Discussion on the 28 fundamental beliefs....
- Thread starter StormyOne
- Start date
Stormy, I can't spend a lot of time on the forum this week because the real world has me in its clutches and I can barely get away. But just a quick comment here.
I don't remember if you do or do not subscribe to the concept of a controversy existing in the universe. If you do, then you would not say "God made me good" and stop there. You would include "the rest of the story." If you don't subscribe to the concept of a controversy, then I guess you might want to explain why you accept the text that says that God made man good, but reject those that describe the entrance of sin and the consequent wickedness of man.
Upvote
0
I don't have any quibble with this one.
But re vindicating God's law or vindicating God's character, my understanding of the word is "to clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting argument," etc. Since God has been lied about by the father of lies, then I believe we play a part in clearing God's Name by proving the devil wrong in his accusations.
Okay, I admit that this is a very sketchy proffer, but I can't stay long tonight. :-(
I don't know what "the whole creation" refers to in this belief. We'd need to see into the minds of the composers of the fundamental to know which they mean, the creation of life on earth, or creation of life throughout the universe.
Upvote
0
VictorC
Jesus - that's my final answer
- Mar 25, 2008
- 5,228
- 479
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Proving the devil wrong in what accusations? And, what are you going to clear God's Name of? Are you suggesting His reputation depends on anything we have done or will do or will fail to do?
Upvote
0
There is some debate about that that exactly means... let me ask though, if your toddler soils his/her pamper, does that mean they are no longer your child? No, it simply means they need to be cleaned up.... wickedness does not mean that what God created is no longer good.... but that is my view... not asking you to share it... I will say that it seems God agrees with me since he decided to rescue humankind... only things worth something are rescued...
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
If Christ's atonement was perfect, then He would have no need to enter into a second phase of atonement in 1844.
If there is victory, it is His and not ours. When it comes to the concept of victory, we have nothing to recommend us and we have no reason to take any credit.
Is Christ Lord or are we Lord? The previous statement indicated that His atonement only has power when we accept it. This seems to place us in the "Lordship" position.
BFA
Upvote
0
Sophia,
Our Lord Jesus told us that by doing something to one of his little children that it is being done to him.
Jesus repeated this same truth to Paul/Saul on the road to Damascus when he said, "...Why do you persecute me...I am Jesus who you persecute."
The truth that when we bow our knees and confess with our tongues that Jesus is Lord, that God the Father is glorified/vindicated, has been set before us.
Joe
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
No, it really hasn't been set before us. The SDA denomination claims that Satan has made the accusation that God is not fair, but this claim remains unsupported.
When I confess that Jesus is Lord, I simultaneously confess that I am not. In doing so, I confess that I am not in a position of authority and that it is God who vindicates me.
If in glorifying God my goal is to vindicate Him, then I really have not confessed that He is Lord. Rather, I have held onto a small hope that I am.
BFA
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
BFA,
If the word "vindicate" is an issue, then let us just stick to the word "glorify."
Our confession, on bended knees, is that Jesus (of Nazareth) has been made of God, the Father, both Lord and Christ unto us, when the Father raised Jesus from the dead by the spirit of holiness.
Our confession is made to the glory of God, the Father.
John 17:23
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. KJV
1 Cor 15:28
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. KJV
Eph 1:22-23
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.KJV
As members of Jesus' body, the Father loves us as he loves his holy child Jesus, and anything that we ask in Jesus' name, the Father grants it to us.
Your brother in the Lord Jesus Christ,
Joe
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
Fine by me. But I do notice that the fundamental belief uses the word "vindicate." Therefore, a move toward "glorify" and a move away from "vindicate" would represent a departure from what the fundamental belief seems to be saying.
And if we made no such confession, what then? In the absence of our confession, would Jesus Christ be understood as anything less than God? This is the point with which I take issue. This is the point the moves the subject from "glorify" to "vindicate."
My confession cannot in any way impact Jesus' Lordship and it cannot vindicate God. If it does, then I am lord and He is not.
BFA
Upvote
0
God does not need our vindication is my premise, and we couldn't vindicate him anyway because we don't have all the information.... The reality is we only have what he will give, and IF he wanted he could choose not to give us any information... the more I dissect this particular belief, the more I am convinced it was formulated by people who assumed that the average member is stupid...
Upvote
0
Byfaithalone1
The gospel is Jesus Christ!
I agree.
Yes. Essentially, we can't vindicate Him because we are not God.
Great point! I agree.
It is counterintuitive.
BFA
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by Laodicean
The devil has accused God of lying. Eve said to the serpent, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." [Note, by the way, that Eve's understanding of the statement in Genesis 2, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" is simply "lest you die."]
But Satan invites Eve to distrust God. "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die." Genesis 3:4. Yeah, right.
Death is everywhere, and you and I are destined to die.
So the devil lied. And he, being a liar and the father of lies, continues to prompt humans to distrust God. That is the controversy. And that is where we play a part in clearing the accusation made by the devil, that God is a liar. We place our trust in God, not in the lies of the devil, and by our freewill choice, we let God work in us to demonstrate to the universe that He can be trusted; that He is for us, not against us, "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." Jeremiah 29:11. We allow Him to demonstrate that He is well able to write His law upon the hearts of sinful humans, and restore them to His original plan for them. We vindicate God's character when it is shown that there are those in this messed up world who do not believe the devil's lie that God is untrustworthy; that there are those who can be lawkeepers, not helpless lawbreakers.
We clear God's Name of the insinuation that was begun in the garden of Eden, that God cannot be trusted. And we demonstrate that by trusting God, our messed-up lives can be cleaned up, that God has only good intentions towards us. That He is not keeping any good thing back from His created beings.
Yes.
I don't have any quibble with this one.
But re vindicating God's law or vindicating God's character, my understanding of the word is "to clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting argument," etc. Since God has been lied about by the father of lies, then I believe we play a part in clearing God's Name by proving the devil wrong in his accusations.
But re vindicating God's law or vindicating God's character, my understanding of the word is "to clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting argument," etc. Since God has been lied about by the father of lies, then I believe we play a part in clearing God's Name by proving the devil wrong in his accusations.
The devil has accused God of lying. Eve said to the serpent, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." [Note, by the way, that Eve's understanding of the statement in Genesis 2, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" is simply "lest you die."]
But Satan invites Eve to distrust God. "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die." Genesis 3:4. Yeah, right.
Death is everywhere, and you and I are destined to die.
So the devil lied. And he, being a liar and the father of lies, continues to prompt humans to distrust God. That is the controversy. And that is where we play a part in clearing the accusation made by the devil, that God is a liar. We place our trust in God, not in the lies of the devil, and by our freewill choice, we let God work in us to demonstrate to the universe that He can be trusted; that He is for us, not against us, "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." Jeremiah 29:11. We allow Him to demonstrate that He is well able to write His law upon the hearts of sinful humans, and restore them to His original plan for them. We vindicate God's character when it is shown that there are those in this messed up world who do not believe the devil's lie that God is untrustworthy; that there are those who can be lawkeepers, not helpless lawbreakers.
We clear God's Name of the insinuation that was begun in the garden of Eden, that God cannot be trusted. And we demonstrate that by trusting God, our messed-up lives can be cleaned up, that God has only good intentions towards us. That He is not keeping any good thing back from His created beings.
Yes.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Of course all of humankind are God's children. But there are some of the children wo have chosen not to be friends with God. They have chosen to believe the lies of the devil. And God is not going to force them to love Him. Humans have been given the freedom to choose death or choose life. We are not robots. And my guess is that you really don't want to be a robot.
So, really, it has nothing to do with being a child of God. Rather, it has to do wth what each child chooses to do about the salvation worked out for them.
Upvote
0
Sophia, satan accused God of lying when he told Eve, "You shall not surely die."
Upvote
0
If I create the perfect antivenom, the need to administer it at the moment of its creation, as well as at any time other than at the time of its creation, does not make it imperfect.
Administering the benefits of a perfect atonement throughout history, including a final administration of those benefits at the end of time, is not the same as improving upon the atonement, or entering into some further degree of atonement. There's a big difference here.
Nobody is disputing this.
How does our acceptance or rejection of God's atonement place us in the Lordship position? Are you my lord because you can accept or reject my offer to, say, get you out of debt?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
VictorC
Jesus - that's my final answer
- Mar 25, 2008
- 5,228
- 479
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
This reply has not furnished any accusation that satan levied against God. Genesis 3 does not record any accusation made before God, and the Biblical record shows him lying to Eve. Satan did not accuse God of lying, nor even confronted God in this account.
I asked you to show where and when satan accused God of something mankind is able to vindicate God over. Showing him lying to Eve is a distraction, and shows a dishonest misrepresentation of Adventist theology, explained by the "prophet":
The plan of Satan was by his lying philosophies to widen the breach that existed between God and man. He argued that man could not keep the law of God, and therefore that God had been obliged to change the laws which he had made, and had abolished the rule of his government. Satan's work was to keep the agitation against God in progress, and keep the question to the front as to whether God was light and love or not. Satan had charged God with his own attributes, and thus sowed in the hearts of men the seeds of enmity against God, for man accepted the statements of him who was a liar from the beginning. Uniting fallen man with himself, he kept a series of false theories in regard to God in continual circulation, asserting them to be truth, in order that he might cover up the truth, and interpose his shadow between men and the way and the life. {ST, March 7, 1895 par. 4}
Satan could establish pronounced enmity toward God only by bringing into contempt the laws of his government. In doing this he deceived many, and through his subtle reasonings he caused many to transgress. Thus he thought to cultivate so large a harvest of enmity toward God as to discourage the divine power, exhaust the forbearance of God, and counteract his love, so that God would abandon man to his deceiver by withdrawing his mercy and grace. He thought to so work with human agents as to cause the last spark of love to die from the heart of God, and cause him to lift the sword of justice and destroy the rebel race. Then Satan supposed that his claims would be vindicated before unfallen worlds, before unfallen angels. {ST, March 7, 1895 par. 5}
The premise of God's vindication in the theme of the Great Controversy is well documented. What Ellen White claimed was that Satan accused God of formulating a law that could not be kept. She further claimed that this law was the basis of God's government. Neither of these claims can be supported by Scripture. But it is evident that these claims are current teachings of the SDA church beyond what appears in Fundamental Belief #9:Satan could establish pronounced enmity toward God only by bringing into contempt the laws of his government. In doing this he deceived many, and through his subtle reasonings he caused many to transgress. Thus he thought to cultivate so large a harvest of enmity toward God as to discourage the divine power, exhaust the forbearance of God, and counteract his love, so that God would abandon man to his deceiver by withdrawing his mercy and grace. He thought to so work with human agents as to cause the last spark of love to die from the heart of God, and cause him to lift the sword of justice and destroy the rebel race. Then Satan supposed that his claims would be vindicated before unfallen worlds, before unfallen angels. {ST, March 7, 1895 par. 5}
In the last generation God gives the final demonstration that men can keep the law of God and that they can live without sinning. God leaves nothing undone to make the demonstration complete. The only limitation He puts on Satan is that he may not kill the saints of God. He may tempt them, he may harass and threaten them; and he does his best. But he fails. He cannot make them sin. They stand the test, and God puts His seal on them. Through the last generation of saints God stands fully vindicated. (M.L. Andreasen The Sanctuary Service, Review and Herald, 1969 printing, pp. 318-19)
This is the premise behind the theme of mankind vindicating God: Mankind is going to keep the law that God delivered His saints from. The premise FB# 9 makes doesn't exist in Scripture; God made no claim that mankind was ever going to keep the law ordained in the first covenant, and Adventism's claim to the contrary is ridiculous in light of God taking away the first covenant to establish the new covenant (Hebrews 10:9).You have replaced a claim that satan accused God of something with a claim that satan lied to mankind. These are disparate subjects, and offering a second claim lends nothing to support the first claim you made. Also, claiming God is going to write the first covenant in lieu of His "My law" that is qualified as not according to the covenant made at Mount Sinai has been dealt with exhaustively on this forum. You returned to Adventism's thesis that mankind is going to keep the law ordained in the first covenant, forgetting that God's mercy toward us is given with His conclusion that all mankind are disobedient to that law (Romans 11:32). What you suggest is consistent with the error that Ellen White claimed by divine inspiration in 1858:
I saw the saints leaving the cities and villages, and associating in companies together, and living in the most solitary places. Angels provided them food and water; but the wicked were suffering with hunger and thirst. Then I saw the leading men of earth consulting together, and Satan and his angels were busy around them. I saw a writing, and copies of it scattered in different parts of the land, giving orders, that unless the saints should yield their peculiar faith, give up the Sabbath, and observe the first day, they were at liberty, after such a time, to put them to death. But in this time the saints were calm and composed, trusting in God, and leaning upon his promise, that a way of escape would be made for them. In some places, before the time for the writing to be executed, the wicked rushed upon the saints to slay them; but angels in the form of men of war fought for them. Satan wished to have the privilege of destroying the saints of the Most High; but Jesus bade his angels watch over them, for God would be honored by making a covenant with those who had kept his law in the sight of the heathen round about them; and Jesus would be honored by translating the faithful, waiting ones, who had so long expected him, without their seeing death. {1SG 201.1}
I have requested evidence for this third covenant that is to be made with those God found compliant with the first covenant, and how the second covenant we call "new" in the Christian dispensation is completely ignored in this divinely inspired claim. Not one Adventist has found a scrap of evidence for the third covenant. Not one Adventist has ever furnished evidence that mankind will keep the first covenant's law using a Bible.You haven't found any accusation satan made against God, and the theme of vindication of the law that is the basis of the Great Controversy isn't going to be found in the Genesis account, all of which records events long before the law mediated by Moses existed.
You can suggest it, you can believe it, but you have not offered anything to provide a Biblical basis to support it. Satan didn't accuse God of forming a government based on a temporal law - he lied to Eve about a claim God made unrelated to the law. Remember, Ellen White stated the basis of the non-existent Great Controversy between God and satan as quoted above: "Satan supposed that his claims would be vindicated before unfallen worlds, before unfallen angels" in {ST, March 7, 1895 par. 5}. In contrast to this hope satan has of his personal "vindication", Scripture portrays satan as a defeated loser who knows he has only a short time left (Revelation 12:12). The only controversy that exists is in Ellen's mind, which remains unresolved in the minds of her followers.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
