| Author | Message | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 1153 Registered: 10-2008 |
I was just studying and had an ahaaa moment ... SDA's use he example that Sodom and Gomorah are towns not burning now - even though their punishment is described as eternal in scripture. I came across the following texts:
More bearable than Sodom and Gomorrah?? Interesting, huh... Could it be that there is a difference and you can't use the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah to compare with the final punishment? Just a thought. Matthew 11:21-24 also refers so Sodom. I just know for myself the argument for Sodom and Gomorrah's judgement not being eternal was pretty ingrained in my mind as an Adventist. I remember looking down on Sunday Christians thinking don't they get it? The cities aren't burning now! I know this is a touchy subject - even for never been SDA's. The eternality of hell and torment is not a pleasant thought. It was the very last sda doctrine to fall for me and I wrestled for weeks with it. In all honesty, I still don't like to think about it. Sin and my understanding of myself took on a nuance of proportions I can't fully articulate. I was even more humbled by grace and aware of my sinfulness - I was just plain humbled ... Jrt | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 618 Registered: 7-2005 |
Jrt, On another forum I turned the tables and pointed that he's using a double edge sword which cuts both ways. If he wants to strike me by using Sodom and Gomorrah as proofs that the "eternal fire" is limited in duration, I can use it as proof that the annihilation of the wicked is not final and will be followed by another resurrection. Sodom and Gomorrah are types of the final judgment, not the thing itself. Adventists forget the typological aspect and press for a perfect match, but, as illustrated above, perfect match means that the final judgment will not finally annihilate the wicked. They will somehow manage to escape total extinction, as it happened with the citizens of Sodom who will raise again at the second coming. Of course, the adventist just ignored my point and shamelessly continued to push his views like he didn't hear me. And also he accused me of ignoring the plain testimony of Scripture regarding Sodom. Gabriel | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12731 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jrt and Jackob, such great points! What you said, Jackob, about the Adventist need to make the example be a "perfect match" is so true. It's a "match", but not when you stand back and look at the exact meanings of the text. The context is clearly about Sodom and Gomorrah yet to be resurrected to face judgment! It's just amazing to me how we read those words, heard them explained, and blatantly ignored—simply did not see—the actual words of the passage. We saw the passage through the light of our worldview, not according to the plain meanings of the words. The great controversy worldview required us to have annihilation, so there was never a thought that we had to look at the exact meanings of the words themselves. This whole thing really makes me angry inside...our great controversy worldview (which required man not to have an immaterial spirit and which further required sin to be genetic—thus Jesus had fallen flesh—and which further meant we were not utterly depraved) completely defined our perception of reality. Talk about living in a fantasy, a deception... Colleen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1977 Registered: 7-2007 |
Sin comes through the father, not the mother. Romans 5:12 says: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men..." Jesus didn't have a human father, so He was born without a sinful nature. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1189 Registered: 7-2004  |
I've heard that explanation before about Jesus being without a sinful nature because the sin comes through the father and Jesus didn't have a human father, but I have a hard time buying into that explanation. That makes it sound like sin is physical when in reality it is spiritual. And it also makes it sound like if a human male could have existed in a pre-sin condition at that time and been the father, that would have been sufficient for Jesus to have born without a sinful nature. Jesus would have been without sin regardless because He is God. The woman was necessary because women give birth and men don't. It seems to me all that verse is saying is that sin entered the world through Adam; the curse came because of Adam. It does say somewhere else in the Bible that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't, so maybe that's the reason it says sin entered through Adam rather than through Eve. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1981 Registered: 7-2007 |
Actually the Bible does say that Eve was a "transgressor" i.e. "sinner." "and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." 1st Tim. 2:14 So even though she sinned first, the Bible says in 1st Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." Over and over again the Bible says that the sins of the fathers would be passed down. (Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9) | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1190 Registered: 7-2004 |
Or course I believe Eve was a sinner. I was just saying that maybe since she was deceived and Adam wasn't, that could be why it stated that sin entered through Adam. Or it could just be because the Bible has always used much more male language. I haven't seen any solid biblical evidence (that can't easily be understood a different way) that supports the idea that sin comes through the father (literally, physically, and only--we've certainly seen people inherit sins from female family). And since that idea in my mind makes sin more physical than spiritual, I can't go along with it. I think the simplest, most obvious explanation as to why Jesus didn't have a human father is because to be a miraculous God-man birth, there could be only 1 human involved, and it had to be a woman because that's who gives birth. Regardless of the circumstances of His birth, or exactly how this mystery came about - God isn't dependent on the science (or theological laws) of human genes to be sinless. (Message edited by Raven on July 10, 2011) | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 1156 Registered: 10-2008 |
Raven and Asurprise, I am struggling to understand the context of your posts. The thread is about the Adventist explanation of hell using Sodom and Gomorrah ... What does sin being passed on and Christ's nature have to do with that? I'm not upset - just trying to follow your thoughts so I can be able to comment or respond. Thanks, JRT | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1191 Registered: 7-2004 |
Sorry Jrt - I have absolutely no idea what it has to do with the original thread topic, but was only responding to Asurprise's point. The first time I heard the idea that the reason Jesus didn't have and couldn't have a human father was to guarantee His sinlessness I was astonished. It is speculation, it is a theory, not orthodox doctrine. As such, it really doesn't need to be settled but I don't believe should be stated as fact, either. I can't find the research immediately, but when I previously dug into this further, the person who began this theory (and it's only been since the age of the study of genetics) is explicit that sin can only pass through the sperm. He has some complicated scientific explanation for all of it, but I also found that someone else, a decade or so later, completely debunked his theory as genetic science became even more knowledgeable. Either way, it really, really bothers me that it 1) demotes sin to mostly physcial instead of spiritaul and 2) requires Jesus to follow some physical law to retain sinlessness as the God/man instead of Him simply being sinless because He is God. It's possible Asurprise and I are talking about two different things, but it sounded exactly like what I heard about and the theory used the same scripture (besides their complicated "scientific" proof) to back it up. It doesn't have to be discussed further. I also wonder though what it had to do with the orginal topic. | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 1157 Registered: 10-2008 |
Oh, just saw what you were addressing. Hmmm ... As an Adventist I always saw sin as something physical and singular - not something pervasive and endemic. Romans 3 is what I think of when I think of sin now ...." No one seeks after God, no not one.". Until I became born again, I didn't fully realize my complete state before being born again - dead in my transgressions (Eph. 2) Just some thoughts ... Jrt | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 1158 Registered: 10-2008 |
Raven, No, problem. You were posting as I was also writing. I see your point and am also disturbed by sin being "acts" rather than a spiritual condition. I read over the thread and I think it was the end of Colleen's post that prompted the turn .... Again, no problem ... Just couldn't figure out why the turn of thought and what was being addressed  Jrt | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1983 Registered: 7-2007 |
I was responding to the end of Colleen's post. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2855 Registered: 8-2004  |
For what it's worth, Augustine taught that sin passed through the sperm - it's part of why he abhorred sex and had a fear of women who could tempt men to fall to it. Of course he thought, as many ancients did, that all of the genetic makeup of children were from the father alone with the mother only contributing an empty womb for the baby to grow in. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1192 Registered: 7-2004 |
Yes, I had forgotten Augustine taught that (and I greatly respect plenty of his theological contributions), but it still seems like a level of detail that is speculation with problems. It's not in the Augustinian Confession, is it ? That's probably why the scientist who tried to prove that concept scientifically, even bothered. But then his "proof" eventually turned out to go against later scientific knowledge. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1813 Registered: 3-2009 |
Could we go back to Sodom and Gomorrah? Hec |
