Haven't checked CF for quite awhile simply because I've been working and too busy at times and I've also been away from the church for a period of time too. As a Elder lady at my church recently told me and a few others, "Debate produces a lot of heat, but very little light!" Amen.
Greetings RND,
Glad to see you, all the forums have grown quite as I think the evil has seen that the more the truth comes into light, the more it convicts the soul and transforms. Many of the forums seem to be more receptive to the Sabbath, the State of the Dead, and even the biblical prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, but there are still some which Satan has a firm hold of.
I had a question for you, I was going over the Nature of Christ and noticed I had missed some issues that came up in QOD. Here is what I came across:
..regarding the nature of Christ I thought this link may be beneficial to you personally in your study of the matter.
Materials on the Human Nature of Christ as Understood by Seventh-day Adventists
Also the QOD quote which has a heading Christ "Took Sinless Human Nature", see
Talk:Seventh-day Adventist theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The annotated edition of QOD from Andrews University in 2003 states the following....
Froom and his colleagues were less than transparent on the denomination’s position since the mid-1890s” (Questions on Doctrine, Annot. Ed., Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), p. xv.
“Suspicion of the Adventist conferees having hedged on the truth of the traditional Adventist position is seemingly confirmed in the section of the appendix to Questions on Doctrine on ‘Christ’s Nature During the Incarnation.’ In that appendix of Ellen White quotations the authors of the book supply a heading stating that Christ ‘Took Sinless Human Nature.’ That heading is problematic in that it implies that that was Ellen White’s idea when in fact she was quite emphatic in repeatedly stating that Christ took ‘our sinful nature,’ and that ‘He took upon Himself, fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin’” (Ibid., p. xvi).
“It is... difficult to justify the Adventist conferees’ presentation and manipulation of the data they presented on the human nature of Christ... the change of position on the human nature of Christ was one of substance. Whether Froom and his colleagues were willing to admit it or not, the view of Christ’s human nature that they set forth was a genuine revision of the position held by the majority of the denomination before the publication of Questions on Doctrine” (Ibid., p. xvii).
“The authors at times push the facts a bit too far... they even present their data in a way that creates a false impression on the human nature of Christ” (Ibid., p. xxx).
“Due to... the problematic presentation of the topic in Questions on Doctrine... the human nature of Christ would become central to much Adventist theological discussion for the second half of the twentieth century” (Ibid., p. 305, annot. fn.).
“Questions on Doctrine not only supplied a misleading heading, but it also neglected to present the evidence that would have contradicted the heading” (Ibid., p. 516, annotated fn.).
“Both the heading to page §650§ and the non-inclusion of Ellen White’s statements claiming that Christ had a sinful nature were less than straightforward and transparent” (Ibid., p. 517, annot. fn.).
“The authors of Questions on Doctrine apparently were tempted to avoid some of Ellen White’s strong statements in their compilation and to provide the misleading heading on page §650§” (Ibid., p. 518, annot. fn.).
“The data was manipulated by the authors of Questions on Doctrine” (Ibid., p. 520, annot. fn.).
“Leroy Froom and his colleagues in the evangelical dialogue had not told the truth about the longstanding denominational teaching on the human nature of Christ” (Ibid., p. 521, annot. fn.).
See
http://qod.andrews.edu/docs/16_larry_kirkpatrick.doc p. 45-46
What are your thoughts on this?
Red
