| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2681
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 3:50 pm: |     |
Hec,
The Holy Spirit was indeed there. In fact, Jesus had already said as much in chapter 14: "that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." (John 14:17 NASB.) So the Holy Spirit was already with the discipples, but what Jesus is referring to in John 16 is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which would happen later, and then after that the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. (He was with them, then He was in them, then He came upon them.)
In fact, in John 16:7, Jesus was not just speaking about His ascension, like Adventism taught us. If you look at the context, such as verses 16-22, He is speaking about His death. His "departing" then refers to His death (which is spoken of as a "departure" elsewhere in the NT). And after He departed, and came back to life, "He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22 NASB.) See also John 7:39. So the Holy Spirit could not indwell them until Jesus "departed" (sacrificed Himself for our sins).
And, remember, Jesus also said (in John 14:17-20, 23) that when the Spirit did come, He Himself and the Father would come live in us. Jesus also promised that He will be with us "always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:20 NASB.) So Jesus was not saying in John 16:7 that the Holy Spirit would be with us but that He Himself wouldn't be with us (and thus making Himself separate from the Holy Spirit).
Of course, Adventism denies that Jesus is omnipresent, but that's just more of their denial of the Trinity!
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on April 09, 2009) |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2682
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 5:32 pm: | |
By the way, Chris, you might also be interested in the following audio clip and transcript that I just came across today on the Amazing Facts website, from a call to Doug Batchelor's radio program "Bible Answers Live" (the SDA "counterfeit" of the "Bible Answer Man"  ):
http://www.amazingfacts.org/Radio/BibleAnswersLiveQuestionArchive/tabid/212/ctl/PlayMedia/mid/731/MDID/2335/PID/1174/SID/13/SQT/1000/7/Explain-the-trinity/Default.aspx
Jeremy |
Jrt
Registered user
Username: Jrt
Post Number: 287
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 6:52 pm: | |
Jeremy,
Let me clarify - I haven't read all this thread . . . so forgive me if you already alluded to this.
But Jesus does have a resurrected body now - but having a resurrected body does not negate that Jesus is and can be omnipresent now. It is amazing to understand that Jesus can have a resurrected body AND be omnipresent too. Pretty mind boggling.
Just thought I'd ask,
Keri |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2683
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 7:21 pm: | |
Keri,
Exactly. He has a resurrected body but is still omnipresent in His divine spirit. God became incarnate, but He doesn't have a body by nature. He had to take on a human body, by becoming a man, in order to have a body.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on April 09, 2009) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9654
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 8:37 pm: | |
Exactly. And to dovetail with what Jeremy wrote above, God is always spirit—and Jesus is always God. He is also now always man.
I see two amazing things related to Jesus departing and sending the Spirit. First, His body and blood tore the veil and opened a new, living way to the Father (Hebrews 10:19-20). Prior to His propitiation being made for sin, no human could enter the presence of the Father and live. Jesus' propitiation took care of all the sins previously committed as well as all sins forever after (Romans 3:25-26).
Because Jesus reconciled the world to God by His own blood and gave us a way to enter the Father's presence, the new birth was made possible. Humanity could not be indwelt by God until the price for sin had been paid. Intimacy with God was not possible until Jesus had paid the blood price required for sin.
Now, the new birth became possible. When Pentecost happened, something entirely new began. God Himself took up residence in the spirits of believers—transforming even their mortal flesh and thus being personally present in the world in a new way never before possible.
The church is composed of those who carry the literal presence of God in them. They have living spirits, and they move and live among those who are still dead in sin. Our responsibility as born again believers is HUGE.
We literally carry the presence of Jesus into the world at a personal level. We literally touch others with the presence of Jesus, and as His people, we are called to put to death the deeds of the flesh by the power of the Spirit so we can live in submission to Him and mediate His love and care (see Romans 8).
All of the Trinity is omnipresent, but the miracle of the new birth makes us literally the physical house of the Holy Spirit, and we become God's hands, heart, words, and love to those around us.
Colleen |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 43
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 8:57 pm: | |
If they are not separate, does that mean that the Father and the Spirit also has (have) a glorified body? Does that mean that the Father and the Spirit also became incarnate?
Hec |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9659
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 9:19 pm: | |
God is Spirit. Jesus' incarnation was His role. He is the One Mediator between God and Man (1 Tim 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity which we cannot understand is just this: God is One Being expressed in three persons. At the same time, the Trinity is involved in just about everything God does.
For example, God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:19). The spiritual gifts are the work of the entire Trinity (1 Cor 12:4-6). Our access to God is not merely by Jesus' sacrifice but involves the whole Trinity: "For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit" (Eph 2:18). We experience the fullness of God by means of the whole Trinity: "I pray that out of his [the Father's] glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 2:16).
And on and on!
The persons of the Trinity have distinct roles, and the Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit obeys the Father and reveals the Son--but they are all omnipresent.
Jesus' unique role was to become flesh, dwell among us, and become our brother and eternal intercessor and the one Mediator between God and man. He alone has a body. He alone was born of a woman, born under law, born at just the right time (Gal 4:4).
His humanness is His—but the Spirit of holiness that is His identity as God (see Romans 1:3) is one with the whole Trinity. God is Spirit—not the body.
Jesus' body is human. The Father and the Spirit have not taken on humanity.
And of course, this brings us right back to the mystery of the incarnation. How to explain it?? I don't know! I just know that it IS, and I am thankful!
Colleen |
Seekinglight
Registered user
Username: Seekinglight
Post Number: 72
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2009 - 4:51 am: | |
I have been reading a book by Richard Rohr titled: "Hidden Things: Scripture as Spirituality".
He says, "The fundamentalist mind is a mind that likes answers and explanations so much, that it remains willfully ignorant about how history arrived at those explanations, or how self-serving they usually are."
This reminds me of Ramone's point that SDAs (example, Dr. Moon's arguments about the Trinity) elevate the historical Adventist teachings and assume they are inherently correct and above serious scruitiny. There is a definite sacredness tied to those teachings that people will not easily relinquish. I believe it is because SDAs love concrete answers and the surety that comes with knowing that they are right. In this sense, SDAs represent the "fundamentalists" in the above quote.
Interestingly, in the actual context of the quote, the author was referring to both religious fundamentalists (e.g., Jewish, Islamic, Christian) and secular ones (e.g., staunch, free-market economists, atheists).
I guess the point is that all of us are tempted to enter into the false security of our own "rightness". The only cure is a holy and humble questioning of all assumptions while submitting to the Spirit for "answers" or "not-so-clear" answers as He sees fit to show us. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2009 - 6:57 am: | |
Raised in a Methodist home, it is fair to say that Ellen White actually gave up Trinitarianism in preference to her husband's Arianism. Of course, one wonders how much she really understood about her Methodist faith as an uneducated teenager. Both Joseph Smith and Ellen White were disfellowshipped from the Methodist Church for heretical views. In the case of Joseph Smith, he was a member of the Methodist Church for less than one week (smile). However, Ellen White certainly had no excuse to jump ship over a key Christian doctrine.
It appears likely that the primary reason why the early SDA pioneers were Arians was due to their intense anti-Catholicism. They didn't want anything in common with the Papacy. Anti-Catholicism was rampant in antebellum America. Also, their view of death clouded the nature of God, man, and salvation. Without any doubt, the SDA teaching of soul sleep/conditionalism is their most heretical view. If one doesn't get Genesis right, it clouds the entire Bible.
The theory of annilationism in which the wicked pass into nonexistence either at death or at the resurrection was first advanced by Arnobius, a fourth-century "Christian" apologist [see Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 184; Dr. Robert Morey's classic book entitled Death and the Afterlife]. As early as the Second Council of Constantinople in A. D. 563, the heresy of soul sleep/conditionalism was formally condemned. Centuries later, the great reformer, John Calvin, devoted his first literary work, the Psychopannychia, to debunk this aberration of the Christian faith.
Dennis Fischer |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1855
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2009 - 7:15 am: | |
Interesting stuff, Seekinglight.
You know, what surprises me now that I think about this, is that in the whole formation of SDA tritheism, you can see the same thing at work in Ellen White herself. I believe she didn't just come up with the Tritheism out of the blue, but rather it was a sort of compromise or syncretization attempt (with the Trinity) that occured because she reverenced the original Arian position of early Adventism. It's not only that Adventists today (such as Steve Daily) don't want to repent for the original teachings -- it also happened in Ellen White herself. Like Daily is doing today, Ellen White formed new syncretic ideas in order to keep the early anti-Christian history of SDA canonized and yet try to make Adventism more "Christian".
It really shows the power of that desire to believe in our groups "right-ness". The facts, symptoms, and fruit do not matter. Anything negative is made out to be the exception instead of the rule, and is attributed to bad apples in the otherwise absolutely pure batch. I think this really shows the stronghold of pride in Adventism, of faith in Adventism being of God and being the unquestionable truth of God.
It's really heartbreaking, actually. Because I can totally understand and even feel how that fear feels. I know what it's like to experience that sudden fear -- that everything you have known and believed and preached may be wrong. Actually, I did a picture of how that felt here: On the Steps and told the story of it partially on my exit letter here: Why I left Adventism. (God bless my mom -- she didn't understand what the picture I painted was about and left a very ironic comment; I haven't taken the time to write up the story to it yet as I should.)
I know what that fear is like, but I guess I don't know very well what it is to try and shut up that fear or really shout that what I've made up is really the truth after all. Since I was little I think I always felt intimidated in arguments or somehow like I hadn't studied enough, so I never had the confidence to "shout down the other guy", so to speak. I think that actually worked out for me in when God confronted me with the reality of Adventism that one fearful night, because if I had had more confidence in my ability to shout down the other guy, I would have been better at ignoring God and sticking to my own 'truth'.
So at that point, I can only partially relate to the founders. I grew up with what deliverance ministers call a "man-pleasing spirit" (because of having felt a lot of psychological 'rejection')... I wanted to please others and make them happy, and was somehow afraid of being disliked. That's why I could never do real-life arguing well. (In writing -- that's a little different, haha!)
I think a lot of the founders didn't have that same inhibition that I had -- or they overcame it better than I had. I suspect that the whole "standing together" in Millerism had a great effect on strengthening their resolve and firmness. Whatever the case, they didn't seem to care as much about what other people thought as I did, and because of that I can't completely relate to them. But then again, maybe I can. Maybe they did care, I don't know. Maybe like me, Ellen White was more comfortable condemning with her pen than face-to-face? Whatever the case, I don't lose any sleep over it. But it does help me relate to what Adventists feel when those moments of doubt hit them.
I just want to be there someday when an Adventist suddenly sees that fear, and I want to lovingly hold and help him or her as he or she faces that fear, so that they know they're not alone. I think the whole toll that Adventism takes on us -- and the toll of the trauma of finding out the truth -- it can be really difficult and traumatic. It can easily make us hard or upset, you know? It can easily make us react with irritation to Adventist stubbornness instead of seeing that the person we're talking to might be fighting to avoid an emotional breakdown because of the fear that it was all wrong.
Some months after I learned the truth that fateful (and providential) night after being "on the steps", I remember having a dream. I was in a building like a long dormitory, towards the left, and over towards the right there was a big fire. I went over there and saw a super conservative Adventist friend there. His whole room had been burned and his things had been destroyed. I remember feeling (in the dream) that he got what he deserved, that the fire was righteous, etc. But in the dream, in his burnt out room, he looked and shook his head and still trusted God, not really too phased by what had happened. I was upset at that in the dream.
What this was speaking about was my heart. Indeed God would be sending a "fire" to Adventism and burning out things that did not belong, but the dream showed I cared very little about the hearts of the people who were going to lose everything in that "fire". My heart was hard towards them and towards my friend. God convicted me that I needed to mourn with those who mourn, and be there to support them in the wake of losing everything (even the false things of Adventism), and help them find the real things in Christ through their tears.
Also, God showed me that for some of those "faithful" Adventists, some would not have a difficult time holding onto what real faith they did have, and that there would (and will) be some super-Adventists who will pass through that purifying fire unscathed, having had their false junk burned, and their real faith underneath exposed and solidified in Christ alone (after the "fire"). So I should be careful not to judge them too harshly beforehand, because I can't always see how much of their faith was real or not, how much of their faith was in God or in Adventism. For myself, it turned out that in my whole missionary experience, I indeed grew a lot of real faith in God and in His word, and when the "fire" came and burned away Adventism, a lot of what I'd learned as a missionary with God turned out to be gold, and it got purified in the fire instead of destroyed. So I should realize that the same may be the case with others in Adventism.
Anyway, I'm rambling, sorry! Time to type some more on the "SM thread" about my story.
Bless you all in Jesus!
In His love, in His grace,
Ramone |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2686
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 10, 2009 - 9:24 pm: | |
Hec,
The concept of perichoresis (see here and here) might be helpful you to in understanding this.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on April 10, 2009) |
|
