Evangelical Adventist

[Sophia7]

I don't think these categories can be defined so rigidly by these beliefs. Also, when you mention the human or divine nature of Christ, are you speaking of the prelapsarian/postlapsarian controversy? I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I d on't think these categories can be defined so rigidly by these beliefs.

I know your belifes are flux right now as are mine, but there are catagories. Before you were a traditionalist and those were defined, now you are a progressive as I, but I do think these are only geneal catagories .

Also, when you mention the human or divine nature of Christ, are you speaking of the prelapsarian/postlapsarian controversy? I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.

historics are post lapsaren, or post fall nature and most traditionalist and Evanglicals are pre lapse or pre fall nature.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine

.[/quote] care to explain how that works

 

[HeisNear]

I don't think these categories can be defined so rigidly by these beliefs. Also, when you mention the human or divine nature of Christ, are you speaking of the prelapsarian/postlapsarian controversy? I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.

To all who read this,
Please forgive me, I was over the top in my earlier post. It was unruly behavior on my part.

Both Jones and Waggoner taught that the idea that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall is a legacy of Roman Catholicism, for them a fulfillment of the warning the apostle John writes in 1 John 4:1-3 about Antichrist. The onlly flesh there is in this world that Christ could "take" is the same fallen, sinful flesh that all of us posess by nature. He could not be "exempt" as the RH holds up in their publications.

Christ Jesus lived by faith in our sinful flesh. That makes Him the Author and Finisher of our faith. Hence, a people can be prepared for the second coming of
Christ, because it will be the "faith OF Jesus."

Christ was born of a virgin mother, through the process of human generation. Paul does not say that He was re-created from the ground as a replica of sinless Adam, but was "made ... according to the flesh." Questions on Doctrine claims that Christ had a "sinless nature."

He "took not on Him the nature of angels: but He took on Him the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16). The text does not say that He had to be made like unto His sinless brother Adam.

Many say to this issue, "Who cares, as long as we love Jesus." Tell that to the drug addict, the emotionally and physically abused, the alcoholic.

Waggoner makes the following statement which has been most encouraging to me:

"His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the nature of men; to know that His ancestors according to the flesh were sinners. When we read the record of the lives of the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weaknesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity. If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us. We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the admiration that would cause hopeless despair.
And now as another parallel to Gal. 4:4, and a further source of encouragement to us, I will quote,
2 Cor. 5:21: “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”
Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed through every phase of human experience, being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isa. 53:4); and this scripture is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was {62} a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham. He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross was ever before Him.
4. You say, “That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies as much against your position as it does against mine? You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make Him to be sin for us.
I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain them. “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmities of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him" (Waggoner, The Gospel in the Book of Galatians).

blessings,
John

 

[HeisNear]

I don't think these categories can be defined so rigidly by these beliefs. Also, when you mention the human or divine nature of Christ, are you speaking of the prelapsarian/postlapsarian controversy? I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.

Greetings,

Sorry for the length of the post, but I believe you'll find it of great interest.

A Letter written by S.N. Haskell to Ellen White September 25, 1900 regarding the false teachings of the "holy flesh movement" in Indiana.

"It is the greatest mixture of fanaticism in the truth that I have ever seen. I would not claim that we managed it the best way in everything. ... But when we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, not withstanding the fact we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us. ... 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 took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden; and thus humanity was holy, and this was the humanity which Christ had ..."

One week later, on Oct 2, Haskell wrote an editorial in the Review and Herald entitled "Christ in Holy Flesh, or A Holy Christ in sinful Flesh.

Two months later A. T. Jones wrote a series of articles in the Review entitled, "The faith of Jesus." They began Dec. 11, 1900 and continued until Jan. 29, 1901. His articles, and editorials about Christ's human nature, became the basis for his book about Christ in Hebrews: The Consecrated Way, which I highly recommend.

Donnell, president of the Indiana Conference, countered Jones by writing his own article entitled The Faith of Jesus in the Indiana Reporter. Donnell presented Christ with Adam's unfallen nature.

"He (Jesus) must possess that which He offers us, ... He must come standing where Adam, the first owner, stood before he fell" (Indiana Reporter, Article One, p. 4.)

Ellen White responed to S. N. Haskell regarding Indiana's holy flesh movement.

"The things you have described as taking place in Indiana, the Lord has shown me would take place just before the close of probation. ...the Lord showed me that erroneous theories and methods would be brought into our camp meetings, and the history of the past would be repeated. I felt greatly distressed. The third angel's message is to be given in straight lines. It is to be kept free from every thread of the cheap, miserable inventions of man's theories, prepared by the father of lies, and disguised as was the brilliant serpent used by Satan as a medium of deceiving our first parents" (EGW, 21 MR).

It is of special interest to note Ellen White's strongest statements on the nature of Christ came during the time of the holy flesh movement. She wrote that He took "the offending nature of man," a a nature "degraded and defiled by sin," "the nature of Adam, the transgressor."
"In Christ were united the divine and the human--the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus, ... Coming as He did , as a man, to meet and be subjected with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, working in every conceivable manner to destroy His faith" (EGW, Letter K-303, 1903, emphasis added).

The end will not come until a complete restoration of the Gospel will be proclaimed (Matt. 24:14).

"He [Jesus Christ] did not take the likeness of man just as Adam was before he fell, but He came down to the very plane to which man had fallen .. and took upon Himself the flesh of sin, and came to this earth 'that He might bring us to God.'" Prescott, RH, 01-1896

"...for it is sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden; and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is , that the flesh which He assumed had all the weakneses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is show by the statement that He 'was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.' David had all the passions of human nature." (Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness).

For the most part, the Adventist Church has always believed that Christ was divine and human, so does the Catholic church.

"We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not ... Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary? ... It is so strange that it takes us so long to come to the A B C's of the gospel" (Waggoner)

"We are too apt to view truths as a whole, and see only the surface, when, if we would ponder them, pray over them, and put to the stretch every mental power, we understand; for God would give us wisdom, as he did to Daniel. Our spiritual senses would be quickened to understand the deep things of God" (EGW, 02-11-1897).

"His human nature was created; ... It was human, identical with our own. He was passing over the ground where Adam fell. ... He would redeem Adam's desgraceful failure and fall, in our own humanity" (EGW, 6 MR 111, 1893).

It is my firm belief that Christ "took" our fallen nature, the nature of Adam after the fall. The other view is simply a regurgitation of the holy flesh movement and in the same family of the Immaculate Conception. May we "believe" in the better good news of the gospel of Jesus.

blessing in Christ,
John

 

[Adventist Dissident]

To all who read this,
Please forgive me, I was over the top in my earlier post. It was unruly behavior on my part.

Both Jones and Waggoner taught that the idea that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall is a legacy of Roman Catholicism, for them a fulfillment of the warning the apostle John writes in 1 John 4:1-3 about Antichrist. The onlly flesh there is in this world that Christ could "take" is the same fallen, sinful flesh that all of us posess by nature. He could not be "exempt" as the RH holds up in their publications.

Christ Jesus lived by faith in our sinful flesh. That makes Him the Author and Finisher of our faith. Hence, a people can be prepared for the second coming of
Christ, because it will be the "faith OF Jesus."

Christ was born of a virgin mother, through the process of human generation. Paul does not say that He was re-created from the ground as a replica of sinless Adam, but was "made ... according to the flesh." Questions on Doctrine claims that Christ had a "sinless nature."

He "took not on Him the nature of angels: but He took on Him the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16). The text does not say that He had to be made like unto His sinless brother Adam.

Many say to this issue, "Who cares, as long as we love Jesus." Tell that to the drug addict, the emotionally and physically abused, the alcoholic.

Waggoner makes the following statement which has been most encouraging to me:

"His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the nature of men; to know that His ancestors according to the flesh were sinners. When we read the record of the lives of the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weaknesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity. If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us. We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the admiration that would cause hopeless despair.
And now as another parallel to Gal. 4:4, and a further source of encouragement to us, I will quote,
2 Cor. 5:21: “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”
Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed through every phase of human experience, being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isa. 53:4); and this scripture is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was {62} a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham. He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross was ever before Him.
4. You say, “That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies as much against your position as it does against mine? You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make Him to be sin for us.
I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain them. “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmities of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him" (Waggoner, The Gospel in the Book of Galatians).

blessings,
John

post 24 and 25 why are they posted here?

 

[HeisNear]

post 24 and 25 why are they posted here?

Good question. It has everything do with the difference between an evangelical position and a conservative one. It goes deeper than just opinions and man made statements. It goes to the very heart of the misunderstanding concerning the worldwide Christendom belief system of the Evangelicals.

Thanks for your conern,
John

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Good question. It has everything do with the difference between an evangelical position and a conservative one. It goes deeper than just opinions and man made statements. It goes to the very heart of the misunderstanding concerning the worldwide Christendom belief system of the Evangelicals.

Thanks for your conern,
John

yes we know there is difference between the 2 groups, but this post is not about theology. At least in the manner in which you wish to speak of it. If you are wanting to start a thread on that subject then feel free to do so, but please stay on topic here. I think it would be a good discussion to have

 

[HeisNear]

yes we know there is difference between the 2 groups, but this post is not about theology. At least in the manner in which you wish to speak of it. If you are wanting to start a thread on that subject then feel free to do so, but please stay on topic here. I think it would be a good discussion to have

Thanks, I relent.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

historics are post lapsaren, or post fall nature and most traditionalist and Evanglicals are pre lapse or pre fall nature.

Why does this even matter, if Jesus never sinned what does it matter if he had a nature of Adam whatever that was or the nature of everyone else. Even if one believed in Adam as a literal man who had a prefall nature it did not stop him from sinning and there is no indication that his nature changed after sinning any way.

If God became incarnate and lived as a human would he not still be God? If He is God then would He not also have the nature of God?

There is only one reason I can see for this argument in the Adventist church and that is because there are last generation perfection people who want to say we can be just as perfect as Jesus Christ. Which is kind of silly because even if we could get to such perfection we will have still sinned before our perfection and thus we would not be like Jesus.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Why does this even matter, if Jesus never sinned what does it matter if he had a nature of Adam whatever that was or the nature of everyone else. Even if one believed in Adam as a literal man who had a prefall nature it did not stop him from sinning and there is no indication that his nature changed after sinning any way.

If God became incarnate and lived as a human would he not still be God? If He is God then would He not also have the nature of God?

There is only one reason I can see for this argument in the Adventist church and that is because there are last generation perfection people who want to say we can be just as perfect as Jesus Christ. Which is kind of silly because even if we could get to such perfection we will have still sinned before our perfection and thus we would not be like Jesus.

you seem to have a decent undersatnd of the situation. Last generation theology is part of the problem. It leads to legalism. If christ did it so can I. there is no need to be born again. There is the obvious problem of Christ being exactly like us, if that is the case then how can he be our saviour?? HOw is he God? there has to be something in him that is divine and they don't deal with that. He has to be like us enough to understand us and enough different to save us.

 

[Sophia7]

I think almost all Adventists today would acknowledge that Jesus was both human and divine.

care to explain how that works

The issue isn't whether Jesus was human or divine, as your list implied when you specified whether those groups believe in the "human nature of Christ" or the "divine nature of Christ." The issue of pre-lapsarian vs. post-lapsarian has to do with what kind of human nature Jesus had. That's why I said that most Adventists would agree that He was both divine and human; what the different groups disagree on is whether He had a pre-fall or post-fall human nature. I just wanted to clarify your wording on that so that no one would misunderstand.

 

[Sophia7]

Those who take the post-fall view definitely seem to do so in order to emphasize Jesus as our example in overcoming sin (it fits nicely with the tenets of Last Generation Theology), to the criticism of those on the opposite side, who think that this view minimizes His role as our Savior.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

ok sophia you got me

 

[Adventist Dissident]

with all these differen groups, Should we start a New Denomination? or should we stay with the SDA chruch.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I think that there can be unity in diversity. One thing to say about all the different groups is that they are all identifiable as SDA's. There is a common thread running through us all. Let's not give up on the things we all share.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I think that there can be unity in diversity. One thing to say about all the different groups is that they are all identifiable as SDA's. There is a common thread running through us all. Let's not give up on the things we all share.

yes i agree. how ever I think the denomination needs to reckogiznie more fully the diversity. i have been toying with the idea of starting my own fourm. for Evanglical Adventists. , ot progressive or liberals, not historics, or conservatives., but Evanglical Adventist. I want to give a more formal voice.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

It would be great if we had a church that truly recognises and validates that sort of diversity, and gives a voice to all people. That is how I think we should achieve unity in diversity.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

what do you think about theweb site

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Sound like a good idea, if you have visited Adventist blogs (you can find a good list on my blog ) http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
you will see that the majority are actually progressive Adventists so there is a good representation there. But another discussion forum would be useful.

I don't like the term Evangelical anymore as it is often equivalent to Fundamentalist in today's world and it also carries a connotation that only the penal/substitutionary atonement is the only possible view.

I would guess that the reason the Progressive SDA forum here gets less use is because most progressive are more troubled by the restrictive views of the Traditional so they get the most attention in the topics. For instance the progressives SDA's are not going to get all excited about did Jesus have a prefall or post fall nature. It is a non issue. The sabbath is more important for the restoration of people then for what day someone finds their rest. So it is not a big issue in the main, certainly not compared to the attention the sabbath gets whenever mentioned on the Traditional forums. The emphasis between the progressive and the traditional is really quite different.