| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5547
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 6:10 pm: |     |
Doug, thanks for sharing your thoughts about the bread and the wine. I never thought of them exactly like that before.
Jackob, what a good observation. As Adventists we experienced God's righteousness as condmenation because we were under the law. Today, as Christ-followers washed in His blood, we experience His righteousness as our justification/salvation. Wow.
Colleen |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 599
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 8:47 am: | |
pardon me Lone,
I got so used to that old car sitting there on blocks and those pink Flamingos standing there on one laig I clean forgot ta mention it.
You know I would share my books with you especially, but I only got the one.
It is black and store bought, it says "Holy Bible" on the front.
There for awhile after I store bought it I thought God made the world with "Contents".
Ifen I ever get through readin it I'll send it to ye tho. It shore is some good readin.
Yer special huntin Buddy.
River |
Trying
Registered user
Username: Trying
Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:13 am: | |
hello all, in reading the genesis 2:7, i continued on and noticed in 2:9 Three trees. Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. in following with the theme of 3's, i think the trees for food feed the body. the tree of life feeds the soul. and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was for the spirit. not quite sure of the feeding part, maybe because it had the opposite effect. it killed them, separating them from God. just my thoughts. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5583
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 8:00 pm: | |
Intereseting thoughts, Trying. I believe, though, that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was really about believing God. Adam and Even had no sin in themótheir spirits only knew life and intimacy with God, and their bodies had no flaws. The issue for them was whether or not they would believe Him no matter what.
They failedóbut their failure was far greater than simply to cause them to be lost. Their failure was the fall of the entire human race. Jesus came as the Second Adamóthe new Head of the Human Race. We had to have a new Head because our original one led us into moral failure. Our new Head did what Adam did not: He believed God and trusted Him even when everything around Him was confusing, dark, and profoundly tempting.
I suspect that the tree of life was at least partly for physical health. After sin, God banned Adam and Eve from eating it. Just think what destruction would have been done if people had been able to live physically on this earth forever in a depraved state. As God said at the tower of Babel, if He did not confound their languages, nothing would be impossible for them.
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 5:31 am: | |
Hi all,
I know I have not posted for a while, but I have been lurking. I often just have time for a read, but not to write, as I am very busy.
I have been preparing my lessons for the new Bible College course I started teaching this term. I am just dealing with Cosmology, Anthropology and Harmartiology, which are new areas for me. I have got to the part dealing with the nature of man, (body, soul and spirit.)
All the text books I have looked at deal with the controversy over dichotomy/trichotomy, or is it just body and soul/spirit, or body, soul and spirit, but they do not even mention the body and breath view. I decided to put it in my notes anyway, as there are lots of SDAs and JWs here, and nearly all the students know some.
Anyway, after dealing with the different theories, and giving them various articles to read, I wrote the following in conclusion:
ìSo does man consist of one, two or three parts?
My personal opinion in this regard is that the three concepts may be distinguished, but there will only ever be a division into two parts (following physical death and before resurrection, in the intermediate state). I also think that it is not worth investing too much energy in disputing the dichotomous and trichotomous theories.
The total unit theory is much more problematic.
At the new birth, it is the spirit of a person which is born again (Jn 3: 6-7). Following this, he can approach God and praise God in his spirit (Jn 4: 24; Rom 8:: 16; 1 Cor 14: 14-15). This is impossible, if a personís spirit is just breath or the ìspark of lifeî (according to SDA theology).
If at death a person ceases to exist, because there is no part of him which would remain, or survive death (spirit/soul), then his resurrection would also be impossible. Even if God recreates a person from his memory, which would be exactly the same as the deceased (in accordance with SDA and JW theology), then it would at most be only a perfect copy, but not the original.î
I also thought I should add something about the concept of sin, but I am not sure what. I would be grateful for any comments or suggestions.
Thanks,
Adrian |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 298
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 1:30 pm: | |
Jackob:
You said this:
"By God's wonderful grace we stand on the sunny side of the cross. God's righteousness no longer condemns us, it justifies us. As surely was the condemnation it is also our present justification. God's righteousness is unchangeable, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, and like Him, the Word of God, the Holy Bible cannot be broken."
What a perfect description of our New Covenant Sabbath rest. We rest from our works for salvation with the knowledge that we are in His grip of Grace. Wow!
Patria |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5592
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 4:53 pm: | |
Adrian, there is an article in a past issue of Proclamation that I think might address your question re: sin. You can find it here: http://rtinker.powweb.com/Proclamation2004_SepOct.pdf
Also, the article entitled "If what you believe is not biblical, would you want to know?" addresses this issue. You can find it here: http://rtinker.powweb.com/Proclamation2006_NovDec.pdf
Praying for your work.
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 9:47 pm: | |
Thanks Colleen, that's very helpful. I'll check them out!
God bless,
Adrian |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 11:51 pm: | |
Hello again Colleen,
I checked out your articles, thanks again.
Maybe I am just being thick, but I still don't get what the SDA view of sin is, in terms of their "body and breath" concept of man.
Perhaps it is just because I have never been SDA.
I understand what you believe now, you explained that very clearly.
Is there any way you, or anyone, could just summarise it in a couple of sentences? Or is it rather vague anyway?
I appreciate all your help!
God bless,
Adrian |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 893
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 2:36 pm: | |
To me as an SDA sin was 'transgression of the law,' 'messing up God's will' (so He would have to move on to plan B or C or Z or whatever). Sin was doing something that God criticized or that God said not to do. Sin was making God angry or sad or disappointed in me. Sin was also doing anything that had the 'appearance of sin' to someone else - this opened up the simplicity of situation ethics. If I knew (or just thought) something was not sin but someone looking on might think it was I should not do it in front of them, but I could do it in private. It led to many mental gymnastics.
I need to run at the moment but if I think of a shorter way to write a definition (and of good supporting evidence) I'll write more later!
Blessings,
Mary |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5633
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 4:57 pm: | |
Yes, Maryóthat was my experience with sin as well. I believed it was transgression of the lawóbut it was more than that. The Israelites had it "easy"óthey clearly had the law spelled out in front of them.
For us as Adventists, sin was not only doing something against the law, it was any sinful thought or attitude I had. And like Mary said, I might be able to do something privately, but if someone else thought something was sin (wearing makeup, eating turkey, etc.) it would be sin if I did it in front of them.
There was no clear understanding that I was SINFUL because my spirit was dead. I was sinful because I inherited "propensities to evil", as Ellen said. I was sinful because I had millennia of degraded physical inheritance. We were taught that Adam was 15 feet tall and completely perfect and healthy before the fall. After the fall, we steadily declined in height, strength, and mental powerówhich also meant we declined in moral purity. Morality was directly linked to physical health and perfection.
Our sinful inheritance came to us through physicalónot spiritualómeans. As examples of how we understood our ability to perceive God's will, here are a couple of Ellen quotes:
"The brain nerves which communicate with the entire system are the only medium through which Heaven can communicate to man and affect his inmost life. Whatever disturbs the circulation of the electric currents in the nervous system lessens the strength of the vital powers, and the result is a deadening of the sensibilities of the mind." (Vo. 2, p. 347, Testimonies, 1868-1876).
"Flesh meat is not necessary for health or strength. If used it is because a depraved apptetite craves it. Its use excites the animal propensities to increased activitiy and strengthens the animal passions. When the animal propensities are increased, the intellectual and moral powers are decreased. The use of the flesh of animals tends to cause a grossness of body and benumbs the fine sensibilites of the mind." (Vol. 2, p 63, Testimonies, 1868-1876).
These kinds of statements were well-known to observant Adventists. Inherent sin was, in general a sort-of vague notionóI was probably in my 20s before I heard the concept that "sins" did not equal "sin". In general, however, Adventists cannot separate sin from behavior and mental activity. They consider all spiritual understanding to be seated in the literal brain, which we must protect and nourish in order to be able to hear the Holy Spirit. There is no sense of sin being SPIRITUAL in the sense of the word the Bible speaks of "spirit". It is physical; hence Jesus was our "example".
If He could somehow master temptation by somehow mustering all his mental acuity and will power by accessing the power of the Holy Spirit on his behalf, then so can we. Exactly HOW we were to access that power was never clearónor was it clear how Jesus did. We thought he might not have inherited Mary's sin-laden genesóbut then again, He might have. After all, he was her son! The church has never adopted a statement of the nature of Christ. They can'tóthey don't see sin as essetially an issue of dead or living spirits.
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 8:39 am: | |
Thanks Colleen and Mary,
This helps, though I guess the idea of what sin actually is is still pretty vague, huh?
I love the brain nerves! I am definitely going to have to pass that one on to my students! Thanks for the awesome quotes!
God bless,
Adrian |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 11:15 am: | |
I know, that brain nerves quote is incredible!
Here are a couple other quotes from EGW, which say that we have moral and spiritual organs, as well as animal organs, in the brain:
quote:"There is but little moral power in the professed Christian world. Wrong habits have been indulged, and physical and moral laws have been disregarded, until the general standard of virtue and piety is exceedingly low. Habits which lower the standard of physical health enfeeble mental and moral strength. The indulgence of unnatural appetites and passions has a controlling influence upon the nerves of the brain. The animal organs are strengthened, while the moral and spiritual are depressed. It is impossible for an intemperate man to be a Christian, for his higher powers are brought into slavery to the lower passions." (The Signs of the Times, 08-11-1887, "Temperance from the Christian Standpoint," paragraph 5.)
"Fashion loads the heads of women with artificial braids and pads, which do not add to their beauty, but give an unnatural shape to the head. The hair is strained and forced into unnatural positions, and it is not possible for the heads of these fashionable ladies to be comfortable. The artificial hair and pads covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves centering in the brain. The head should ever be kept cool. The heat caused by these artificials induces the blood to the brain. The action of the blood upon the lower or animal organs of the brain, causes unnatural activity, tends to recklessness in morals, and the mind and heart is in danger of being corrupted. As the animal organs are excited and strengthened, the moral are enfeebled. The moral and intellectual powers of the mind become servants to the animal." (Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 10-17-1871, paragraph 9.)
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5641
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 5:56 pm: | |
Oh, my goodnessóit's amazing how we all actually believed that in some way she was right.
I do remember wondering, as a kid, exactly what the "animal organs" actually were. Since they seemed to be in the brain, it was quite ambiguous.
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1749
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 6:23 pm: | |
All you need is a little brain surgery to take those "animal organs" out--and you can be perfect without God's help even!
I wonder what an Adventist doctor would say if you requested it. ;-)
Also, imagine the fear of someone who really believes those EGW quotes, having to go in for brain surgery, and worrying that the surgeon might accidentally take out the "moral" and "spiritual" "organs"! Then there would be no hope!
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on April 03, 2007) |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 895
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 7:41 pm: | |
I've actually heard people worry that having a lobotomy would remove all their 'spiritual sensibilities'. I don't know if that was a wholly superstitious worry, or if there is some obscure bit of fact behind it.
But the idea was that the higher, frontal parts of the brain were more connected to 'being spiritual' and that the back of the brain was the more 'animal'. This was the explanation of why, in EGW's supposed sighting of the devil, his head sloped directly back above his eyebrows, instead of having a 'high, noble' forehead. Phrenology anyone?
I do remember the worrier saying that people who were shot in the front of the brain that survived had no more concience after that, though they may have consciousness and live fairly normal lives otherwise.
Mary |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5647
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 8:17 am: | |
Mary, I've heard all those things, too! I had forgotton that sloping forehead description of Satan as contrasted with the "high, noble" foreheads of the "good" beings.
I'd better go check my forehead...
Colleen |
|
