| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3305
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 5:39 pm: |     |
Colleen,
SDA/EGW actually teach that Jesus did not use His omniscience, that He only "knew" things such as people's thoughts by "the Holy Spirit," as a prophet, just like how Ellen knew people's thoughts, etc. Ugh! Actually, Biblical prophets didn't even claim to know people's thoughts, as far as I know.
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3306
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 6:24 pm: | |
For a good overview on the SDA's heretical Christology and theory of kenosis, see Edward Heppenstall's book The Man Who Is God: A Study of the Person and Nature of Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man, available for free online in its entirety here: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/mangod/index.htm
It should be entitled The Man Who Was Not God In Any Sense Of The Word, because basically, from the parts I saw awhile back, he "proves" from Ellen White that Jesus had no divinity whatsoever while on earth.
Here's a quote from his chapter "The Kenosis Doctrine":
quote:Christ could not abandon any of His attributes without losing His deity. However, it follows from the very nature of the kenosis that He could surrender the active use of certain attributes. In surrendering His right and claim to equality with God, He relinquished the use and display of those attributes that would have prevented His living as we live.
That is just a bunch of nonsensical double-talk and semantics. They have to say He did not "abandon" His attributes (even though they actually believe He did, including His omnipresense forever), just so they can say (disingenuously) that He was still "divine" while on earth.
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3307
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 6:36 pm: | |
Colleen,
See this chapter, especially the section "1. Jesus Was Not Omniscient": http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/mangod/manch5.htm
Here are some excerpts:
quote:Christ tells nothing of the details of His pre-existent state when He created the world. His knowledge is from the Old Testament Scriptures.
[...]
He was taught by the Father: "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things" (chap. 8:28).
Christ, in His life on earth made no plans for Himself. He accepted God's plans for Him, and day by day the Father unfolded His plans.—WHITE, The Ministry of Healing, p. 479.
In the sanctuary of the home, Jesus received His education, not merely from His parents, but from His heavenly Father. As He grew older, God opened to Him more and more of the great work before Him.—The SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, on Luke 2:40, 52, p. 1117.
Deity, by its very nature, can read the future. Jesus was content to leave "the times and seasons" in the hands of His Father and be guided by Him according to each day's needs. He assured His disciples, "As I hear, I .judge" (John 5:30). "For I have not spoken of myself" (chap. 12:49).
An omniscient Son of God would not need revelation from the Father and the Holy Spirit. If He had the full knowledge of all things within Himself, He would know what He ought to do by His own inner light and power. But He was taught by His Father through the Holy Spirit and the angels.
[...]
However, Jesus often had a knowledge that went far beyond that which the normal man possessed. Undoubtedly this came from the Father and the Holy Spirit. He knew what was in man (Matt. 9:4; John 2:24, 25). He was fully aware of His coming death and the meaning of it, and that He must rise again (Matt. 16:2 1; 17:22, 23; 20:18, 19; John 12:24). He knew that Judas would betray Him (Luke 22:2 1); and He knew when the time for His crucifixion had come (John 12:23, 27; 13:1). He knew where to find fish when expert fishermen did not. All these things were given to Him in the same way that such knowledge and truth were given to the prophets. "For God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him" (John 3:34).
Christ lived His life on earth by faith and not by an infallible knowledge. He lived in and from His human nature and consciousness, dependent on the Holy Spirit, as a true Christian would depend on Him. Daily the Holy Spirit communicated the will of God to Him.
This made me so angry: "An omniscient Son of God would not need revelation from the Father and the Holy Spirit."
Then that's why you should say "to hell with Ellen White" (as Paul did in Galatians 1) and accept that Jesus was the omniscient Son of God as the Bible says instead of holding onto the satanic false prophetess, Mr.!!!
Don't you just love his section headings?
"1. Jesus Was Not Omniscient"
"2. Jesus Was Not Omnipresent"
"3. Jesus Was Not Omnipotent"
"The Man Who Is God"???
Riiight. What a joke!
Arghh...! I better go cool off now. Hehe.
Jeremy
(Message edited by jeremy on August 03, 2010) |
Jrt
Registered user
Username: Jrt
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 10:59 pm: | |
Jeremy,
What you posted made me incredibly angry, too.
In post 3306 where you quote Christ couldn't abandon any of His attributes without losing His divinity ... and then the last statement in that quote are totally at odds with each other. It is so similar to EGW ... where a seemingly true statement is given and then a heretical one and both are deemed true - causing confusion.
Arghh, is right.
Keri |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 - 3:20 am: | |
Thank you all for your comments.
This once again indicates to me that the Christ of Adventism is not the Christ of the Bible. Voluntarily chosing not to use divine attributes is not the same as laying them down in such a way as to no longer have them.
Incidentally, if Jesus is no longer omnipresent, what did he mean by the following: ?
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", and
"Behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age."
Adrian |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11520
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 - 3:18 pm: | |
Jeremy THANK YOU. These are incredibly on target and timely for me...you have just clarified for me WHY I and all those I knew related to Jesus as if He were insipid, weak, subservient, and pathetic--all while supposedly being my Example. Of what, I want to say? Of how to be pathetic, weak, and claiming deity while being essentially a "goody two shoes" who managed to do what I kept failing to do?
Yup--I feel the anger coming on...
Thanks for the quotes!
Adrian--we didn't really know what to do with that. I remember that I didn't really try to juxtapose all the conflicting information, but the whole, overall effect on me and my life was that EVERYTHING God said was "conditional".
Sure, He'd never leave me nor forsake me, but I could walk away from Him--perhaps even accidentally or without initially intending to. Sure, He'd never leave me nor forsake me—as long as I obeyed the commandments, stayed out of movie theaters (the guardian angels would wait outside), resisted eating meat and drinking coffee. Sure, He'd never leave me nor forsake me—if I lived my life praying continually to avoid sin.
And sure, He'd be wherever two or three were gathered in His name...but it wouldn't really be HIM. Since He couldn't literally be there, it would be the Holy Spirit who'd be His stand-in and "spiritually" (whatever that meant) connect us with Jesus who was in heaven. After all, we were taught that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit because He was leaving, and since He couldn't be everywhere at once, the Holy Spirit would do that "omnipresence thing" in His place. It was sorta like "Jesus is here by proxy..."
Poor Jesus--eternally stuck in a physical body. What a sacrifice! He gave up part of his divine right...
I'm sorry for sounding cynical. Jeremy, those quotes were just so timely and on target.
Colleen |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11521
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 - 3:42 pm: | |
I just read the chapter linked above...yup—the same crazy-making explanations that I heard growing up. Heppenstall just makes some of those understandings extremely clear.
One of the things that elicits the greatest anger, over all, is our saying on occasion that the Adventist Jesus isn't the Jesus of Scripture—he isn't the REAL Jesus.
But that assertion is true. The REAL Jesus never stopped holding the universe together in Himself (Col 1:17), even while He was dead. He has not given up any attribute of Deity.
Once again, the SDAs lack of belief in "spirit" completely messes with their possible ability to understand spiritual things.
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3309
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 - 5:36 pm: | |
I just want to point out one more thing here and that is that the above heresies, that are outlined in Heppenstall's book, are not even possible if you realize that God is outside of time and cannot change. Thus the SDAs deny God's immutability (which is one of His eternal, incommunicable attributes), and of course they also teach that He is not outside of time (thus changing the definition of "eternity").
If God is immutable and outside of time, then He can't "get rid of" His omnipresence/omniscience/omnipotence, etc., just because He becomes a man and lives on earth. Jesus was still outside of time and ruling from Heaven. He was still the sovereign God of the Universe and on the throne.
Of course, Adventism denies that Jesus was still on the throne, and teaches that a different god ("the Father") was on the throne (without "Jesus") for 33 years.
Jeremy
(Message edited by jeremy on August 07, 2010) |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 - 6:10 pm: | |
Two Jesus? One on the throne and one on earth?
Hec |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3310
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 - 6:12 pm: | |
No, one Jesus--who is an infinite, omnipresent spirit (God) who also took on humanity, including a physical human body, on earth.
I'm not talking about a physical throne, as in Adventism. 
Jeremy |
1john2v27nlt
Registered user
Username: 1john2v27nlt
Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 10:28 am: | |
Heppenstall's book was referenced in 'The Shaking of Adventism' by Geoffrey Paxton which I just recently reread. It also referred to Herbert Douglass' 1977 SS lesson quarterly titled 'Jesus, The Model Man'. Protests from ministers, theologians & laity included an open letter by Victor Kluzit calling upon the leaders to repent & Richard Nies wondering if Douglass's views on Christ 'border on blasphemy?' MY EYES were opened by this book which exposed the SDA position. I'm sure everything I read here & in Proclamation, Life Assurance Ministries, etc all prepped me for that.
The denomination has never to my knowledge recanted, renounced, nor repented. Herbert Douglass still actively posts on Adventist Today & Spectrum websites. I do not know if he himself has ever changed his position or theology.
How those who study cults can NOT label SDAs cults is beyond my comprehension.
Thank you everyone who post here. Some things are yet still way beyond my comprehension. I'm like 'what's wrong with that?!' sometimes; or 'are they hairsplitting?' But I am growing in understanding.
J9 |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3311
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 12:18 pm: | |
J9,
I have also been frustrated by that, but I am grateful that many in the apologetics community are beginning to see the deep, dark problems with Adventism and that it is, in fact, a cult.
Of course, as discussed on another thread, the reluctance of cult experts to label SDAism a cult started with Walter Martin being deceived by the SDAs and "changing" their status in the evangelical community. Before that time, evangelical Christians called SDAs a cult.
But I think the damage that Walter Martin did is beginning to be reversed, especially with the awesome work that ministries such as FAF/LAM have done in helping to educate those in counter-cult apologetics. And for that I praise God!
Jeremy
(Message edited by jeremy on August 08, 2010) |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 8:11 pm: | |
I look forward to the Rose Publishing release date of the pamphlet entitled, "10 Questions and Answers on Seventh-day Adventism" on October 1, 2010. Colleen Tinker is the main contributor.
Dennis Fischer |
Martinc
Registered user
Username: Martinc
Post Number: 155
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 8:54 pm: | |
Those are very revealing quotes, Jeremy, thanks for turning on the light.
This is very disturbing, Ellen's view of Jesus' divinity. His divine attributes were not immutible. We must conclude that if could abandon divinity like a costume, divinty did not belong to Him in the first place.
Contrast that with the Adventist view of the Law. The Law is immutible, never changing and eternal, and no part of it can be laid aside (this means the Ten Commandments only, of course). So, the 10 Commandments are more divine than the Son of God. We answer to them, not Him. His sacrifice really demonstrated weakness, not divinity. It's as if a real god wouldn't humble (degrade) himself that way. This is utterly sickening. Now, does anyone have a good prescription for nausea? |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3314
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2010 - 9:46 pm: | |
Wow, Martin, you're right! I didn't think about those comparisons to "the Law." More evidence that she put the Law above Jesus.
Also, great insight about "It's as if a real god wouldn't humble (degrade) himself that way."
Yes, so "Jesus" had to strip himself of divinity in order to live and die on this earth. But then, of course, what's the value in His sacrifice for our sins, if He was just a Spirit-filled man (oops, I mean a man separated completely from God on the cross!)?
Oh, I forgot Satan does the part of actually atoning for/blotting out our sins!!
Talk about a twisted religion!
Jeremy
(Message edited by jeremy on August 08, 2010) |
Martinc
Registered user
Username: Martinc
Post Number: 156
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 8:47 am: | |
"But then, of course, what's the value in His sacrifice for our sins, if He was just a Spirit-filled man (oops, I mean a man separated completely from God on the cross!)?"
Jeremy, or anyone else, how do the Arians answer this? Apparently they believe that God can't become human or humble Himself, so He had to give the job of saving us to a lesser being. But your question remains, Jesus' sacrifice would have a limited value (a "limited atonement?") since his life was derived from God. Perhaps sin, for them, is just a misunderstanding, and doesn't require any real sacrifice from God Himself. Sacrifice and humbling are for lesser beings. Twisted indeed! |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3315
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 11:09 am: | |
Martin,
Well, there is usually a connection between Arianism and annihilationism. If our sin against God is not deserving of infinite punishment (if we are not "guilty of an eternal sin"--Mark 3:29), which annihilationists teach, then we do not need a sacrifice of infinite value by the infinite God!
Jeremy |
Martinc
Registered user
Username: Martinc
Post Number: 157
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 2:09 pm: | |
Hmm, good point. So really, it's hard to argue that we are mere matter and energy, but yet, we are still responsible for what we are and do. As an intellectually enhanced orangutang, there are limits to my culpability. Even the best minds can do nothing but serve the flesh. To borrow from Freud, the ego is in service the id. In other words, "An ape's gotta do what an ape's gotta do." You'd think it would be easier to ascribe some version of free will to beings with spirit than to mere flesh. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11545
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 10:17 pm: | |
Very interesting discussion. It seems to me, as I've plowed through this "stuff" this summer, that the whole business of a diminished Jesus, an involved satan-as-scapegoat, of annihilation, of a lofty but somewhat detached god separate from Jesus--that at the bottom line is a stubborn refusal to believe humanity is actually responsible for its own sin—and a corresponding conspiracy to eclipse the fact that our own sovereign God, our Creator, actually became human so He could become our sin, mediate between us and God, so we could become God's righteousness in Christ (2 Cor 5:21).
In other words: the bottom line is: God's not "all that" powerful. Satan has a justifiable beef with God, and God has to take him seriously. Satan's the bad guy here, and ultimately SATAN is responsible for our sin, not we ourselves.
If Adventists really believed they were responsible for their own sin, the notion of Satan-as-scapegoat would make absolutely no sense. They are the innocent "victims", not the children of wrath doomed to hell which the Bible declares them (us) to be.
If we are not actually responsible for our own sin, Jesus' death makes no sense. What would it have accomplished? It would literally have been a mere "demonstration" of God's pity and pitiable "fairness" in letting Satan run amok in the universe. If we are not actually responsible for our own sin, then Jesus' becoming human and dying on the cross is a variation of the punishment Richard used to receive from his mother: she would use a belt, strike him once, then strike herself on her own back, then him, then herself—and say, "This hurts me more than it hurst you."
If we are not responsible for our own sin, then Jesus' death is just a guilt-producing slap to remind us how pathetic we are, that for our sake the "lovely Jesus" suffered to prove to us our sin is bad, that He suffers for us, and we better start obeying if we want to stop causing Him pain and grief.
What Adventists miss is that being lost is not primarily about our sin. Jesus took care of sin on the cross. Being lost is entirely about unbelief. It is about rejecting the Sin Bearer. Those who are condemned already for their unbelief (John 3:18) suffer eternal punishment because they rejected the Sin Bearer and His eternal sacrifice for them. Jesus removed the issue of our "sins" and leaves us with one reality: do we believe and repent, receiving the Holy Spirit and eternal life, or do we refuse to believe and remain dead in sin?
Adventism has completely defaced Jesus—and I find myself quite emotional about it all.
The Lord Jesus DIED for US!! The wonderful Counselor, almighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace (Is 6:9) took on flesh and took our sin and REDEEMED us, reconciling everything on heaven and on earth to Himself (Col 1:20).
He alone is worthy of our praise!
Colleen |
|
