You are not logged in.
I am going to quote Dr. Sturges post on another thread to this thread and then quote a site about how to interpret the Bible that I believe he violates, by not using logic and reason, and I mean that as no insult, but responding to what he claims is "my problem".
Bob,
Part of your problem is your insistence on a rigid definition of “promise” and “covenant.” Generally, a human promise tends to be informal. The words “vow” and “covenant” are more formal. In a number instances in the Bible, God makes promises or even a covenant and does not use the specific terms. In a number of times “everlasting covenant” is used for a covenant where there is no record of a blood sacrifice. Which can only indicate a connection to “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
There is no question in my mind but that there was an agreement made within the Godhead as to their response to sin. The issue in the Great Controversy is not just what happens on this earth, but the vindication of God, and the influence of events on the whole universe. God has repeatedly in the Bible spoken of “My Covenant” (52 times) yet this term is applied in a variety of situations. “Everlasting Covenant” is equated with “My Covenant” in Genesis 17.
There are some instances where “everlasting covenant” applies to covenants between God and man. Yet one must understand that in each of these instances, the Divine/human covenant has no meaning apart from the agreement/plan made before Creation. My last post points out the four features of the primordial covenant, concisely stated in Genesis 3:15.
About Galatians 3:18: It looks to me that the “inheritance” given to Abraham was the Abrahamic Covenant, which included a son, and the promise of land. There are other details, including the Messiah in his line of descendants (Galatians 3:16).
What is the “law” in verse 18? The SDA pioneers believed it to be the ceremonial law. E.J. Waggoner believed it to be the moral law. There are many now who believe it was both laws. I don’t think you and I are going to solve that problem! Verse 18 is just saying that the inheritance cannot be “earned” by law, but comes only by grace or “promise” (or covenant can be used here)
There is language in Galatians 3 that is not always easy to sort out. One has to understand the message of the Bible in other passages to put it together.
I read the list of verses with “Everlasting Covenant” and have no problem with any of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Now read this article, especially about logic and reason's place in the interpreting of difficult passages:
http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com … the-bible/
Where readers of the Bible do such things as interpreting the Law as spliting it up to get to the "Ceremonial Law" that was nailed to the Cross. This when the passage and other texts SCREAM another answer, Notice:
Exodus 34:28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
and in the NT,
2 Cor 3:7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
In both of the texts above the authors stop and reiterate what they mean, while Dr. Sturges does the gyrations to get to another meaning. No disrespect intended, Hubb.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-20-11 4:20 pm)
Offline
Note the trap that Dr. Sturges puts himself in by trying to save the tSDA position by one of it's significant scholars, but most modern day scholars will agree the split of the Covenant or Law, into Civil, Ceremonial and Moral is unbiblical. Speak to most Rabbis to determine what they see as the Law, they will state it is the whole 613 tenets or laws of The Law, including the Decalogue. Without this resolution, we are talking past each other, Hubb, arriving at different salvific answers !!!
See also the separate and specific mentioning several places of the Sabbath Covenant(calling it a separate Covenant on occasion). :
1. Ex 34:28
2. Lev 23
3. 2 Cor 3:7
This is obvious where eisegesis gyrations are needed when the meaning is obvious. What is amazing that in the 1850s Seventh day Baptists and Seventh day Adventists believe that the rest of Christendom is in error and compare the seriousness of their reasoning to the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL event and base the infant denominations on the premise.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-20-11 4:17 pm)
Offline
Bob,
I proposed several very specific arguments -- none of which you answered to.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Be glad to review what you are referring to. Thanks.
Offline
Bob, you copied my post, but made no response to it.
Part of your problem is your insistence on a rigid definition of “promise” and “covenant.” Generally, a human promise tends to be informal. The words “vow” and “covenant” are more formal. In a number instances in the Bible, God makes promises or even a covenant and does not use the specific terms. In a number of times “everlasting covenant” is used for a covenant where there is no record of a blood sacrifice. Which can only indicate a connection to “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
If God makes a covenant, but there is no ratification ceremony, there are only TWO covenants of God ratified by blood -- the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and the sinai covenant which was broken in 46 days.
There is no question in my mind but that there was an agreement made within the Godhead as to their response to sin. The issue in the Great Controversy is not just what happens on this earth, but the vindication of God, and the influence of events on the whole universe. God has repeatedly in the Bible spoken of “My Covenant” (52 times) yet this term is applied in a variety of situations. “Everlasting Covenant” is equated with “My Covenant” in Genesis 17. Do you deny that there was an agreement made in heaven before the foundation of the world -- before Creation? What is the significance of "My Covenant?"
There are some instances where “everlasting covenant” applies to covenants between God and man. Yet one must understand that in each of these instances, the Divine/human covenant has no meaning apart from the agreement/plan made before Creation. My last post points out the four features of the primordial covenant, concisely stated in Genesis 3:15. What do you see in the covenant of Genesis 3:15?
About Galatians 3:18: It looks to me that the “inheritance” given to Abraham was the Abrahamic Covenant, which included a son, and the promise of land. There are other details, including the Messiah in his line of descendants (Galatians 3:16).
What is the “law” in verse 18? The SDA pioneers believed it to be the ceremonial law. E.J. Waggoner believed it to be the moral law. There are many now who believe it was both laws. I don’t think you and I are going to solve that problem! Verse 18 is just saying that the inheritance cannot be “earned” by law, but comes only by grace or “promise” (or covenant can be used here) Galatians 3:18 is to contrast an inheritance "earned" with an inheritance "given" by promise.
There is language in Galatians 3 that is not always easy to sort out. One has to understand the message of the Bible in other passages to put it together.
I read the list of verses with “Everlasting Covenant” and have no problem with any of them. What were you trying to say with that list of texts?
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, your questions in read, my response in black:
1. In a number of times “everlasting covenant” is used for a covenant where there is no record of a blood sacrifice. Which can only indicate a connection to “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
If God makes a covenant, but there is no ratification ceremony, there are only TWO covenants of God ratified by blood -- the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and the sinai covenant which was broken in 46 days.
Hubb, why the obsession with this 46 days? The ratified one it the one that didn't get smashed!! Where do you get that all uses of the word Covenant have to be ratified with blood?
2.Do you deny that there was an agreement made in heaven before the foundation of the world -- before Creation? What is the significance of "My Covenant?".
The Plan of Salvation was made before the time that God created man, knowing what would happen, THE FALL. But the Bible doesn't obsess over a Father and Son written agreement looking out for believer's Salvation mentioned in the Bible numerous times but the Salvation Plan only which has as main components:
A. The Abrahamic Promise(Sometimes call covenant but in Galatians Paul tries not to not confuse the reader with the word covenant and the word promise) So why not use the Biblical tern, God does when he says without the Promise, their could be no New Covenant and involvement of the Gentiles?
B.. Old Covenant - a picture or "dry run" for the Everlasting Covenant, the New Covenant, the Old became obsolete, not abolished, but archived for teaching, and learning about "the first have of the "ballgame".
C. New Covenant - This is where the Salvation is by Faith, which when accepted empowers the Believer to Good Deeds. The fruits of a true New Covenant Believer, eh?? No Fruit, it shows no Holy Spirit within the individual.
3.What do you see in the covenant of Genesis 3:15?.
See response to #2. It talks about the battle between Satan and the Believers having a promise of redemption, a peek at the Plan of Salvation.
4. Galatians 3:18 is to contrast an inheritance "earned" with an inheritance "given" by promise..
The Plan of Salvation gives a solution to sin but is seen in the Believer that has faith. If not by faith, God will say"Depart from me I never knew you at the Judgement Day.
5. What were you trying to say with that list of texts?.
Notice all everlasting tags do not show a conclusion, some are conditional and were not everlasting when the individuals "failed in their unbelief." The Old Covenant, including the Decalogue are not Transcovenental. The New Covenant has "Better Promises", including Christ's Law as the behavioral standard that will be exhibited if the individual is truly "indwelt" with the Spirit.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-21-11 12:43 pm)
Offline
Bob,
Actually, I don't care if it was 46 days or another number. It is just that Exodus 24 speaks of Moses and Joshua being called into the mount and waiting for six days. Then Moses was called into the cloud and communed with God for 40 days and forty nights. Exodus chapters 29-31 list a number of things that God instructed Moses to do. Exodus 32 tells of Moses and Joshua coming down from the mount and finding the worship of the golden calf at the base of Sinai, and tells of the consequences and of Moses beginning intercession for the people.
Hebrews 9:22 states that forgiveness of sin comes (mostly) through the shedding of blood.
I see that you agree with a "Plan of Salvation" being made before Creation. It might be worthwhile to carefully read Genesis 3:15 and list the different features of What God did at that time.
About A., B., C -- "A" is incomplete. God presented the covenant to Abraham seven times. It was a process not an event. The word "Covenant" is used a number of times.
"B" is speculative. You would have to write a lengthy paper with lots of documentation to make this statement, which I think is not possible.
"C" I assume that you equate the New Covenant with the Plan of Salvation before the foundation of the world. This is not bad, but leaves out much supporting material, and requires a stretch for application.
Your answer to Galatians 3:18 does not really fit the verse. You do not explain the place of "law" and "promise" in this verse.
Note #5 can only touch on the meanings and use of the term "Everlasting Covenant"
Comment: Bob, I appreciate your thoughtful answers, even though we still see things differently. In all kindness, I would say that it is very difficult to discuss the covenant in a forum. You and I both have a problem in completely expressing what we want to say. This is one reason that I am spending more time on the website, rather that on forums. In fact you might consider your own website to completely express your belief in NCT. A Domain name costs $10 - $20 per year, and a hosting plan can be found for as low as $5.00 per month. There is still the need to build the website and to add material to it as needed. You might find a high school kid who will help you ???
.......................................................
Incidentally, I can write to the forum only if I am logged in. However, this program says that I don't have permission to do a preview (even if I am logged in).
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Dr. Sturges has a couple of times told me to dissect Genesis 3: 15 in light of it's part and understand of the Plan of Salvation. Since I am more trusting that Dr. Sturges of nonSDA study sources (until I get burnted with a bad interpretation), I will use John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, since neither He nor I are Scholars, maybe we see something from this trusted scholar. :
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/
Genesis 3:15
Ver. 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,.... Between whom there had been so much familiarity, not only while they had the preceding discourse together, but before; for it is conjectured by some {y}, that she took a particular liking to that creature, and was delighted with it, and laid it perhaps in her bosom, adorned her neck with its windings, or made it a bracelet for her arms; and being a peculiar favourite, the devil made choice of it as his instrument to deceive her; but now being beguiled hereby, she conceived an antipathy against it, and which is become natural between the serpent and man; man abhors the sight of a serpent, and the serpent the sight of man; and the spittle of a man and the gall of a serpent are poison to each other; and this antipathy is observed to be stronger in the female sex: and this was not only true of the particular serpent that deceived Eve, and of the particular woman, Eve, deceived by him, but of every serpent and of every woman in successive ages; and is also true of Satan and the church of God in all ages, between whom there is an implacable and an irreconcilable hatred, and a perpetual war:
Offline
continued from above source:
and between thy seed and her seed; the posterity of Eve, mankind, and the production of serpents, between whom the antipathy still continues, and mystically the evil angels and also wicked men called serpents; and a generation of vipers on the one hand, and the people of God on the other, the seed of the church; the latter of which are hated and persecuted by the former, and so it has been ever since this affair happened: and especially by the seed of the woman may be meant the Messiah; the word "seed" sometimes signifying a single person, Ge 4:25 and particularly Christ, Ga 3:16 and he may with great propriety be so called, because he was made of a woman and not begotten by man; and who assumed not an human person, but an human nature, which is called the "holy thing", and the "seed of Abraham", as here the "seed of the woman", as well as it expresses the truth of his incarnation and the reality of his being man; and who as he has been implacably hated by Satan and his angels, and by wicked men, so he has opposed himself to all them that hate and persecute his people:
Offline
continued from above source:
it shall bruise thy head; the head of a serpent creeping on the ground is easily crushed and bruised, of which it is sensible, and therefore it is careful to hide and cover it. In the mystical sense, "it", or "he, Hu", which is one of the names of God, Ps 102:27 and here of the Messiah, the eminent seed of the woman, should bruise the head of the old serpent the devil, that is, destroy him and all his principalities and powers, break and confound all his schemes, and ruin all his works, crush his whole empire, strip him of his authority and sovereignty, and particularly of his power over death, and his tyranny over the bodies and souls of men; all which was done by Christ, when he became incarnate and suffered and died, Heb 2:14
Offline
Continued from above source:
And thou shall bruise his heel; the heel of a man being what the serpent can most easily come at, as at the heels of horses which it bites, Ge 49:17 and which agrees with that insidious creature, as Aristotle {z} describes it: this, as it refers to the devil, may relate to the persecutions of the members of Christ on earth, instigated by Satan, or to some slight trouble he should receive from him in the days of his flesh, by his temptations in the wilderness, and agony with him in the garden; or rather by the heel of Christ is meant his human nature, which is his inferior and lowest nature, and who was in it frequently exposed to the insults, temptations, and persecutions of Satan, and was at last brought to a painful and accursed death; though by dying he got an entire victory over him and all his enemies, and obtained salvation for his people. The Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase this passage of the days of the Messiah, and of health and salvation in them: what is here delivered out in a way of threatening to the serpent the devil, carries in it a kind intimation of grace and good will to fallen man, and laid a foundation for hope of salvation and happiness: reference seems to be had to this passage in Ps 40:7 "in the volume", in the first roll, en kefalidi, as in the Greek version, at the head, in the beginning "of the book, it is written of me, to do thy will, O my God."
Offline
Well, Hubb, you want to add anything to John Gill's comments, or did he do pretty well. I thought he got a little risqué with his specualation of Eve even "adorning" herself with the serpent. Do you think he went too far describing the serpent and Eve's relationship?
Last edited by bob_2 (07-22-11 12:23 am)
Offline
Bob,
Only one question: Do you believe what he wrote?
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, from what I had heard, John Gill is a Dispensational and when around items like that, steer clear or learn more about him. I thought some was speculation, but the bulk of it does fairly well.
Offline
Bob,
John Gill presents a rather "unique" view of Genesis 3:15. I still do not know what you believe, and that was what I was mainly interested in.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, the program here ate a detailed response back, and it will take a little time for me to redo it, or do it on Word and cut and past to complete without another "you are not logged in" when I'm typing in a reponse box that only would be there if I am logged in. Ryan this has happened several times:
HELP!!!
For the sake of time and argument, John Gill's response is close enough and I can show my position if you find something that i agree with you is debateable or wrong. I'll wait for you response.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-22-11 7:02 pm)
Offline
Bob,
About this program “eating” written works, I have learned to “select and copy” all written work several times before I try a preview. I was hoping that you would be willing to “go out on a limb” and discuss Genesis 3:15. It is easy to critique a proposal, and hard to make the proposal in the first place. Lets start here:
14 “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:14-15, KJV).
The instruction had been “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Obviously, Adam and Eve did not die that day. However, note that God responded promptly to an emergency. Before the sun set that day, He presented the covenant to Adam and Eve. And what He did was significant for the entire human race.
The covenant is presented as a conversation with the serpent. This was a serpent that “talked.” Now serpents cannot talk. But Satan, using the serpent as a medium, can and did talk with Eve. (Satan is still called “that old serpent” in Revelation 12). So, while the serpent is address, the conversation is directed at Satan, and intended to be heard also by Adam and Eve.
After sin, the nature of man became “sinful” and he had no power to resist Satan. God changed that and “put enmity” between Satan and the whole human race (through the woman and her seed). By the action and initiative of God, He wrote again the law in their hearts – the New Covenant.
God had no authority to do this. Satan had taken over Adam’s dominion of the earth. But God still “owned” the earth as Creator. In prolepsis, in the authority of the promised Cross of Christ, God “bought back” the whole human race. Men were given a new probation, and put within reach of the grace of God.
Why did not God deal immediately with sin and Satan? From EGW we learn that this earth is a demonstration of the effects of sin for the entire universe. And Satan must demonstrate the full effects of sin so that there is no question in the mind of any intelligent being that God is merciful and just.
To do this, the Redeemer must suffer his “heel to be bruised.” Eventually the head of the serpent will be “bruised,” crushed, or the serpent killed. Sin and sinners will be destroyed and all that was lost in Eden restored.
This is how I understand it. It is quite different from what John Gill wrote.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb said above:
After sin, the nature of man became “sinful” and he had no power to resist Satan. God changed that and “put enmity” between Satan and the whole human race (through the woman and her seed). By the action and initiative of God, He wrote again the law in their hearts – the New Covenant.
As you make this statement it is like I was having an out fo body experience since it was so detached from the topic. Who said "he had no power to resist him." If true the Devil is rubbing his hands together with joy. God has to help his poor created being to save him. Is that what you believe Dr. Sturges? Yes, man was given a conscience but if Adam could resist the first time why not the second?? The last sentence of above is totally not there, and not Biblical. WOW!! Where do you get that "He wrote again the law in their hearts - the New Covenant." ?It is totally not therer and is of your own fabrication!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by bob_2 (07-22-11 9:50 pm)
Offline
Bob,
Just a little surprised at your reaction. Here are the verses:
34 "Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." John 8:34 (NIV)
16 "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?" Romans 6:16 (NIV)
19 "They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him." 2 Peter 2:19 (NIV)
Sinless Adam could resist sin before he sinned, but he lost that ability after he sinned. His nature had become depraved and sinful. Sinful man can keep the law on a superficial basis, enough to keep out of jail. But he cannot change his motives. He cannot keep the law from the heart without the grace of God.
When God "put" "enmity" between the serpent (Satan) and the woman and her seed, this was the supernatural action of grace. Something that sinful man could not do for himself. That "enmity" against Satan was a "conscience," the law written in his heart.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, I agree that man inherited Adam's sin. That could not be removed without a Savior which is what the New Covenant did. It brings the Savior to the earth, that if you believe by faith in His salvational gift, and "Go and sin no more" , because there is still Christ's Law the Christian must keep, with the Holy Spirit's empowerment. The post- Gospel period does not suggest that the the Christian can not overcome his sins or just the Original Sin of Adam, but Christ covers the past and the Christian walk has to be a cooperative effort to "run the good race" and to "fight the good fight". It describes a cooperative effort, not a retention of the Old Covenant Law. Notice Col 2:16, 17, then
Hebrews 10: 19,20:
19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body
His Flesh fulfilled the Old and ushered in the New.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-23-11 2:21 pm)
Offline
@bob_2:Yes, man was given a conscience but if Adam could resist the first time why not the second??
As I read this post of sinful man and the first adam and the second of adam of Jesus. " The nature of Christ" popped up in my mind. So I decided to research Desmond Ford and Tom Norris and Marshall Grosboll etc etc. Are very close together on this subject. The question is, what Tom has to say about "the Nature of Christ" This is very very interesting.
The Nature of Christ (EVERYONE READ THIS...PLEASE)
Seventh-Day Adventists/The Nature of Christ (EVERYONE READ THIS...PLEASE)
Advertisement
Expert: Tom Norris - 11/27/2007
Question
QUESTION: Hi Tom,
I just finished reading your reply on a question about The Nature of Christ (10/24/2007). While it does not surprise me a bit, because you are staunch Desmond Ford follower, but I completely reject your ‘understanding’ that Jesus had Adam’s nature BEFORE he fell and sinned. And here is why this idea is rejected in both the Bible and SOP:
1. Before going to Scripture and the S.O.P. – If Jesus took the same nature as Adam BEFORE his fall, then it would have been impossible for Jesus to die. Adam was not subject to death – unless he sinned!!! Jesus did not sin, so therefore (like Adam before his fall) was not subject to death. I will repeat it – Adam could not die unless he fell into sin. If Jesus had the same nature as Adam BEFORE his fall then it would also be impossible for Jesus to die because He never sinned.
2. The Scriptures say:
a. "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3) – This is not Adams sinless nature!
b. "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham" (Hebrews 2:16).(Abraham had a nature like you and I do – a fallen nature but yet it says Christ took Abrahams nature – a fallen nature.)
c. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same" (Hebrews 2:14) - (This is not Adams unfallen nature either)
d. "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God" (Hebrews 2:17). (Jesus was made like his brethren…not Adam before the fall.)
e. "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (Hebrews 2:11) - (He (Jesus-the one who is the sanctifier) and they (the believers, the human race-who are sanctified) are one. They are the same and Jesus is not ashamed of us and to call us His brethren.)
3. The Spirit of Prophecy – the quotes you provided as ‘proof’ of Christs unfallen nature are not supporting this damnable idea at all. Christ partook of our (fallen) nature but did not yield to any sin. For Christ to be born with a fallen nature does not mean that he has sin. If you believe that - then you are buying into the Catholic abominable teaching of ‘original sin’, which there is no such teaching in the Bible.
Ellen White agrees with the Bible (and not Des Ford)
My Life Today p. 161.
"Jesus took human nature, passing through infancy, childhood, and youth, that He might know how to sympathize with all and leave an example for all children and youth. He is acquainted with the temptations and weaknesses of children.” – (How could Jesus sympathize with us if he had an unfallen nature? The fact is He couldn’t!)
God’s Amazing Grace, pg. 165
“What a sight was this for Heaven to look upon! Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition.” – (plain and simple –“took our nature in its deteriorated condition”)
Faith I Live By, pg. 74
“Christ did not make-believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature.”
Peter's Council to Parents. p.24
"Satan claimed that it was impossible for human beings to keep God's law. In order to prove the falsity of this claim, Christ left His high command, took upon Himself the nature of man, and came to the earth to stand at the head of the fallen race, in order to show that humanity could withstand the temptations of Satan. On this earth He worked out the problem how to live in accordance with God's standard of right. BEARING OUR NATURE, He was true to God's standard of righteousness, gaining the victory over Satan. He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet He was without sin." – (emphasis mine – it plainly says about Jesus, “bearing OUR nature”)
AND THIS NEXT QUOTE IS SO PLAIN IT NEEDS NO COMMENT
Selected Messages vol.1, pg. 256
"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its FALLEN CONDITION, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin." (emphasis mine)
And in finishing, Ellen White, in Desire of Ages, considers the idea of Jesus taking Adams unfallen nature and completely rejects it.
Consider the follow two quotes: Desire of Ages, pg. 49
“It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.”
Also from Desire of Ages, pg. 117
“Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.”
Brother Tom, my suggestion is to study the Bible without Desmond Ford’s preconceived ideology. Stop reading the ‘Questions on Doctrine’ book and 'Movement of Destiny'. Get back to the truth. These statements are so plain and clear I will be surprised (and saddened) to hear you ignore them.
I would encourage a response to these quotes. I will await your response to these statements.
May God bless you in your studies,
David R.
ANSWER: David, thanks for your follow up. It is apparent that you support Traditional Adventism. While this may seem like a worthwhile position that can be defended, I can assure you that it will not hold up. TA cannot be credibly defended by anyone, it is full of error, myth, and false doctrine, and this point about the Nature of Christ is no exception.
Moreover, any position that recommends itself by censorship, pointing out what books must not to read, is very suspect. I make it a practice to read all sides of every position so as to better understand the issues. This is the preferred method to find truth, not censorship and historical revisionism.
For the record, the facts do not support Froom's claim in Movement of Destiny that the Nature of Christ was part of the 1888 debate. It was not. Nor is Weiland and Short's agreement with this view correct. It is an absurd theory that is refuted by the facts.
http://gospel-herald.com/wieland/brief% … k_s202.htm
The SDA Church needs to repudiate Movement of Destiny, even as the Weiland and Short crowd must also repudiate their nonsense about Waggoner and Jones discovering a better Gospel than Luther and Christ having a post fall, sinful nature. 1888 was about the law and the Gospel, as well as the Two Covenants. The Nature of Christ was not part of the debate.
As for your attack on Dr. Ford, it is unwarranted and unfair. Dr. Ford is a world-class Protestant theologian, an expert on Adventist history, doctrine, and prophecy. He correctly understands the Gospel as well as Christology and Historic Adventism. He was correct to stand up at Glacier View and declare that the IJ is not part of the Three Angels Messages as many had been incorrectly taught.
Dr. Ford was also correct to promote the Protestant version of the Gospel as well as refute those that claimed that the IJ was the judgment of Rev 14:7. Ellen White agrees with Dr. Ford about the Gospel and the Judgment-- and so too do I.
Consequently, it is the Traditional SDA's that will have to admit that they are wrong about the definition of the Gospel and the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message--not Dr. Ford.
So there is no reason to b
Last edited by l_miller (10-29-11 6:57 pm)
Offline
I_Miller,
There are several things that I would like to address in your post. But let us start here. Romans 8:3 says that Jesus came to this earth "in the likeness of sinful flesh." Ellen white says that he had diminished "moral worth" meaning that He had reduced ability to face temptation as compared to sinless Adam. (So far so good)
I had a rather extensive interchange with an 1888msc follower who interpreted this that Christ also had guilt. I cannot believe that, but would like your opinion.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
From the same source I used above:
Exodus 31:13 Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy
Purpose of the Sabbath is that YOU MAY KNOW GOD MAKES YOU HOLY
So if I say the Promised Land is salvation ...I may be overstating my point but I assure you I understand that Israel is the Promised Land yet.....
It is not the ultimate intent of God more than what it stands for
..... it is but an earthly representation of something heavenly, that being Eternal Life in the Kingdom of GodOF COURSE JESUS IS NOT THE SABBATH
THE SABBATH IS A PALE REPRESENTATION OF JESUS
Physical rest on an earthly day is not the point
Spiritual rest in Christ is what the whole thing is about
That's why its so sad that people get caught up in believing God is concerned with a day to such a degree that they don't even understand the True meaning of the Sabbath
Last edited by bob_2 (11-23-11 9:25 pm)
Offline
bob2, are you looking for a donation? Sorry, I ain't got it.
Offline
Post deleted by Admin. l_miller: I'm fine with you posting to Zaspel's website, like you did in your previous post, but I have deleted your post that solicits donations for him. This forum doesn't exist to solicit donations for other organizations or ministries.
Offline