Progressive SDA and Christology

[Pythons]

Perhaps my logic is too simple. When I read Acts 15 and put myself in the place of a person listening to the law being laid down I have only two choices; 1) accept the authority of the Apostolic Authority or 2) reject it.

If I opted to reject the Apostles determination on an issue of faith and morals because of my personal theological entrenchment and the ramifications of what the Apostles told me to do would effect my personal belief, my only options are to join up with other protesters who agree with me or accept the Authority of the Apostolic Church.

"God" is not conditional so when Scripture says Jesus selected us "in Him" before the world was created as well as it being said, in Scripture, that Jesus, prior to His birth, WOULD save the people from their sins it becomes totally alien to the Scriptures to state Jesus could have failed and lost His Salvation. The belief that God Himself is subject to conditionalism removes Him from being God and is the same as suggesting a God would throw another "god" into hell if the lesser god didn't do what he was sent to do - it's hideous to say the least.

 

[StormyOne]

Perhaps my logic is too simple. When I read Acts 15 and put myself in the place of a person listening to the law being laid down I have only two choices; 1) accept the authority of the Apostolic Authority or 2) reject it.

If I opted to reject the Apostles determination on an issue of faith and morals because of my personal theological entrenchment and the ramifications of what the Apostles told me to do would effect my personal belief, my only options are to join up with other protesters who agree with me or accept the Authority of the Apostolic Church.

"God" is not conditional so when Scripture says Jesus selected us "in Him" before the world was created as well as it being said, in Scripture, that Jesus, prior to His birth, WOULD save the people from their sins it becomes totally alien to the Scriptures to state Jesus could have failed and lost His Salvation. The belief that God Himself is subject to conditionalism removes Him from being God and is the same as suggesting a God would throw another "god" into hell if the lesser god didn't do what he was sent to do - it's hideous to say the least.

there are so many assumptions in your comment that you have taken to be fact when we don't know that to be the case.... however I understand where you are coming from....

 

[Joe67]

Pythons,

There is an apostolic authority from Paul as well as from Peter.

This puts Antioch and the work of God from there on an equal footing with the work at Jerusalem which eventually moved to Rome. James and those sent from him did not feel the equality. Paul did not quarrel, but did not agree. Refraining from sexual immorality was Paul's point of agreement.

Jerusalem/Rome is law based in its teaching. Thus Peter plows.

Antioch is symbolism/allegory based in its teaching. Thus Paul sows.

Alexandria is cosmology based in its teaching. Thus Apollos waters.

All have their place in the work of the Lord, our God.

James is humanitarian with a foundation in Plato's understanding of God not being tempted and not being a tempter.

Joe

 

[Pythons]

Pythons,

There is an apostolic authority from Paul as well as from Peter.

This puts Antioch and the work of God from there on an equal footing with the work at Jerusalem which eventually moved to Rome. James and those sent from him did not feel the equality. Paul did not quarrel, but did not agree. Refraining from sexual immorality was Paul's point of agreement.

Jerusalem/Rome is law based in its teaching. Thus Peter plows.

Antioch is symbolism/allegory based in its teaching. Thus Paul sows.

Alexandria is cosmology based in its teaching. Thus Apollos waters.

All have their place in the work of the Lord, our God.

James is humanitarian with a foundation in Plato's understanding of God not being tempted and not being a tempter.

Joe

? That went over my head.

 

[Avonia]

Maybe you don't understand who God is?

Of course I do. And, of course I don't.

On one hand, you generally seem against people pointing to a few words and saying that is the complete and utter truth.

Said pointing misses much of what is interesting, because it narrows. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily better to not point than to point.

So why do you think that you understand God's law better than He does?

God's Law Is. There is no way to break it. It is not up for debate or interpretation. It exists. The potential is coming into relationship with it.

 

[Restin]

RE: Jesus words.......

John 14:30

30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you:
for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. KJV

​

Free-will is not even on the same planet as concupiscence.

About day one of creation, when 'light' was given...John 1:1-5 gives the account of 'light' that shown in darkness, the darkness of this world v5 'and the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not'! The only 'light' or understanding of Adam was 'darkness' at best. Thought Adam did have the light of day 4, sun, moon, and stars, Adam did not have, did not 'comprehend' the 'light' of creation on day 1, Jesus Christ. Adam was 'earthy' Jesus was/is 'heavenly'. A world of difference!

We both agree that Adam had free-will,

The 'free-will' of Adam, could only to choose the best that the darkness of this world had to offer, that being the light 'created' on day 4.

however I maintain Christ did not have concupiscence and that is best described as an inclination toward evil where ones yearns and longs to fully perfect sin that's already internal thereby perfecting sin.

I would agree here!

Unless I did not understand what you meant there is another 'yes' vote for a peccable Christ.

So, did you vote 'yes' for yourself?

 

[Pythons]

Restin,

John 14,30 exactly confirms what I've been saying, i.e. because Christ was born without sin, did not have concupiscence Satan did not have anything in Him. An individual is tempted when "they" are drawn away by their "own lust".

every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Sin is "internal" therefore to perfect itself it must be born AKA acted out. The concept that un-perfected sin is not really sin until thoughts become action is an alien concept and against Scripture. i.e. "Thou shalt NOT covet"

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Be sure of it, we are born into sin, we are sinners at inception. Situations can and do "tempt" each one of us however we become tempted when the temptations is something we already want to do.

Restin, if you are a straight guy with a wife and kids and abhore homosexuality you would not be tempted if a 400lb smelly homosexual asked you to sleep with him and while it's true that you were indeed tempted by the gay guy you were NOT tempted to do it because that wasn't something you wanted to do which is exactly as James 1, 13 said it is.

Eventually a situation that brings a temptation you want to do will come up and the fact that you are "TEMPTED" within yourself to do it is Scripture itself being proven to be most true. All of us have our areas of weakness whereas "sin" is concerned and when we say we have no sin we become liars. Jesus was made in all ways like us "apart from sin" so when the Son of God says Satan had nothing in Him it simply meant that Jesus could be tempted every minute of His life on earth and not once would He have been tempted because Jesus had no "evil lust" to be drawn away by.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Given that Adam was literally an animal as far as thought or morals is concerned I can accept your take on John 1, however it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

I, as you know from the thread on GT vote an explicit "no", Christ was not able to mutate therefore Christ was and is Impeccable. This thread was initiated to gather information as to how Progressive SDA's viewed this question and to determine if, like the Traditionalists, they believe that Jesus could have sinned and be ordered by God to be cast into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

You've already gave a big "yes" vote for a peccable Christ on the other thread but I will collect your vote again here.

 

[JonMiller]

there are so many assumptions in your comment that you have taken to be fact when we don't know that to be the case.... however I understand where you are coming from....

This is how life exists.

There are tons of assumptions that I have to take as fact in order to do science. In order to take part in society. And so on.

To not take any assumptions as fact is rediculous.

The point about assumptions is to understand what your assumptions are, to consider the implications of these assumptions, and to have a framework in which your assumptions exists together.

Taking assumptions as fact is a requirement of living. Everyone does it, even those who are rediculous and claim they don't.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Of course I do. And, of course I don't.



Said pointing misses much of what is interesting, because it narrows. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily better to not point than to point.



God's Law Is. There is no way to break it. It is not up for debate or interpretation. It exists. The potential is coming into relationship with it.

What do you think God's law is?

Why would the flood be violating it?

Who do you think God is?

JM
(I have some trouble discussing things with you, because you speak a different language than I.)

 

[StormyOne]

This is how life exists.

There are tons of assumptions that I have to take as fact in order to do science. In order to take part in society. And so on.

To not take any assumptions as fact is rediculous.

The point about assumptions is to understand what your assumptions are, to consider the implications of these assumptions, and to have a framework in which your assumptions exists together.

Taking assumptions as fact is a requirement of living. Everyone does it, even those who are rediculous and claim they don't.

JM

Perhaps you do, but in the field of mental health (where I've been working for over 2 decades), you do not automatically take assumptions as fact, you examine them as far as possible to see if they indeed are fact. So while I hear what you are saying Jon, I cannot agree with the blanket statement you made i.e. "to not take any assumption as fact is ridiculous."

While I agree that in our daily lives our behavior is based on the assumptions we have made, this discussion is not about what we do daily. It is about what is in the bible, the assumptions we have made about what is in the bible, and the conclusions we might make based on those assumptions... So for me, when a person says, "Jesus said to his disciples" my first question is, "how do you know he said that?" So to modify your statement, I would say, to automatically take assumptions as fact when discussing religious ideas is ridiculous.....

That is where I am coming from....

 

[StormyOne]

What do you think God's law is?

Why would the flood be violating it?

Who do you think God is?

JM
(I have some trouble discussing things with you, because you speak a different language than I.)

JM, are you assuming that Avonia speaks a different language? Is it a fact?

 

[JonMiller]

How is break and violating different?

I have a similar problem with byfaithalone1 (or whatever), but I think that Avonia is more worth talking to.

JM

 

[reddogs]

So on Thanksgiving day the proposal for setting up a new and united SDA forum is as follows:

THE FORUM STRUCTURE DRAFT

Townhall forum-A forum for discusing the whole spectrum of everyday Christian living. It would be a forum where all can come to socialize and talk about current events with no debate, open for all Members and Non-Members to fellowship.

Adventist Open Circle forum-A forum for Progressive Thought on Adventism.
It would be a forum where Progressives can come to discuss current views of progressive thought, open for Members and Non-Members.

Sabbath School Lesson & New Member Bible Study forum- Is a Sabbath School lesson study and for personal studies forum for teaching church beliefs and doctrines for new members or members.

Fundamental Beliefs forum- This would be a forum for 28 fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church as listed by the SDA church. For members to dicusss generally agreed upon and accepted common beliefs of Adventists.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

SoF DRAFT:

The Seventh-day Adventist Community -- a forum for members of the Seventh-day Adventist church and Seventh-day Adventist community to discuss and fellowship

A few things to know about Seventh-day Adventists:

Members of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church belong to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

We are a vibrant and diverse denomination, and span 13 divisions around the world. On this site, SDA church members and friends unite around these shared beliefs: God created the world, loves all creation, took responsibility for our redemption, and calls us to a whole life in Him now and through eternity. As a result, we look forward to "the restoration of all creation to full harmony with His perfect will and righteousness." (link; Genesis 1:1; John 3:16; Hebrews 12:1-3; John 14:1-3; Romans 12:1-2; Revelation 21:3-5)

For more on commonly held Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, including the seventh-day Sabbath and the imminent coming of Jesus Christ, please see the page What Adventists Believe.

In this section, we've designed four sub-forums to serve SDA members, friends, and guests. Current church members, former members, and others connected to Adventist institutions, hospitals, or service groups are all welcome for fellowship in our Town Hall and for respectful discussion in our Open Circle. Please help us by reviewing each sub-forum description and purpose before you post.

We look forward to meeting and talking with you!

******

House Rules-
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). Active promotion of views contrary to the shared beliefs of this group will be considered off topic.[/quote]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


ADMIN ISSUES

Admin will formulate sticky post for each sub-forum that describes its purpose and target members.

Admin will decide on whether to rename the Discussion Zone as the Adventist News and Issues forum and thread asignment


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

If everyone could go over it carefully and give input as I want to go ahead and present this to Admin and get their views.

 

[Avonia]

What do you think God's law is?

The structure of Creation. That Which Is.

Why would the flood be violating it?

The flood doesn't violate God's law - it's impossible to violate God's law. The flood violates the ten commandments.

Who do you think God is?

Everything. God is both imminent and transcendent. Having said that, it's unspeakable.

(I have some trouble discussing things with you, because you speak a different language than I.)

I understand more than you know. I hang in a few circles where I feel exactly the same way. Almost all of the time.

 

[JonMiller]

The structure of Creation. That Which Is.

The flood doesn't violate God's law - it's impossible to violate God's law. The flood violates the ten commandments.

You had said that the flood violated God's law. I was wondering how you came to that conclusion. Thanks for clarifying matters.

You had used that as a reason why you hoped that the flood was a myth (I would like to point out that myths, in a useful definition, don't have to be not true, but I think you were implying that you hoped it wasn't true).

I would like to know why you hope it isn't true?

How would your view change if it was true or if it wasn't true?

Everything. God is both imminent and transcendent. Having said that, it's unspeakable.



I understand more than you know. I hang in a few circles where I feel exactly the same way. Almost all of the time.

What is the difference between breaking and violating (to you)?

What does narrows mean? I think I have some idea, but it would be nice if you clarified.

JM

 

[Avonia]

You had said that the flood violated God's law. I was wondering how you came to that conclusion. Thanks for clarifying matters.

I went back to that post. I said "law" and not law to suggest that the flood would have violated what people assumed was God's law - the ten commandments - murder. It's my sense that there was not a global flood killing most of humanity for two reasons: morality and science.

I would like to point out that myths, in a useful definition, don't have to be not true

True.

I would like to know why you hope it isn't true?

Because we know everything we need to know about being a parent to understand why we would not kill our children. Because it violates everything we know about good discipline. Because it's an evil act.

What is the difference between breaking and violating (to you)?

I may be overusing this example, but it's so simple, it's a good one. Gravity. You many be in varying degrees of relationship with the "Law of Gravity" but you cannot violate it or break it. Well, at least I can't. The potential is coming into better relationship with it.

The laws we usually call "God's Laws" reflect our understanding of That Which Is. So some of these are pretty good reflections, some not so good. Sabbath is not God's law, but it is a reflection of God's law. This is why the idea of "keeping it" is a little humorous. Just like "keeping" gravity.

 

[Restin]

Restin,

John 14,30 exactly confirms what I've been saying, i.e. because Christ was born without sin, did not have concupiscence Satan did not have anything in Him. An individual is tempted when "they" are drawn away by their "own lust".

Pythons...I agree with what you are saying about John 14:30.

I, as you know from the thread on GT vote an explicit "no", Christ was not able to mutate therefore Christ was and is Impeccable. This thread was initiated to gather information as to how Progressive SDA's viewed this question and to determine if, like the Traditionalists, they believe that Jesus could have sinned and be ordered by God to be cast into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

You've already gave a big "yes" vote for a peccable Christ on the other thread but I will collect your vote again here.

That's rather interesting since this thread contains my first post on the entire christianforums.com in 8 months! As for 'GT' - what is that? As for Christ being able to 'mutate' ....I don't remember engaging in any discussion on this topic. Direct me to where I have actually done this...OK?

Somehow it seems we are passing each other, going opposite directions on the same sidewalk.

 

[JonMiller]

It would cool if you answered the other one Avonia!

JM

 

[Pythons]

Pythons...I agree with what you are saying about John 14:30.

That makes me feel much better, perhaps I have not read you correctly and you, as I do, reject that Christ could mutate from being sinless to being a sinner.

That's rather interesting since this thread contains my first post on the entire christianforums.com in 8 months! As for 'GT' - what is that? As for Christ being able to 'mutate' ....I don't remember engaging in any discussion on this topic. Direct me to where I have actually done this...OK?

General Theology but I checked that one and it was someone else however you did participate in this same discussion which started on 22 November 2008 within this thread;

http://www.christianforums.com/t7313670/

In post #23 you had asked me what my understanding was on Original Sin because I previously stated in that post that Christ was not born with Original Sin like we are.

In post #26 I answer your question about O.S.

JohnT goes on to post that it is heretical to suggest Christ had a sin nature and in post #32 it looked as if you rejected that understanding. In post #33 I asked you directly if you believed that Jesus was born with a sin nature AKA Original Sin.

Somehow it seems we are passing each other, going opposite directions on the same sidewalk.

I've been guilty of this no doubt and if I've called it wrong I am very sorry.

 

[Restin]

Originally Posted by Restin

Pythons...I agree with what you are saying about John 14:30.

​

That makes me feel much better, perhaps I have not read you correctly and you, as I do, reject that Christ could mutate from being sinless to being a sinner.

I did go back and read the discussion "Could Christ have Sinned?" which was started about a year ago. At the point where it seemed the discussion was going in circles, I did not continue.

To clarify...I believe that, Christ had no 'concupiscence' to or toward sin.