| Author |
Message |
    
Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje)
member
Username: Sirje
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 6:53 pm: |       |
BRAVO Marsha! That is the best explanation of works and salvation I have ever heard.  |
John G. Mauro (Jackson)
member
Username: Jackson
Post Number: 230
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Marsha said, " If I have no fruits, then you may be certain that I have not been saved, but they are not what saves me."
You are making my point. Neither I nor any other Adventist has said you are saved by works and not faith. Bob keeps attributing that belief to me so he can rail against it. I have consistently said you cannot be saved in disobedience, i.e., obedience/works is necessary for salvation. You just said the same yourself in the above. Disobedience is proof that you are not saved, no matter how much you profess faith. Obedience is the litmus test for faith.
Were the children of Israel in the promised land when they left Egypt? No they were justified by the faith in the blood on the lintels of their doors, but they were now to be tested in the wilderness experience to see if they had a real saving faith-- and you know the rest of the story.
Obedience has always been the test of faith, and in these last days it will again be the great test for all mankind. Will we be obedient to the commandments of God or the commandments of men.
Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. Ex 16:4
Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: Psalms 139:23
Paul says, “Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves. 2 Cor 13:5
We will all be tested to see if our faith is genuine or presumptuous. The mark of the beast in Revelation is just such a test and there will be many whose professed faith with prove to be without substance.
It is just a simple Bible concept . Faith without works is dead. I am not forming a new doctrine here, I'm just restating what James forcefully said. It is true that it takes genuine faith to be obedient, but does anyone really want to argue that obedience is not necessary for salvation?
|
John G. Mauro (Jackson)
member
Username: Jackson
Post Number: 231
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Bob said, "(since I said)fruits are necessary for salvation." That is why you are a legalist Jackson.
Matt 3:10 And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
John 15:2 Every branch in me thatbeareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Bob said, "And if protestants are confused about the state of the dead and the Sabbath, then so too is Paul. "
Paul is not confused, but you make him appear to contradict scripture by the doctrine of your own devising which you then attribute to him .
Bob said, "And when are you going to deal with the verses that say Christ was "HOLY", "WITHOUT SIN","SEPARATE FROM SINNERS", "IN THE...LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH".
I thought I already did. In your haste to disagree., perhaps you overlooked it. Please refer to my earlier posts and please reread the following and see if it agrees with QOD:
... In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature. ...--The Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1896.
Remember Bob, the controversy is not over whether QOD or the SOP is correct on the nature of Christ, but rather does QOD accurately state the Adventist position on the nature of Christ. So you and Froom can believe what you will but do not attribute those beliefs to Mrs White or the SOP as Froom tried to do.
Please stop trying to equate a fallen/sinful nature to a sinning one . Sin takes an act of the will, not an act of birth.
|
robert d lackey (Boblackey)
new member
Username: Boblackey
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
Well the controversy is over Christ having a fallen/sinful human nature just like us. He was in fallen/sinful flesh and relying on power from the Father, He choose NOT to sin and we can do the same...is the postion that you are taking.
That makes Christ primarily our EXAMPLE rather than our subsitute. That is reversed from the protestant postion. The protestant postion is; Christ is primarily our subsitute and secondarly our example.
We are not saved by following Christ as our example. That position is the same as Herbert W. Armstrong and it delays salvation to the end of one's life and is based on works and obedience to the law. It is legalism.
As to Mrs. White's statement you quoted, Froom claims she actually means that Christ's human nature had th physical weaknesses of fallen man, that is Adam after the fall and all the rest of us. He got tired, thirsty, etc. But spiritually is was like Adam
before the fall. That is He was sinless, seperate from sinner, without sin, in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh NOT sinful flesh itself.
So then, if Froom is wrong, and Ellen White and the SOP actually is at odds with Questions on Doctrine, then EGW is very, very wrong about the human nature of Christ indeed!! Very wrong.
Also the verses you quote where Jesus is speaking about cutting down the tree that bears no fruit is clearly about those who CLAIM to be Christian and REALLY never came to know Him as saviour. They didn't produce any fruit AFTER CLAIMING TO BE SAVED.
The simple reason works and obedience to the law are NOT necessary for salvation is because Paul and the aposltes SAY SO!! We are saved by grace alone through faith alone NOT by works, be they wonderful works and not by law, be it the law of Moses or the 10 commandments.
Jackson, you position just doesn't fit the protestant positon. You can't be saved by grace alone the moment you come to Christ in repentance if you have to show Christ your fruit. You just can't. Because you DON'T HAVE ANY FRUIT!!! Your works and obedience to the Law, if you have any, before coming to Christ is like rags and not pleasing to God.
Only a person who is ALREADY saved by God's grace and who has turned their lifes over to the Holy Spirit can produce good fruit. And even then, it is still Christ's imputed righetousenss, not our fruit, that makes us worthy for heaven. Why? Because our righteousness STILL isn't good enough!! |
robert d lackey (Boblackey)
member
Username: Boblackey
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Also Jackson, go to the "discoverying Jesus" thread on the "doctrine" head page and read what Bill Sorenson says about the fallen human nature of christ.
Bill is completely in agreement with me and the postion held by mainstream protestant churchs AND BILL IS A TRADITIONAL ADVENTIST.Also I am convinced Ulrike Unruh holds the same postion that Sorenson does.
I think you may be completely ALONE on the human nature of Christ on this forum.
J. R. and Jodi.
I was removed from this thread recently. Then discovered I couldn't post on any thread. I wrote both a letter and got no response. So I simply re-registered and I'm back.
Hope that is OK and I will not continue to beat a dead horse on this issue with Jackson. But I did want to respond to Jackson's latest post and I've said all that I'm going to say on this. I hope:-) |
John G. Mauro (Jackson)
member
Username: Jackson
Post Number: 232
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:35 pm: | |
Bob,
Froom said only a small fringe group of Adventists believed that Christ took on the nature as well as the flesh of fallen man.
The SOP, however, states over 400 times(according to Ralph Larson) that Christ took on the nature of Abraham.
"He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man." E.G. White, Signs of the Times, 5/29/01, p. 339, col. 2. (Note that Ellen White does not equate sinful nature with sinfulness.)
"He was made like unto His brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical." E.G. White, Review and Herald, 2/10/85.
.... Our first parents bequeathed to their descendants a legacy of temptation of sin. We pass through the same ordeal, and the Son of man was not excepted....: E.G. White Quoted, Australasian Signs of the Times, 10/06/47.
Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. .. (YI Dec. 20, 1900). {4BC 1147.4}
"The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam..... What love! What amazing condescension! The King of glory proposed to humble himself to fallen humanity! He would place his feet in Adam's steps. He would take man's fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam... {RH, February 24, 1874 par. 25}
And here is the best part for us:
"The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome." E.G. White, MH,1905, p. 180.
Because Jesus had our flesh and nature does not mean he had nothing more than we possess. After all, He was born of the Spirit we were not.
.....Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."(Luke 1:34-35)
These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called that holy thing. It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery.... but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the rock, Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity. {13MR 18.2- 19.1}
But we have this assurance when we are born of the Spirit:
"Just that which you may be, He was in human nature."--Letter 106, 1896."
|
Bill Scott (Loneviking)
member
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:49 pm: | |
The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery.... but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be.
"Just that which you may be, He was in human nature."--Letter 106, 1896."
This seems rather contradictory---and appropriate to the topic at hand. You can find EGw statements to support so many oddball positions while also finding other statements that are almost Biblically correct.
With the confusion that is found in her writings, I'll just stick to the Bible. That's something I can put my trust in....... |
robert d lackey (Boblackey)
member
Username: Boblackey
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Well Jackson you have EGW/SOP saying, in your last post, that Christ's human nature is a mystery. It is a mystery how He could have taken man's fallen nature and still be without sin. Also you quote EGW/SOP saying it is a mistake to make Christ altogether human, such as ourselves.
Does not just that quote alone overturn your postion on the human nature of Christ and prove that Froom was right when he insisted to Martin and Barnhouse that when one reads in the writings of EGW/SOP that Christ had a fallen,sinful human nature that she is not saying that Christ had a human nature like Adam after the fall and one such as we ourselves have?
It seems to me EGW's view of the human nature of Christ was wrong at the worst or inconsistent at the best. |
John G. Mauro (Jackson)
member
Username: Jackson
Post Number: 233
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
Bob, said, "It is a mystery how He could have taken man's fallen nature and still be without sin.." and from that deduces" that she is not saying that Christ had a human nature like Adam after the fall and one such as we ourselves have?"
The fact that it is a mystery as to how it was done does not in anyway imply that it was not done. It is a mystery as to how the Holy Ghost could come upon Mary to give her a child with no earthly father. Does this mean that it did not happen? The SOP says Jesus took our fallen sinful nature and not Adam's prefall nature . Froom misrepresented the Adventist position. That is clear.
So you don't want to believe Jesus took fallen human nature- fine. But why try to defend Froom's analysis of traditional Adventism. His position is indefensible.
Bill said,"With the confusion that is found in her writings, I'll just stick to the Bible. That's something I can put my trust in....."
Actually Bill, I find her statements helpful in understanding some of the more difficult Biblical concepts. Take the following two quotes for example and see if they do not compliment each other beautifully.
It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and himself endure the strength of Satan's fierce temptations, that he might understand how to succor those who should be tempted...... {RH, December 31, 1872 par. 19}
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Are not both quotes saying the same thing. But some call one quote heresy and the other quote "the inspired word of God". That is the real confusion.
(Message edited by jackson on September 8, 2004) |
robert d lackey (Boblackey)
member
Username: Boblackey
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Apollos, the author of Hebrews, doesn't say "fallen man" as does EGW.
But Jackson. You presented a quote from Mrs. White where the SOP clearly says we shouldn't make Christ altogether human as we ourselves are!!!!!!
That is clear cut that Froom's view that Mrs. White, when using the terms "fallen humanity" or "sinful flesh" didn't mean that Christ was fallen and sinful spiritually and that Mrs. White actually DID believe the SAME on the human nature of Christ as Martin and Barnhouse and most other protestants.
Neal Wilson also wrote Waltre Martin just before Martin died and assured Martin that the MAJORITY of Adventists would agree with the postions taken in Questions on Doctrine. And that was in 1989!!!! Not 1956.
Ralph Larson doesn't understand what Mrs. White is trying to say and neither does Larry Kirkpatrick. Neal Wilson, Le Roy Froom, Roy Anderson, Toby Unruh, H. M. S. Richards, Sr. and George Vanderman DO!!!
Can't you see that Wilson, Froom, Anderson, Unruh, Richards and Vanderman are BIGGER names with more influence in Adventism then Larson and Kirkpatrick and Joe Crews. Larson, Kirkpatrick and Crews probably ARE in the minority in Adventism.
Yes Mrs. White says that we SHOULD NOT MAKE CHRIST ALTOGETHER HUMAN AS WE ARE!!!!!! And Mrs. White is right!!!
How could Christ possibly be JUST LIKE US when he was BORN OF A VIRGIN, WAS THAT HOLY THING, THE SON OF GOD, GOD IN THE FLESH, GOD AMONG US, SEPARATE FROM SINNERS, NEVER CONFESSED A SIN, NEVER ASKED HIS FATHER FOR FORGIVENSS, TURNED WATER INTO WINE, CALMED THE STORM, RAISED THE DEAD AND ROSE FROM THE DEAD HIMSELF.
How could anyone possibly think a Man who has that written about Him could possible be altogether human as we ourselves are as Mrs. White correctly says.
And those who think that when they say Christ overcame and we can overcome too, they are talking about Christ overcoming a desire to sin, a temptation to lust and a feeling of pleasure and excitement when tempted to sin, are clearly teaching heresy.
When satan came against Christ with tremendous temptation to sin, He recoiled against it because His spiritual nature was NOT fallen and HOLY and SEPARATE FROM SINNERS. When satan really comes against us in an area where we make be weak, we DON'T DEFLECT THE TEMPTATION AS CHRIST DID. We who struggle in sinful flesh can feel a temptation that presents pleasure, fun, joy and excitement. And satan may just tempt you to fall into that particular sin.
Now if you are REALLY grounded in the Lord and walking closely with Him day by day and running the good fight by praying the help of the Holy Spirit, then I would say it is likely you would be able to resist and say "get behind me satan".
No saying that Christ has a human nature JUST LIKE OURS IN ALL WAYS AND WAS FALLEN AND SINFUL, IS AMONG THE WORST KIND OF HERESY AND FRANKLY ONE SHOULD ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND PARDON FROM OUR LORD FOR TAKING SUCH A POSITION.
|
robert d lackey (Boblackey)
member
Username: Boblackey
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Oh yes. As to Apollos being the author of Hebrews...That is who Martin Luther thought is was. Plus many other early Christians thought it was written by Apollos. But I don't really know. If one can say Paul, then one can also say Apollos and have a chance of being right.
Mrs. White thought Hebrews was written by Paul. My pastor back in my home town thinks Paul clearly had a hand in the letter to the Hebrews even if he didn't actually put pen to paper.
My uncle Horace Lackey and aunt Ruth Lackey, who have been serious students of the Bible for over 70 years, agree with Mrs. White. They think it was written by Paul.
But the truth is...NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE. The writing style in the original greek is very different from Paul's letters.
So nobody knows who wrote Hebrews..including Mrs. White.
Once Joe Crews said Mrs. White said Hebrews was written by Paul so that settles it. But for better or worse, I don't put myself under the authority of Mrs. White as did Joe. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page