| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10563
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 6:45 pm: |     |
OK--so yesterday I spent editing an article for a never-been-SDA editor about Adventism. It was a bit grueling because I had to amass quite a few sources and give references. I came across a paragraph I had encountered before, but it hit me with a new force yesterday.
Here it is:
quote:The real risk in the redemption plan, besides the loss of man, was the breakup of the Godhead. Had Jesus sinned, He would have been working at cross-purposes with the Spirit and His Father. Omnipotent good would have been pitted against omnipotent evil. What would have happened to the rest of creation? Whom would the unfallen universe see as right? One sin could have sent the Godhead and the universe spinning into cosmic chaos; the proportions of this disaster are staggering. Yet the Godhead was still willing to take this fragmenting risk for the salvation of man. The reveals the depth of God's amazing love (The Trinity by Doug Batchelor, p. 29-30).
I am so upset by Batchelor's assumptions. First, he assumes Jesus could have sinned—and that prior to the end of His ministry, the jury was out as to whether or not He would manage to remain sinless.
Second, he actually believes the Godhead—more commonly called the Trinity within Christianity—could have been torn apart and plunged into chaos.
Third, he assumes that if Jesus sinned, He would have become "omnipotent evil".
Fourth, He assumes God risked the Godhead and all of creation by sending Jesus.
It's absolutely impossible for a person to believe in a sovereign God, in a Jesus who is eternal and equal to the Father, and to know Jesus and experience His resurrection life and still to make these sorts of assumptions. I find myself so outraged at these statements—and so deeply concerned for the people who listen to him and believe Him.
He is teaching "another god" and "another gospel".
Colleen |
Lrcrabtree
Registered user
Username: Lrcrabtree
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:04 pm: | |
Colleen, it sounds to me as if he is dangerously close to teaching that Jesus was just a good man, unless and until he lived a sinless life AND THEN died on the cross? Where does this put Mr. Bachelors theology? |
Seekinglight
Registered user
Username: Seekinglight
Post Number: 460
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:05 pm: | |
I'm having a visceral response to this as well. All these assumptions are terrible, but for some reason, # 3 bothers me the most at the moment.
Jesus isn't getting any credit or respect. I feel waves of grief deep in my heart about it for many reasons--not the least of which is that I was taught these kinds ideas my whole life. I thought they were true until just about a year ago.
*Jesus, I'm so sorry. I simply had no clue! Thank You for correcting my thinking and taking Your proper place in my heart.* |
Lrcrabtree
Registered user
Username: Lrcrabtree
Post Number: 92
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:06 pm: | |
An additional thought - of course this lends support to the SDA concept of trying to live a completely sinless life. If Jesus could do it, then we should be able to also, and if we can't then we should feel guilty about our failure to live sinless. |
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther
Post Number: 512
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:14 pm: | |
More proof of the incredible lack of understanding of WHO the Trinity is...ONE God...who is God. As if God could break apart and become "un-God"...sigh |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10566
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:14 pm: | |
Exactly, Larry and Seekinglight. I want to ask Doug, if you believe Jesus was fully God, on that basis alone, how could He have possibly sinned? And aside from that question, we know that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. The Almighty, omnipotent God would not have been at all unclear about the outcome. God did not "risk" losing Himself or the universe.
One of the pervasive problems with Adventism is the downplaying of God's ultimate power and sovereignty. No wonder all of life seemed uncertain and tenuous when I was Adventist.
I had no One on whom to lean with total confidence. Even God was dependent on me and the rest of humanity. His hands were tied by our disobedience and carelessness.
Sigh.
Colleen |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10567
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:15 pm: | |
Oops--Esther, you and I were posting at the same time!
Colleen |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 7659
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 7:26 pm: | |
To even think I was associated with his thinking appalls me. Jesus was, is and always will be GOD!!! To think that He could have sinned is so wrong. It is another gospel and another god he is talking about.
I am so thankful our awesome God has taken each of us out of adventism.
Diana L |
Pegg
Registered user
Username: Pegg
Post Number: 506
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 9:32 pm: | |
How about:#5 - You call this LOVE? A god who is so reckless as to risk the eternal security of his creation?
Oh my! What was this god thinking when he laid the foundations of the earth?
How could he possibly have chosen me when he didn't even know if he was going to continue to exist? Praise God! He has never been out of control for even one minute.
I know why He chose to keep going instead of re-doing His spoiled creation.
I know why He chose to die...
...It Was Because He Looked Down Through The Ages And He Just Couldn't Stand Not To Have ME!
He Couldn't Stand Not To Have YOU!
Pegg
(Message edited by pegg on October 29, 2009)
(Message edited by pegg on October 29, 2009) |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3071
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 10:00 pm: | |
And how about #6, as Colleen said above, "The Almighty, omnipotent God would not have been at all unclear about the outcome."
#6 would be that Batchelor's quote is denying that God knows the future. In order for it to be a "risk," God would have to not know the future. But Batchelor is only copying EGW, who also said that it was a risk, and thus denied God's omniscience.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on October 29, 2009) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10568
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 11:19 pm: | |
Exactly. So much for a true "messenger of God". She said, of course, that her office of "messenger" included "much more than this name [prophet] signifies."
It's outrageous to think of her, denigrating the Almighty God as she does and denying the finished work of the cross, calling herself more than prophet.
Colleen |
Gcfrankie
Registered user
Username: Gcfrankie
Post Number: 631
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 9:31 am: | |
Last week we had a discussion on about this same thing and I said where does the genes come from? The mother or the father? Boy what a rousing discussion we had. If the genes come from the father then how could Jesus ever have sinned as his genes came from Father God who is sinless and pure through and through.
My mind went into overdrive with a statement like that and made me realize just how warped egw was and she sure did not know what she was talking about.
As my Granmama would say: An egg is an egg until the ol Rooster comes along.
For a church so bent on the health message they sure do not understand. With a statement like that it shows they do not even know that Father God knows anything. That just makes me heart sick to think I spent all those years in a group that thinks like that.
Gail |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 624
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 9:38 am: | |
What is more troubling to me about this is that so many Christians actually think SDAism is not a cult. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10572
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 3:09 pm: | |
I agree with you both. And speaking of the health message, Gail, I believe that one aspect of Adventism is a clear window into the utter carnality of the religion. Truly, it's all about the body.
By denying humans have a spirit that can know God, they are left with only a body. When the body dies, they cease to exist. There is no absolute hope for the future. Keeping the body healthy and living is of utmost importance. After all, when the body dies, what's left?
Only the wish that the first resurrection will include them--but no security that it will. Moreover, what will arise in the resurrection? They themselves? Or a clone from the mind of God?
No, staying alive is their basic drive. The future is insecure--but if they take good care of the body God gave them, maybe that will help them to know God and thus be ready.
Sigh.
Colleen |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 2248
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 4:02 pm: | |
Speaking of DNA, one 'ark hunter' I once tangentially knew claimed to have found the ark of the covenant under the site of the 'true cross' just out of Jerusalem. He also claimed to have found 'blood' on the mercy seat where it had run after Jesus died. His conclusive proof that it was Jesus' blood? It had only one half the DNA of a normal human being! Now there are plenty of problems, logical and otherwise, with this idea, but I find it particularly telling that there was an assumption that the blood (and therefore Jesus), was literally half human. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 5:41 pm: | |
Colleen,
Thank you for exposing Doug Batchelor's heresies. Modern cave dwellers are not known for their outstanding biblical scholarship. On another note, Ron Halvorsen, Sr. is retelling his criminal life story tonight, with great fanfare, at the College View SDA Church. It really bothers me how some people can get away with murder--knocking down little, old ladies with a baseball bat to swipe their purses. I well remember being greatly appalled at his story when I was still a devout Adventist. However, I presume the College View SDA Church will have a record audience tonight. Sadly, stories of abominable and unthinkable violence still greatly appeal to the unregenerated heart.
Dennis Fischer |
Psalm107v2
Registered user
Username: Psalm107v2
Post Number: 462
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 7:13 pm: | |
Wow, that statement actually reminds me that2 things 1. The SDA god is either a tritheistic entity or modalistic entity and 2 it reminds me of the heresy that some leaders in the Word of Faith/Name it Claim movement teach.
It also makes me think about how in the whole "sancutary theology" system Jesus did not go into the most holy place for 1800 years so He and the Father were just hanging out in the less Holy compartment with only the 10 commandments and the ark in the Most holy place to hold down the fort. If Uncle Dougy's theology is right then the world was not only in some kind of limbo when Christ was on earth it remained in limbo/at risk for another 1800 years--Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions after only getting a few hours of sleep this week but this kind of statement makes me want to grow my hair back and pull it out until I'm bald again.
Enoch |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 627
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 7:25 pm: | |
quote:It also makes me think about how in the whole "sancutary theology" system Jesus did not go into the most holy place for 1800 years so He and the Father were just hanging out in the less Holy compartment with only the 10 commandments and the ark in the Most holy place to hold down the fort. If Uncle Dougy's theology is right then the world was not only in some kind of limbo when Christ was on earth it remained in limbo/at risk for another 1800 years--Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions after only getting a few hours of sleep this week but this kind of statement makes me want to grow my hair back and pull it out until I'm bald again.
It also implies that in SDA theology the Ten Commandments are holier than God. The MHP was so-called because that was the place God would let His presence reside. If God were in what SDA's call the "Holy Place," then that would in fact make that place the Most Holy Place by default. But if the place where God is were simply the Holy Place, and the place where the Ten C's is was the Most Holy, then it would have to mean that the Ten Commandments are holier than God, which is blasphemy. |
Martin
Registered user
Username: Martin
Post Number: 97
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 11:49 am: | |
Gail, in any 'standard' human being the genes come from both parents. Half from each... Sometimes there are problems when distributing the genes to the child and that will produce all sorts of problems. Depending on how grave is the mismatch the problems might range from some type of disorder (e.g. Down's syndrome) up to premature death due to a programmed stop in the development process.
In any case, I think that it isn't possible to link 'sin' with any type of genetic information. 'Sin' is a spiritual condition and our genetic makeup will not affect in any way if we are born sinful or righteous. However, I do believe that sin can affect the information our genes carry, as it is seen in so many diseases and tendencies that people may inherit.
God does not have genes like ours that would have been passed down to Jesus... If that were true, and this I'm talking as a 'crazy person', then it would be theoretically possible to generate in the lab a 'godly' DNA sequence that would hold all of God's genetic information... You could create sinless persons in the lab! Even more, physically they would be like God!
No. Once again, we are talking about spiritual questions. As Jesus said in John 3:6,
quote:Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Let's not confuse the issues of the flesh with the issues of the Spirit.
When Jesus was born, surely God provided a genetic information that would produce a healthy man. And that's all... On the other hand, his spirit is God's Spirit.
In any case, I can see how a conversation like this could happen between Adventist people... Like Canright said in one of his books, everything is always so 'materialistic' in the SDA theology: we don't have spirits; heaven is a city in space; all those stories from the supposed "controversy" and battle in heaven, which feel more like cheap sci-fi or fantasy literature...
From that perspective, if we don't have spirits then 'sin' must be 'stored' somewhere else in our lives... I guess that our genes look like one of the best alternatives, no? |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3072
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 12:30 pm: | |
The following excerpts are from an article that I came across recently by the late Christian apologist Bob Passantino (who with his wife Gretchen worked closely with Dr. Walter Martin), which is entitled "Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?" and addresses the heretical teaching that unfortunately has crept into many Christians' beliefs, that the Father and Son were separated on the Cross. But these excerpts are also applicable to Batchelor's blasphemous teachings in his paragraph that Colleen quoted above:
quote:"On the cross Jesus said, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' (Matthew 27:46). Many Christians believe this signifies the one and only time that there was a split between the first two persons of the Trinity, that is, between the Father and the Son. The argument asserts that when Jesus 'became sin,' the Father was unable to look upon him, hence he 'forsook' Jesus. This argument seeks to emphasize the great cost to Christ on our behalf. He was even willing to endure separation from the Father to accomplish our salvation. However, I believe such an interpretation, while well intentioned, has heretical implications.[1] It is a denial of belief in one eternal, indivisible God.
[...]
"Fifth, it is actually or ontologically impossible for there to be a 'split' between any persons of the eternal Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, simply defined, is that within the nature of the one true God there are three eternal, distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the One God. (We do not believe in a rationally contradictory God of one God in three gods or one Person in three Persons, but one God in three Persons.) While others exist in generic or species identity (such as three humans sharing in humanness), God exists in numeric identity, such that each person is the one God. If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible. Any 'split' in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God."
(Emphasis added.)
Here is the link to the short article, which is very good and I recommend reading the whole thing: http://www.answers.org/theology/forsaken.html
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on October 31, 2009) |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 628
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 1:22 pm: | |
quote:addresses the heretical teaching that unfortunately has crept into many Christians' beliefs, that the Father and Son were separated on the Cross.
Paul says of the Cross, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3073
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 1:29 pm: | |
Yep! |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10574
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 10:14 pm: | |
Excellent quotes, Jeremy. Thank you!! As Adventists we were taught to understand everything in material terms. Everything. Even eternity was "unending time".
Spirit is not body, and it is not material. God is God—not a different species of humanoid.
This realization has been one of the last but most profound realizations of my journey out of Adventism. It was such a shock to learn WHY I didn't understand how to relate to Jesus intimately as an Adventist. I couldn't because I didn't really know who He was--or who I was in relation to Him.
Praise God that He reveals Himself!
Colleen |
Pegg
Registered user
Username: Pegg
Post Number: 511
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, November 01, 2009 - 10:07 am: | |
quote:If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible. Any 'split' in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God.
Excellent article, Jeremy. Thanks for the point. The argument above is the simplest and clearest I think I've ever heard. I realize it reads exactly like you have it in the original text, but seems to me there is a problem with editing. I think...
quote:If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible, any 'split' in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God."
...makes it read more smoothly.
(Just a point of help for anyone who may wish to use it verbally in the future.)
Pegg |
Insearchof
Registered user
Username: Insearchof
Post Number: 183
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 05, 2009 - 9:14 pm: | |
God forgive me for ever believing those things...
When I read those types of statements now (that Jesus could have sinned, that God did not know the outcome, that had Jesus sinned He would have been omnipotent evil, I shudder in my spirit to think I used to believe that and taught it.
To think I sat down to dinner with Ron Wyatt and listened to him tell the story of finding the Ark of the Covenant, blood on the Mercy Seat and all that. Man, I used to eat that stuff up.
And we just KNEW that as Adventists we had great knowledge and insight into Scripture and the mysteries of God!
I feel so badly for having mislead people that trusted me to know and teach the truth when all I gave them was lies.
Thank God that we serve an Omnipotent, Eternal God!
ISO |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 2267
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 - 7:22 am: | |
Amen. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10605
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 - 1:20 pm: | |
Oh, Insearchof, I agree completely. I am thankful that God is faithful to redeem everything we submit to Him—and He doesn't waste anything. Even our times of ignorance and deception. When He brings us to Himself, He redeems even those times for His own glory.
Just remember Saul/Paul...
Colleen |
