| Author |
Message |
Chyna
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2000 - 12:52 pm: |     |
Steve, AWESOME link for books.
i'm an avid book lover. love 'em, can't pry me away from bookstores, or libraries :)
Chyna (book hunting) |
Dennisrainwater
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2000 - 9:12 pm: | |
Hi --
I wanted to add just a thought to the discussion of Jesus' Nature. This is just semantics, but maybe it's helpful. As I always heard it taught, Jesus didn't actually have a "Sinful Nature", but a "Fallen Nature". Thus, not actually tainted with sin, but fully programmed with the capacity to sin. This was important because it "proved" that since Jesus, through help from the Holy Spirit, lived a sinless life while fully capable of sinning, then we too can finally learn too live sinless lives. After all, if we live in the last days, without a mediator, that is the only hope we have, isn't it? ISN'T IT SAD!!
To me, this seems rather humanistic. One of Satan's earliest and most treacherous lies is that we can become gods. That's what he wanted to be -- so perhaps he can "pass the torch"... If we are taught that Jesus could have sinned, but didn't; and that we do sin, but someday can learn not to -- then that places us on an quasi-equal plane with Christ, does it not? Finally, we can "be like God"! This cheapens Christ and deifies man.
How could I have been this blind for so many years!? Praise God for His grace and mercy to me! I'm so happy to be basking in His love and acceptance!!
In His Name,
Dennis<>< |
Colleentinker
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2000 - 9:38 pm: | |
Dennis, that was so well said! Thank you!
Colleen |
Susan
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2000 - 8:31 am: | |
Dennis, A great big Amen! I really appreciate your accurate description, of the nature of our Lord, Jesus Christ!!!
Also praising God for His grace and mercy!
Susan |
Darrell
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2000 - 10:14 am: | |
When I studied "Life and Teachings of Jesus" at an Adventist college many years ago, I was taught that Jesus was the second Adam, meaning that Jesus' human nature was the nature of Adam before the fall. (I was also taught that Jesus was fully divine.) At the time I had no idea that this was a controversial issue, and I accepted this based on the Biblical support for it, even using it as the theme for one of my freshman English composition papers. It was not until many years later, when I moved to another state, that I learned that some Adventists have a different view.
Does anyone know what is currently taught in Adventist colleges regarding the nature of Jesus? Does it vary from one school/professor to another? |
Patti
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2000 - 12:36 pm: | |
Darrell,
From my experience on SDA forums, the current prevailing opinion (interesting that there is no specific doctrine... Of course, there cannot be an "official" doctrine, as Ellen was all over the court on this one...) is that Jesus assumed Adam's nature AFTER the fall. That He had to overcome sinful tendencies just as we do. That He experienced lust, covetousness, pride, etc, and was victorious. Therefore, because He did this in sinful flesh, we know that we can conquer sin in our lives also.
Still the fringes of Arianism remains. Although they give lip service to the divinity of Christ, the (fallen) humanity is what is always emphasized.
Scary, huh? |
Steve
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 5:23 pm: | |
Chyna,
Glad you liked the link for the books. I'm quite a book lover myself. I have a large personal library (all in storage right now) that even some pastors have enjoyed borrowing.
Chuck,
You said (on Aug. 2nd -- shows how long it's been since I've checked into this discussion):
"It is my opinion that one should measure the movement by the official position and not by those individuals having various and sundry doctrines under the banner of Seventh Day Adventist."
I agree that the official position is important. Realize that the official position is not only what is stated, but also what Pastors, Teachers, and other denominationally employed individuals are teaching. These people receive their salary from the General Conference and espouse their veiws.
However, to see the unfortunate changes, I would refer you to Dale Ratzlaff's book, Cultic Doctrine. There Dale documents changes in the SDA churches official stand. Regarding the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of SDAs, Ratzlaff points out that prior to 1980, the official position took the Bible as the "all-sufficient revelation of His will to men, and are the only unerring rule of faith and practice."
However, in the 1980 statement of the 27, the church left out the words "all-sufficient" and "only". And then they ADDED, in statement #17, that the writings of EGW "are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction."
If you compare that statement with II Timothy 3:16, where scripture is "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training is righteousness" you might find an eery similarity between what the church currently believes about EGW and what Paul wrote about Scripture.
Although the SDA church moved toward Evangelical Christianity with the publication of Questions On Doctrine, there has been a movement away from that since the 1970's.
I would also refer anyone to the John Ankerberg program, where Walter Martin met with William Johnsson, editor of the Adventist Review. Those were powerful meetings, where Martin attempted to show the church's movement away from QOD.
It is clear from those interveiws that Adventism has moved from it's former positions. It no longer views Questions On Doctrine as a normative statement of belief in the SDA church. It has retreated from that.
QOD was a book that I read and believed. Many in the church, even officially, view that book as having been a denial of the Adventist message. Some SDA fundamentalists seen to have gained power in the church and many have moved away from those positions. Only 147,000 copies of QOD were published. That's a far cry from the number of English speaking SDAs there are in the world. Many I know do not even know of the role QOD had in the recent history of the church.
The church may officially fluctuate on those doctrines, but what's very important is what the average person is being taught from the pulpit every Sabbath morning. That that is not usually the message that was espoused in QOD.
God Bless,
Steve |
Steve
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 5:27 pm: | |
One more thought: The recent motion at the General Conference to emphasize the writings of Ellen White was accepted, while the move to emphasize the Bible was sent to a committee. That should make it obvious to anyone that EGW, not the Bible, is really the authority in Adventism.
Steve |
Allenette
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 7:32 pm: | |
Hi Steve: just _cannot_ resist this one: "only 147,000 copies were published"....hey, if put in the right hands, only 144,000 would have been needed <BIG WIDE GRIN> ...(scurrying back into the woodwork)...... |
Colleentinker
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2000 - 9:42 pm: | |
Steve, thank you for pointing out that although many Adventists are superficially appearing more and more evangelical, the heart of the church is retreating toward EGW.
The church is not walking away from its cultic doctrines.
Colleen |
Chyna
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 3:48 pm: | |
Scripture Twisting Methods Of The Cults
In the book "Scripture Twisting," James Sire has a chapter devoted to each of the methods.
1. INACCURATE QUOTATION: A biblical text is referred to but is either not quoted in the way the text appears in any standard translation or is wrongly attributed. Example: The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi says, "Christ said, 'Be still and know that I am God.'" Whereas this text is found ONLY in Psalms.
2. TWISTED TRANSLATION: The biblical text is retranslated, not in accordance with sound Greek scholarship, to fit a preconceived teaching of a cult. Example: the Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1 as "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the word was a god."
3. BIBLICAL HOOK: A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a device to grasp the attention of readers or listeners and then followed by a teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear far more dubious to most people had it not been preceded by a reference to Scripture. Example: Mormon missionaries quote James 1:5 which promises God's wisdom to those who ask him and, then, follow this by explaining that when Joseph Smith did this he was given a revelation from which he concluded that God the Father has a body.
4. IGNORING THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT: A text of Scripture is quoted but removed from the surrounding verses which form the immediate framework for its meaning. Example: Alan Watts quotes the first half of John 5:39 ("You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life"), claiming that Jesus was challenging His listeners' over emphasis of the Old Testament, but the remainder of the immediate context reads, "and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (verses 39-40), which shows that Jesus was upholding the value of the Old Testament as a testimony to Himself.
5. COLLAPSING CONTEXTS: Two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary of the other(s). Example: The Mormons associate Jeremiah 1:5 with John 1:2,14 and thus imply that both verses talk about the premortal existence of all human beings; Jeremiah 1:5, however, speaks of God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah (Not his premortal existence) and JOhn 1:2 refers to the pre-existence of God the Son and not to human beings in general.
6. OVERSPECIFICATION: A more detailed or specific conclusion than is legitimate is drawn from a biblical text. Example: The Mormon missionary manual quotes the parable of the virgins from Matthew 25:1-13 to document the concept that "mortality is a probationary period during which we prepare to meet God." But the parable of the virgins could, and most probably does, mean something far less specific, for example, that human beings should be prepared at any time to meet God or to witness the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
7. WORD PLAY: A word or phrase from a biblical translation is examined and interpreted as if the revelation had been given in that language. Example: mary Bake Eddy says the name Adam consist of two syllables, A DAM, which means an obstruction, in which case, Adam signifies "the obstacle which the serpent, sin, would impose between man and his Creator."
8. THE FIGURATIVE FALLACY: Either (1) mistaking literal language for figurative language or (2)mistaking figurative language for literal language. Example of (1): Mary Baker Eddy interprets EVENING as "mistiness of mortal thought; weariness of mortal mind; obscured views; peace and rest." Example of (2): The Mormon theologian james Talmage interprets the prophesy that "thou shalt be brought down and speak out of the ground" to mean that God's Word would come to people from the Book of Mormon which was taken out of the ground at the hill of Cumorah.
9.SPECULATIVE READINGS OF PREDICTIVE PROPHESY: A predictive prophesy is too readily explained by the occurance of specific events, despite the fact that equally committed biblical scholars consider the interpretation highly dubious. Example: The stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph in Ezekiel 37:15-23 are interpreted by the Mormons to mean the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
10. SAYING BUT NOT CITING: A writer says that the Bible says such and such but does not cite the specific text (which often indicates that there may be no such text at all). Example: A common phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is not found in the Bible.
11. SELECTIVE CITING: To substantiate a given argument, only a limited number of text is quoted: the total teaching of Scripture on that subject would lead to a conclusion different from that of the writer. Example: The Jehovah's Witnesses critique the traditional Christian notion of the Trinity without considering the full text which scholars use to substantiate the concept.
12. INADEQUATE EVIDENCE: A hasty generalization is drawn from too little evidence. Example: The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that blood transfusion is nonbiblical, but the biblical data that they cite fails either to speak directly to the issue or to adequately substantiate their teaching.
13. CONFUSED DEFINITION: A biblical term is misunderstood in such a way that an essential biblical doctrine is distorted or rejected. Example: one of Edgar Cayce's followers confuses the eastern doctrine of reincarnation with the biblical doctrine of being born again.
14. IGNORING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS: A specific interpretation given to a biblical text or set of text which could well be, and often have been, interpreted in quite a different fashion, but these alternatives are not considered. Example: Erich von Daniken asks why in Genesis 1:26 God speaks in the plural ("us"), suggesting that this is an oblique reference to God's being one of many astronauts and failing to consider alternative explanations that either God was speaking as "Heaven's king accompanied by His heavenly host" or that the plural prefigures the doctrine of the Trinity expressed more explicitly in the New Testament.
15. THE OBVIOUS FALLACY: Words like OBVIOUSLY, UNDOUBTEDLY, CERTAINLY, ALL REASONABLE PEOPLE HOLD THAT and so forth are substituted for logical reasons. Example: Erich von daniken says, "Undoubtedly the Ark [of the Covenent] was electrically charged!"
16. VIRTUE BY ASSOCIATION: Either (1) a cult writer associates his or her teaching with those of figures accepted as authoritative by traditional Christians; (2) cult writings are likened to the Bible; or (3) cult literature imitates the form of the Bible writing such that it sounds like the Bible. Example of (1): Rick Chapman list 21 gurus, including Jesus Christ, St. Francis and St. Theresa, that "you can't go wrong with." Example of (2): Juan Mascaro in his introduction to the Upanishads cites the New Testament, the Gospels, Ecclesiastes and the Psalms, from which he quotes passages supposedly paralleling the Upanishads. Example of (3): The Mormon DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 93 interweave phrases from the Gospel of John and maintains a superficial similarity to the Gospel such that it seems to be like the Bible.
17. ESOTERIC INTERPRETATION: Under the assumption that the Bible contains hidden, esoteric, meaning which is open only to those who are initiated into its secrets, the interpreter declares the significance of biblical passages without giving much, if any, explanation for his or her interpretation. Example: Mary Baker Eddy gives the meaning of the first phrase in the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father which art in heaven," as "Our Father-Mother God, all harmonious."
18. SUPPLEMENTING BIBLICAL AUTHORITY: New revelation from post biblical prophets either replaces or is added to the Bible as authority. Example: The Mormons supplement the Bible with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
19. REJECTING BIBLICAL AUTHORITY: Either the Bible as a whole or texts from the Bible are examined and rejected because they do not square with other authorities - such as reason or revelation = do not appear to agree with them. Example:Archie Matson holds that the Bible contains contradictions and that Jesus himself rejected the authority of the Old Testament when he contrasted His own views with it on the Sermon on the Mount.
20. WORLD-VIEW CONFUSION: Scriptural statements, stories, commands or symbols which have a particular meaning or set of meanings when taken within the intellectual and broadly cultural framework of the Bible itself are lifted out of that context, placed within the frame of reference of another system and thus given a meaning that markedly differs from their intended meaning. Example: The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi interprets "Be still, and know that I am God" as meaning that each person should meditate and come to the realization that he is essentially Godhood itself |
|
