I had hoped...

tall73 · Jul 13, 2007

Yes, get a good look at that folks. Because they are talking about relegating them again to a heterodox or unorthodox section in the main rules.

Would you all quit trying to silence other people and go the areas where they are trying to censor us and everyone who they think is different?

If we don't act we won't even be able to give our views, let alone have a safe shelter.

This is why I don't want to be the one limiting discussion. We are often the first on the chopping block in that kind of system.

woobadooba · Jul 13, 2007

tall73 said:
Yes, get a good look at that folks. Because they are talking about relegating them again to a heterodox or unorthodox section in the main rules.

Would you all quit trying to silence other people and go the areas where they are trying to censor us and everyone who they think is different?

If we don't act we won't even be able to give our views, let alone have a safe shelter.

This is why I don't want to be the one limiting discussion. We are often the first on the chopping block in that kind of system.

It is evident that we have more light than those contending against us.

And when we should be a light to all, we are slowly degrading into something else.

Can you be so sure that this isn't the work of God? If a forum that consists of the most light, no longer represents what He deems to be true, or is on a path of compromise, why should He permit it to stay open?

And even if it does remain, unless things change in here you will get no support from me to speak to these people on behalf of this forum, to keep it open.

I would rather see this forum closed than to see it being used by the devil to cause other people to stumble.

RC_NewProtestants · Jul 13, 2007

I am not sure where the main discussion of the rules is but the following might help Tall if they are thinking of disallowing annihilationism.

From St. Athanasius:
(6) We saw in the last chapter that, because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction. Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should is appear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits.
http://www.theologywebsite.com/etext/athanasius/ch2.shtml

tall73 · Jul 13, 2007

Woobadooba, we believe in religious liberty for a reason. There is no rule in the street when you talk to your neighbor. Yet we can still tell them the truth.

I want everyone to be able to give their view. If we have more light we should be able to convince them.

tall73 · Jul 13, 2007

http://www.christianforums.com/t5685155-wiki-rearranging-the-forums.html

This is one thread it is being discussed in. There are two issues there...creed compliance, and some have brought up the "controversial issues" of which annihilationism was a part.

woobadooba · Jul 13, 2007

tall73 said:
Woobadooba, we believe in religious liberty for a reason. There is no rule in the street when you talk to your neighbor. Yet we can still tell them the truth.

I want everyone to be able to give their view. If we have more light we should be able to convince them.

There ought to be no place for libel in our forum, and no place for heretical views like the moral influence theory and theistic evolution.

Adventist Dissident · Jul 13, 2007

a heritical view is one the we don't agree with

tall73 · Jul 13, 2007

You listed the belief that Jesus took on aspects of fallen humanity as a heresy. It is a belief held by many in the church.

You would exclude folks like ontheDL from posting their views by doing so for no reason other than your opinion.

Oh well, I am not in a good mood for discussing this at the moment.

Talk to you all later.

woobadooba · Jul 13, 2007

tall73 said:
You listed the belief that Jesus took on aspects of fallen humanity as a heresy. It is a belief held by many in the church.

You would exclude folks like ontheDL from posting their views by doing so for no reason other than your opinion.

Oh well, I am not in a good mood for discussing this at the moment.

Talk to you all later.

False.

I said Jesus did not have a 'sinful' nature, as in Jesus was not full of sin, or a sinner like we are. To declare Him to have had a sinful nature is to declare Him to have been sinful.

'ful' is short for 'full'. Jesus was not full of sin! To say that He was is to blaspheme God.

tall73 · Jul 13, 2007

woobadooba said:
False.

I said Jesus did not have a 'sinful' nature, as in Jesus was not full of sin, or a sinner like we are. To declare Him to have had a sinful nature is to declare Him to have been sinful.

'ful' is short for 'full'. Jesus was not full of sin! To say that He was is to blaspheme God.

You need to read a few more articles on the subject woob. That is not what the view is saying. Those who hold to the view clearly say Jesus NEVER sinned.

They do say He was tempted...but then so does the Bible.

I don't agree with their view but I once did, and there is an argument to be made from the Scriptures.

RC_NewProtestants · Jul 13, 2007

Woob wrote:

There ought to be no place for libel in our forum, and no place for heretical views like the moral influence theory and theistic evolution.

Woob did you know that the main atonement theory presented in the book Steps to Christ by Ellen White is the in essence the moral influence theory. In fact most every other atonement theory includes the moral influence theory. You want to strike down things that are readily acknowledged in Christianity and Adventism.

How did the lion go from the assumption that it ate grass to that of a meat eater with teeth for tearing and killing. How were animals able to develop symbiotic relationships if you deny even the discussion of theistic evolution. Or maybe you will accept demonic evolution and only reject theistic evolution. Your restrictions limit all to a very narrow and self satisfied world view incapable of expansion.

About the only thing I can agree with you on is there should not be libel. But for libel to occur the person has to know what they are saying is false. The legal definition requires also that they are being false for malicious intent. I do actually think that while libel is extremely hard to determine and is to be avoided. Being that it is so hard to determine about the only way we can is through the process of debate and evidence rather then accusation.

djconklin · Jul 14, 2007

Woob did you know that the main atonement theory presented in the book Steps to Christ by Ellen White is the in essence the moral influence theory. In fact most every other atonement theory includes the moral influence theory. You want to strike down things that are readily acknowledged in Christianity and Adventism.

From http://www.theopedia.com/index.php?title=Moral_Influence_theory&

"The Moral influence theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. In this view, the purpose and result of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action."

As we can see the moral influence theory is unbiblical (John 3:16).

Being that it is so hard to determine about the only way we can is through the process of debate and evidence rather then accusation.

And yet you accuse the brethren rather than providing the evidence.

woobadooba · Jul 14, 2007

djconklin said:
"The Moral influence theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. In this view, the purpose and result of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action."

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Rom 3:23-26)

It is quite clear from what Paul is saying here that the Moral Influence Theory is false.

Why do those who promote this teaching ignore these things?

Well, perhaps they don't ignore the fact that they are they, but rather twist the scriptures unto their own destruction. 2Pt. 3:16

RC_NewProtestants · Jul 14, 2007

The problem here is that many people who hold to tradition don't even know history or the Bible:

(Rom 2:4 NIV) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

You don't know these things because you don't look into these things. You don't look into these things because you think you already know the truth. You don't question what you think you know. And that sadly is the real difference between Progressive SDA's and Traditional SDA's, Progressive still question and search while Traditional SDA's firmly believe that they already have the truth.

In the current Adventist culture there is one group that really uses the moral influence theory and they get it mostly from Ellen White, they don't call it that because they add other things to it so they call it the Larger View. But they totally reject the Penal concept of atonement as well they should. It is totally unbiblical but it is traditional. Not a tradition for the first 1100 years of Christianity but sometime after the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement became popular the penal theory developed out of the Satisfaction theory.

Now I know these things because I studied them. Study is something many Traditional SDA's no longer do. Oh they will study to the Bible to find ways to use texts to fit their preconceived ideas so they can as Woob did above quote a text and say Paul was totally against something that really the texts does not say but tradition and words used like propitiation please their preconceived ideas. Modern Bibles would says an "atoning sacrifice" but since that fits very well within the idea of the moral influence the Penal theorist traditionalist use the King James wording because it carries the idea that the sacrifice was to please God rather then to affect man. But the man was the problem not God, God was the one reaching out to man and that is what an atoning sacrifice is.

For those who desire more information see
What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement?

woobadooba · Jul 14, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
The problem here is that many people who hold to tradition don't even know history or the Bible:

(Rom 2:4 NIV) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

You don't know these things because you don't look into these things. You don't look into these things because you think you already know the truth. You don't question what you think you know. And that sadly is the real difference between Progressive SDA's and Traditional SDA's, Progressive still question and search while Traditional SDA's firmly believe that they already have the truth.

In the current Adventist culture there is one group that really uses the moral influence theory and they get it mostly from Ellen White, they don't call it that because they add other things to it so they call it the Larger View. But they totally reject the Penal concept of atonement as well they should. It is totally unbiblical but it is traditional. Not a tradition for the first 1100 years of Christianity but sometime after the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement became popular the penal theory developed out of the Satisfaction theory.

Now I know these things because I studied them. Study is something many Traditional SDA's no longer do. Oh they will study to the Bible to find ways to use texts to fit their preconceived ideas so they can as Woob did above quote a text and say Paul was totally against something that really the texts does not say but tradition and words used like propitiation please their preconceived ideas. Modern Bibles would says an "atoning sacrifice" but since that fits very well within the idea of the moral influence the Penal theorist traditionalist use the King James wording because it carries the idea that the sacrifice was to please God rather then to affect man. But the man was the problem not God, God was the one reaching out to man and that is what an atoning sacrifice is.

For those who desire more information see
What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement?

RC, give it a break. Your view is false. We have shown you this many times, and you continue to be rebellious towards the word of God.

And how foolish is it to believe in theistic evolution while accepting the doctrine of the incarnation?

You have asserted that science demands that creation couldn't have taken place in six literal days, thus using science as a means to interpret Holy Scripture. Yet, even while science would tell you that the incarnation is likewise impossible, you still accept it?

So don't accuse anyone of not being a thinker. At least traditionals, though they may not be right about everything, have enough common sense to know that using science as a means to interpret scripture is quite foolish.

The scientist isn't supposed to be the one to tell us what scripture means. That is the job of the Holy Spirit, to guide us in all truth; and it is quite evident that you are grieving the Holy Spirit's guidance on such matters.

djconklin · Jul 14, 2007

And that sadly is the real difference between Progressive SDA's and Traditional SDA's, Progressive still question and search while Traditional SDA's firmly believe that they already have the truth.

To be far more accurate those who claim to be progressive have rejected basic truths while so-called traditional (aka orthodox) SDA's are always open to new light as EGW predicted would happen.

Now I know these things because I studied them. Study is something many Traditional SDA's no longer do.

Nice propaganda; but, you have already been proven wrong by two different posters on two different points. It could be that theology is too deep a subject for you and you don't know where to look.

RC_NewProtestants · Jul 14, 2007

RC, give it a break. Your view is false. We have shown you this many times, and you continue to be rebellious towards the word of God.

So typical, my reply was about the moral influence theory and when shown your assertions were wrong you change the subject. Science as never nor will ever say the incarnation is impossible as it is not in any way in the realm of science.

woobadooba · Jul 14, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
So typical, my reply was about the moral influence theory and when shown your assertions were wrong you change the subject. Science as never nor will ever say the incarnation is impossible as it is not in any way in the realm of science.

You didn't prove anything, except that you refuse to think clearly on such matters.

Already, I showed you from scripture that your theory is false. Yet, you choose to ignore what the Bible makes so very clear for all to see.

And the reason why I brought up your view on theistic evolution is to show how inconsistent your logic is.

djconklin · Jul 14, 2007

So typical, my reply was about the moral influence theory and when shown your assertions were wrong you change the subject.

So typical, we show you that your reply was about the moral influence theory and when you are shown that your assertions were wrong you change the subject, to wit: "Science as never nor will ever say the incarnation is impossible as it is not in any way in the realm of science." We're not talking about the incarnation. It is you theory of EGW teaching a false theory of atonement that is being refuted and proven wrong.

woobadooba · Jul 14, 2007

djconklin said:
So typical, we show you that your reply was about the moral influence theory and when you are shown that your assertions were wrong you change the subject, to wit: "Science as never nor will ever say the incarnation is impossible as it is not in any way in the realm of science." We're not talking about the incarnation. It is you theory of EGW teaching a false theory of atonement that is being refuted and proven wrong.

Well, to be fair to RC, he was just simply responding to what I had said. However, I said what I said to make a point that he obviously didn't get.

I had hoped...

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

Legend

Moderate SDA

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency