|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,204
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
|
|
|
6 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Kevin H, 3 invisible),
2,740
guests, and 8
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16099
11/02/05 04:53 PM
11/02/05 04:53 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom: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?
Yes. If you read through the 1888 materials, this is very clear. Here's a brief description of what happened. Feel free to verify that what I'm presenting is accurate.
Before the 1888 GC, Waggoner and Jones were presenting articles in Signs of the Times regarding righteousness by faith in general, and the law in Galatians specifically. These views were at odds with views that Smith and others were presenting in the Review and Herald.
Ellen White was concerned that we would be presenting different views in our papers, thinking that this would be confusing to those not of our faith. So she counseled that they differing groups get together, and hash things out (i.e. through Bible study). She didn't want them producing conflicting views. Butler did not heed her advice and published a pamphlet entitled "The Law in Galatians".
Waggoner wrote a pamphlet entitled, "The Gospel in Galatians." He did not distribute his pamphlet, because of Ellen White's counsel. When Butler published his pamphlet, Ellen White was upset, but felt it would only be fair to allow Waggoner to present his view publicly as well. So he was invited to do so at the 1888 GC session in Minneapolis.
Ellen White loved what she heard from him. She had never heard him before, and as she put it, "Every fiber of my heart said Amen!" and "precious truths ... which I could respond to with all my heart."
The atmosphere was very charged with a lot of ill will and distrust on the anti-Waggoner/Jones side. So strong was the prejudice against Jone and Waggoner that they (the anti side) questioned whether Sister White had lost her prophetic gift. It was in this setting that she sought to defuse their prejudice, and said, in effect, "Listen to what he has to say. There are even some things which I don't see as correct, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize he is presenting light from God!"
If you take a look at all that was going on, and consider the overall context, you will recognize that the phrase you are attempting to use against Waggoner is using her words entirely in the opposite way from what she intended. In no way was she rebuking Waggoner or lessening her endorsement of him. She was doing exactly what I said she was, which was attempting to lessen the prejudice against Waggoner, and get them to listen to him.
If you examine the relevant documents aroune Nov. of 1888, I am confident you will see I have presented an accurate picture of what was happening.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16100
11/03/05 11:41 AM
11/03/05 11:41 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
1- quote:
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.
Ellen White said that Crosier had “the true light about the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc.” and recommended his article.
Correct points about the cleansing of the sanctuary in the article:
1) the sanctuary referred to in Dan. 8:14 was the sanctuary in heaven
2) the cleansing of this sanctuary began at the end of the 2300 days
3) like the earthly sanctuary, the heavenly has two apartments and two phases of ministration
4) Christ entered the holy place at His ascension, not the holy of holies
5) Azazel represents Satan
Wrong points about the cleansing of the sanctuary in the article:
1) the cleansing of the sanctuary involves only the blotting out of sin – not the forgiveness of sin
2) the atonement did not began on earth with the cross, but in heaven at Christ’s ascension
Conclusion: “the true light about the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc.” does not involve everything Crosier said about the cleansing of the sanctuary. She was in agreement with him about most points, but not about all. So, if I want to know what Ellen White thought about the cleansing of the sanctuary, I have to go to Ellen White, not to Crosier.
2- I don’t believe I would be helping you by saying that I do not regard what you say as correct.
3- quote:
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?
No, the available sources of information are scant. What we can deduce is that they defended that Christ was not subject to physical infirmities (which is true), therefore the same could happen with true believers (which is false); that Christ was not subject to corruption, therefore true believers wouldn’t die (which is false [and contradictory because Christ died]); that Mary was made sinless so that Christ could be born of sinless flesh (which is false); that both Christ and true believers couldn’t be tempted from within, which includes physical temptations (which is false):
“Men and women, supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, held meetings in a state of nudity. They talked about holy flesh. They said they were beyond the power of temptation, and they sang, and shouted, and made all manner of noisy demonstrations. These men and women were not bad, but they were deceived and deluded. . . . Satan was moulding the work, and sensuality was the result. The cause of God was dishonored. Truth, sacred truth, was leveled in the dust by human agencies.” {NL 51.3}
quote:
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.
Our difference here, Tom, has to do with where sinful tendencies reside; to you, they, in some way, reside in the body; to me, they reside in the mind; and Christ didn’t possess a carnal mind.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16101
11/03/05 11:56 AM
11/03/05 11:56 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Mike, quote:
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?
Both.
quote:
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?
I really don’t know, but what are you suggesting? That Satan has nothing to do with temptations from within?
quote:
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?
Do you mean in a perfect world?
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16102
11/03/05 02:42 PM
11/03/05 02:42 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
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?
What was the origin of Lucifer's initial temptation?
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16103
11/04/05 03:01 AM
11/04/05 03:01 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Rosangela, I agree with you that important aspect of this discussion is where temptations originate and/or reside. My previous questions were asked to clarify this point.
1. If evil angels were dead and gone, never more to tempt and annoy, would temptations bombard us like they do now?
2. If so, why?
3. If not, why not?
I'm trying to understand the origin and source of temptation. I believe temptations originate within, that they are generated and communicated by sinful flesh nature. Satan works through these channels to tempt us from without, but if he was dead and gone our fallen flesh nature would continue to echo the voice of Satan. What do you believe?
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16104
11/04/05 03:12 AM
11/04/05 03:12 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
John, that Lucifer chose to sin is a mystery. It is not possible to understand how or why he was tempted.
GC 492, 493
It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence. Yet enough may be understood concerning both the origin and the final disposition of sin to make fully manifest the justice and benevolence of God in all His dealings with evil. Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is "the transgression of the law;" it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16105
11/03/05 05:10 PM
11/03/05 05:10 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom: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.
R:Ellen White said that Crosier had “the true light about the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc.” and recommended his article.
Correct points about the cleansing of the sanctuary in the article:
1) the sanctuary referred to in Dan. 8:14 was the sanctuary in heaven
2) the cleansing of this sanctuary began at the end of the 2300 days
3) like the earthly sanctuary, the heavenly has two apartments and two phases of ministration
4) Christ entered the holy place at His ascension, not the holy of holies
5) Azazel represents Satan
Wrong points about the cleansing of the sanctuary in the article:
1) the cleansing of the sanctuary involves only the blotting out of sin – not the forgiveness of sin
2) the atonement did not began on earth with the cross, but in heaven at Christ’s ascension
Conclusion: “the true light about the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc.” does not involve everything Crosier said about the cleansing of the sanctuary. She was in agreement with him about most points, but not about all. So, if I want to know what Ellen White thought about the cleansing of the sanctuary, I have to go to Ellen White, not to Crosier.
My point is that if Ellen White endorsed someone on a specific point of theology, she agreed with the person whom she was endorsing on the specific point she was endorsing.
2- I don’t believe I would be helping you by saying that I do not regard what you say as correct.
I don't understand what you're saying.
3-
Old Tom: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.
R:Our difference here, Tom, has to do with where sinful tendencies reside; to you, they, in some way, reside in the body; to me, they reside in the mind; and Christ didn’t possess a carnal mind.
This is not how I perceive our difference. To the best of my knowledge, I have never made the statement that sinful tendencies reside in the body. I'm about 100% sure I've never made this statement.
I perceive our difference to be that I believe the post-lapsarian position, which Waggoner, Jones, Prescott, Haskell, and all the others I cited earlier, as well as all other SDA's who published in our papers or books until 1947. I also believe Ellen White's position was materially the same as Waggoner, Jones, Prescott, Haskell, as well as all other SDA's who published in our papers or books until 1947. I believe a new position started entering in to the church starting from then (e.g. Bible Readings for the Home was changed at this time), and that this new position is incorrect.
Regarding the mind and the flesh, I cited the article of A. T. Jones, and said several times that I believe his article to be clear, and that I agreed with what he wrote. I also asked you several times if you agreed with the article, but to the best of my knowledge, you never responded.
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16106
11/04/05 01:59 AM
11/04/05 01:59 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
John, that Lucifer chose to sin is a mystery. It is not possible to understand how or why he was tempted.
Why do you think he was “tempted”?
Does one have to be “tempted” in order to sin?
What about all the angels which had no sinful flesh, how were they tempted?
What is temptation?
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16107
11/04/05 04:10 AM
11/04/05 04:10 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
It is not possible to understand how or why he was tempted.
Why does, "I do not understand how or why" get translated to "It is no possible to understand how or why?"
|
|
|
Re: What happens to our sinful flesh nature when we are born again?
#16108
11/04/05 11:17 AM
11/04/05 11:17 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
My point is that if Ellen White endorsed someone on a specific point of theology, she agreed with the person whom she was endorsing on the specific point she was endorsing.
She endorsed Crosier on the cleansing of the sanctuary, but there were some aspects in his position that were wrong.
quote:
R: I don’t believe I would be helping you by saying that I do not regard what you say as correct.
T: I don't understand what you're saying.
I was referring to Waggoner. I don’t think that EGW’s saying that she didn’t consider as correct some of his interpretations of the Bible would help to eliminate any prejudice against him. What happens is that she endorsed his general message but said frankly she didn’t agree with some of his interpretations of the Bible.
quote:
This is not how I perceive our difference. To the best of my knowledge, I have never made the statement that sinful tendencies reside in the body. I'm about 100% sure I've never made this statement.
Well, this is how I understood your position. You kept saying that sinful tendencies are genetically transmitted to the brain, which is a part of the body, and not to the mind (which is my position). What is your position after all?
quote:
I believe a new position started entering in to the church starting from then (e.g. Bible Readings for the Home was changed at this time), and that this new position is incorrect.
There was not so much harmony of views before that time as some may believe. According to the 1895 General Conference Bulletin, Jones made several statements about Christ’s human nature during the meetings: "Christ's nature is precisely our nature" (p. 231); "In His human nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you" (p. 233); There is "not a single tendency to sin in you and me that was not in Adam when he stepped out of the garden" (p. 333). All the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in his human flesh," yet "not one of them was ever allowed to appear; he conquered them all. And in him we all have victory over them all" (p. 266, 267). Christ "was sinful as we" (p. 302). However, he was confronted by the delegates with some statements of Ellen White, such as that one of Christ sharing human infirmities but not the passions. It was then that he came up with that explanation that Christ was made in the likeness of sinful flesh but not in the likeness of sinful mind. The fact is that the delegates must have found a discrepancy between what he was saying and what Ellen White said, otherwise they wouldn't have confronted him with her words.
Curiously, both Prescott and Waggoner, several years after The Desire of Ages was written, still held the semi-arian concept that Christ’s life was derived from the Father. Ellen White had written clearly about it, but they didn't seem to pay attention to what she was saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
