|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,639
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Colin]
#104981
11/21/08 10:10 PM
11/21/08 10:10 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Only God himself is worthy to die for us...oh, but we don't officially believe God died for us. Oh well:( How do you view the following quote, Colin? It's still more forceful than the other one: "When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible." {5BC 1113.2}
|
 Reply
 Quote
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: DebbieB]
#104982
11/21/08 10:19 PM
11/21/08 10:19 PM
|
OP
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,636
California, USA
|
|
But I don't see why EGW would say, in the middle of describing what Jesus did, that the Father and Holy Spirit did not die. It seems foreign to the context. Is it? It is. More below. When the Trinitarian doctrine holds them to be one indivisable substance - therefore trinitarian doctrine would conclude that for one to die as God all would die? Does it? Do you have a quote from an authoritative, definitive Trinitarian source for that assertion? Personally, I don't know any authoritative, definitive Trinitarian source to ask. Ellen White her is affirming a non-trinitarian stance and affirming that though ONE MEMBER of the Godhead died all did not! Let's look at the context. "I am the resurrection, and the life." He who had said, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again," came forth from the grave to life that was in himself. Humanity died: divinity did not die. In his divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that he has life in himself to quicken whom he will. {YI, August 4, 1898 par. 1}
All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God. However able and talented, however large their capacities, they are replenished with life from the source of all life. He is the spring, the fountain, of life. Only he who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light and life, could say, "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again." {YI, August 4, 1898 par. 2} Anyone can read the entire article here: The Risen Saviour. It's only 9 paragraphs long. There is nothing in there like "Jesus died while the Father and Spirit did not die." What we find there is the affirmation that Jesus is immortal (we can discuss what that word means) and that He has the right to "quicken whom He will." It is an article on the life that Jesus has. Let's go back to the first paragraph of that article, the immediate context of the statement in question, and let's put in [Jesus] and [Father and Spirit] where you claim she meant them to be. (But I won't take time to fix grammar.) " [Jesus] am the resurrection, and the life." [Jesus] who had said, " [Jesus] lay down [Jesus] life, that [Jesus] might take it again," came forth from the grave to life that was in [Jesus]. [Jesus] died: [Father and Spirit] did not die. In [Jesus'] divinity, [Jesus] possessed the power to break the bonds of death. [Jesus] declares that [Jesus] has life in [Jesus] to quicken whom [Jesus] will. {YI, August 4, 1898 par. 1} Yes, it is foreign to the context. It is not much more of a stretch to claim that what EGW meant to assert was that Jesus died, but your pet chicken did not die.
By God's grace,
Arnold
1 John 5:11-13
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: asygo]
#104983
11/21/08 10:27 PM
11/21/08 10:27 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
This quote states that the Saviour's humanity is unlike those he has saved: No other human being has been, is, or will be exactly like Him. This point is emphasised by the next sentence: He was by nature and by personal election sinless. That appears to say that Jesus took the nature of sinless or unfallen Adam, but it is clear that our church teaching is neither that nor fallen Adam's nature: "sinful but without sin," meaning physically but not morally weak, in the flesh. I agree. Jesus took neither fallen nor unfallen Adam's nature. So, Arnold, how do you reconcile "sinful but without sin" with Greek "sarx" of Rom 8:3, which means typical, sinful & degenerate human nature? Also, is Bro. Rodriguez' inclusion of our fallen nature for Jesus a surprise for you, or does his guidance perhaps not hold any weight? Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. {16MR 182.3} If we can find one who is "fallen but not corrupted" that would only be the 2nd one in the history of man. What do you think of her reference to Jesus "fallen and degenerate" human nature, rendering "corrupted" indeed a matter depending on choice rather than nature?
Last edited by asygo; 11/22/08 03:54 AM. Reason: fixed formatting for clarity
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Rosangela]
#104986
11/21/08 10:47 PM
11/21/08 10:47 PM
|
|
|
Excellent quote.  Only God himself is worthy to die for us...oh, but we don't officially believe God died for us. Oh well:( How do you view the following quote, Colin? It's still more forceful than the other one: "When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible." {5BC 1113.2}
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Daryl]
#104987
11/21/08 10:54 PM
11/21/08 10:54 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Some good points here... In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. {7ABC 447.3}
[S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7A (1970)]
Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.--Ibid., p. 1128.
(448) {7ABC 447.4} [S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7A (1970)]
The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . {7ABC 449.7}
[S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7A (1970)] Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Rosangela]
#104991
11/21/08 11:13 PM
11/21/08 11:13 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Only God himself is worthy to die for us...oh, but we don't officially believe God died for us. Oh well:( How do you view the following quote, Colin? It's still more forceful than the other one: "When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible." {5BC 1113.2} She's insisting that deity is immortal, and cannot indeed die on its own: " sink and die," expresses weakening into mortality. It is tantamount to impossible for God to die, but, since Christ's humanity was mortal it was possible for him to die at all, and John 5:26 means that God's Son is able to give up and give away his eternal life, having been given it in the first place - Ellen White is emphatic that Jesus gives us of his eternal life. Thus, contrary to what is misstated regularly of late in the SS Quarterly, the Father could not have "equally" come instead of the Son, for he dwells in light unapproachable, etc., while the Son is the Godhead revealed to man, as EGW writes. The Bible teaches that one worthy of the law must die to atone for sinners, "for if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son,..." God's Son dying is a mystery, but so is the incarnation: I believe it, as it is written.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Colin]
#104992
11/21/08 11:14 PM
11/21/08 11:14 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Christ's humanity was mortal it was possible for him to die at all Yes, Christ's humanity was mortal. Was His divinity mortal? The quote explicitly says, "When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died." This statement would be completely out of place if both natures had died.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: asygo]
#104998
11/22/08 12:36 AM
11/22/08 12:36 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
There is nothing in there like "Jesus died while the Father and Spirit did not die." What we find there is the affirmation that Jesus is immortal (we can discuss what that word means) and that He has the right to "quicken whom He will." It is an article on the life that Jesus has.
"[Jesus] am the resurrection, and the life." [Jesus] who had said, "[Jesus] lay down [Jesus] life, that [Jesus] might take it again," came forth from the grave to life that was in [Jesus]. [Jesus] died: [Father and Spirit] did not die. In [Jesus'] divinity, [Jesus] possessed the power to break the bonds of death. [Jesus] declares that [Jesus] has life in [Jesus] to quicken whom [Jesus] will. {YI, August 4, 1898 par. 1} Yes, Jesus our great God and Saviour, powerful to save, give eternal life, lay it down and take it again - it is infinite, after all! In Jesus life work as Messiah he lived, gave and died for us: That involves him dying for sin and sinners, while his Father and Spirit directly guided and strengthened him in his human suffering of obedience: that he died directly relates to their existence, for salvation is by "the death of [God's] Son" (Rom 5:10), and his death doesn't actually affect the life of the Godhead possessed by the Father and the Spirit, who were yet very involved in Christ's death. This survival of God at the death of his Son isn't permitted by the indivisible essence of the trinity doctrine - under which teaching the trinity would die with Christ should God actually die in Christ's humanity. Thus, Jesus task as Saviour doesn't actually endanger the life of God in the death of his Son as EGW emphasised, in contrast to essential trinitarianism whose "one God" of indivisible substance cannot endure the separation of God's Son's death; I would say today we subscribe to this principle, despite our variation on trinitarianism, with our "one God,..." having the same wording as strict trinitarians. Her statement smoothly gives the bigger picture without breaking stride, as is her inspired style. She's clarifying she doesn't believe in trinitarian limits, which rather threaten the atonement, as her husband his colleagues wrote. Her whole literature must be examined for her actual teaching.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #8 - Born of a Woman—Atonement and the INCARNATION
[Re: Daryl]
#104999
11/22/08 12:47 AM
11/22/08 12:47 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Colin,
Why are you not accepting such plainly worded quotes? At the moment I would simply refer to Rom 5:10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Also, since I understand the controversy then and now over the trinity doctrine in our church, the Bible continues to be the "greater light", leaving her to be interpreted according to the Biblical and her own context. I appreciate I look mad, but I can only otherwise refer you to the website I have found most informative on this trinity background: http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk It is much easier to read than my posts, tooooo
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
