| Author | Message | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Read the book, "Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology" by Eric Claude Webster, Andrews University Press, 1992. I spoke briefly with his son, who teaches theology at La Sierra University. The book is an eye-opener. The nature of Christ is fair game for interpretation in the SDA church. Even Dan Smith, in a sermon at La Sierra University church about 3 years ago or so, stated that the nature of Christ is not "in the keep" (which is where he placed the sabbath, and a few other "non-netotiables".) In the rest of the Christian world, there is strong unanimity on the nature of Christ. In almost all Christiain churches (perhaps "all") the nature of Christ is non-negotiable. He was born sinless, with a sinless nature, and if He was truly God in the flesh, He could not sin (or as some theologians have stated, that He could choose to sin, but it is entirely against His nature, where it is not against our nature to sin, because we are, in fact, sinful.) Steve | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Yes, Steve, growing up sda I was forever taught that Jesus was 100% totally a human man. I'm not sure how I was taught about his Diinity, or even if I was. I am an only child so I do remember asking my mom once if we believed in the trinity. She said, "yes" and I asked her to explain the trinity to me. I was told the trinity if a family, just like her ansd Dddy and me were a family. That God is the Father just like my dad was the father in our home. Next in authority was Jesus which was my moms position in our family and then I got to be likened to the Holy Spirit. This sure isn't a traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity but it was how I was taught as a kid. It certainly doesn't acknowledge Jesus or the Holy Spirit as "one with God". | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Wow Susan. The explanation that your mother gave would go over very well in a Mormon church or in the old Worldwide Church of God (Armstrongism), but as you say it certainly is not a Christian understanding. The orthodox teaching states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God. The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Spirit is fully God. The Father is not the Son or Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The are in complete unity in nature, but not in persons. Unity in Being but different in expression. Probably a little too theological sounding, but the church has struggled with heresies on this issue since the time of the Apostles. Particularly at the time of Arius of Alexandria and the Council of Nicea held in AD 325. The church at that time and at later councils, clarified the Biblical and Apostolic teaching on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. For me it's been wonderful to be so free from the confusion on Christ's nature and to be able to confirm with the rest of the Christian world his absolute eternal equality with the Father, including the time He walked the earth. | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Yes, my parents took me with them when I was a little kid to many Worldwide Church of God (Armstrong) meetings and the WCG at that time totally denied the Trinity as mainstream Christianity understands it. My mother explained it to me the way Herbert W. Armstrong at that time explained it. That the Trinity is A Family. A God family. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
You know, I remember hearing the family analogy to explain the Trinity, too. I heard it in school, I believe, and probably also Sabbath School. I also heard they were all God, but the family picture was the one I was taught to explain how it "worked". I agree, Steve; it's so wonderful to be free from confusion regarding the nature of Christ. In Jesus, Colleen | ||
| Doc (Doc) |
Hello everyone, I am new here. I have never been Adventist, but I was forced to take notice when my best friend nearly became Adventist, and one of his best friends did! I thought they were fairly stable Christians, so I must say this rather surprised me, and I decided to study the SDAs in some depth. If you don't mind chatting to me on that basis, then I have a question on the nature of Christ (this thread). Can SDAs find any Bible verses to support the idea that Christ had a fallen nature (if so, which ones?), or is it just EGW? The only thing that springs to mind would be Romans 8: 3, but that says "the likeness of sinful flesh" not sinful flesh itself. Thanks for your help, doc | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Welcome, Doc. ìCan SDAs find any Bible verses . . .î Oh, sure. They can always find MANY verses for any concept. Of course, whether the verses actually support the concept when properly studied in context, is often of little import. I donít know what verses other than the one you cite would be used, but there are at least one that contradicts the ìfallen natureî concept.
| ||
| Another_Carol (Another_Carol) |
Doc, The sad thing is they don't have to have a verse to satify you they just have to have one that satifies them and when they do all the kings horses and all the kings men can not change what they have been coerced into believing. Another sad thing is that God is all about the heart and they are all about the head and therin lies the problem because my Bible says Romans 10 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; Welcome aboard, the ride is rough some times but we have a master that keeps steady, Carol | ||
| Janice (Janice) |
Hey Doc, There are a few of us here that aren't adventists either but, like you, decided to visit for some answers due to family/friends becoming a part of this group. My entire family was raised as Baptists but when my sister married and moved to S.C., she got divorced and befriended by some SDA coworkers. She eventually remarried and her husband is SDA born and raised. My sister has two daughters now who are SDA and when my mom retired, she went to live in Tennessee near my sister who now lives in Creston N.C. and attends the same SDA church with my sister in Boone, N.C. I had sent an apologetic on EGW and the SDAs to my mother in an e-mail and since she has only been in the SDAs for about six years, I had hoped to reach her with some of the documented false teachings and contradictions that had been placed in a web site similar to this one. My sister, an SDA for almost 25 years now began sending me ugly e-mails that warned me that I had better quit "making fun" of "their" prophetess or else I might have a similar fate as the children that mocked Daniel and the bear mauled them. This e-mail led to others and led to my being sent several SDA books in which I was led by the Holy Spirit to see their contradictions to God's word and when I returned her books to her with scripture in red ink written over the lies that I found, she was so angry with me and told me that those were books from the church library that she would have to pay for now since I had chosen to "deface" them. That was just simply unforgivable of me to do such a horrid thing--give Bible quotes to prove their lies and double-mindedness. Shame on me, huh? I believe that we all agree here that there is an evil influence guiding this group along and we have all questioned if EGW was an innocent victim of the devil or if she was actually one of his helpers in all the deception that has come about through the years due to all her erroneous writings. You can even check the archives out and read about one man that developed a book and went around giving speeches about it to his fellow SDA members but then sent this forum an email to tell that he was very angry that his works had been used against EGW, now, is that double-minded or what? He wrote the study about her and then got mad because it was put online at this web site!!! But just to ease your mind, the name Former Adventist should give you hope that indeed God can still lead people out of SDA because the sponsors of this site have been delivered from their bondage and are here to help you with any questions that may cross your mind. I have learned quiet a lot here in just one month of visiting. I may not have much to offer to the forum as far as history goes on the subject of SDA and their doctrines, but I can certainly relate to the treatment that they are getting from their friends and family members who remain in the clutches of Adventism and can offer a few words of comfort and prayer for them if nothing else. About Jean: My sister-in-law who had the accident a few months ago got to drive again for the first time today and may get to return to work by May. It has been a long, hard road for her on her way back to recovery but nothing short of a miracle will bring back the sight in her left eye, the optic nerve was severed, but I do believe in the power of prayer, so, I ask you all to pray for her as she returns to her eye doctor this Friday. God bless you all and again welcome to our newcomer, looking forward to hear more from you Doc. Janice | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
Doc, thanks for joining us. Your input to us will be just as useful to us as ours to you!!! Welcome. | ||
| Angie (Angie) |
Doc,welcome to the forem! As for Christ' fallen nature?I was always' told'that if he didn't,how could he be our example?This was EGW I'm sure!!Go to www.ellenwhite.org,you'll be suprized what all they [me too at one time]will believe b/c of that women.Someone said that they think she was evil,personly,I think that when she had that accident as a child,it done something SERIOUS to her brain.I think that the evil part of it came from her husband and all the others that saw how money they could make off her!Don't get me wrong,I am totally 'anti-ellen!!! Welcome,Angie | ||
| Angie (Angie) |
One more thing,Can you believe that my husband actually said that you DON"T have to read the contex of a verse to use it.So you can just go thru there and pick out what you want and apply it HOWEVER YOU WANT!!! Is that brainwashed or what?!!! Angie | ||
| Doc (Doc) |
Hello everyone, Thank you all for your kind words of welcome. How I got into all this is a very long story, but I will try the very brief version. I am British and have been living in Central Europe (western Hungary) for about 7-8 years now. I am now leading a small church in the village where I live. In my 20 years as a Christian in England and Wales, I do not recall ever meeting Adventists, so I had no cause to study them in depth. I did come across lots of JWs and Mormons, as well as some Christian Scientists, Christadelphians and Unitarians (sorry to tar them all with the same brush - should I or not?). Anyway, when I moved to Hungary, I found there are lots of Adventists here, three different groups, but with similar beliefs, I think. Romania is also full of SDAs (I have Welsh friends working there). I became friendly with this Christian guy, who was an elder in the church I am now in. He was saved at 16, thrown out of the house by his communist dad, joined the Pentecostal church, which is very legalistic, then went to the Faith Church, which is a new, charismatic movement, but very soon became controlling and cult-like (and then split three ways), then went back to the Pentecostals. He wanted to study more, so ended up doing a correspondence college course at the Adventist college. This group is called Christian Advent Fellowship (Kerak - Hungarian abbreviation), they seem to be pretty traditional Adventists. They run this popular Bible college and people go from all churches. After the three years college, he was completely taken in, and thought he wanted to be Adventist. It took a great deal of prayer, and study and counselling to get him to look at things from another viewpoint, but he is OK now. However, in the meantime, he influenced people he worked with, and one of them did in fact join Kerak. We are now trying to talk to this guy and his pastor, to get them to look at some critical material, but it is not really working. I hope that was not too much - there is in fact a lot more to it. The frustrating thing is, that Adventists seem to have such a huge influence, and lots of pastors and other Christians complain about the "sheep stealing," and they also know there are things wrong with the teaching, but there is really no critical material at all avaibable in Hungarian to give people. "That woman's" book may be purchased, of course, available in several alternative translations. Thank God for the Internet, I say, as at least I was able to do a lot of reseach, and translate a little of the basic material myself, mainly for my friend, but since then, others have also shown interest. Well, that is the brief story so far. I feel we are rather overwhelmed, but we are fighting on. God bless you all, Doc | ||
| Bob_2 (Bob_2) |
Don't you think when the Bible says we have a "priest" who "has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet without sin" (Heb 4:15) that if he didn't have a human side mixed in with his divinity that this would be a worthless or useless experience on Jesus' part? Bob_2 | ||
| Bob_2 (Bob_2) |
Doc, why would you worry about someone's sincerely held belief. If it is illogical or unsupportable yet they cling to it we can still be their friend. We should not make these debatable issues ones that can cause hard feelings. I believe that Adventists in general can contribute to the discussion of what is expected after one accepts Jesus. Jesus destroyed the unproductive fruit tree. That sounds like a lesson from him that more than just faith is expected. "Faith without works is dead." The problem lies in every church as to what those works should be. Evangelical churches want to say all we have to do is believe to be saved. I believe that is absolutely true about the technical nature at time of accepting Christ. Adventists get caught up in the acts expected when transformation happens. I think it is a little like a clutsy husband who loves his wife but fails at appropriately showing it and must learn the acceptable gifts that are satisfactory to his wife. Again the wife loves him but the husband needs to work on the "works" that are more satisfying to her, not because he is trying to buy her love but to perfect their intimacy. Finally, Doc, worry less about the influence of Adventists, in my opinion, not to be harsh, but I have found their positions to be relatively irrelevant. Don't forget to love our brothers, maybe hate the act, but always hold out the hand to hopefully understand each other better. Bob_2 | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Doc, welcome! No, there is no text that supports the idea that Christ had a fallen nature. The Adventist's belief is entirely the result of EGW. As a matter of fact, for the first 4 decades or so of the existence of Adventism, the church was completely Aryan and taught that Christ was not intinsically God but rather God's son, God's creation. That Aryan influence has never left the church. They remain confused about the nature of Christ even though they now say he is God. The confusion results from their belief that humans do not have a spirit, a part of their being that is different from the animals and that responds to spiritual things. They believe that sin is genetic, and the sin that we inherited from Adam is not a literal dead spirit but defective genes that predispose us to sins. They'll say that sin has separated us from God, but they do not see sin as a literal death of something within a human. True Adventists, similarly, have trouble with the idea of original sin. True-blue Advenitsts will say babies are born sinless but sin very early on and therefore grow up in sin. Jesus, many say, inherited Mary's physical genes (true!) which gave him a human, sinful nature (not true!). The trick is he never sinned, so that means that we also can achieve sinlessness. If he did it, so can we. He is our example. In fact, Jesus was not born with a spirit disconnected from God. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not a man, and he was born with a living Spirit. He was completely connected to God from conception. That connection to God is what his death and resurrection accomplished for us. When we accept him and are born again, the Spirit indwells us and brings our dead spirits to life and makes us one with God. While Jesus was 100% human, he was also 100% God. That is a singularity we cannot hope to understand. But it's true, and he is a high priest that was tempted in every way yet was without sin. He was even without inherited sin, the sin of being born disconnected from God. He had the indwelling Holy Spirit from before birth. Yes, he had Mary's human genes, but no, that did not make him born with sin. He was the second Adam, the second human in history to be formed with a living spirit connected to God. While the first Adam chose to sin and disconnected himself from God, the second Adam did not. He remained faithful to the Father. Frankly, I believe the apparently irrelevant-appearing Adventist doctrines are insidious. They appear reasonable upon first glance, but as you study them and their supporting texts in scripture, they uncover serious heresy. The issue of man's spirit, I believe, is one of the most serious and consequential. In short, Adventist doctrines cannot hold up if one believes the scriptures to be absolutely true. Which, by the way, leads to another Adventist belief: the Bible is inspired but also contains errors we must adjust as we study it. But that's a different subject... I praise Jesus for revealing himself and removing the veil from our hearts! Colleen | ||
| Bob_2 (Bob_2) |
Colleen, a couple of points. Who are the Adventist doctrines insidious to, if you are a former. The study of the Trinity the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit will probably be debated as will many other things such as the state of the dead until Christ comes and explains it all. Talk about adjusting scripture, all of Christiandom that goes Sabbatarian with Sunday has adjusted the "inerrant word of God" to suit themselves. There is no authority in scripture to prescribe another day of rest as spoken to in Hebrews 4. Dale Ratslaff's book, "Sabbath in Crisis" gave me alot of help on this matter. Why do we want to bash the Adventists on their points of Doctrine when just about every denomination has its flaws. Heresy by definition is, "an opinion or belief adopted in opposition to that accepted or usual in the community to which one belongs." Do you still belong or are you a former? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy discussing the issues but whether the SDA position is right or wrong is irrelavent but is our position supportable. I find all churches claim to simply read and interpret the Bible. Literal interpretation of passages of the Bible can be dangerous. Studying the Bible means sometimes looking past the apparent nugget laying on the ground. Sometimes the vein of gold lies beneath the surface. I do believe that everything necessary for salvation is simple and clear and does not need a whole lot of seminary training to understand. Colleen, you spoke past my point, if Christ wasn't part human, what difference does it matter if he was tempted in all ways as we were? Why go through the human birth process? Wasn't God requiring someone like us to die for us? To have a divine being die for us, would that satisfy an exacting, just God? Colleen, I appreciate your insights and look forward to further discussion. I am open to understanding this better. Doc, hope you keep contributing to this thread, welcome. Bob_2 | ||
| Janice (Janice) |
Doc, This battle that we are all in can certainly be overwhelming. Funny how you used the term "that woman" because that was how I used to refer to her when I discussed EGW with my sister. Boy, did I get scolded for that, that was when she accused me of "making fun" and not being reverant to "that woman." Funny thing, I was taught to show respect to my dad who said it was earned by carrying a title but for myself--I always had to earn it. When I was growing up, I was the oldest of three girls and I now believe that this is one of the main reasons that my sisters don't want to listen to me when I witness because they have always been told by our dad that they had to do what I said and now that they are grown and my dad has passed away and the family is spread out over 400 miles in distance, well, I guess it is good in a way that they do live so far away because I can imagine away a lot of the pain when they aren't speaking to me, I hope you can understand what I am trying to say. On the one hand, this site is great but on the other hand it is sad because I can say things here that you all will listen too and can relate but it also reminds me of their stubborness. I can't help but fear how their rebellious spirits are going to get recompensed because of all the harsh words and ostricism that I have had to take from them over the years of trying to get through to their hardened hearts. All day long yesterday, I read a monthly devotional between my Q.A. checks and felt such peace when I read about the peace that our knowledge of our faith brings and when I get such good feelings, it makes me want to shout hallelujah for such a loving God. He isn't that demanding at all, is he? God just wants us to learn to depend on him and let him put the laws in our heart, why do we want to fight him and do it on our own like the SDAs teach? Scripture tells us over and over again about his grace and blessed peace and how he gives his children sleep! Why fret over the fact that you turned the stupid dishwasher on before the sun went down on Sabbath or how can you split hairs over preparing a meal before Sabbath and putting it all in the refrigerator the night before when you have to get it out and put it on the stove and heat it up the next day. How silly is that, right? I guess I am stretching the limits in my questioning or maybe I am taking this to the extreme, but my question is this: If it is wrong to eat meat, yet the SDAs say that it isn't a doctrine--it is just discouraged, and then they go and buy fry-chick and vegeburger and fake bacon and sausage; I would like to know if you all don't consider that "desire" for meat wrong if Jesus taught that the desire of a woman in your "mind" was sin and "thinking" bad thoughts towards your neighbor was murder, do you get what I am saying? If you crave it to the point of trying to fake it then why not go ahead and eat whatever you crave and know that God made it clean and it is santified with prayer anyway? What do you think? Just curious to know if others have pondered on those same lines; I just don't understand why they would pay twice the amount for a man-made imitation and show slaughter-house films that make you sick to keep you from eating meat! Since I am at work now, I guess I need to get out of the forum for awhile. God bless, Janice | ||
| Bob_2 (Bob_2) |
Janice, can I interject an anecdote from my PCA experience. One day a Deacon and his wife were telling me about how ostacized they felt from their family and they thought "they were goofy" for their view on the sovereignty of God and other positions they were "trying to witness" about. I got to know this couple a little better. When I took a position that this Deacon didn't like, he told me to repent. I told him, that we should not have these, "truth seeking" discussions again because he couldn't handle it. He went down the hall in this PCA church and spoke to some of the believers who told him that the issue, in this case predestination, are debate within in PCA all the time. He then came to me to apologize. I accepted the apology but told him I thought it was still better for he and I not to debate these issues. I have had to find other venues to test my interpretations such as this forum. God bless all of you for giving a piece of this sounding board which in just a short time I understand its value. In His Grace, Bob_2 | ||
| Terryk (Terryk) |
Amen sister I used to wonder the same thing we are not supposed to eat ham but its ok to eat wam. Well from a doctors point it is better to eat the ham that does not have all the additives in it. None of it ever and can ever make sense because we can not keep the law we thought we were but that is mans idea of keeping the law. Well have a good day everyone its snowing again here. |
