Does the Thief on the Cross bypass the Invesigative Judgement..

[Pythons]

Do you believe it was possible for the nation of Israel to repent when Jesus was on the earth teaching them?

That would have violated prophecy had Israel ( as in the total people ) accepted Christ...
...Scripture said that they would not.
...The same Scriptures that said the Christ would NOT fail.

If the answer is no because it was predestined for the temple to be destroyed etc, then why did Jesus spend so much time in preaching exclusively to them if He knew it was for nought?

It wasn't for naught as many accepted Him as the Christ.

Why did He cry upon Mount Olivet when He realized these people He nurtured and cared so much for, were to be cast off in favour of the teaching directly to the gentile nations? Was it because Jesus had hoped they would fulfill His purpose for them?

Jesus was the ONLY person ever born that was forordained to die...
...I'm sure that the burden of knowing that through the Jews the world would be saved.
...While a great many Jews rejected and continued to reject their King.
...Was a horrific burden on Jesus.

Maybe the idea of predestination is a flawed premise based on our understanding of who and what God is.

Everyone, was / is predestined to be saved by the Christ who was forordained to save us....
...Before the creation of the actual world - which does not mean everyone will accept that priceless gift.
...Many who "had it" will end up loosing it and others who didn't have it will get it.
...Such is the teaching.

 

[JohnMarsten]

Do you believe it was possible for the nation of Israel to repent when Jesus was on the earth teaching them? If the answer is no because it was predestined for the temple to be destroyed etc, then why did Jesus spend so much time in preaching exclusively to them if He knew it was for nought? Why did He cry upon Mount Olivet when He realized these people He nurtured and cared so much for, were to be cast off in favour of the teaching directly to the gentile nations? Was it because Jesus had hoped they would fulfill His purpose for them?

Maybe the idea of predestination is a flawed premise based on our understanding of who and what God is.

I wouldnt go for the idea of predestination, rather on God knowing everything long before it happened. You know, there were bible prophecies that hinted at Jesus death. So wouldnt he have died if the jews accepted him?
There was a plan for salvation long before. It had to happen and God knew it would happen...

 

[jclark]

Who is the Judge, and defense attorney? Would He not be within His rights to pass sentence? As Jude 1:9 says, "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." and Moses was in heaven just like that.

 

[tall73]

Now specifically for the chronology of the 2300 days ( how we derived to Oct 22, 1844), it begins in Daniel 7.

Here is a study on Daniel and 2300 days. It should answer the question on the dating. Please excuse the spelling and grammar.


The vision continues (in Daniel 8)
1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.

The vision of Daniel chapter 8 is situated chronologically in 551BC. Two years after the first vision of Daniel in chapter 7.

2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.

So he locates the time and the place.

3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.

This is a simple vision because it is explained in vs20. There is no need to guess.

20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

The two horns of Medes and Persians are unequal in height. The higher came up last as the Persians superseded and dominated the Medes. We see in the vision a very different picture of what we saw in Daniel 7. In Daniel 7, the beasts come up from the sea and come up as a result of strife. From the war and strives emerges the lion of Babylon, the bear of Medo Persia, the leopard of Greece, the terrible dragon-like beast that is Rome.

Here in chapter eight we see a ram, a domesticated beast in contrast to wild beast of lion, leopard and bear.

While they are in conflict, the goats and rams are sacrificial animals of the sanctuary services. So the ideas are presented in Chapter 8 must be contrasted with that of Chapter 7. In chp 7, vision is about military, civil and results of wars and strives. In chp 8, we are going to get another angle.

4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
5 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.

We read about the goat later in verse 21.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

What does it mean to be first in biblical term? The first does not necessarily refer to chronological order, but in position, in primacy.

6 And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.

Greece attacked Persia. That conflict took place from Asia to Asia Minor unto the Aegean Sea. Aegean sea was named after Aegeus the goat-man of the Greek mythology. Aegean or Aigaion (in Greek) means the sea of Goat.

8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

Alexander the great was an alcoholic. He died in his conquest during the pinnacle of his power. Four generals divided the empire Alexander conquered.

9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

Up until this point I don't have any major issues with what you said. As you mentioned, it is spelled out in the interpretation.

 

[tall73]

We met this little horn in chapter 7.

We see the apparent discrepancy that the little horn in chp 7 rises out of the disintegration of Rome. Here in chp 8 the little horn rises out the disintegration of Greece. How can the two possible be the same?

Rather than get right to discrepancies perhaps it would be best to re-establish just from the facts presented in chapter 8 that we are even talking about the same little horn.

However, for what I intend to look at in the discussion I think we can just go with your identification. That is fine.

As we laid the foundation earlier chapter 7 describes wild beasts risen out of war and conflict. Chapter 8 describes domestic beasts. The little horn in chp 7 describes the political and military forces the constituted this power while chp 8 portrait its philosophical and theological roots. It emerges from Rome politically. It emerges from Greece philosophically.

Yeah, not sure about that one. I think a simpler explanation of the sacrificial animals is that this vision particularly deals with the sanctuary and its cleansing, and those were animals associated with it.

 

[tall73]

You should be familiar with the reasons. By design, SDA church hasn't taught the sanctuary message to its leity and pastorial students for decades, ever since the agreement reached with Dr. Walter Martin in the 1960s. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I am aware of the doctrinal issues brought out at the time, but have heard nothing of an agreement to not teach the doctrine.

 

[tall73]

10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
After having read the philosophical and intellectual root of the little horn came out of Greece, we are now told he takes a stand against heaven.
11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

Here we see the philosophy of Greece met head on with faith of the Hebrews and sought to destroy it.

I don't think at this point your discussion represents usual Adventist theology. Perhaps I missed something though.

Perhaps you can note sources if it does.

 

[tall73]

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint (the wonderful numberer, margin) which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?


How long would the little horn remain dominant? How long would it crush the host, the sanctuary and the truth to the ground? How long would it substitutes its own sacrifices, its own rituals, its own intercessors in the place of the Jesus Christ? The answer is given in verse 14.

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

And here we reach the crucial point.

The cleansing of the sanctuary is not from the sins of the saints, but the defiling activities of the little horn.

The whole context as you have noted is on the defiling of the little horn. This dealt with specific actions ,from a specific time.

However, the Day of Atonement deals with sins from all of history, and is simply not referenced here.

The context is the defiling work of the little horn, and the question as you spell out quite well is how long will the little horn continue its defiling activities.


A few points here.

a. the little horn you would identify did NOT in fact cease its activities in 1844. Yet in the text that is the question.. until when.

b. Moreover, the whole context is something other than ritualistic cleansing of sins through blood application. Rather it is purifying from outside defilement by the little horn power.


This is the problem Adventists have run into again and again.

Cottrell in the April, 1980 spectrum, recalled a time a number of years before, after the editing of the Bible Commentaries, while working on the new version of Bible Readings when he asked the Adventist scholars to defend the Adventist position:

While editing Bible Readings, and in counsel with Elder Nichol as chief editor of the revision, I wrote to 27 leading Adventist Bible scholars for their response to a series of six carefully formulated questions designed to bring the best contemporary Adventist biblical scholarship to bear on the question. All 27 responded, many at considerable length.A careful analysis and synthesis of their replies provided no additional help with respect to the problems arising from our interpretation of Daniel 8:14, and made evident that we had no satisfactory answer to the criticisms being directed against our interpretation of this key Adventist passage. Thirteen replied that they knew of no other valid basis for making such an application; seven based it on analogy; five, on the authority of Ellen White; two, on what they referred to as a “fortunate accident” in translation. Not one of the 27 believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the heavenly sanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844.


The October 1980 edition of Ministry magazine includes the Glacier View documents that chronicled, from the denomination's perspective, the happenings in the church's trial of Desmond Ford's ideas. You can find the whole issue online in Ministry magazine's archives. (For those not aware Ministry magazine is a magazine written by Adventists for both Adventist and non-Adventist clergy.)

Part of this issue is the official report entitled "Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary."

It contains the following fascinating statement:

According to many older versions of
the Bible, at the end of the 2300 days the
sanctuary is to be "cleansed." The Hebrew
word here is nisdaq, which has a
broad range of possible meanings. Its
basic idea is "make right," "justify,"
"vindicate," or "restore"; but "purify"
and "cleanse" may be included within
its conceptual range. In Daniel 8:14 it is
evident that the word denotes the reversal
of the evil caused by the power symbolized
by the "little horn," and hence
probably should be translated "restore."
While there is, therefore, not a strong
verbal link between this verse and the
Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16,
the passages are, nevertheless, related
by their parallel ideas of rectifying the
sanctuary from the effects of sin.


For those who don't get what the scholars just said, they admitted that there is not a strong verbal link between Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement.

The word should likely be translated as "restore" rather than "cleanse"

And the "restoring" spoken of is the reversal of the activities of the little horn.

Then they say that Daniel 8 and Lev. 16 are RELATED, because they have PARALLEL IDEAS (IE. not the same idea) about cleansing the sanctuary from sin. IE they admit they are not in fact talking about the same thing.

They are acknowledging that in Daniel 8 it is the activities of the little horn power being rectified, not the cleansing of the sins of all of God's professed people.

The "cleansing" or restoration is a specific one. And it coincides with the cessation of the activity of the little horn.

 

[tall73]

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint (the wonderful numberer, margin) which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Judges 13
17 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is wonderful?

Jesus’ name is wonderful. He has thus revealed Himself in many ways throughout the age. Here is the wonderful judge, the mathematician, the Chronologer, the Revealer of secret, the One who can see the end from the beginning.

How long would the little horn remain dominant? How long would it crush the host, the sanctuary and the truth to the ground? How long would it substitutes its own sacrifices, its own rituals, its own intercessors in the place of the Jesus Christ? The answer is given in verse 14.

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The cleansing in chapter 8 is not a Day of Atonement. It is from the activities of that little horn, not the sins of all God's people.

The cleansing, and the images of a ram and a goat are in line with other passages that speak of cleansing of the sanctuary from defilement.

Here is an example from the time of Hezekiah. The sanctuary had to be cleansed from defilement.


2Ch 29:3 He in the first year of his reign, in the first month, opened the doors of the house of the LORD, and repaired them.
2Ch 29:4 And he brought in the priests and the Levites, and gathered them together into the east street,
2Ch 29:5 And said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the LORD God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place.
2Ch 29:6 For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD our God, and have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the LORD, and turned their backs.
2Ch 29:7 Also they have shut up the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt offerings in the holy place unto the God of Israel.

2Ch 29:16 And the priests went into the inner part of the house of the LORD, to cleanse it, and brought out all the uncleanness that they found in the temple of the LORD into the court of the house of the LORD. And the Levites took it, to carry it out abroad into the brook Kidron.
2Ch 29:17 Now they began on the first day of the first month to sanctify, and on the eighth day of the month came they to the porch of the LORD: so they sanctified the house of the LORD in eight days; and in the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end.
2Ch 29:18 Then they went in to Hezekiah the king, and said, We have cleansed all the house of the LORD, and the altar of burnt offering, with all the vessels thereof, and the shewbread table, with all the vessels thereof.
2Ch 29:19 Moreover all the vessels, which king Ahaz in his reign did cast away in his transgression, have we prepared and sanctified, and, behold, they are before the altar of the LORD.

2Ch 29:21 And they brought seven bullocks, and seven rams, and seven lambs, and seven he goats, for a sin offering for the kingdom, and for the sanctuary, and for Judah. And he commanded the priests the sons of Aaron to offer them on the altar of the LORD.


This passage describes the restoration of the temple after a time where it had been abandoned and foreign items were put in it that polluted it, likely idols, since they had turned away from God.

It is speaking of restoration from the defilement. It includes the ram and goat as sacrifices, the same animals used in the Daniel 8 vision.

In Hezekiah's cleansing the issue was defilement of the sanctuary. It was not the same as the ritual purification of the sanctuary on the day of atonement from the sins of the camp.

The type of cleansing done in Hezekiah's case is a closer biblical parallel to what is talked about in Daniel 8. The cleansing is from outside defilement, not the intended cleansing of the sins of all God's people.

 

[tall73]

After Daniel 8:8 the theme of the chapter turns from the Medes and Persians and Greecian empire to the activities of a little horn power.


Here is what the chapter says about that little horn power:

Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
Dan 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

Now the details of this passage have been debated but the upshot is that this little horn power is acting against God's sanctuary, causing the continual or daily ministration to be taken away.

Again, the definition of the daily is not the issue at this point. The point is that the chapter deals with the activities of the little horn and its polluting influence on God's sanctuary.

With that background in mind Daniel 8:13 asks an important question. And Daniel 8:14, our key text, is the ANSWER to that question.

Dan 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

In other words, how long until the defiling activities of the little horn power against God's sanctuary are stopped? How long will it go on?

Now note that Daniel 14 is not speaking at all about the sins of God's people. It is answering the question above about the defiling of the little horn power.

Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The sanctuary will be cleansed from what? From the defiling influence of the little horn power!

The whole chapter is about the little horn, not about the sins of God's people. Adventists pull this verse completely out of its context to try to make it say something it is not saying at all.

So let us ask some questions with that in mind.

1. Was the little horn power stopped from performing its defilement in 1844?

Even if we accept the Adventist definition of the little horn the answer is no. The papacy was not stopped in 1844.

2. Does the context fit the notion of a judgment of God's professed people of God and the investigation of the record of their sins?

No. The context fits a judgment of the little horn power that leads to an end of its defiling activities.

 

[tall73]

The Chronology of the 2300 days
Begin at Daniel 7, Daniel was given visions in 553BC about Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and Christ final victory. The vision was explained to Daniel. But Daniel was still troubled.

Continues in Daniel 8, two years later in 551BC, the visions returned to Daniel as he was shown the ram, the goat, 4 horns and the little horn.

Daniel heard the question: how long shall the vision be concerning the daily sacrifice, the transgression of desolation….Daniel 8:13

The answer:
Daniel 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The explanation was given by Gabriel to to Daniel vs16-26. The vision is about the endtime vs17 & 19. But Daniel didn’t understand. For the ending of this prophecy was given but the beginning was not. He was greatly troubled and felt sick.

On to the first year of Darius the Persian king 539BC about 14 years after the vision was first given, as the 70years of captivity prophesized by Jeremiah nearing end, Daniel confessed his sins and sins of Israel and prayed to the Lord for his people. At the end of his prayer, Gabriel returned to finish the explanation of the 2300day prophecy.

Daniel 9
21 Yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the former vision, being caused to fly swiftly, came near to me and touched me about the time of the evening sacrifice.
22 He instructed me and made me understand; he talked with me and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give you skill and wisdom and understanding.

In many translations, vs21 is cross-referenced to Dan 8:16. As we recall, Dan 8:16-26, Gabriel explained the symbols of the ram, goat, the horns and explained the vision is for the endtime. Daniel understood none of that. For the time prophecy to be understood, now the starting point must be given.

23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
….

70 weeks was given as the beginning of the time prophecy. The word ‘determine’ comes the meaning: cut-off.
OT:2852 chathak (khaw-thak'); a primitive root; properly, to cut off, i.e. (figuratively) to decree:

There is no indication that the prophecy in chapter 8 was incomplete.

Dan 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now."

The vision was given, it was true, and was to be sealed up for later. As to there not being a starting time, why would there not be?


It can simply refer to the time from when the trampling starts to the time it finishes.

[FONT=&quot]To cut off from a piece of string, it has to be from the either ends. 70 week prophecy was the beginning portion that was cut-off from the 2300day prophecy.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

The word you are using for cut off can simply mean decreed, and that fits the context, that these things are decreed for them.
[FONT=&quot]
The 2300 day prophecy was complete, sealed up and saved for later.

And you can actually cut a section out of the middle of a string. So it does not follow that this would establish the beginning of the other prophecy.


However, the biggest issue in all of this is the context.

The context as you, the scholars at Glacierview, etc. all agree on is the defilement caused by the little horn.

Cleansing defilement from the little horn is not the same as cleansing of the sins of God's people through the Day of Atonement.
[/FONT]

 

[Stryder06]

EVERYWHERE.

Isaiah 9,5
For every violent taking of spoils, with tumult, and garment mingled with blood, shall be burnt, and be fuel for the fire.For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts WILL perform THIS.

Daniel 7,13
I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: AND his kingdom that shall NOT be destroyed


Daniel 8,14
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then SHALL the sanctuary BE cleansed


Ps 147,5
Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite



Zechariah 9,9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and HAVING salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass


Deut 31,6
Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will NOT fail thee, NOR forsake thee

There is over 100 more where those came from and it's only logical to believe that "IF"....
....God is "all knowing" as in God knows the end to the start and everything inbetween.
....AND God transmitted how "HE" was going to save us HIMSELF in what you call the Bible.
....What kind of a teaching suggests it MIGHT NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
....I.E. what if God did fail us?

Therefore, to be logical & consistent in your theological reasoning...
...You must concede that to SDA's - Daniel 8,14 & everything with the exception of God the Father's continued existence.
...Is absolutely conditional.

Pythons, first, those texts don't address the issue of the human nature of Christ. Second, you seem to be missing that there is a difference between "couldn't" and "wouldn't". If Christ was fully man, as we teach, then He had free will, just like we do. Of course, if you don't believe in free will the there isn't much to discuss. Consider also that Christ was called the second Adam. Adam choose to be disobedient. Christ choose to be obedient.

You continue to miss the forest for the trees with this topic. The message being conveyed is that God went to great lengths to save us from our sins.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons, first, those texts don't address the issue of the human nature of Christ.

Stryder, does SDA theology maintain that it was the "nature" of God the Son that provided Salvation....
....& not the Person Jesus?

Second, you seem to be missing that there is a difference between "couldn't" and "wouldn't".

I'll admit that I have not got my mind around the SDA theological rubrics of this teaching....
...I was under the belief that if God said explicitly "X" wouldn't happen.
...Adopting a position that "X" COULD HAVE happened is in actuality.
...Making a theological affirmation that God is "conditional".

I.E. God cannot fail, tell a lie, participate in iniquity ( sin ) so says the Bible....
...And then someone comes along and says; well, God could sin, lie and fail if He wanted to or fell into temptation.
...I will admit - I've never understood this aspect of Adventist denominations.
...Could you help me understand it?

If Christ was fully man, as we teach, then He had free will, just like we do. Of course, if you don't believe in free will the there isn't much to discuss. Consider also that Christ was called the second Adam. Adam choose to be disobedient. Christ choose to be obedient.

I fully believe in "free-will" and God having Free - Will to do whatsoever He wishes...
...I do not understand how Adventist denominations stretch that into a rubric.
...That allows the possibility of God denying His own Nature.
...In other-words God COULD self destruct or self terminate - commit suicide.

It's that, right there that I admit sends me crawling up the wall and perhaps it's simply because....
...I don't understand the Adventist concept of it - of - Of God having the ability to mutate from an infinite Holy God.
...To a sinner and subsequently get's annihilated by another member of the Trinity.

If you could do anything to help me answer this question so that I can better understand it....
...I would appreciate your efforts a great deal.

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder, does SDA theology maintain that it was the "nature" of God the Son that provided Salvation....
....& not the Person Jesus?

You seem to know what we teach better than I do, since every time I try to explain something to you, I'm told that I'm wrong. Christ was fully God, and fully Human. When I say nature I don't mean aspect.

I'll admit that I have not got my mind around the SDA theological rubrics of this teaching....
...I was under the belief that if God said explicitly "X" wouldn't happen.
...Adopting a position that "X" COULD HAVE happened is in actuality.
...Making a theological affirmation that God is "conditional".

I.E. God cannot fail, tell a lie, participate in iniquity ( sin ) so says the Bible....
...And then someone comes along and says; well, God could sin, lie and fail if He wanted to or fell into temptation.
...I will admit - I've never understood this aspect of Adventist denominations.
...Could you help me understand it?

His word will never return to Him void. When God says something will happen, it will happen. I however don't hold to the view that the future is set in stone, but rather, that God speaks what will happen, simply because He already knows what will happen, not because He is going to make it happen that way.

So again, it's not that anyone is saying that Christ would fail.

I fully believe in "free-will" and God having Free - Will to do whatsoever He wishes...
...I do not understand how Adventist denominations stretch that into a rubric.
...That allows the possibility of God denying His own Nature.
...In other-words God COULD self destruct or self terminate - commit suicide.

It's that, right there that I admit sends me crawling up the wall and perhaps it's simply because....
...I don't understand the Adventist concept of it - of - Of God having the ability to mutate from an infinite Holy God.
...To a sinner and subsequently get's annihilated by another member of the Trinity.

If you could do anything to help me answer this question so that I can better understand it....
...I would appreciate your efforts a great deal.

There's nothing to help you understand, because it's not something that happened. Again, it's simply about the cost that was paid for us. I don't want to know what WOULD have happened, had Christ sinned. My mind doesn't even travel in that direction. I simply take the focus on the emphasis that is placed on the fact that Christ paid an infinite cost for our redemption.

And I don't even understand why we're having this conversation. If Christ had free choice, then that means He had the freedom to sin.

 

[Pythons]

You seem to know what we teach better than I do, since every time I try to explain something to you, I'm told that I'm wrong. Christ was fully God, and fully Human. When I say nature I don't mean aspect.

Don't think that - it's not what I'm saying.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is that God is one in Nature...
...Three in Persons - that each member of the Trinity is equally "God".
...Not because of the inter-Personal relationship each has with the other.
...But because each Person equally possesses the One Nature which IS God.

When you said that the texts I offered did not address the human nature of Jesus...
...And said "because of that" they couldn't be used in support of my affirmation that God can't self terminate.
...I would naturally ask what happened to "God" so that this could be so?

I'm not trying to be coy or crafty to embarass SDA's here...
...I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of how God could cease to exist, eternally?

i.e.

"fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he WILL come AND save you".

It's my understanding that Jesus Himself attributed this very Scripture to Himself....
...When He was asked if He was the one spoken of.

His word will never return to Him void. When God says something will happen, it WILL happen. I however don't hold to the view that the future is set in stone, but rather, that God speaks what will happen, simply because He already knows what will happen, not because He is going to make it happen that way.

That's EXACTLY what I believe Stryder. God "knows" exactly the outcome of our eternal destiny....
....But does not force Salvation OR Damning on anyone.

As you said - God "KNOWS" exactly what will happen and some of those things...
...God opted to explicitly inform us of "in the Bible".
...It would appear that A) our Salvation was Eternally Assured in Christ...
...& B) that given it was God's purpose we would be saved "in Christ".
...Appears to sync with over 100 explicit texts of Scripture all saying that Christ would NOT fail.

The question I'm honestly asking ( and it's a question ) is simply that if God knows what will happen....
...And God transmits what will happen in Scripture.
...By what authority does one question the outcome stated by God Himself?

So again, it's not that anyone is saying that Christ would fail.

No - I never accused Adventist denominations of saying that...
...What Ellen White said was that there was a "REAL POSSIBILITY of Christ FAILING".
...And "IF" He would have failed the Father would have seen to the Eternal Word's eternal annihilation.
...I.E. "no tomb would have every opened, forever".

There's nothing to help you understand, because it's not something that happened. Again, it's simply about the cost that was paid for us. I don't want to know what WOULD have happened, had Christ sinned. My mind doesn't even travel in that direction. I simply take the focus on the emphasis that is placed on the fact that Christ paid an infinite cost for our redemption.

And I don't even understand why we're having this conversation. If Christ had free choice, then that means He had the freedom to sin.

Perhaps Tall73 who has studied and knows the rubrics of Adventism could ponder the question...
...Perhaps he could articulate my question better than I have been able to.

My question:

God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are ONE in Nature ( Substance ) & Three in Person's....
...The Substance which is "GOD" is equally owned by Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
...The Bible says "God" can't lie, commit sin, deny Himself or do anything against His Nature.

Given that God is not a ROBOT my understanding is that God can do ANYTHING....
...Except NOT BE GOD.

Could God the Son, who was manifested In Jesus have commited suicide...
...And as a by product of Him denying Himself - eternally ceased to exist.

This was the teaching of Ellen White and given I've already provided you with the quotes where she taught this with velocity there isn't a need to post them again - Again - this is a question I have about SDA theology and I would say ( at least to me ) it's the ONLY serious question I have.

 

[Stryder06]

The question I'm honestly asking ( and it's a question ) is simply that if God knows what will happen....
...And God transmits what will happen in Scripture.
...By what authority does one question the outcome stated by God Himself?

Who's questioning anything? Who created a doctrine or teaching stating such a thing? You, again, keep missing the forest for the trees. A simple statement, used to help drive home the sacrifice made for us, is all Sr White made. The fact is that if Jesus was human, He could have sinned. That's not unbiblical. That's not heretical. It's simply a matter of fact. And had that happened, all would have been lost. Praise God, however, that Christ did not fail.

No - I never accused Adventist denominations of saying that...
...What Ellen White said was that there was a "REAL POSSIBILITY of Christ FAILING".
...And "IF" He would have failed the Father would have seen to the Eternal Word's eternal annihilation.
...I.E. "no tomb would have every opened, forever".

There was a real possibility because He was really human, and like us, able to choose to sin. That's all there is to it. No one is forced to sin. Like Adam, Christ came into the world, sinless, but not out of sin's reach. Unlike Adam, Christ was wholly obedient to the Father.

Perhaps Tall73 who has studied and knows the rubrics of Adventism could ponder the question...
...Perhaps he could articulate my question better than I have been able to.

My question:

God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are ONE in Nature ( Substance ) & Three in Person's....
...The Substance which is "GOD" is equally owned by Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
...The Bible says "God" can't lie, commit sin, deny Himself or do anything against His Nature.

Given that God is not a ROBOT my understanding is that God can do ANYTHING....
...Except NOT BE GOD.

Could God the Son, who was manifested In Jesus have commited suicide...
...And as a by product of Him denying Himself - eternally ceased to exist.

This was the teaching of Ellen White and given I've already provided you with the quotes where she taught this with velocity there isn't a need to post them again - Again - this is a question I have about SDA theology and I would say ( at least to me ) it's the ONLY serious question I have.

I know what she said. I'm having more of an issue with this "substance" thing you keep saying, then anything Sr White ever said. I can't make this any clearer to you. The simple question is, do you believe Christ could have sinned. If that's a yes, then you aren't any different in thought than Sr White. If the answer is no, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to free choice and Christ becoming fully man.

 

[Pythons]

Who's questioning anything? Who created a doctrine or teaching stating such a thing? You, again, keep missing the forest for the trees. A simple statement, used to help drive home the sacrifice made for us, is all Sr White made. The fact is that if Jesus was human, He could have sinned. That's not unbiblical. That's not heretical. It's simply a matter of fact. And had that happened, all would have been lost. Praise God, however, that Christ did not fail.


There was a real possibility because He was really human, and like us, able to choose to sin. That's all there is to it. No one is forced to sin. Like Adam, Christ came into the world, sinless, but not out of sin's reach. Unlike Adam, Christ was wholly obedient to the Father.




I know what she said. I'm having more of an issue with this "substance" thing you keep saying, then anything Sr White ever said. I can't make this any clearer to you. The simple question is, do you believe Christ could have sinned. If that's a yes, then you aren't any different in thought than Sr White. If the answer is no, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to free choice and Christ becoming fully man.

I'm not trying to cause a debate or striff here - I'm just attempting to better understand the Adventist position....
...To aid in a deeper fellowship and understanding.

If you would be willing to discuss it with me could you tell me what "issue" you have....
...With the word "substance"?

As I understand it the early Christians believed that that there was only two substances in the universe....
...One was what all creation subsists of & the other was "GOD".
...Since it was understood that God is infinite in power and might.
...Man could not identify God's essence - so it was simply called Substance.

Here is the Creed.


Creed
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit. But those who say "There was a time when he was not," or "He did not exist before he was begotten," or "He was made of nothing" or assert that "He is of other substance or essence than the Father," or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes.

It seems as if your affirmation that Jesus "fully" became man...
...Did not allow the Eternal Son to fully maintain the Substance of God.
...So that the Substance of God became subservient to human nature.

Thus allowing the "great risk" God the Father took in allowing His Son's wish to 'try to' save humanity....
...As under this rubric IF Christ failed God would have eternally lost His Son.
...I'm asking for your help here Stryder - is the above correct in your view?


Sister White
Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Early Writings p.149


I could be wrong but the above appears to "set the stage" for Ellen's "Great Controversy theme"....
...In which God ( the Father ) risked loosing His Son eternally in attempting to save humanity.

Under this schema it's understandable why God was hesitant to allow Christ to do this....
...And to get the opportunity to take a crack at it Christ had to "Plead" with his Father.

If I am accurately describing SDA teaching my question would be simply what changed in your view....
...Within the Incarnation of God the Son that allowed Him to be "susceptable to mutation"?

Perhaps I'm getting closer to getting an answer.

 

[tall73]

For those who have never read the following article, you may want to take a look.

It explains in a rather quick fashion the context issue of Daniel 8.

Should a Question be Answered?

A Study of Daniel 8:14

Article by C. L Price in New Light on Old Problems (1973)



Sorry I could not locate it hosted at a more neutral site.

 

[Stryder06]

I'm not trying to cause a debate or striff here - I'm just attempting to better understand the Adventist position....
...To aid in a deeper fellowship and understanding.

If you would be willing to discuss it with me could you tell me what "issue" you have....
...With the word "substance"?

As I understand it the early Christians believed that that there was only two substances in the universe....
...One was what all creation subsists of & the other was "GOD".
...Since it was understood that God is infinite in power and might.
...Man could not identify God's essence - so it was simply called Substance.

When I think "substance" I think "what something is made of". I don't believe God is "made of" anything, but that He is simply God. Christ doesn't "share" a "substance" with the Father. Trying to ascertain what God is "made of" is taking your mind where it ought not venture.

It seems as if your affirmation that Jesus "fully" became man...
...Did not allow the Eternal Son to fully maintain the Substance of God.
...So that the Substance of God became subservient to human nature.

Thus allowing the "great risk" God the Father took in allowing His Son's wish to 'try to' save humanity....
...As under this rubric IF Christ failed God would have eternally lost His Son.
...I'm asking for your help here Stryder - is the above correct in your view?

Christ was fully man. Christ was fully God. Christ however made Himself a bondservant, subjecting Himself to the will of the Father. Christ was never in danger of failing, not because it was written in stone, but because He was completely obedient to the will of His Father. Christ remained in constant prayer, lived a life of servitude, and displayed what true love was. He overcame not by His own power, but by the power of the Father. He did this so that we too could see that it could be done through us should we totally surrender our will to the Father. So again, you keep missing the message that was being conveyed. Sr White wasn't trying to teach that Christ had a 50/50 chance of overcoming. She was trying to teach that He sacrificed everything for us, so that we could live in eternity with Him. Have you ever considered why Christ spent so many hours in prayer? Or why He was sweating drops of blood? Or why He cried out "in to Thine hands, I commit my spirit"? The struggle He face to secure our salvation is one that we shall never comprehend. It wasn't even so much that He had to sin. He could have simply said "Enough is enough" and left. But He didn't. That is the point Sr White is trying to make.

Sister White
Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Early Writings p.149


I could be wrong but the above appears to "set the stage" for Ellen's "Great Controversy theme"....
...In which God ( the Father ) risked loosing His Son eternally in attempting to save humanity.

Well you're wrong about it being Ellen White's theme. It is the theme of our situation.

Under this schema it's understandable why God was hesitant to allow Christ to do this....
...And to get the opportunity to take a crack at it Christ had to "Plead" with his Father.

Do you really think that it was easy for God to simply say "Sure, go down there and be beaten, abused, mocked, tortured, and murdered, so that we can secure SOME of the fallen."

If I am accurately describing SDA teaching my question would be simply what changed in your view....
...Within the Incarnation of God the Son that allowed Him to be "susceptable to mutation"?

Perhaps I'm getting closer to getting an answer.

For as many "mysteries" that your church teaches, it's amazing to me that you get so caught up on this one. Christ becoming Man, is a mystery. His being susceptible to temptation, is a mystery. I don't try to understand it. What I have gained from it however is a great appreciation for the sacrifice that was made so that I could be saved.

 

[Pythons]

When I think "substance" I think "what something is made of". I don't believe God is "made of" anything, but that He is simply God.

That's why the early Church made it clear that man could not know what it is that God is....
....Everthing else in the universe was made of the elements and since God created the world from nothing.
....God's substance would be different than anything.
....Therefore, it's simply substance beyond our ability to understand.

Christ doesn't "share" a "substance" with the Father. Trying to ascertain what God is "made of" is taking your mind where it ought not venture.

Bingo - after all these years I've been here - finally, I have the answer...
...So in your view God is one in character, purpose and mind.
....I.E. that Father, Son and Holy Spirit totally agree in what they think and do.
....And as you said Christ does not share in whatever the Substance is that the Father is.
....And same goes for the Holy Spirit?

Christ was fully man. Christ was fully God. Christ however made Himself a bondservant, subjecting Himself to the will of the Father.

Is it your understanding that Christ, prior to the Incarnation, wasn't totally subjected....
....To doing the will of the Father?

Christ was never in danger of failing, not because it was written in stone, but because He was completely obedient to the will of His Father.

You do agree then that the Bible says in many places that Christ would be the victor....
....And establish His rule in the end & that this is stated most clearly?

Do you believe that Christ "eternally" has and will do the will of the Father?

Christ remained in constant prayer, lived a life of servitude, and displayed what true love was. He overcame not by His own power, but by the power of the Father. He did this so that we too could see that it could be done through us should we totally surrender our will to the Father. So again, you keep missing the message that was being conveyed. Sr White wasn't trying to teach that Christ had a 50/50 chance of overcoming. She was trying to teach that He sacrificed everything for us, so that we could live in eternity with Him. Have you ever considered why Christ spent so many hours in prayer? Or why He was sweating drops of blood? Or why He cried out "in to Thine hands, I commit my spirit"? The struggle He face to secure our salvation is one that we shall never comprehend. It wasn't even so much that He had to sin. He could have simply said "Enough is enough" and left. But He didn't. That is the point Sr White is trying to make.

Perhaps it's just me but I think God knew exactly what He was getting himself into by coming to save us....
....He knew what was coming.

Well you're wrong about it being Ellen White's theme. It is the theme of our situation.

I was just wondering about how Ellen set things up in that quote...
...About how Christ pleaded with His Father to let Him come to earth and try to save humanity.
...And the Father worried about it because of the possibility of forever loosing His only Son.

Thanks for answeingr me Stryder - I don't have any more questions about that part of it.


Do you really think that it was easy for God to simply say "Sure, go down there and be beaten, abused, mocked, tortured, and murdered, so that we can secure SOME of the fallen."

For as many "mysteries" that your church teaches, it's amazing to me that you get so caught up on this one. Christ becoming Man, is a mystery. His being susceptible to temptation, is a mystery. I don't try to understand it. What I have gained from it however is a great appreciation for the sacrifice that was made so that I could be saved.

The Trinity is a Mystery and it is to be kept a Mystery so that's not my question at all...
...The only other question I have would be if all SDA's share your view.
...That Christ does not equally possess the IDENTICAL Substance of the Father.

ECR has already answered that question along with you and I would be interested to know if the other SDA's that post here see it the same way.

Thanks Stryder - I appreciate your answering me.