• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Who is here and where do we start?

Telaquapacky

Unconquerable Good Will
Sep 5, 2006
457
20
Central California
✟23,170.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
That went right over my head RC. Did Ellen suggest that Satan and the other angels didn’t know Jesus was God so they had to be informed about it? I was in the Army so forgive me for the analogy but that would be like standing in formation and finding out the E-5 standing next to you was actually the Commander –in-Chief.
Hi, Pythons!
It's more like standing in formation and finding out the E-15 standing next to you was actually the President's son, or Prince Harry. Any preferential treatment could make you jealous even though you know better. In Adventist mythology, Lucifer is the originator of disloyalty to God (sin), looking for any pretext to accuse God of unfairness.

I don't know what an E-15 is. In Adventist mythology, Michael and Lucifer were covering cherubim, the two most powerful and highest-ranking angels. If I have this right, there were only two of that rank (represented by the two golden angel figures over the mercy seat in the most holy place in the sanctuary).That might make the jealousy worse. If the president's son, or the Prince of Wales were the lowest ranking enlisted man, and there was preferential treatment, that would be unfair to all enlisted men- it would be an injustice, to be sure, but would not single you out as the only one offended. But when it's only you and Him- the only two in the highest rank, and He gets major perks and benefits that you are denied, it gets more personal.

I'm not defending the mythology because there's no Scriptural proof for it, but I'm just saying that's how the Adventist story goes.
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ok, I get it, mythology. Still, Michael the arcangel was one of other princes which would equate to others being of the same rank which would require that they were of a different substance.

This mythology syncs with tritheism just fine but does not work at all with the Trinity as Jeus would have "created" Satan so there is zero doubt that Satan along with everything or anyone else knew exactly who Jesus was.
 
Upvote 0

Telaquapacky

Unconquerable Good Will
Sep 5, 2006
457
20
Central California
✟23,170.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Ok, I get it, mythology. Still, Michael the arcangel was one of other princes which would equate to others being of the same rank which would require that they were of a different substance.

This mythology syncs with tritheism just fine but does not work at all with the Trinity as Jeus would have "created" Satan so there is zero doubt that Satan along with everything or anyone else knew exactly who Jesus was.
You know more about Trinitarian theology than I do. I don't know how the mythology fits with Trinitarianism. The SDA mythology includes Jesus creating Lucifer. Lucifer is a necessary character in the scenario, because his rebellion, and the unexpectedly gracious way the Godhead handled it reveals God's character to the universe, in contrast to the nature of sin and Satan (God's/Jesus' magnaminity in creating Lucifer and giving him life even though God/Jesus pre-knew Lucifer would rebel and ultimately engineer Jesus' crucifixion, vis a vis Satan's selfish hunger for power at any cost to humanity, etc.) This all plays into a grand Adventist concept called "The Great Controversy," and also to a slightly different concept some of us call "The Larger View."

The Great Controversy is the traditional mythology, the Larger View is the one preferred by moderates and some progressives. The Great Controversy view is articulated by Ellen G. White. The Larger View comes out of the teaching of a retired Adventist professor named Graham Maxwell. The Larger View is more nuanced and looks candidly and questioningly at some doctrinal points held sacrosanct by traditional Adventists, which makes some traditionals wish to burn Dr. Maxwell in effigy. Not trained in theology, I couldn't even begin to explain the differences, and frankly have always been puzzled by the resentment some have against Dr. Maxwell. I guess that's what you get for asking the right questions, as no good deed will go unpunished.
 
Upvote 0

sentipente

Senior Contributor
Jul 17, 2007
11,651
4,492
Silver Sprint, MD
✟54,142.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Politics
US-Others
Telaquapacky, if you don't know the differences between the Great Controversy and the Larger View on what basis do you choose the Larger View? (You did not expressly say you have but that is implied in a slightly different concept some of us call "The Larger View." It seems to me that you would have otherwise said "which some call . . .)
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That went right over my head RC. Did Ellen suggest that Satan and the other angels didn’t know Jesus was God so they had to be informed about it? I was in the Army so forgive me for the analogy but that would be like standing in formation and finding out the E-5 standing next to you was actually the Commander –in-Chief.
From the first chapter of Ellen Whites book Patriarchs and Prophets:

Leaving his place in the immediate presence of the Father, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. He worked with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealed his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God. He began to insinuate doubts concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that though laws might be necessary for the inhabitants of the worlds, angels, being more exalted, needed no such restraint, for their own wisdom was a sufficient guide. They were not beings that could bring dishonor to God; all their thoughts were holy; it was no more possible for them than for God Himself to err. The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could but attain to his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven; for it was his object to secure freedom for all. But now even the liberty which they had hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute Ruler had been appointed them, and to His authority all must pay homage. Such were the subtle deceptions that through the wiles of Lucifer were fast obtaining in the heavenly courts.
Page 38

There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer's deceptions.
Taking advantage of the loving, loyal trust reposed in him by the holy beings under his command, he had so artfully instilled into their minds his own distrust and discontent that his agency was not discerned. Lucifer had presented the purposes of God in a false light--misconstruing and distorting them to excite dissent and dissatisfaction. He cunningly drew his hearers on to give utterance to their feelings; then these expressions were repeated by him when it would serve his purpose, as evidence that the angels were not fully in harmony with the government of God. While claiming for himself perfect loyalty to God, he urged that changes in the order and laws of heaven were necessary for the stability of the divine government. Thus while working to excite opposition to the law of God and to instill his own discontent into the minds of the angels under him, he was ostensibly seeking to remove dissatisfaction and to reconcile disaffected angels to the order of heaven. While secretly fomenting discord and rebellion, he with consummate craft caused it to appear as his sole purpose to promote loyalty and to preserve harmony and peace.
The spirit of dissatisfaction thus kindled was doing its baleful work. While there was no open outbreak, division of feeling imperceptibly grew up among the angels. There were some who looked with favor upon Lucifer's insinuations against the government of God. Although they had heretofore been in perfect harmony with the order which God had established, they were now discontented and unhappy because they could not penetrate His unsearchable counsels; they were dissatisfied with His purpose in exalting Christ. These stood ready to second Lucifer's demand for equal authority with the Son of God. But angels who were loyal and true maintained the wisdom and justice of the divine decree and endeavored to reconcile this disaffected being to the will of God. Christ was the Son of God; He had been one with Him before the angels were called into existence. He had ever stood at the right hand of the Father; His supremacy, so full of blessing to all who came under its benignant control, had not heretofore
Page 39

been questioned. The harmony of heaven had never been interrupted; wherefore should there now be discord? The loyal angels could see only terrible consequences from this dissension, and with earnest entreaty they counseled the disaffected ones to renounce their purpose and prove themselves loyal to God by fidelity to His government. In great mercy, according to His divine character, God bore long with Lucifer. The spirit of discontent and disaffection had never before been known in heaven. It was a new element, strange, mysterious, unaccountable. Lucifer himself had not at first been acquainted with the real nature of his feelings; for a time he had feared to express the workings and imaginings of his mind; yet he did not dismiss them. He did not see whither he was drifting. But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt. Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. It was too great a sacrifice for one who had been so highly honored to confess that he had been in error, that his imaginings were false, and to yield to the authority which he had been working to prove unjust.
A compassionate Creator, in yearning pity for Lucifer and his followers, was seeking to draw them back from the abyss of ruin into which they were about to plunge. But His mercy was misinterpreted. Lucifer pointed to the long-suffering of God as an evidence of his own superiority, an indication that the King of the universe would yet accede to his terms. If the angels would stand firmly with him, he declared, they could yet gain all that
Page 40

they desired. He persistently defended his own course, and fully committed himself to the great controversy against his Maker. Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship.
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pp/pp1.html
For more on it you have to read her various statements on Michael.
 
Upvote 0

Telaquapacky

Unconquerable Good Will
Sep 5, 2006
457
20
Central California
✟23,170.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Telaquapacky, if you don't know the differences between the Great Controversy and the Larger View on what basis do you choose the Larger View? (You did not expressly say you have but that is implied in a slightly different concept some of us call "The Larger View." It seems to me that you would have otherwise said "which some call . . .)
In my opinion, the difference between the two views has mostly to do with whether you like Graham Maxwell or not. It has to do with whether you have a nuanced, relational way of thinking about God, as opposed to concrete, black-and-white, legalistic thinking about God. What I have observed is people, usually concrete-thinking traditionals who don't like Maxwell, misrepresent what he says because they don't like the way he frames the Great Controversy.

I'll give you an example: Maxwell asked if God required the blood of his own Son to achieve atonement for sinners. It was a hypothetical question. He suggested that it was rather, human beings who required it, because we are so barbaric and sinful in nature that it would take the most gruesome shedding of blood to convince us that God is serious about our redemption. He was not saying that the blood of Christ has no salvific value- he was only commenting on the sad state of humanity and the extremes we have put God to in order to save us, or to "get our attention," as he often has said. But some of the traditional camp accused Dr. Maxwell of heresy, as if what he meant was that Christ need never have died for our redemption, and that His blood is not necessary. That misinterpretation comes from viewing Dr. Maxwell's words in a concrete, black and white sense, when in fact, Dr. Maxwell never intended them to be understood that way.

Or so I believe. One reason I believe this, is that Graham Maxwell has shied away from meeting his critics head-on. Anyone who has dealt with concrete thinkers knows it's a waste of time to try to get them to see what they are cognitively unable to see, and entering a debate with people who think that way only makes matters worse. You can't make a brain do what it can't do.

It's mainly a question of emphasis. The God portrayed in The Great Controversy is making Himself accountable to human beings, yes- but the Larger View, there is more emphasis on how vulnerable God is to humanity. This is unacceptable to the traditional mindset. The legalistic concept held by many traditionals is influenced more by a need to emphasize the sovereignty of God- that is, "I obey God because it's right because He says so, and it's written in stone, so there." Somehow the concept that one would wish to obey God out of love and being convinced by God's magniminity that I should want to obey Him because He's my Best Friend doesn't appeal to them. They would rather have God holding a stick, and making roolz for us to keep because He says so, and not because there is a reason aimed at our greater good. In short, the Larger View is much like the Great Controversy, except that it paints a picture of God that is too friendly or familiar for some to accept.

The Great Controversy describes God's way of making it fair and legal to save sinners. The Larger View describes God's way of wooing us to love Him and accept Him as Savior and Lord, not because it's legal or fair, but because the King and Creator of this universe is our trusted Friend. They are not necessarily incompatible, but are a difference in emphasis.
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Taleq said:
You know more about Trinitarian theology than I do. I don't know how the mythology fits with Trinitarianism.



It would not fit with the Trinity, however, Ellen's view works perfectly with tritheism. The Trinity is not so much of understanding exactly what it is as it's understanding what it isn't. From a solid foundation of what the Trinity isn't, one can easily spot doctrines that violate it from a greater to lesser degree.



Accepting the Trinity necessatates accepting that Jesus is God the Father's OWNLY Son. The "Word" has always been with God because the Word "is" God. Just like speach issues from a person Jesus has always issued from the Father. Michael the archangel is Biblically described as being one among other Cheif "Princes" which in Ellen's view equates to Christ being lowered to Satan's level or Satan being elevated to the Words' level. Any teaching that makes it necessary for Jesus' to be "honored" prior to the Incarnation would be to state that previous to the Incarnation Jesus wasn't the Eternal Son which is exactly what I've heard "many" Adventists suggest.

The General Conference says the Trinity is a fundamental belief yet it's visible and vocal teachers affirm tritheism which is without question what Mormonism and JW's believe.



RC_NP said:
ELLEN WHITE QUOTE:
The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could but attain to his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven; for it was his object to secure freedom for all.


The "exaltation" of the Son of God 'AS EQUAL' with the Father is an Arian statement as sturdy as any I've seen. Worse yet is the explicit statement that the Word prior to being exalted "was" a Prince of angels. By Ellen calling Satan a "Prince of angels" the Word must adopt the same Substance as Satan which reversed would make Satan God minus exaltation. No wonder he got mad.



There, I've never seen that quote previously and just answered it sitting at work with nothing more then being grounded in what the Trinity "isn't".

I don't want anyone to think that the Trinity is beyond understanding in that you only need to know what the Trinity isn't.
 
Upvote 0

Moriah_Conquering_Wind

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2006
23,327
2,234
✟34,174.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I didn't like the way the traditionals crushed all dissent, like Tiananmen Square. They are afraid progressives' dissent will cause newly converted Adventists to leave the church. I think the hostility is more likely to do that than exposure to different points of view.
Well without healthy dissent offering healthier views, new converts could get caught in a downward spiral of despair and sucked into toxic soteriology where their faith will wind up completely shipwrecked as a result.
Night was perma-banned, whatever that is.
That completely sucks and IMO bes wrong. He got baited and flamed to Hades and back by unscrupulous persons ... it hopes he will appeal this to the RT and get it overturned.
 
Upvote 0

Moriah_Conquering_Wind

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2006
23,327
2,234
✟34,174.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Regarding the GC mythos ... Lucifer has a side too, don't forget. You might not agree with it, you might even think he bes lying, etc. but he DOES have thoughts and feelings of HIS OWN about the subject of what went down concerning the "Wrong from the Beginning". Some of us believe he deserves the right to be heard just like anyone else, since after all, if you bes thinksy he just lies about everything, how could his own lies be any more unwholesome than the ones told about him instead?

However, Moriah realizes it cannot share that information in detail here (his side of things) without being accused of "promotion" so relax, it bes not "going there". If anyone wishes to know they may contact it via PM for contact info OUTSIDE of CF where we may speak freely.
 
Upvote 0

Moriah_Conquering_Wind

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2006
23,327
2,234
✟34,174.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Good afternoon friends,

I am here, lurking quietly, and may ask the occasional question if I may be permitted.

A loving lurker bes worth far more and welcome far more than reams and reams of the opposite type of prolific poster. ;)
 
Upvote 0