You are finally getting it, Carol…SO much more “advanced” visions and prophetic utterances than the Bible. The Bible appears to be superfluous after all.
I can’t resist a quote or two from Colossians 3.
Verse 9 “… you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self…”
Verse 12-14 “So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.”
context doesn’t change the fact of what was actually said…
It’s okay, Jeremy…I get you!
ray, you actually did say that “our old sinful carnal human nature is dead - gone by God’s power”…if you want to say something different now, that’s fine…
i don’t think anyone, other than the most avid LGTer who is in denial of original sin, disagrees with this…paul clearly teaches that after our conversion, our born again spiritual nature is in conflict with the flesh, as you call it, that we received at birth…
but let me ask you this: do you see sanctification as a “benefit”, as you’ve alluded:
or do you see sanctification as a prerequisite to salvation…egw, of course, sees sanctification as a prerequisite to salvation, given that it’s a prerequisite to justification, whereas free gracers tend to see it as a passive outcome that has nothing to do with salvation…
notice that john the baptist sees sanctification as prerequisite, given that in his figure, trees that don’t bear fruit are “hewn down, and cast into the fire”, Matt 3:10…he also teaches that we have the responsibility to “bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance”, Matt 3:8…
Jeremy, I said that and my position hasn’t changed. Original sin to me means being born with a sinful rebellious heart that does not know God. The flesh, the human mind and emotions, habits and human coping mechanisms flow from the heart. God reads the heart. He knows what is at the core of our being. It’s the heart that is our true identity.
David prayed that God would create in him a clean heart and renew a right spirit within him. Calvary released the Holy Spirit to do this in the new birth. Nicodemus tried to dodge the issue. Christ gently brought him to focus on the cross. Nicodemus finally got it.
I struggled for most of my life trying to come to terms with sanctification as the work of a lifetime. We need better than lifelong behaviour improvement and God has provided it. Salvation in no way depends on my behaviour ie progressive sanctification. For the born again believer our holy and righteous behaviour, our good works, are nothing more or less than a love response to everything God has done for us in Christ.
In Adventist terms sanctification meant a lifetime of behaviour improvement. What I am saying is that the human heart is created new when we are born again. Otherwise what is born? Where is the new creation? But, we still battle sin in the flesh. It’s like a virus. We have old habits, human emotions, human coping mechanisms to deal with but these are not from the heart. They are often contrary to our heart but God is patient and continually teaches us His ways. Grace through the indwelling Holy Spirit patiently teaches us to live our lives in harmony with the new heart and the Holy Spirit who lives there. Deep down in our inner self we no longer have a rebellious, sinful heart. The flesh is another matter but grace is our answer there as well. We grow in grace.
Jeremy, I’m fully aware that this concept of a new heart is somewhat controversial. Maybe I’m reading too much into some of these verses. I’m willing to be proved wrong if it is from Scripture. However, for me it has brought a peace, an assurance of salvation and a love for God that is priceless…
Maybe we are not too far apart in our understanding of the heart and the flesh when we clarify what we mean. We see justification and sanctification differently it seems.
Thank you for your comments, C and Ray. You’re both really resonating with me. There are many ways in which God is the Creator. We put Him in a box if we focus solely on the creation of our world. He does, indeed, create us anew in a spiritual sense.
There is such a sermon with thst tiltle?
Not at all Biblical! Thus I don’t believe it and it doesn’t concern me.
ray, it’s an important change to say that one’s natural sinful nature is alive after conversion after having said that it’s dead…this goes to the heart of the point of both sanctification and justification…if our natural sinful nature is dead, the only thing that can condemn us are the daily choices, which most sensible people can learn to refine in their own strength…but if our natural sinful nature continues after conversion, we can see that we need not only a power from outside of ourselves to combat it effectively, but a perfect and continuing sacrifice to constantly eliminate its contaminating effects…
in fact it’s on this particular point that LGTers have greatly erred…in denying the reality of original sin, they naturally see no need for continuing justification, or even a saviour, after they manage to overcome willful sin…of course most LGTers aren’t intellectually equipped to see the problems that this kind of thinking poses to the existence of jesus’ high priestly ministry, and what he’s doing beyond mediating for us when we willfully sin…
you may be aware that an important historical error stemming from the view that the born again nature, which no-one disputes, completely supplants the natural sinful nature was the holy flesh movement, which taught that sinning was no longer possible…this late 19th century development in adventism morphed into sensationalism that mimicked to some extent the descriptions we have of egw’s physical reactions when in vision, or when she was about to be taken into a vision, and it’s understandable that some people, at least, were confused initially…i’m not saying that this is where you’re going…i’m merely pointing out that it’s important to be precise in our doctrine, and then to keep threads of possible tension in our belief system in balance…so much fanaticism or even rank unbelief is the result of over or underemphasizing apparently competing aspects of what actually is part of legitimate biblical teaching…we cannot be too careful in how we state things…
i categorically reject desmond ford’s position that sanctification is a mere outgrowth of conversion…this position, while it correctly identifies and factors in the importance of original sin, diminishes the active responsibility role that john the baptist’s message, not to mention paul’s and egw’s, called for…in effect it removes the cross off self-denial which christ himself used to separate his true followers from pretenders…it seeks to provide assurance, not through any reliance on divine power, but through a surgical removal of possible sources of worry, like IJ…it ultimately poses an existential threat to classical adventism, and it’s where i suspect your position has taken or is taking you…we are certainly far apart in our understanding of the heart and the flesh under this circumstance…
It’s a ludicrous claim written by someone who betrays that he doesn’t understand Paul’s writings, as well.
Thinking out loud :
What is classical Adventism ? When I teach the 66 book of the Bible, do I have to add a list of red books ? And by the way were do I stop ?
EGW is not the Bible. She is not, she was not, she will never be. She did not want her texts to be treated that way.
Do we Have a secret version of the Bible that we do not share with other Christians ? Sometimes this is exactly how I feel.
Jesus is the Word, the First and the Last. Philippes daughters prophesied in those days, yet we do not have their testimony. Prophets come and go. EGW is dead. Sorry.
EGW testifies/testified, she is not the everlasting word. Beware of blasphemy.
And believe me, I love the lady.
It may well be the machinery of institutionalizing adventism loved the profit of the prophet perhaps a mite too much…and killed the golden goose. Nevertheless, there remains a remnant of truth within our faith community (and i do not mean a subset of people, although that may be a reasonable statement as well)
No disrespect intended, but something that puzzles me is the prevalence of medical doctors who are treated as authorities during theological discussions, or other areas outside their training. It seems most SDA MDs do theology either as a hobby or possibly because they are accustomed to being listened to.
Ben Carson is a good example. He has a great depth of knowledge and experience in ONE thing - brain surgery. And now he runs HUD.
Theology is open to all, so who am I to judge. I just feel concern that traditional authority figures get too much air time, especially at the level of “laity.”
It’s a logical fallacy called “The Halo Effect.” It means that if someone is good in one area, the “halo” is transferrable to a totally unrelated area of expertise. This is false logic.
Tha twould make EGW a greater light that points back to the Biblical record as a lesser light.
That is true, Caddy!
I think there are one too many lights in this equation.
Exactly…or, to put them on equal footing…the Book of Ellen!
Indeed, i’ve met electricians and rough tradesmen, carpenters who taught a better theology than DMins, MD’s, PhD’s, DDS’s. They are sometimes too full of knowledge, and proud of it, but lacking wisdom. In some the degree goes to their head…which negates the messag
Must be said, in defense of the mostly educable (some degreed barely qualify here) that i have met more than fair share of even the degreed who could hold theological court with the best of them
It takes many types, and in community and open discourse broader and deeper truth is cultivated.
I’m an MD double boarded in both general and child/adolescent psychiatry. My minor in college is religion (meaning I completed a course of Life & Teachings every year while in college LOL!). I enjoy “dabbling” in theology not because of my minor in religion but because of my understanding of the development of the mind and it’s clinical application in life.