. Because Finney is the source of most of the confused doctrines on salvation in America today.
*****
Stan, I'm going to have to say that you're taking things a bit far here. First off, if you want poster-boys for works righteousness, you ought to go back to the Puritans or even further to the Catholics before the Reformation. The Puritan heritage is especially strong in America. It is there that you must start to find a "source" of the most confused doctrines on salvation in America today. (I won't take time to illustrate how SDA doctrines on salvation are much more confusing than Finney's)
But second, to say that Ellen only "fell in line" behind Finney (etc.) is a gross misunderstanding:
Did Finney claim to have authoritive prophetic revelations for his "false doctrines"? Did he construct an end-times setup that would base peoples' salvation on which day they worshipped? Did he blast people for eating foods that he dined on at home? Did he copy other writers without giving credit? Did he declare other churches to be "Babylon"? Did he say that other Christians' prayers were ineffective because they didn't reach the correct "apartment" Christ was in?
Many Americans (even during Finney's time) have inherited a Christian message that does have works, but that also does contain the Gospel. They know Christ died for their sins, and yet they also believe in the Ten Commandments. In a nutshell, they have blind spots.
This is where many Adventists are, particularly in the more "evangelical" or liberal areas.
And this is where Former Adventists can actually *help* the Body of Christ instead of counting "heresies". Historic Adventist works theology is obviously in gross error. But the mixing of works in American Christianity (which goes over the last 300 years or so) is more subtle. The current WCG has a good handle on why God has set them free from their past---so that they can live like Paul helping other people free of more subtle legalisms.
I just said that Adventists are sometimes more "evangelical" in liberal areas. In other parts of Adventism, however, it is just as cultic as JW & LDS. Historic Adventism is clearly cultic. But modern Adventism is often as diverse as America itself. Within her are found honest believers, those who do live in grace, those who live in works, and those who live in a cultic fear. It truly depends on where you are. Living at LSU in Riverside, my friend knew God's grace and was honestly disturbed by FA comments. But then he moved to San Diego and went to a church there that had more historic teachings. His eyes were opened when he left the liberal "bubble" (as he called it). One friend here in Osaka was doing a study on JWs and asked me what the verdict was on SDA---was it a cult or not? I said yes and no. There are places & people who are, and there are places & people who are not. Dennis' comment illustrates the overwhelming need in Adventism to throw away the things that have caused such *confusion* for so many years, and find their identity in Christ alone.
Finally, there is a stage of anger, but it must evolve into forgiveness. The more we learn, the more we must forgive. It doesn't mean that we will cease to point out error, yet if we do not move onto forgiveness we will be in a new prison. One of my friends is currently suffering from this. He honestly can't stand when people are *wrong*. Error makes him angry. I think I can understand that, too. But somehow when God sees us in our errors (and we have many!), He loves us and brings us into His joy, light and freedom. And that we have many errors even now is something we need to *see*. Because in the end there is only One who is "right", and none of us are saved because of our "right-ness". As I gaze on Him, I know that I, too, have been wrong and am still ignorant about many, many things. I lash out at others at times, too. I've thought that some things were the worst errors or offenses in the world, but over time I've learned that they were not really that bad, and that God's glory can overcome them. We must fix our gaze on Christ, and as we do that, we will indeed fall and recognize that He alone is the Right One. Before Him we are all wrong. And there's no shame in that. |
Heretic
Registered user
Username: Heretic
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 8:54 pm: | |
Not much time to post here but wanted to link this excellent article by Mike Horton in Modern Reformation magazine on Charles Finney:
http://www.modernreformation.org/mh95legacy.htm
Here's one excerpt which is a quotation of Finney from his Systematic Theology:
quote:"The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ's righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf." This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp. 320-322)."
Yowza! |
Heretic
Registered user
Username: Heretic
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 9:24 pm: | |
Here's one more enlightening article on Mr. Finney, this one written by Phil Johnson from John Mac Arthur's Grace Community Church:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
At the conclusion of the article, Johnson has this to say about Charles Finney:
quote:By no stretch of the imagination does Finney deserve to be regarded as an evangelical. By corrupting the doctrine of justification by faith; by denying the doctrines of original sin and total depravity; by minimizing the sovereignty of God while enthroning the power of the human will; and above all, by undermining the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, Finney filled the bloodstream of American evangelicalism with poisons that have kept the movement maimed even to this day.
Finney clearly preached a false gospel and was a heretic. I can't really fathom how he became so revered among evangelicals. But then again seeing the pathetic level of discernment demonstrated by much of modern evangelicalism today, I guess we shouldn't be THAT surprised. We ought to be willing to call out heretics of all stripes (no matter what their denominational affiliation may be) as a matter or principle and to aggressively defend the true Biblical gospel.
Anyway, there's my $0.02.
|
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 443
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 4:52 am: | |
Thanks for posting those links, Heretic. A year or so ago my husband Ric_b brought up an online sermon or writing by Finney, but he didn't tell me who wrote it and asked what I thought. I wish I could find it, because it sounded exactly like EGW Messages to Young People stuff. Anyway, when Finney was mentioned here a couple days ago, I tried to find that same piece and instead found these websites you just posted, and read the same quotes. While reading Finney's materials, the EGW recorder kept going off in my head "Everything depends upon the right action of the will."
Finney absolutely teaches a false gospel. I suppose his main redeeming quality is he didn't claim to have visions or direct messages from God, but the teachings of how we are saved, are nearly identical. |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 10:35 am: | |
Dear Stan,
As far as Finney is concerned, it certainly appears that we have been obtaining our information from very different sources.
There seems to be so much confusion here, it is difficult to know where to start.
To begin with, as I said before, it can be interesting to look at various ministers and Bible teachers, but I am not basing my faith or salvation on what they teach.
I should just like to mention what I have read or understood about Finney, and why I liked it. As to the ìmethodsî he used for his crusades, the way I understand it is, he would go to a town and then fast and intercede for the place until he felt he had attained a breakthrough in the spiritual realm. He would do that for individuals too. The would then preach a strong message of repentance and holiness, and very often see a great response. The source I read said that over 90% of his converts would be long-term. I cannot really see that there is a great deal wrong with that.
Obviously there is a great discrepancy in what has been said here, so I guess someone somewhere is misrepresenting matters.
I found here a critique of Michael Hortonís review of Finney. The author claims that Horton totally distorted Finneyís real views. Maybe it would be worth checking it to get a complete picture.
http://twtministries.com/articles/1_cal_arm/lies.html
As to conclusion of the other article, is looks impressive at first glance, until you see what is actually being said. The things the author lists that Finney disagreed with are basically just Calvinist distinctives. So is what he is saying the following?
To be evangelical you must be Calvinist,
Finney is not Calvinist,
So Finney is not evangelical.
The problem is, that even in the specifically evangelical church at the beginning of the 21st century, Calvinists are not the only ones represented. They are not even in the majority any more.
Not that this is a bad thing.
Have a nice day,
Adrian
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3870
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 11:24 am: | |
Interestng link, Adrian. I agree with the author's concluding point that we must do our own research in order to be sure that we are formulating our opinions based on actual fact.
I'm increasingly convinced that if we are not primarily studying the Bible and praying for the Holy Spirit to teach us, we will have flawed theology. We really can't base our theological conlusions on other people's statements and analyses, or we fall again into the "Ellen White trap". I'm not saying we shouldn't read commentaries or listen to Bible scholars, but I'm saying that our primary understanding and conviction must come from our own study of Scripture. Only then will be be in a position to evaluate others' understandings accurately.
Colleen
|
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 444
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 12:02 pm: | |
Ok, here's the link directly from Charles Finney's website, in which the quote Heretic posted about Finney's views on imputed righteousness is contained.
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st56.htm
Now it should be easy to read directly from the original source, in context, what Finney's views on justification were. |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 79
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 12:15 pm: | |
Well said, Colleen! I think it's so easy as "formers" (especially new ones) to fall into the "Ellen White trap" as you described. For me personally, I struggle with this constantly. I'm not used to trusting the Spirit's lead, and so I often second guess it when I see it contradicts my old thinking, or even another person's thinking (especially those I really admire). I'm constantly praying that I not be lead into deception, and that I can come to understanding and conviction based off of Scripture alone.
With so much "new theology" that leaving Adventism brings, I think this is a daily challenge for new formers. We're weren't taught to rely on the Spirit and Scripture alone; we weren't taught to be independent as far as forming our belief system. We were taught to rationalize, and philosophize, and to go to our "leaders" or our mentors for guidance when we can't seem to make Scripture fit our theology. I find myself bringing that same "baggage" into my studies now as I try to form my new belief system. And though my theology is different and more Bible centered than it ever was before; it's still so easy to want to rely on someone else's interpretation (which as we all know can be very dangerous!) when trying to study things out. |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 445
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 2:10 pm: | |
I definitely agree with Colleen and Snowboardingmom that the Bible should be our source for truth, and not someone else's interpretation of it.
That being said, the reason I posted the link to one of Finney's sermon is so it could be read direcly from Finney and seen how similar his theology on justification is to the Ellen White/SDA view of justification. Reading through the sermon I posted, it gives me the same very uneasy feelings that SDA theology does. To state the view as briefly as possible, justification is conditional on our continued improvement of character (sanctification), which is done through choosing to fix our will on God instead of on our selfish desires. He even goes so far as to say, just like SDA's do, that the reason we have to get proper characters now is because we're certainly not going to fix them in heaven--it has to happen now. (I'm not sure both of these points are in this specific sermon, because I read several of them.)
Then come the disturbing questions. How much of our effort is required to maintain salvation? Can anyone honestly say they put forth all the effort humanly possible for them? I know I fail in many ways everyday, and yet I am a believer who is fully trusting Jesus. It seems the most "progress" made in my character has not come through any of my conscious efforts to "will" to do the right thing, but instead has gradually come as God has changed my heart--oftentimes unrealized until way down the road. I just have major problems with Finney's ideas and they sound way too similar to the EGW perspective.
They way I see the Bible portraying justification and sanctification is that justification is Christ's righteousness imputed to the believer, that happens at the time of the new birth when our spirit is brought to life. Sanctification is Christian growth that automatically happens as God continues to work in us. For unknown reasons, however, God has not chosen to allow anyone to reach perfection of character in this life. It's kind of like other physical sin problems or health issues -- God often chooses not to heal in this life. I think a believer's growth will be automatic, each on a different timetable; it is not something we are in charge of.
When I see ideas like Finney has, I just don't even want to go there--been there, done that! It's hopeless! |
Cathy2
Registered user
Username: Cathy2
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 2:46 pm: | |
Thanks, Raven, for bringing it back to Christ in us, the hope of glory. Without Him, it is hopeless. Without the power of the Holy Spirit within, sanctifying, growing us up in Jesus, becoming more like him, throughout our lifetime, it is hopeless.
The "glory of His power" in us, bringing us back to His presence, with God, as the original Spurgeon article, Stan posted, said:
"...forever have been banished from His presence, and from the glory of His power.The Lord God in infinite love resolved that He Himself would bridge the distance, and would again dwell with man..."
I can relate to God not choosing to absolutely heal or change everything in this life (He is not a genie-god in a bottle, making deals); He does not, sometimes, because it drives us to Christ (If we allow it; some choose bitterness in their general choice); to utterly depend upon Him and to have compassion and effective prayers for others, who need it. At times, he only sustains, which is enough.
Anything is always enough in, under and through Him.
Cathy |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 446
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 2:57 pm: | |
I found some some quotes directly from another Finney sermon, at this weblink:
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1849-51Penny_Pulpit/491121pp_regeneration.htm
quote:In the second place, IN WHAT THE NEW BIRTH DOES CONSIST. I answer (1.) The Scriptures everywhere represent the new birth, or regeneration, to be a change of character--a change from sinfulness to holiness. Now, if it be so, there must be some voluntary action on the part of the sinner, or how should there be a change of the moral character, if he is passive and not active in it! What do we mean by moral character, and how is a man's character changed? The character depends upon the will, and when a man's will is changed his character is changed. Regeneration, then, is not involuntary, but a change of will, and a change of character--a departing from a state of sinfulness to a state of holiness.
And this one:
quote:Now, suppose that the inhabitants of heaven were selfish, all their interests would be conflicting, and laws would be needed to restrain them from encroaching upon each other's rights, because their sympathies did not blend. The same difficulties would exist there as here, only in a much higher degree. There would be striving, and crushing, and overreaching; every man would be at war with his brother. Now, such a community as that can never possess heaven. In order to be saved, then--in order to be happy in heaven, men must really experience a radical change in the end for which they live: they must renounce self-interest, and they must recognize God's authority and interests as supreme, and they must love their brother as they do themselves. They must set up a common interest, and have a common object of love.
Can anyone honestly say all selfishness has been totally and completely eradicated from their character? Apparently, Finney like EGW doesn't think our character will be changed at the Second Coming.
Maybe EGW was influenced by Finney... |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3873
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 4:25 pm: | |
Raven, I have to say I have the same old "sinking feeling" I used to get from Ellen's works when I read these things.
In the small amount of Finney's works I've read, I don't have an overall sense of "reading Ellen", but there are enough troublesome things in his theology that I have to sayóagainógive me the Bible!
Wowóit's still pretty overwhelming that Jesus is our substitute, not our example, that he's our ransom, our sacrifice, our sanctuary, our mediator, our high priest, our scapegoatóHe is our all-in-all. I live because He lives!
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 4:55 pm: | |
Raven and Heretic,
All I can say is thanks so much for exposing Finney. EGW sounds just like Finney |
Justdodie
Registered user
Username: Justdodie
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 6:13 pm: | |
Hello all,
I've been reading some of this thread, and I have to admit, I have difficulty following a lot of it, probably because I left the Adventist church at age 20 or so, and therefore never really had the chance to get involved in adult conversations and theological discussions. So, I'd like to ask anyone who cares to answer, how important (if at all) do you consider these details to your salvation now? Do you still feel it's crucially important to get exactly at the truth of some of these questions (as I seem to remember the SDAs believing) or is it just that you are all curious and interested, and want to understand more? Sometimes when confronted with such overwhelming detail and debate I think maybe some of my Baptist friends have it a lot simpler with their "get saved, try to live a good life, and go to heaven" approach. Of course, maybe it just depends on the individual's interest. I, too, am a person who loves to hear all the pros and cons on every issue, and learn what each person believes. I guess I just wanted to check on the bottom line here: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved"--right? All else is up to individual interpretation?
Thanks for indulging me in my bewilderment,
Joyce |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 485
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 8:18 pm: | |
Yes Joyce, His grace is truly that amazing. That was so hard for me to accept.
I love the little details of theology. But I also know that all of those little details aren't going to save one person. I jump into debates of the details because I see people who try to steal away others' assurance of the sufficiency of His grace. But just because someone is misled about the doctrine and has doubts and fears about their salvation doesn't mean that they aren't saved. It simply means that the joy they could be experiencing and sharing with others is being greatly diminished by these false teachings. As a result I consider these doctrinal discussions very important, but I know that salvation isn't obtained by passing a theology exam. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3874
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 9:55 pm: | |
I completely agree wtih Rick, Joyce. Salvation is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." The rest of the details can enhance or diminish one's joy and freedom in Jesus.
I find that the more Biblically I see life, the more sense life makes, and the more amazing and personal God is.
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 4:19 pm: | |
quote:Jeremy, he didn't actually "lose" part of Himself forever. Jesus is alive! What I meant was that God Himself experienced "part of himself" (one finger of the one hand) suffering on that cross. The whole "hand" suffered. It wasn't as if one "hand" hung on the cross and two others looked on in close sympathy. No, the One God suffered when Jesus died.
Does that explain it better?
Colleen
Colleen, yes that does help explain it better. I guess what bothers me though is the phrase "part of Himself" since Jesus is not just "one of three parts" of God. In other words, it's not that the Father is "a third of God," the Son a third, and the Spirit a third. Jesus is not just "part" of the One Being, like my arm is part of my body. He is fully God, and so is the Father, and so is the Spirit.
I think this may be the hardest part of the Trinity for us finite humans to comprehend.
Joyce,
I know that I am saved by the blood of Jesus, and that I will continue to be saved for eternity no matter what ("once saved, always saved").
This Biblical truth gives me great joy, hope, and assurance.
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3879
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 8:43 pm: | |
Jeremy, I fully agree with you. I was aware as I was trying to explain myself that it would be easy to sound "modalist" when I actually don't believe in modalism at all.
I really don't understand the Trinity; I just realized, though, how completely separate I have seen the three persons of the Trinity. When I began to think about "God" as being substantive, not just "organizational" or even like a specialized "race", I was quite overwhelmed at how unified the Three are in their interactions with us.
No, I don't pretend to understand it! And I'm not seeing each as one-third of a whole. But I am seeing them as connected and unified and One in a way that is new and overwhelmingóand the more Bible references to them I read, the more I see this intrinsic connection as being Biblical.
Colleen |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 277
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 3:16 pm: | |
I just HAD to post this somewhere and this thread seemed a good place for it. 
We are moving out of Galatians and into the IJ for our Bible Study! (If you think of it, I would LOVE to have you all praying with us!)
I am preparing some information about the evolution of the IJ and this sentence from one of EGW's letters just popped out at me. What do you all think? (In relationship to the Trinity)
"I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired his lovely person. The Fathers person I could not behold for a cloud of glorious light covered him." (Letter, 1846)
In Christ,
Patria |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3886
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 5:23 pm: | |
Patria, well, that is a telling quote!
Someone told me a quote this afternoon that I thought was a wonderful way to summarize the mystery of the Trinity (I believe this quote originated with Charles Stanley):
"There is one Who and three Whats." In the past, I would have reversed that: one What and three Who's. But this clearly makes more sense.
Praying for your Bible studies!
Colleen |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 5:38 pm: | |
Colleen, I am familiar with the quote, Hank H. uses it often, but I think you may have accidently transposed the quote. The quote is "One What, three Who's". Another way of saying that is "One Being, three persons".
Chris |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3888
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 8:24 pm: | |
Thanks, Chris--I think it was quoted to me the way I wrote it, but it's entirely possible I mixed it up in my own head, too! Hmmm...makes sense, especially with the "One Being, three person" parallelóthe other way could sound modalist.
Thanks for correcting me!
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 9:02 pm: | |
Patria,
Yes, EGW has other similar quotes which make Jesus separate from (and lesser than) the Father.
Here is more of that same quote as found in Early Writings:
quote:"I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, 'If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist.'" (Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 54, paragraph 2.)
Here she clearly denies the incorporeality of God, as do the Mormons, saying that the Father has a body--even making it sound like He has a human body (although more "glorious" than Christ's!).
In the early days, she ignored the Holy Spirit as a person and taught bitheism (two gods). She later changed to Tritheism (three gods).
She also taught that the Father has a body in later writings:
quote:"The Father can not be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested." (Bible Training School, 03-01-1906, paragraph 1.)
"In Christ is gathered all the glory of the Father. In Him is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person." (S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, page 907, paragraph 3.)
So she twists Colossians 2:9 and says that the Father is "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" and that Christ merely has (and sometimes she changes the verse to past tense) the Father indwelling Him!
The official SDA belief book also teaches that God and even the angels have bodies. (EGW taught that angels have flesh.)
Here is what they say:
quote:It is frequently suggested that human moral and spiritual dimensions reveal something about God's moral and spiritual nature. But since the Bible teaches that man comprises an indivisible unity of body, mind, and soul, man's physical features must also, in some way, reflect God's image. But isn't God a spirit? How could a spirit being be associated with any form or shape?
A brief study of the angels reveals that they, like God, are spiritual beings (Heb. 1:7, 14). Yet they always appear in human form (Gen. 18:1-19:22; Dan. 9:21; Luke 1:11-38; Acts 12:5-10). Could it be that a spiritual being may have a "spiritual body" with a form and features (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44)?
The Bible indicates that some people have seen parts of God's person. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders saw His feet (Ex. 24:9-11). Although He refused to show His face, after covering Moses with His hands God revealed His back to him as He passed by (Ex. 33:20-23). God appeared to Daniel in a judgment-scene vision as the Ancient of Days seated on a throne (Dan. 7:9, 10). Christ is described as "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15) and "the express image of His person" (Heb. 1:3). These passages seem to indicate that God is a personal being and has a personal form. This should come as no surprise, for man was created in the image of God.
--http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-07.htm
They are like the Saducees--they just cannot believe in the concept of a "spirit." They say that spirits have bodies. So I guess they are saying that "God" is three separate spirits (three gods, Tritheism again!), each with their own "spiritual body"! So what happened to Christ's "spiritual body" when He became human?? Although it almost sounds like they're saying that God and the angels have human bodies. Notice that the verse they reference from 1 Corinthians 15 is describing our human resurrection bodies.
They really do believe that everything is material/physical. They deny anything spiritual, even God Himself!
Of course, Jesus Himself said that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39 NASB)!
These cultic teachings are very Mormon and very anti-Christian.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on May 03, 2006) |
Bmorgan
Registered user
Username: Bmorgan
Post Number: 78
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2006 - 2:30 am: | |
Jeremy, thank you for resuming and sharing your research.
"Early Writings" was the first SDA book I read.
Didn't Mrs White say something about Jesus going into the father's presence about three times before the father-god, gave his approval for Jesus to save man by going down to die on the cross?
As far as I remember reading, Jesus was on par with Satan. Satan became jealous because the godhead did not consult him but overlooked him for a position. Also the heavenly beings-- maybe angels or jesus and the godhead pleaded with Satan so he would repent and be saved?
Sounds pretty freaky even thinking about it. I said it before, there are lots of webs around the truth in my head. I appreciate being able to clarify and untangle.
I was taught by (learned from) Adventists teachings some about the trinity and equally given concepts that were rather anti-trinitarian.
I learned(was taught) about another Jesus-powerless and in conflict with Satan.
Am I making this up in my head? I don't have the book to review what I'm stating neither I do not want(God forbid) to falsely accuse Mrs White of heresy. |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 6:43 am: | |
Dear Joyce et al.,
I agree with the others that we do not have to understand all the intricate details of theology to be saved. I love theology, and I enjoy trying to figure things out, but we don't have a perfect understanding of everything about God and his ways.
If reckon if we did, he would not be the infinite God, or we would be, or something like that.
We try to put it all into neat boxes, but when we think we have it figured, something always happens which does not fit the picture - it does with me anyway. It does not matter, as the important thing is to be trusting Christ and letting the Holy Spirit work in our lives - as has been said above too.
God bless,
Adrian |
|
