Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 6:01 pm:

---

quote:

Jeremy wrote---

---

quote:

That is exactly what I have been trying to point out many times on this forum! The SDAs teach (including in their official belief book) that Jesus ceased to exist when He died--in other words, there was a point in time when Jesus Christ did not exist. That is a denial of His deity. Another consequence of this teaching is that the "resurrected" Christ is really just a new creation of God. In other words, the Jesus that died on the Cross no longer exists--if He ceased to exist, the "resurrection" would merely be a new creation of a "new" Jesus. It denies the Resurrection.

At the same time, they also teach the only other option (since EGW taught both, of course ;-))--that His "divinity" lived on and his humanity died. But this is Gnosticism and antichrist--separating his humanity and divinity and basically making him two persons. (Of course, they also teach this Gnostic teaching besides just at His death, as I talked about in this post.) This option also denies the resurrection of Christ, and makes the "human part" of Him a new creation--a different person.

---

I don't know how quite to explain it, but I think this is splitting things a bit too far. For example (and please don't let this sidetrack your present discussion here), Calvin taught limited atonement, but the Bible has verses which clearly speak of full atonement. Maintaining a strict and very detailed explanatory view in his case meant that he had to either ignore certain texts, or explain them in such a way as to maintain his theory. We all do this, but as I wrote in this post, I think that when we feel we must figure out a smooth & detailed explanation, we end up having to discard certain texts, and in so doing we miss out on something wonderful, even if it is paradoxical. (Again this is just an example... if you disagree on Calvin's idea, please go to that linked thread and we'll discuss it there... I don't want to carry folks off topic).

In a similar way, I don't think it's good to break down "resurrection" and "death" too much. What I mean is that "resurrection" means life from death. Something was dead, and it has been brought back to life. The detailed explanation you spoke of seems to argue that there can be no resurrection if there is true death---death can only be partial, because what is totally dead cannot be resurrected (then it would be re-creation, you argue). While this makes sense, at the same time, if we instead allow the words to mean what they say (death, resurrection), the incredible awe of God and impact of what He is capable of comes to light. In other words, He is God---He can do it. Because He is God, He can bring life back from death. The view you wrote of might seem to limit what God is able to do because it focuses rather on our own souls, implying that once they totally die, they cannot be brought back even by God.

Of course, we could get crazy and ask if God can bring back something that He has destroyed---it's the old semi-joking question, "Can God make a hot dog so big that He can't eat it?" But we don't have to go there, because "death" is not always a judgment from God. Still, we'll find ourselves splitting theological hairs asking "how much" of death is "death", how "dead" the "dead" really are... and I think when we go into that kind of territory, we lose sight of God.

---

---

quote:

Ramone,
Since you brought up the Calvinist argument in your above post, I cannot resist but post an article that I just ran across that very honestly deals with the paradoxes of scripture regarding election and free-will. The Bible teaches both human responsibility for choices
made as well as God's sovereignty. This article is excellent in forcing both sides of the argument to examine all texts related to this subject. In other words, the Calvinist cannot ignore verses that seem to teach that man makes choices, and the Arminians cannot ignore the texts that teach God is sovereign. Anyway, this is one of the best articles I have seen on this subject, and deals with the apparent paradox in a Biblical way. Here is the link:

http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/CalvinismArminianism.htm Here is an excerpt:

Who Gets the Credit for
Your Decision for Christ:
The Evangelist, You or God?

How to Evangelize with Confidence
In God's Power to Change Sinners

By Greg Gibson

Two identical twins visit the same church service. They hear the same gospel message. One twin believes on Christ, is baptized, and follows Him. The other twin scoffs at the gospel, and continues in unbelief and sin.

Why did one twin receive Christ, but the other reject Him? (cf. Jacob & Esau, Rom. 9:11-13.) Who gets the credit for the one twin's decision: The evangelist, the hearer, or God? Or, to ask the question another way, who made the difference in conversion: The evangelist, the hearer, or God? Read more by clicking on the link.

There is also an interesting section showing how the Roman Catholic Council of Trent not only pronounced anathema on Luther and Calvin for the doctrine of Justification by faith alone, but this same council also pronounced anathema on these and other Reformers, and all who hold the doctrine that God is the sole agent in salvation. Ellen White, and many evangelical churches, have also condemned this doctrine of the Reformers:

Many Protestants Believe the
Jesuit-Romanist View of Free Will
(The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, The Sixth Session: Justification)

Canon IV. If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, no-wise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema." Canon V. If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema."

These are strong statements against the Reformed faith made by the RCC, but similar statements have been made in evangelical churches, and say nothing of what the Maxwellian SDAs are saying about this doctrine on HS.

Stan

---

---

quote:

Hi Stan---

Thanks for the article. Let's move responses about this back to the "Calvinism" thread.

Dealing with predestination is a good example, as you noted, of ignoring some texts in order to maintain a belief system---which is what I cited the Calvinist limited atonement as an example of. Since I picked that belief, it's only fair that you mentioned another one that Calvin attempted to deal with more squarely than some others.

The point I attempted to make, however, is easily lost if one is passionate about Calvinism (and if one has to sort their way through my own inadequate explanations!). Calvin's belief was just one example of what we all do---we want to make a detailed systematic theology that explains nearly everything, and in so doing, we ignore things that are obvious.

So let's call it even (for the sake of this thread and what everyone else was discussing) and let's move our responses back to the Calvinism thread.

I brought the example up in response to a detailed picking apart of which parts of Jesus actually died on the Cross and which parts didn't, and which parts were resurrected and which parts of Him continued living. I sought a return to the simple and powerful force behind the simple words of Scripture. Also, I suggested that God is God, and that perhaps our focus on weakening the meaning of "death" suggests that we may not believe it's possible for Him to resurrect what has died. (The body seems to be something we allow that He can resurrect, but if the soul is said to be resurrected, we could have problems letting God be able to do that, perhaps because it might be beyond Him?)

--Ramone

---