I think something is wrong with this thread or this is the shortest SS commentary we have had to date. 3 sentences.

:~)

pat

I feel like we just exhausted this topic on last week's thread, and we still must go forward together, even though there is not total agreement. Upon reflection, I can't speak with the absolute certitude that this week's author is bringing to the table...nor do I feel that the scriptures or the church speak in such a way.

Jesus' nature...both human and divine while approachable and knowable, still remain beyond our total understanding. Maybe it's wise for all of us to "take off our shoes..." and simply worship.

Thanks...

Frank

In an interview with Bart Ehrman on NPR in connection with his book "God's Problem... Why We Suffer," he confessed that the only portion of the Apostle's Creed he still believed was that "Jesus died and was buried."

Joselito,

Thanks for sharing that NPR position. That is a feast for the soul, isn't it! Let's all feast at that table and celebrate what we do not know. Let's celebrate eating bones rather than meat!

pat

Is Herb pulling our legs?

To me, Jacob's ladder and Phil 2: 5-11 assure me that the incarnation was no stunt. Christ took Adam's place as the new Federal man and my place at the Cross. He reached me all the while holding on to the Father. Praise be to God. Ours in not to reinact the Christ event ours is to recite the Christ event in a life style that is unimpeachable. We are His witnesses not His duplicators. It truly is finished! Babylon really has fallen. Even so come Lord Jesus. Tom

Hi!
Is anyone else having the problem I and apparently Pat have? This is that only a few lines of Herb's commentary are available. Where's the rest? Thanks for any possible help!
Dave

The site seems to be having a problem with Internet Explorer. I am seeing layout problems on the main page and Herb's post is truncated for me also - with IE. However, when I view using Firefox everything is fine. I reported the main page problem to the webmaster. I'll drop an additional note on this issue. If people have Firefox installed I'd suggest they switch to it until the problem can be corrected.

The Captain of the Universe welters in his blood. This murder, this oozing blood, sanctified Jesus. His Cross atones for all the false accusations that were hurled at Him:
God doesn’t love us!
He’s a tyrant!
If He were a man He would never obey!
He doesn’t know what it’s like to suffer!
No one can live a perfect life!

Grand and noble will Jesus stand in history of the Universe. No crying injustice, not a single inhuman or perverse action stain Jesus’ name; and whatever sacrifices He asks of his followers, they will gladly surrender. His life and his blood sealed the terrific struggle. His end will live in the history of the Universe and in the saint’s grateful, warm, and generous memory. The Cross opened to Him Universal and eternal Praise. That day the tears and the blessings of humanity were forever united into one.

The only thing left to say after reading this with firefox is WELL DONE HERB!

Here is what I wrote about Herb's book, "A Fork in the Road:"

"My deceased father and mother, Ralph and Jeanne Larson, publicly objected to 'Questions on Doctrine' because they beleived that portions of it are (1) historically inaccurate and (2) theologically inept. My mentors at Loma Linda University--Paul Heubach, A. Graham Maxwell, Jack Provonsha and Dalton Baldwin--treated it with quiet disdain for the same reasons, even though their doctrinal reservations varied. It is now clear to everyone that they were all correct on the historical issues. The jury is still out on the the theological ones, and it may never be possible to render a unanimous verdict. But I anticipate that eventually, most will conclude that they were all right about this too. In this long-needed volume, Herbert Douglass, who was there at the time, recounts what happened. We should all ponder his informatve and fascinating report!"

Herb's book is available at "Remnant Publications. www.remnantpublications.com.

I recommend that we read it and the other books that are coming out on that period of SDA history. I think the the autobiographical presentations are especially interesting!

Thanks!

Dave

The summary of the tension between the pro's and the con's on Answers to Questions on Doctrine can be summarized simply:

The pro's say: "We ain't that different!" The con's say: "Yes we are too!!!!" The major problem has been and is that the con's like to take revenge on the pro's for messing around with a neat little meta-narrative. Tom

Tom,
Did you get something backward in there? I am not sure I followed that. Don't the "pro" Qod folks say, "we are different" from Christ and the con's say, "no we are not"?

pat

I still can't view Herb's article........

Pat

The major thrust was to prove to Barnhouse and Martin that the doctrines of the SDA Church were in direct line of the main-line reformational churches such as Barnhouse's brand of Presbyterianism. I was speaking of the argument that the SDA church was not a cult but could atest to the Apostles Creed etc. The con's were rebutting with: "No we are unique"part of the uniqueness was, as you suggest, was nature of Christ's humanity. The final generation concept was a huge divide--Ellen White said the final issue would be over the Sabbath--To the con's that was just a side issue to the main event the final perfection of a 144,000 and thus the final vindication of God. Anderson et al, down played those "essentials". At first the brethren were pleased with the acceptance into the Christian community. Later they saw the trap they had stepped into and recanted the book and disowned its authors. Within the Church, the tension was betweeen Herb Douglass's view and Edward Heppenstall's view of the humanity of Christ and the significance of the final "test". Tom

Tom
You seem to know more than many about these events. How did this come about?
Dave

I followed Rich's advice and got on through "Firefox"

Hi Herb,

I appreciated your article and did not disagree on what was said as much as what was not the main part of the focus. As in the “Review days”, the focus seems to me to be on Christ in His humanity primarily as the example of overcoming, “standing toe to toe with Satan” as we must do and thus become “overcomers.”

Your minimized focus would be concerning Christ as Savior and atonemet for sin. “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

The “Reformed Position” is not “light” on Christ’s humanity or the need for the saints to grow in holiness. The difference, I suggest Herb, is proportionality.

The text of Gal.4:4, 5 is an appropriate text which you used. Christ did indeed fulfill the law thus fulfilling the “covenant of obedience” and freeing us from “the curses of the covenant” due to mankind’s disobedience. Indeed in Christ, we who believe, receive all the “covenant promises and blessings” through faith.

Indeed he was “the death of the covenant maker” by His blood and spotless life of obedience. Heb.9:12-17;Mt.26:28. His body was "prepared" as an offering. Heb.10:5. After that one sacrifice of himself He “sat down” at the right hand of God having “perfected” those that are being made holy. Heb.10:10-14.

I also suggest that the law is still “a guide” for the NT Christian in ones “growth in holiness” and not “made void” for that purpose, as is the view of “some” antinomian “evangelicals” not of the “Reformed” persuasion.

Indeed Christ has already vindicated Himself/Father by His sacrifice and He pardons/justifies sinners justly “yes, without their lawkeeping” for those that trust in Him.Rom.3:21-28.

Respectfully, I suggest your Christology,Soteriology and Sanctuary understanding remains in an “underdeveloped” eschatological position.

In conclusion...Growth in holiness without which no one shall see the Lord…yes. Sinless perfection…no. Reckoned Righteous/perfect in Christ our Savior…Yes, the reason He came in the flesh. “Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more.” Hallelujah!

Regards,

pat

Dave

I was there. I got the Book, Answers to Questions on Doctrine
while in Milwaukee teaching at Marquette University. I was first taken by the amount of time spent on the scapegoat.

Then I accepted a call to Loma Linda as Chair of the Department of Orthodontics. There I got the Letters to the Churchs by a hero of mine M. L. Andreasen.

The Brinsmeads held a meeting at Hugh's Mortuary, some friends and family members urged me to invite Bob and John into my home for a discussion. I found them very self assured even Cocky. This was in their first phase. Of course, I got on their mailing list without any encouragement from me.

Bob's final public phase was close to standard reformational theology.

Then of course there was Glacier View. I had been an invited speaker there several years before when Spangler was Editor of Ministry Mag. We shared a cabin. We had long discussions and became good friends.

By that time I was both Vice President of the Medical College of Georgia and a member of the Board at Southern Missionary College. I got some of the most horrid hate mail against my friend Frank K. I also got a Manuscript entitled:
In Sorrow and Not in Anger from the Loma Linda Hill Church.
Dr. Edward Heppenstall was a personal friend from way back at Junior Camp days. I wrote him an apology for such an unwarrented attack. We had a close relationship until his death.

The President of the Southern Union Conference was the hatchet man at SMC. So the entire Southern Union was tainted with "House cleaning". I decided, I would save them the trouble.

I still have many SDA friends. We meet regularly and discuss the Gospel without reference to any eschatological implications. I am a member and Sunday School Teacher at Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. I am of good courage and strong faith. I hold no ill will against anyone. I do speak my mind when I differ in critical areas.

I hope that gives you a profile of Tom Zwemer The Best. Tom

P.S. I was invited to be Dean of the School of Dentistry at Loma Linda, but given the way SMC was moving, I knew I wouldn't fit. I recommended my very good friend Jud Klooster.

I think he did an excellent job. We were friends from the fifth grade on. I could tell stories till the cows came home but--who would listen? Tom

P.S. I must tell you one story. Jud and I were taking wood shop as freshmen in academy at EMC. He was about to rip a board on a table saw. I was standing in front of the saw facing him. I said: "Jud, I think you should move your thumb about an inch. Jud paused looked down the board and back to his thumb and said: "No Tom you are wrong, I have room to spare. He ripped the board and removed about 3/16 inches from the end of his right thumb. I don't know if you noticed the slight difference in length of his two thumbs. Regardless, he was a first rate dentist and an outstanding Dean. Then there are the Chemistry lab stories. But they must wait. Tom

Tom
Thanks for this account of things. It sounds very interesting! I admit to a certain sadness, however. This is not because you have found another spiritual home to supplement the one in which you and I were both reared. But that there has been so much sorrow all around the circle. "Oh what needless pain we bear!" But I'm glad you are of good courage!
Dave

Sadly, after reading this wonderful meditation, the tragic words of Patti Smith come to mind. It's strange how one's mind works. Now I shudder and feel anger towards Ms. Smith for her faithless words. When I was 21 I felt mild amusement or mild discomfort regarding her rejection of Christ. Now I can only say a silent prayer for Patti Smith that she will one day believe differently than what she states in her infamous lyric in the proto-punk document titled "Horses."

Ms. Smith's strange and painful lyric? Patti Smith: "Jesus died for someone else's sins. He didn't die for mine."

Thank God Jesus died for my sins, Patti. I hope you too come to believe one day that he died for yours, as well.

DID JESUS LIVE MY LIFE?

To me that is the question of this truth.

Pr. E. H. "Jack" Sequeira has these points that clearly tell me that answer.

BY NATURE WE ARE:

1. Spiritually dead, but in Christ were made spiritually alive [Eph. 2:5]
2. Sinners, but in Christ were made righteous [2 Cor. 5:21]
3. Sinful, but in Christ were made holy and blameless [Eph. 1:4]
4. Condemned, but in Christ were justified [Rom. 5:18]
5. Sons of man, but in Christ were made sons of God [1 Jn. 3:1]
6. Hell bound, but in Christ were made to sit in heavenly places [Eph. 2:6]
7. Mortal, but in Christ were made immortal [2 Tim. 1:8-10]
8. Poor, but in Christ were made rich [2 Cor. 8:9]
9. Lower than the angels, but in Christ were made joint heirs [Rom.8:17; Heb.2:5-12]

The great good news to those who accept by faith the life of Christ as their own (symbolized by the bread at the Communion) and the price of His blood (the wine) for our salvation, the Father will see his Son as you in the great Judgement.

Sona
Where is "Jack" Sequeira these days?
Dave

Dave,

Pr. Sequeira is retired and settled in Portland, Oregon. can be contacted by email. website: www.jacksequeira.org

I must agree with Pat. Very good and strong emphasis on the work that Christ can accomplish in us, due to his likeness to us. Almost no mention of the work that Christ has accomplished for us, due to his uniquness as the 'monogenes'... the only, unique Son of God.

The work in us is always ongoing, the work for us has been finished. In that completeness, I can rejoice in Sabbath rest. In that completeness, I can 'press towards the goal' in the assurance "...that he who began a good work in you, will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."

Also, instead of always looking at our growth as a purely personal matter or private growth in holiness (like Ed Koch, How'm I doing?), Paul seems to be stressing in Phillipians as well as so many other places, that God's intention is to create a community that can love one another completely...in the way that Christ loves. Character is forged primarily in relationships. And it is not some kind of formulaic straight line growth; I simply pray and instantly overcome every problem, difficulty and besetment. It gets messy, it takes trial and error, lots of practice, grace, and forgiveness. It's the way real life works. It's the way real, human life works in the Spirit.

And isn't this the author's point, although maybe not framed in this manner? Jesus lived a real, human life in the Spirit. And he can teach and empower us to do the same.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank

I agree that it is most important that Christian existence be understood as primarily extrospectictive, not introspective.

I am confident that Herb agrees because he put these words by me in his book:

"One caution: those who focus on personal perfection as the primary goal of their lives are likely to experience less of it than those who make service to God and others their overriding concern."

I picked this up from the so-called "hedonistic paradox," the idea that people who aim at more worthy things are likely to experience more pleasure than those who directly pursue it.

I used to have this from [I think] Kierkegaard framed on my wall: "The Christian religion is this: the profound humiliation of man, the boundless love of God and endless striving born of gratitude."

Thanks!

Dave

Some excellent comments written above, BTW! I've enjoyed reading them every one. It is good to discuss and ponder and explore these things as we grow together into Him.

From my feeble and finite understanding on this subject, it seems clear to me that while Christ has taken on our human nature, there was, and still is, a major difference between our natures and His. He never had to be converted, born again, like we do. He had a born-again (from the Holy Spirit) nature from the very beginning, or a "re-generated" nature, if you will. He wouldn't be able to pull us up out of the hell hole we are in, if He was exactly and entirely like us as far as our natures are concerned. Something about the blind leading the blind into a ditch, perhaps? Only Someone who's not in the hole, is able to lead us out of the hole on to higher ground. In fact, He is our "Higher Ground".

Okay, that is my 2cts worth...now as you were.

I consider myself reasonably intelligent - until I try read stuff like above on the history of this topic in our church. I lived through the last fifty years of this discussion and I have known most of the major players. Over the years I have tried to stayed informed on the various movements and events taking place.

I have taken graduate level courses in Christlogoy, in the 70's from Dr. Heppenstall, and just last week I competed an intensive from Dr. Jankiewicz (student of Raoul Dederen). And I still can not make heads or tails of this issue.

Just when I think I have all the players and their positions sorted out I read a retelling of the events and the ending comes out differently. Really!

My personal belief on the topic the nature of Christ is the third option offered by Dave last week - that he had our nature but not our propensities. Why did Dave say this position may never catch on? I thought this view was self evident and even widely accepted? Boy am I confused.

What books or articles written in the last 20 years offering fresh perspectives on christology would readers recommend?

I am thankful that a prerequisite for our salvation is not a full understanding of the human/divine nature of Christ. If it was, the thief on the cross didn't stand a chance, and we would all be lost!

However, there is certainly room for daily growth in our understanding of Him, whom to know is life eternal.

Donna, I think your position of feeling that you don't have it altogether, or at least just when you think you do, bam, it is gone, is probably the best position to take on this subject. I feel that it is the best one...that of humility. Those who think they have it altogether I'd be a little afraid of. Come to think of it, didn't the Pharisees think they had it all together, and were a step above the rest...God bless 'em?

Jeff

Grame

I don't have a good answer to your question. My immediate response is that of late Christologies have given way to repeatedly "new" quests for the historical Jesus, on the one hand, and liberationist [Latin, African, Asian, feminist, etc] studies, on the other.

How do things look in Chicago?

Gary Chartier of La Sierra University has just published "The Analogy of Love." I think it will be remembered as one of the very best sysematic theologies of our time.

In saying this I do not compare Gary's book to other SDA works but to those written by anybody with any theologial point of view whatsoever.

It is nothing short of stunning it its scope, depth and interaction with other points of view. Enjoy!

Donna

You may turn out to be more prescient about the third option--that Jesus inheritied our infirmities but not our propensities--than me!

Although it was a small and unscientific sample, the last time I looked those who voted on this blog's poll favored the third alternative by a large margin.

This is the position that George Knight and others now find most appropriate in light of the things that they have learned that Ellen White was reading at the time.

My comment was based on my impression that up to now the third option has not received as much attention as the first two.

Also, it is difficult for me to anticipate that many SDAs, who hold to a wholistic or psychosomatic view of things that makes distinctions like that between "infirmities and propensities" of doubtful value, would opt for the the third alternative. But maybe they will, if perhaps for no other reason than to find some workable compromise.

I myself am haunted by the fact that over the centuries Christians have been exceedingly inventive in coming up with ways to deny the genuine humanity of Jesus.

Docetism was one of the earliest Christian diversions, as evidenced as early as the warnings of the New Testament, and it is likely to be the last.

If history is any indication, it is more likely that we will deny the true humanity of Jesus than his divinity. Strange but true!

This is why I approach each and every account of how Jesus was "not like us" with a "hermeneutics of suspiscion." To my way of thinking the view that he really was human should be the default positions and that variations of that carry the burden of proof.

Le't throw one more bomb into the fire. This is that you and I and all other human beings are genetically very similar to other forms of life, more than 95% with primates and 50% with ordinary household yeast. What are the implications of this for our understanding of the humanity of Jesus?

In a recent friendly discussion, a colleague from another campus who sees things differently than I do asked, "what does science have to do with it?"

Well............................!

Happy Sabbath!

Dave

This subject is rather tendentious. Because there is no definitive evidence for any particular position, it will always be based on personal opinions and interpretations without ever being fully resolved. Had it been of eternal importance that we absolutely know the answer, would it not have been made crystal clear? Barring that, it's "he said, she said" that amounts to the wind blowing.

Dave

How close is the horse to the donkey?

If there was one creator, might He not have used similar parts? There never was much difference between a Buick and and Olds so they decided to drop the Olds.

I hope God doesn't decide to keep just the monkeys. Tom

I am new to the Spectrum Sabbath School and just thank God that I've stumbled back around to finding the Spectrum web site again. The above accounts describing the various twists & turns regarding the ongoing discussion about our Sabbath School theme is very reminiscent of my own upheavals with the theological implications springing from our many debates.

I very much want to lend my genuine appreciation for Tom Zwemer's personal account that he provided. Finding a community of believers within the SDA church has been a discouraging journey for me as well.

All too often, I've experienced tunnel vision when it comes to trying to understand the motives and agendas of the institutional church. But when it comes to my Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, I am eternally indebted to the Jesus Difference as Herbert Douglass put it and daily thank the Lord for His mercy and grace in all aspects of my life, especially in my workings with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thank God for the divinity and humanity of the incarnation and on that glorious day, I look forward to seeing with my own eyes the Person who imbodies that magnificent miracle!

Pete Teller

If one were to distill the unique doctrinal contribution of the Seventh-day Adventist Church down to its elementary substance, one would have an Investigative Judgment plus nothing.

Every other doctrine has antecedents and adherents. If one were to take the position that the doctrine of a final perfect generation emerges out of such an investigation.

What exactly would those souls witness to beyond the witness of Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul? They all witnessed to the fact that Jesus Christ did it! “He came and made the Old Thing Right:” to quote H.M.S. Richards.

Would the final generation say: “We did it also?” We followed His instructions to the letter and made it through to the end!

When they stand on the Sea of Glass, who will they point to?

Will they get a standing ovation? A special “Well done, thou good and faithful servants!”

Will Peter, Paul, and Moses be at the head of the receiving line to greet them?

Will Adam be hanging back with his head down, saying---“I should have done it when I had the chance”?

That is what all the discussion about the human nature of Christ is all about.

The Christ event was necessary, of course, but it was not sufficient.
He needed a special end time trophy to prove His case. Here they are: pure, white, and proud; for all the Universe to see and admire. Tom

Hi Tom!

I am reluctant to agree that the "doctrine of the investigative judgment" and "last generation theology" is what "the discussion of the human nature of Christ is all about."

I am hesitant to concur because this issue has long been discussed by theologians who have never heard of Adventism. In "Jesus: God and Man" Wolfhart Pannenberg provides one of the best histories of this ongoing conversation from the early church to the last part of the twentieth century.

These discussions in theological circles other than our own usually focus on the problem of Docetism, the belief that Jesus appeared to be human but actually wasn't. In one form or another this has been one of the most persistent and pervasive of all the Christian heresies right down to the present time.

This is what fuels their theological engines and this is what feeds mine.

Anyone can read Pannenberg's book and many other volumes on the Internet for free at "Google Books."

Thank you!

Dave

Dave,

Interesting that you bring George Knight into the mix. I can see where he would choose the third option (sameness and difference). Kind of fits with his view of Sin vs. sins in his "The Pharisee's Guide to Perfect Holiness." He takes the position that Sin at its core is a relational problem, a skewed orientation towards God that leads to skewed actions/ethics...one inevitably leads to the other. Unless I misunderstand, he seems to posit that this is the inherent dilemma of the human condition, and that there is no way out short of radical, divine intervention. Sounds oddly like Romans...and like our discussion on last week's thread, come to think of it.

He was obviously writing against the view that sin was one habit after another that needed to be conquered and checked off, until one reaches 'perfection'...a view that he characterized as utterly deficient...a view that had wider currency in Adventism not too long ago...a view that led to a false holiness/wholeness of being. In responce, he proposed a far deeper, wholistic, and dynamic relational treatment of the problem and the solution.

Christ, thoroughly human like us, and yet the monogenes, the only,unique,one-of-a-kind, Son of God, is, of course, the only solution. Both sameness and difference reside in him, to meet us where we are, and to thus bring us to where he is...into full relationship with God. Something we inherently never knew or could gain without him, and something he always knew, and can give to us. Everything else follows...

Thanks...

Frank

Dave,

One other thought. It's interesting that the early Adventists mostly subscribed to the exact opposite of Docetism...Arianism. I wonder how this has impacted and shaped the view of Christ's human nature, that he was sinful in nature totally like us, throughout our history. What remnants(excuse the pun!)of this thinking still consciously or unconsciously impact our Christology and specifically some of the views expressed about his humanity?

Just some thoughts...

Frank

I too am new to the Spectrum blog though not to the print magazine. By way of intro, I’m an Adventist MDiv. student at a Wesleyan Methodist school in Orlando, FL. The convergence of this quarter’s S.S. lessons and two of my current classes is perfect as I’m taking Basic Christian Doctrine and Christian History (reference notations other than scripture will be to The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Justo L. Gonzalez and Systematic Theology: the Word of Life, Thomas C. Oden. I recommend both of them highly as fantastic Christian theology resource books). Please forgive my “wordiness” – stop whenever you can’t bear to read on! I needed to process these thoughts for myself and I do that best by writing.

I believe that Douglass is correct about the importance of last week’s S.S. lesson on the humanity of Christ. The “fundamental Christological question” is how to understand the union of divinity and humanity in Christ. (Gonzalez, 252)I realize that at issue here is the foundational question of “the great law of heredity”— whether Jesus assumed the nature of humanity after or before Adam and Eve’s sin. Most Protestant understandings of the Incarnation do not differ significantly from classic ecumenical definitions: “The incarnation is a divine act, by which the Son of God, in the womb of His mother the virgin Mary, took into the unity of his person a human nature, consubstantial with us, but without sin.” (Oden, 96)

It is my understanding that Jesus “special mission” was that he came to redeem mankind from the “curse” of the Law which is that we can’t keep it perfectly enough to gain salvation. Paul says that mankind is cursed when they “rely on observing the law” instead of faith in Christ’s fulfillment of the law (Gal. 3:10; Rom. 3:20-30) and that the law’s “purpose” is to make us “conscious of sin” (Gal. 3:20; Rom. 7:7-11).

In Galatians 3:13, Paul does say that Jesus “redeemed us from the curse of the law” but in the rest of the verse he says how— “by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” which means that Jesus was “accursed” for us precisely because the law was “holy, just and good” and we can not keep it perfectly (see the full context of Romans 7: 12 which includes vv. 7-11 and vv. 13-25. Don’t miss the “good news” in vv. 24-25). (The language of “overcoming” in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation is viewed best through the lens of the Chapter 1 prologue where John announces, and graphically pictures, the “revelation of Jesus Christ” as being a primary focus of what comes afterwards. He who “overcomes” will overcome in the victory of the Christus Victor, the Lamb who was “worthy” because he was “slain and with (his) blood purchased men for God”; see Rev. 5). If all mankind needed was an example or model of obedience and a little “boost” from Holy Spirit power, then why did Christ have to come and die? This view appears to be the classic “exemplar” theory that makes Jesus life an example of how to live obediently before God assuming that mankind in their sinful condition can conform to the character of Jesus if they are shown the way to do it.

In understanding the significance of Christ’s humanity 4th century Gregory of Nazianzus did say, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed” but he made the statement to counter the views of Apollinaris of Laodicea who stated that Jesus had a human body but divine intellect. The lead-in to this statement is: “If any believe in Jesus Christ as a human being without human reason, they are the ones devoid of all reason, and unworthy of salvation. . . “ In that contextual light, Nazianzus was saying that Jesus was fully human (both body and mind), not that he was human with the propensity to sin. Again, the classical Christian understanding is that Christ assumed humanity in every respect, yet without sin.
In looking at Heb. 2:14–18 it is important to include the last half of v. 17, “and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” Doesn’t the weight of the N.T. consensus reveal that an “atonement”(not an “example”)is necessary “for the sins of the people” and isn’t that the key connection between N.T. Christology and soteriology? (N.T. Christology would include that of Paul even though he is no longer viewed to be the author of Hebrews). Additionally, doesn’t the book of Hebrews teach that the work of Christ as High Priest was to offer “once for all” his body as “one sacrifice for sin” to make us “perfect” even as he is now making us “holy”? Yes, I do believe in sanctification, just not perfection until we are finally with Christ. (The biblical sense of holiness is not sinless perfection but wholeness and completion.)

Lastly, I don’t know about anyone else but the “forgiveness” that Jesus extends to me as my eternal High Priest always living to “intercede” for me before the Father is the “Jesus Difference” that I, as a sin-prone human engaged in a daily battle for “truth in the inward parts” (see Ps. 51), desperately need (Hebrews 7:24-28). By his life and death Christ has vindicated the character of God and by his identification with sinful mankind and my incorporation “in Christ” I can be a part of that because of his grace and mercy alone. (A current “read” for me on the subject of atonement is A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKight)

Dave

Certainly, if any Bible student ever read the Dream of Jacob and Jesus' comment on that Dream would be interested in exactly what kind of ground the bottom verticals of the ladder rested. Whose clay was it?

But that is not the dominate issue within the I.J. and the Final Generation. It is not the flesh of Jesus at the Cross but the flesh of a few humans at the Coming that dominates Final Generation purists.

The Roman Catholics struggled and with the issue until by papal authority the Immaculate Conception was unveiled. So you are correct, it has been a troublesome issue for centuries. To this old man, the answer is simple. I am of sinful flesh plus nothing. Jesus Christ is the God Who was Man, perfect in all His ways. My Salvation, is totally based upon the necessary and sufficient life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ Plus nothing! Original sin is a legal standing and a propensity to rebelllion that accompanies that standing. We all know and believe that Jesus bled. We also know that Jesus did not sin or have sin in Him. He was the second federal man, the new Adam--I'm with Paul on that! That does not mean that I don't have the highest regard for M. L. Andreasen, the Adventist scholar that spent a life on that issue only to be rejected by the very Church he served so faithfully. Now that Church endorses his view and keeps Andreasen under wraps. No one wrote with greater fervor and erudition on that subject. Bob Brinsmead, in his second phase, I believe, offered the Church a reasonable way out. His proposition, as I understand it, was
at the close of probation with the Heavenly Sanctuary Cleansed, Christ cleanse also the Soul Temple of those living at the end time--removing original sin and in that Adamic state would again stand the tests of Satan, this time successfully. He offered a Post-Hoc Immaculate rebirth. Yes, it has been a theological struggle and I am far from knowning all the ins and outs. "This I do know, once I was blind but now I see!" Tom

Jolhowell wrote:

"If all mankind needed was an example or model of obedience and a little “boost” from Holy Spirit power, then why did Christ have to come and die? This view appears to be the classic “exemplar” theory that makes Jesus life an example of how to live obediently before God assuming that mankind in their sinful condition can conform to the character of Jesus if they are shown the way to do it."

This seems to point out the primary weakness of this week's article. The balance of salvation swings heavily to Christ as exemplar...nothing on Christ as substitutionary atonement. All about what Christ can accomplish in us, nothing of what he has accomplished completely for us.

The thief on the cross, not an eleventh hour exception, but the Lukan representative of the way mankind recieves salvation, knows only his own desparate need, and the salvation that can be given freely to him by the one hanging next to him... the one who was paying the price for him. That is the 'Jesus Difference' we all need...all the time.

Grow up in our salvation, yes. Character development enfolded into the basis of our salvation...no. The imbalance of this article seems to imply such.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank

Very well written. It seems strange that what goes around comes around. This issue brought down the wrath of the Loma Linda Hill Church on Edward Heppenstall. Our character development is to make us creditable witnesses to the saving Grace of Jesus Christ--it adds nothing to the Gift of God through Christ our Lord. Tom

Thanks,

Frank,Tom and I believe Jodi Howell for great responses...nice to see other people recognize that if it depends so much on us WE ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE as IS GOD!!

pat

Greetings Pat! Yes, it's me jodie. Isn't it amazing to meet here in cyperspace when we live so close but don't see each other often? My best to your sweet wife.

My reading/writing assignments in Systematics this week are on "The Exalted Lord" and I just highlighted this brief but potent statement with supporting Scripture, "Christians understand the resurrection together with the cross to be history's most important event"(Oden, 452). For "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" (Romans 4:25). It is my ever-growing humble gratitude that keeps me on the narrow way towards the holiness of heart and life that will one heavenly day be ours in complete fullness. Thanks for your earlier comments - it was recognizing your name that gave me the impetus to write my "novel" early this morning!

Frank

Good observation. My impression is that some form of Arianism emerges whenever people get the impression that our views of God have slipped from monotheism to tritheism. I think this was the concern of the earliest SDAs. Although I don't accept their solution, I share their concerns. For all practical purposes many Christians are tritheists and this is a big challenge.

Jodi

It appears that you are enjoying your theological studies. Wonderful! I believe that Pat will forgive me for noticing that you are attending "a Wesleyan Methodist school in Orlando." Perhaps we can all enjoy this letter from John Wesley to George Whitefield in 1740:

"My dear Brother,
I thank you for yours, May the 24th. The case is quite plain. There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of their own opinion. Therefore, for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. But when his time is come, God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind. Then persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves, so that we may finish our course with joy. I am, my dearest brother,
Ever yours,
J. WESLEY."

Thank you!

Dave

Yes, I am enjoying my theological studies at Asbury-Orlando immensely. I am one of a few Adventist students in a diverse mix of denominational affiliations, genders, ages and ethnicities - a little taste of "kingdom of God" on earth! There is a definite "holiness" flavor but it is encouraging, not oppresive. Thank you for the Wesley/Whitfield letter (my son is at RTS, the Reformed alma mater of Pat and my husband Dan so we have some interesting debates as well) and book recommend by Pannenberg. I've seen his name floating around in my Oden Systematics. When I come up for air after this semester of Doctrine, Christian History and Hebrew Exegesis of Exodus I'll give Panenberg a spin . . .

Jodie,

I knew you were at Asbury, another Conservative Protestant seminary that has not become "apostate Protestantism." :~)

All the best with your studies... You robbed me of my punch line back to Dave that I attended RTS with Danny, your husband. (Regards Dave)

Also a nightmare to Alex (our proficient webmaster who attends one of those liberal apostate Protestant seminaries) is that we all were friends to the late "literalist/bibliolatry minded, conservative, closed minded Reformed Baptist" Dr. Ron Nash! ;~)

I'll give my wonderful Lhynne your regards and please give Danny mine.

Later

Pat

Pat

Thank God for "liberal apostate Protestant seminaries!" I needed an ecumenical theological education after attending SDA schools for twenty years.

I think it made me a better Adventist. At least I don't think that our denomination has more problems than others!

Thank you!

Dave

Dave,

Thanks for your response.

and...I went to a Reformed conservative seminary because despite some areas of difficulty I found them to be part of the continuity of what I believe Adventism is to become as a professor of being in the continuity of Sola scriptura, Sola by Grace, Sola through Faith, Sola in Christ and solely to the glory of God. And...I appreciate their acceptance of me!

pat

Dave

As you well know, I never attended a Seminary. I did teach at Marquette for eight years. There I found a full cross section of human beings and a very wide spectrum of theological and religious thought. There are some real Christians even within the Roman Community. Some day, I'll have to tell some more stories about Father Mac. He was the Paul Heubach of Marquette. O.K. just one:

The head custodian of the School of Dentistry, had almost a free run of the place. Frequently, a student would leave his operatory to answer a call of nature or the phone. Upon returning, he would find some, if not all the dental instrument of his tray table missing.

The standard thing to do was to go and see the head custodian and "buy used dental instruments" frequently the very one from the student's tray table. Then Father Mac arrived. One day a student returned to his operatory and found his entire set of instruments missing. Of course, he went to the head custodian arriving just as the custodian was unloading his loot. By that time Father Mac was on assignment as Provost of the School of Dentistry. The student went to see Father Mac.
Father Mac, all 280 pounds marched down the hall to the custodian's office and demands the custodian open all of his lockers. They were loaded with dental instruments. Many with student initials embossed on them. Father Mac gave the custodian two choices. Get every instrument back to it proper owner by 5 P.M. or resign on the spot. The custodian, "pack rat" got busy. Father Mac got on the horn and said. Any student have any missing dental instruments come to the custodians office as soon as possible. By close of day, the custodian was out of business with the warning. The next time it would be a felony charge and hard time. The custodian became the watchdog of the dental school. He didn't want any missing instruments laid to his charge. The custodian worked out his remaining 4 years until retirement and Father Mac gave a luncheon for him. Tom

Tom
Another great story! I hope someone is collecting these. Father Mac sounds like a man of God who understood human beings!
Thank you!
Dave

I have to be blunt. Herbert Douglass proclaims a false gospel that will surely cause many people to be lost eternally. The essence of the gospel is indeed forgivenes
of sin and the imputed righteousness of Christ. Sanctifi-
cation is the inevitable fruit of this gospel, but sancti-fication is the work of a lifetime. Since it is never com-plete in this life, it cannot contribute anything to our salvation. To rely on sanctification for salvation is to be lost eternally!

Dave

Just one more. Father Mac was Provost to both the Dental School and the Athletic Department: Football, Basketball, Baseball. Well Friday and Saturday nights were long nights for Father Mac, bailing boys out of lock-up. He plead with the City Counsel to close the bars on Sunday nights. He said, "Fellows, I just got to get some sleep!" No luck. Tom

Hi Bob!

I gather that all three of us--you, Herb and me--agree that God's grace both pardons us and empowers us and that neither of these is of our doing, as Herb explicitly writes above.

It is also my impression that you prefer that we use the word "gospel" only for God's grace as "pardon," never using this term in reference to God's grace as "power."

Do I correctly understand you?

If so, might you willing be to meet me in the middle by using "Gospel(A)" for God's grace as pardon and "Gospel(B)" for God's grace as power?

This would distinguish the two and, by virtue of their lexical ordering, establish the prority of the first, while also making it clear that we gratefully receive both as "good news."

To me something along these lines might make it easier to capture everything we all rightly need to include.

I am not convinced that Herb is preaching a false gospel. But even if we were, and even if some people were thereby honestly misled, I am certain that this would not cause them to be eternally lost.

I am as sure as anyone can be that God is fair and that therefore that God does not condemn anyone for honestly believing the wrong thing.

To my way of thinking, one of the most unfortuante features of the contemporary scene is that some evangelicals maintain that only those who have heard and accepted the gospel as they preach it are ultimately acceptable to God.

I appreciate Adventism for many things. One of them is that on Biblical grounds it rejects this pinched and peevish view of God. So do the writings of Ellen White.

On this issue Adventism and some evangelicals differ. I think that this is a good thing, as do many other evangelicals!

Thanks for jumping in to this discussion!

Dave

There's a quote from Paul Tillich, I believe, that asserts we need God's grace just as much for what we believe as for how we behave. Accepting that grace can be very helpful in our conversations.