|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,205
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
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16089
11/01/05 08:23 PM
11/01/05 08:23 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Rosangela has stated several times that she sees no essential difference in how man is tempted before or after the fall.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16090
11/01/05 10:57 PM
11/01/05 10:57 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
If Ellen White endorses some author/preacher on a specific point of theology then that does imply that she agrees with that point of theology.
Tom, she endorsed Crosier’s view on the sanctuary. What would happen if someone decided to use Crosier’s article as a basis to determine Ellen White’s thought?
She also endorsed Waggoner’s presentation on righteousness by faith in 1888. Why then did she say in a letter that there were some points on which she did not agree with him?
quote:
For example, she listened in person to a sermon by W. W. Prescott entitled "The Word Became Flesh". Over three dozen times W. W. Prescott referred to the fact that Christ took our fallen, sinful flesh.
OK, but in his sermon Prescott doesn’t mention that Christ took our sinful tendencies.
quote:
She not only endorsed the particular points of theology of certain ones (such as Waggoner and Haskel), she endorsed this theology with the specific purpose of overcoming a heresy whose foundation was the opposite of what she was endorsing. That is, the Holy Flesh heresy was predicated on the belief that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam.
It is difficult to determine exactly what the holy flesh movement taught. Haskell himself said that it was "a mixture of truth and error, with much excitement and music." {5BIO 102.3}
“In 1898 and 1899 Elder S. S. Davis, conference evangelist in Indiana, developed and promulgated teachings that led to this movement. The basic features of this strange doctrine, which was called ‘the cleansing message,’ were that when Jesus passed through the Garden of Gethsemane He had an experience that all who follow Him must have. It was taught that Jesus had holy flesh, and that those who followed Him through this Garden experience would likewise have holy flesh. They were then ‘born’ sons of God and they had ‘translation’ faith. Having holy flesh like Christ, they could not experience corruption any more than He did; thus they would live to see Him come. This faith, it was claimed, was similar to that which led to the translation of Enoch and Elijah. Those who did not have this experience were ‘adopted’ sons. They did not have translation faith; they must pass through the grave and thus go to heaven by ‘the underground railway.’” {5BIO 100.5}
Ellen White says about holy flesh:
“When human beings receive holy flesh, they will not remain on the earth, but will be taken to heaven. While sin is forgiven in this life, its results are not now wholly removed. It is at His coming that Christ is to ‘change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.’”--2SM 33 (1901).
Maybe the movement held that sinful tendencies were eliminated when the person underwent the “Garden experience”, but its main emphasis seems to have been on the elimination of the effects of sin, resulting in a body not subject to corruption, a body ready to be translated. This definitely was not the flesh Christ took.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16091
11/01/05 11:50 PM
11/01/05 11:50 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
If Ellen White endorses some author/preacher on a specific point of theology then that does imply that she agrees with that point of theology.
Tom, she endorsed Crosier’s view on the sanctuary. What would happen if someone decided to use Crosier’s article as a basis to determine Ellen White’s thought?
I assume the point of your question is something like this:
a)It would be a bad thing if we used Crosier's article as a basis to determine Ellen White's thought.
b)Therefore it is bad to use Ellen White's endorsement of anyone to determine her thought on anything.
This isn't a sound argument. To disprove my argument you would have to mention a specific theology point on which Ellen White agreed with Crosier, and then show that on the very point that she endorsed him on, she disagreed. Good luck!
I don't understand how EGW could endorse a specific point of theology and not agree with the specific point that she was endorsing.
She also endorsed Waggoner’s presentation on righteousness by faith in 1888. Why then did she say in a letter that there were some points on which she did not agree with him?
She had never heard Waggoner speak before the 1888 General Conference Session. She was amazed when she heard him speak, her face beaming, and exhorting, "Amen! Brethren, there is great light here!
The purpose of her statement that there were some things she did not disagree with was to allay the stark prejudice there was against Waggoner's message, trying to get those present with her to consider his message. She was saying even for herself there were some things which were different than what she was at that time thinking, just like there were things the others were hearing which were different than what they had been thinking. She was trying to get them to set aside their prejudice.
To use this phrase of hers, which was designed to establish the importance of Waggoner's message in a way to instead diminish it is amazing. One could hardly stand her words on their head more than this.
If you read the material released by the Ellen White estate, you can get a sense of her meaning, not just in this instance, but as a whole. She endorsed Jones and Waggoner's message over a thousand times, and in the strongest possible language. You can read her letters to those who opposed them, about how she appealed over and over for them to set aside their prejudice and listen to what Waggoner and Jones were saying, pointing out that it was light from heaven which we would not have had had God not sent them (making it clear that it was not light that God was giving to the church through her). She made it clear that she was not the only means by which God communicated truth to the church, and stated to Pastor Washburn that they (Jones and Waggoner) could teach righteousness by faith better than she.
"Why, Sister White," I said, "do you mean to say that E. J. Waggoner can teach it better than you can, with all your experience?" Sister White replied, "Yes, the Lord has given him special light on that question. I have been wanting to bring it out more clearly, but I could not have brought it out as clearly as he did. But when he brought it out at Minneapolis, I recognized it."
At any rate, my statement that if she endorsed someone on a theological point that she agreed with them on that point is so obviously true it would be difficult to see how anyone could argue against it. If I had said something like, "Because Ellen White agreed with Jones and Waggoner on one point, she must have agreed with them on everything they ever said" that would be another matter, but I didn't say that. I qualified my assertion to saying that if she endorsed someone on a specific point, she agreed with them on that point.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16092
11/02/05 04:26 AM
11/02/05 04:26 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Regarding Prescott, am I to understand you agreed with the sermon, given that it didn't mention Christ had our tendencies? Excellent! It was a great sermon, wasn't it? Yours is the first opinion I've seen that states it is difficult to know what the Holy Flesh people taught. Haskell explained is succinctly: quote:
Their point of theology in this particular respect seems to be this. They believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell; so He [Christ] took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden, and thus humanity was holy, and this is the humanity which Christ had; and now, they say, the particular time has come for us to become holy in that sense, and then we will have ‘translation faith’ and never die.
He then commented on their attempts to convince them of their error:
quote:
When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.”
Waggoner preached to the same end at the 1901 General Conference session. The Adventists alive at the time didn't seem to have any trouble understanding what the holy flesh movement was teaching, nor how it should be cured. Teach the truth about the nature Christ took. Easy!
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16093
11/02/05 12:48 PM
11/02/05 12:48 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
What I am saying is that if Ellen White endorses someone’s theological view on a certain point, she doesn’t have to endorse 100% of the opinions of that person involved in that view.
Ellen White not only endorsed, but said that "The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized to recommend that Extra to every saint." (A Word to the Little Flock, p. 12. April 21, 1847).
However, in this article, one of the author’s arguments is that
“the former [the daily atonement] was made for the forgiveness of sins, the latter [the yearly atonement] for blotting them out - the former could be made at any time, the latter only on the tenth day of the seventh month.” (italics in the original)
On this basis, the author concludes that
“It has been shown that atonement was made for the forgiveness of sins, and I have found no evidence that such an atonement was made on tenth day of the seventh month.” (italics in the original, bolds mine)
Being the conclusion of the author that there was no forgiveness of sins during the day of atonement, he refutes the evangelical view that Christ entered the holy of holies at His ascension using the following argument:
“Now it must be clear to every one, that if the antitype of the yearly service (Hebrews 9:7), began at the first Advent, the antitype of the daily (Hebrews 9:6), had been previously fulfilled; and, as the atonement for forgiveness was a part of that daily service, they are involved in the conclusion that there has been no forgiveness of sins under the Gospel Dispensation.” (bolds mine)
Have you realized that he is teaching the shut door – no forgiveness of sins on the day of atonement? And do you think that Ellen White – or God - endorsed this?
Another erroneous view of the author (which Andreasen, in his Letters to the Churches, presents as being Ellen White’s view just because she endorses this article), is that the atonement doesn't involve the sacrifice – just the subsequent ministration of the blood.
“The slaying was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim. (See Leviticus 4:1–5, 13–15, etc.) After the priest took the blood and made the atonement. (See Leviticus 4:5–12, 16–21.)...
Therefore, He did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, until after His ascension, when by his own blood, He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us."
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16094
11/02/05 12:51 PM
11/02/05 12:51 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
The purpose of her statement that there were some things she did not disagree with was to allay the stark prejudice there was against Waggoner's message, trying to get those present with her to consider his message. She was saying even for herself there were some things which were different than what she was at that time thinking, just like there were things the others were hearing which were different than what they had been thinking. She was trying to get them to set aside their prejudice.
“Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman. I have no reason to think that he is not as much esteemed of God as are any of my brethren, and I shall regard him as a Christian brother, so long as there is no evidence that he is unworthy. The fact that he honestly holds some views of Scripture differing from yours or mine is no reason why we should treat him as an offender, or as a dangerous man, and make him the subject of unjust criticism. We should not raise a voice of censure against him or his teachings unless we can present weighty reasons for so doing and show him that he is in error. No one should feel at liberty to give loose rein to the combative spirit.” {1888 164.1}
She said that she didn’t consider some interpretations of the Bible given by Waggoner as correct – and this was just “to allay the stark prejudice” against him?
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16095
11/02/05 12:54 PM
11/02/05 12:54 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
Yours is the first opinion I've seen that states it is difficult to know what the Holy Flesh people taught. Haskell explained is succinctly:
Yes, his explanation there is very succinct indeed; in fact, too succinct for us to have a true idea about what this movement taught. Another letter of his, together with Ellen White’s reply, can give us a better idea:
"Some of the strangest doctrines I have heard is the seal of God cannot be placed on any person of gray hairs, or any deformed person, for in the closing work, we would reach such a state of perfection, both physically and spiritually, and then could not die. I said to brother Breed...that I expected the next I would hear we could get a new set of teeth in this life. Well, brother Breed said, that was preached by some."--S. N. Haskell, to E. G. White, October 3, 1899. {14MR 65.2}
Six weeks later Elder Haskell wrote further:
"There is a doctrine, however, being preached by some that is called physical righteousness. It is this--if we live aright, it will ensure us to live and be made immortal when the Lord comes."--S. N. Haskell to E. G. White, November 23, 1899. {14MR 65.4}
Haskell indicated that the advocates of the "physical righteousness" or "holy flesh" doctrine based their teaching on a statement made by Ellen White. In 1877 she had written: {14MR 65.5}
“Those who make determined efforts in the name of the conqueror to overcome every unnatural craving of appetite will not die in the conflict. In their efforts to control appetite they are placing themselves in right relation to life, so that they may enjoy health and the favor of God, and have a right hold on the immortal life."--Redemption, or The Temptation of Christ, p. 81. {14MR 65.6}
These are some excerpts of the reply of E. White:
“Those who present the idea that the blind, the deaf, the lame, the deformed, will not receive the seal of God, are not speaking words given them by the Holy Spirit. There is much suffering in our world. To some, suffering and disease have been transmitted as an inheritance. Others suffer because of accidents. Cause and effect are always in operation in our world, and always will be. The Lord has afflicted ones, dearly beloved in His sight, who bear the suffering of bodily infirmities. To them special care and grace is promised. Their trials will not be greater than they can endure. {14MR 56.2}
“No one in this world is exempt from calamity, from misfortune, and affliction. But if our hearts are washed in the blood of the Lamb, however poor and afflicted we may be, we are privileged to see in anticipation the joy that will be ours in heaven. Then let God's promises be received and enjoyed by faith. Let none of God's people believe the fables advanced by some regarding the color of the hair. The idea that persons who are deformed must be healed in order to be saved is a fable originated by someone who needs inward cleansing before he can receive the seal of God. In the great day of God, all who are faithful and true will receive the healing touch of the divine Restorer. The Life-giver will remove every deformity, and will give them eternal life. {14MR 64.1}
“In God's Word the question is not, What is the color of the hair or the form of the body? but, Has the heart been purified, made white, and tried?” --Letter 207, 1899.
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll/egw-comp/section12951.htm/book13914.htm/chapter13927.htm
Therefore, it’s clear that the “holy flesh” they said Christ had, and that they too could have, involved physical perfection – a flesh like Adam’s, without the effects of sin.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16096
11/02/05 04:22 PM
11/02/05 04:22 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
Rosangela has stated several times that she sees no essential difference in how man is tempted before or after the fall.
True, but my question isn't about how we are tempted, but about the origin and source of temptation. Where do our temptations originate? Do they originate within or without?
If evil angels were dead and gone, would all temptations cease? Or, would we still be tempted? If so, what would be the origin of such temptations?
If evil angels were dead and gone, if they did not exist during the time Jesus walked the earth, could He have been tempted? If so, what would have been the origin of His temptations?
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16097
11/02/05 04:33 PM
11/02/05 04:33 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Tom, What I am saying is that if Ellen White endorses someone’s theological view on a certain point, she doesn’t have to endorse 100% of the opinions of that person involved in that view. Which is what I said.Ellen White not only endorsed, but said that "The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized to recommend that Extra to every saint." (A Word to the Little Flock, p. 12. April 21, 1847). What I said was that if Ellen White endorsed someone on a specific point of theology, then she agreed with that person on the point she endorsed. What do you think Ellen White was endorsing, regarding Crosier? It was some point of theology, wasn't it? Do you not agree that she was agreeing with him on whatever it was she was endorsing him about?
Consider the following quote:
quote:
Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature.(RH 2/18/90)
She was preaching with Waggoner and Jones on the subject of Christ's humanity, and defended the position they were presenting. Clearly she had the same position they had, which was different from the ones who were questioning their position. She makes the very same argument that I and others have been brining up, "If He were not a partaker of out nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been." This is exactly what post-lapsarians argue, and exactly what pre-lapsarians argue against.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16098
11/02/05 04:35 PM
11/02/05 04:35 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Therefore, it’s clear that the “holy flesh” they said Christ had, and that they too could have, involved physical perfection – a flesh like Adam’s, without the effects of sin. Thanks for providing the quotes you did. They were interesting. However, your conclusion is not at all clear to me. That is, it is not clear to me that the holy flesh they said Christ had involved physical perfection, at least in the sense of being like Adam. Your conclusion, if true, would mean that they believed that Christ never got tired, for example, sin unfallen Adam never got tired. Are you aware of anything which would support this idea?
At any rate, it's off the point, which is that they Holy Flesh people taught the following:
a)Christ's flesh was like that of unfallan Adam's
b)In order to be sinless, we need flesh like Christ's
In order to counteract this claim, the SDA's argued that Christ's flesh was not like unfallen Adam's, but like fallen Adam's.
quote:
“When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned,” Haskell wrote, “notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.”
Note that the objections the holy flesh people raised are the very same objections pre-lapsarians raise today.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
