Hello, I am Buster and welcome to my page on Chantilly's site It is that we all are new at this but we are trying and learning. We're all friends here so don't be a stranger and come on in, we'd love to have you to add to our friends list. So just come for a look see that's all and have fun...Buster.
One of the best study on nature of Christ
One of the best study on nature of Christ
One of the major emphases in Ellen White's writings is her understanding that the claim that God's law could not be obeyed by His creatures was Satan's first, greatest, and most persistent attack against the character of God. The student will find references to it in DA 29, DA 69, DA 117, DA 308-9, DA 311-13, DA 6718, ST 1/16/96, and ST 7/23/02, to mention only a few. Her own response to this claim is best given in her own words:
"Therefore he (Satan) is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with his FATAL SOPHISTRY that it is impossible for them to overcome. (Emphasis mine) The Great Controversy, p. 489.
"Let no one say, I cannot remedy my defects of character. If you come to this decision, you will certainly fail of obtaining everlasting life." E.G. White, Christ's Object Lessons, p. 331.
Seventh-day Adventists, therefore, have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt. As we consider this subject, we will do well to remember that theological systems may be compared to a chain-mesh, that is, a net formed of metal chain links that connect with other links around them. Few doctrines exist in isolation with no connection with other doctrines.
Thus, those who accept the doctrine of original sin defined as inherited guilt are required to develop some sort of immaculate conception doctrine in order to keep that guilt from reaching Jesus. Having done this, they are required to define Christ's role as our example in harmony with this separation of His experience from ours, which leads to the conclusion that we cannot overcome temptation as He did. This in turn leads to the conclusion that man is saved by justification only, since it is not possible for him to stop sinning. And this leads to a doctrine of salvation by manipulation, whereby God will perform a mechanical adjustment to man's brain in order to eliminate sin from his experience when He takes man into the heavenly kingdom.
All of this is contrary to the platform of truth developed by our pioneers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and is foreign to Seventh-day Adventist theology.
All of this is contrary to the platform of truth developed by our pioneers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and is foreign to Seventh-day Adventist theology.
In concluding this section, may we offer a few thoughts regarding the subject of guilt for the student to consider:
At the beginning of the history of sin in human experience, we see a woman looking at the forbidden fruit, taking it into her hand, and eating it. Which, may we ask, was most guilty -- the eye for looking, the hand for taking, or the mouth for eating the fruit?
We pose the question only to demonstrate its lack of appeal to the reason. No intelligent person would assign any of the burden of guilt to the eye, the hand, or the mouth of Eve. These fleshly instruments were all under the control of Eve's will, and could not do other than obey. The option of making other choices was not theirs; indeed, they possessed no equipment for the making of choices. The choice and the decision were acts of Eve's will, and her will must therefore carry the burden of responsibility, the guilt.
There was never any guilt in the flesh of Eve.
The human will, that had set itself in opposition to the will of its Creator-God, was guilty. Ellen White, with characteristic perception, writes:
At the beginning of the history of sin in human experience, we see a woman looking at the forbidden fruit, taking it into her hand, and eating it. Which, may we ask, was most guilty -- the eye for looking, the hand for taking, or the mouth for eating the fruit?
We pose the question only to demonstrate its lack of appeal to the reason. No intelligent person would assign any of the burden of guilt to the eye, the hand, or the mouth of Eve. These fleshly instruments were all under the control of Eve's will, and could not do other than obey. The option of making other choices was not theirs; indeed, they possessed no equipment for the making of choices. The choice and the decision were acts of Eve's will, and her will must therefore carry the burden of responsibility, the guilt.
There was never any guilt in the flesh of Eve.
The human will, that had set itself in opposition to the will of its Creator-God, was guilty. Ellen White, with characteristic perception, writes:
"... the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. -- Adventist Home, p. 127.
If the flesh cannot act contrary to the will of God, then it is certain that the flesh cannot be guilty.
In the next scene of this cosmic tragedy we see Adam looking at the fruit, taking it, and eating it. Shall we ascribe guilt to the eye, the hand, the mouth, or any other part of the flesh of Adam, such as the genes or chromosomes?
The answer can only be, No. It was the will of Adam that sinned, and it is the will of Adam that must carry the burden of responsibility, the guilt.
There was never any guilt in the flesh of Adam.
The flesh of my stomach desires food. The moral distinction between eating the food in my neighbor's lunch and eating the food in my own lunch is not meaningful to my flesh. The will must direct the flesh to not eat my neighbor's lunch and to be content with my own. With every need, appetite, or desire of the flesh the same principle holds. All voluntary actions of the flesh are controlled by the choices and decisions of the will. All involuntary actions are controlled by mechanical relationships. The flesh makes no choices and no decisions, either in voluntary or involuntary actions, hence has no responsibility, and no guilt.
There is never any guilt in the flesh of any human being.
How unprofitable, then, to endeavor to discover by what means guilt is transferred from flesh to flesh; from the flesh of Adam to the flesh of his descendants, or from the flesh of any parent to the flesh of any child.
In the next scene of this cosmic tragedy we see Adam looking at the fruit, taking it, and eating it. Shall we ascribe guilt to the eye, the hand, the mouth, or any other part of the flesh of Adam, such as the genes or chromosomes?
The answer can only be, No. It was the will of Adam that sinned, and it is the will of Adam that must carry the burden of responsibility, the guilt.
There was never any guilt in the flesh of Adam.
The flesh of my stomach desires food. The moral distinction between eating the food in my neighbor's lunch and eating the food in my own lunch is not meaningful to my flesh. The will must direct the flesh to not eat my neighbor's lunch and to be content with my own. With every need, appetite, or desire of the flesh the same principle holds. All voluntary actions of the flesh are controlled by the choices and decisions of the will. All involuntary actions are controlled by mechanical relationships. The flesh makes no choices and no decisions, either in voluntary or involuntary actions, hence has no responsibility, and no guilt.
There is never any guilt in the flesh of any human being.
How unprofitable, then, to endeavor to discover by what means guilt is transferred from flesh to flesh; from the flesh of Adam to the flesh of his descendants, or from the flesh of any parent to the flesh of any child.
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. -- Ezekiel 18:20
Flesh cannot transmit to flesh that which flesh does not and cannot possess.
What, then, of the will? Is it not also flesh?
Apparently not.
This is one of the major mysteries of human existence. The flesh (of the brain) produces the will, and then the will apparently stands apart from and controls the flesh, even including the flesh of the brain.
Inspiration has not revealed to us how this can be, and scientific investigation has not yet been able to explain it. Yet it is clearly and demonstrably true.
That the flesh of the brain produces the will we cannot doubt. Many examples have proven that damage to the flesh of the brain can impair, or even destroy, the function of the will. These examples would also indicate that the "production" of the will by the flesh of the brain is a continuous process. The will does not outlast the brain, or survive the destruction of the brain. So the brain continuously produces the will, which in turn continuously controls (or should control) the brain.
This, again is observable in our own experience, and in the experiences of all around us. Thought control is to some extent practiced by everyone. And in every experience wherein the will instructs the brain to start thinking along a certain line, or to stop thinking along a certain line, or to accept certain ideas, or to reject and dismiss them, we see that mysterious phenomenon, the will giving instruction to the flesh of the brain which is producing it.
What, then, of the will? Is it not also flesh?
Apparently not.
This is one of the major mysteries of human existence. The flesh (of the brain) produces the will, and then the will apparently stands apart from and controls the flesh, even including the flesh of the brain.
Inspiration has not revealed to us how this can be, and scientific investigation has not yet been able to explain it. Yet it is clearly and demonstrably true.
That the flesh of the brain produces the will we cannot doubt. Many examples have proven that damage to the flesh of the brain can impair, or even destroy, the function of the will. These examples would also indicate that the "production" of the will by the flesh of the brain is a continuous process. The will does not outlast the brain, or survive the destruction of the brain. So the brain continuously produces the will, which in turn continuously controls (or should control) the brain.
This, again is observable in our own experience, and in the experiences of all around us. Thought control is to some extent practiced by everyone. And in every experience wherein the will instructs the brain to start thinking along a certain line, or to stop thinking along a certain line, or to accept certain ideas, or to reject and dismiss them, we see that mysterious phenomenon, the will giving instruction to the flesh of the brain which is producing it.
I decided to stop thinking about that.
That simple and often heard statement reflects one of the major mysteries of human existence, the control of the flesh of the brain by the will that is itself produced by the flesh of the brain.
No, the will is not flesh. To define the will in terms of its essence or nature does not seem to be possible at the present time, but to define it in terms of its function is both possible and instructive. This is Ellen White's approach to the subject. She tells us what the will is by telling us what it does.
No, the will is not flesh. To define the will in terms of its essence or nature does not seem to be possible at the present time, but to define it in terms of its function is both possible and instructive. This is Ellen White's approach to the subject. She tells us what the will is by telling us what it does.
"The will is the governing power in the nature of man, bringing all the other faculties under its sway...It is the deciding power.... --5T 513 (Emphasis mine.)
"... it is the choice... the Kingly power....MH 318 (Emphasis mine.)
Logically and consistently, therefore, Ellen White assigns the responsibility for sinning exclusively to the will.
But while Satan can solicit, he cannot compel to sin... the tempter can never compel us to do evil ... The will must consent....--DA 125 (Emphasis mine.)
The flesh of man, then, has never known guilt, has never carried guilt, and can never transmit guilt from flesh to flesh. The transmission of guilt has always been and must always be from will to will, and only by the consent to sin of the receiving will.
Which leads us, at length, to a definition: What, precisely, is guilt? I am proposing that the most useful and defensible definition is this:
Which leads us, at length, to a definition: What, precisely, is guilt? I am proposing that the most useful and defensible definition is this:
Guilt is an assignment of responsibility by the will of a law-maker to the will of a law-breaker.
This definition carefully avoids ascribing to guilt any mechanical, organic, or intrinsically legal qualities, for these reasons
1. Those who would ascribe to guilt mechanical or organic qualities, which would make it possible for the guilt to reside in the flesh and be transmitted from flesh to flesh by biological inheritance, must struggle to answer the questions about the transmission of guilt to innocent infants, the transmission of guilt to the infant Jesus, etc., that have been examined earlier in this book, and the larger question lying behind them: If that is the way it is, who made it that way? Thus the responsibility inevitably goes back to God.
2. Those who seek to avoid these difficulties by discussing the problem in quasi-legal terms (some even avoid using the word guilt, but refer to a state or condition that produces the same result) fail to deal adequately with the larger underlying question, If that is man's state or condition, who made it that way? Who established those conditions? Again the responsibility inevitably goes back to God.
The problem shared by both groups is that their concept of guilt and its transmission contains so many gross inequities, even cruelties, that it simply will not do to let the responsibility for it go back to God. Yet until now no effective way has been found to prevent this result.
If the will of man is in control of all his other faculties, and if Satan cannot compel that will to sin, it follows that sinning is always a free choice or decision of a free will, which may be expressed by either an inward attitude or by an outward act, or by both.
There can never, then, be anything unjust or cruel in holding the free will of man responsible for its choices and decisions, particularly if human inabilities to perform the good that is willed are matched or exceeded by the enabling grace of God.
As we reflect about the nature of guilt, let us keep in mind these basic scriptural truths:
1. Those who would ascribe to guilt mechanical or organic qualities, which would make it possible for the guilt to reside in the flesh and be transmitted from flesh to flesh by biological inheritance, must struggle to answer the questions about the transmission of guilt to innocent infants, the transmission of guilt to the infant Jesus, etc., that have been examined earlier in this book, and the larger question lying behind them: If that is the way it is, who made it that way? Thus the responsibility inevitably goes back to God.
2. Those who seek to avoid these difficulties by discussing the problem in quasi-legal terms (some even avoid using the word guilt, but refer to a state or condition that produces the same result) fail to deal adequately with the larger underlying question, If that is man's state or condition, who made it that way? Who established those conditions? Again the responsibility inevitably goes back to God.
The problem shared by both groups is that their concept of guilt and its transmission contains so many gross inequities, even cruelties, that it simply will not do to let the responsibility for it go back to God. Yet until now no effective way has been found to prevent this result.
If the will of man is in control of all his other faculties, and if Satan cannot compel that will to sin, it follows that sinning is always a free choice or decision of a free will, which may be expressed by either an inward attitude or by an outward act, or by both.
There can never, then, be anything unjust or cruel in holding the free will of man responsible for its choices and decisions, particularly if human inabilities to perform the good that is willed are matched or exceeded by the enabling grace of God.
As we reflect about the nature of guilt, let us keep in mind these basic scriptural truths:
1. Sin is the transgression of the law. -- 1 JOHN 3:4
2. Where there is no law, there is no sin. -- Romans 4:15
3. The times of this ignorance God winked at. -- Acts 17:31
Thus guilt is not automatically incurred by a violation of God's law. There can be wrong-doing without guilt, if the act is ignorant rather than willful. The deciding factor is the attitude of the will of the law breaker. Did he will to violate the law of his Creator God? Or did he violate an unknown or misunderstood precept of God's law while willing to serve and obey God? The Creator-God takes into account these extenuating circumstances in deciding whether or not to assign guilt.
And it is the will of the law-maker, the Creator-God, that decides whether to hold the will of the law-breaker responsible, i.e., guilty. Remove from this equation either the decision of the law-breaker's will to sin or the decision of the law-maker's will to assign responsibility for sinning, and guilt cannot exist. The action of both wills must be present.
This definition of guilt, then, would seem to be accurate, fair, and reasonable:
And it is the will of the law-maker, the Creator-God, that decides whether to hold the will of the law-breaker responsible, i.e., guilty. Remove from this equation either the decision of the law-breaker's will to sin or the decision of the law-maker's will to assign responsibility for sinning, and guilt cannot exist. The action of both wills must be present.
This definition of guilt, then, would seem to be accurate, fair, and reasonable:
Guilt is an assignment of responsibility by the will of a law maker to the will of a law-breaker.
With this definition of guilt there is no need for elaborate defenses of the character of God. We need not struggle to explain how a God of love and justice can hold babies responsible for the sin of someone who died long before they were born, and punish them for the sin that they did not commit. There is no need to explain God's condemnation and destruction of persons in heathen lands who followed all the moral light that shone upon their pathways. And there is no need to construct elaborate schemes for the purpose of keeping the guilt of Adam from resting upon the infant Jesus.
There can be no sin without an act of the will of the law-breaker. There can be no guilt without an act of the will of the law-maker. When Ellen White makes reference to a reception of guilt, or an inheritance of guilt from Adam, she does not leave the will-factor out of the picture.
There can be no sin without an act of the will of the law-breaker. There can be no guilt without an act of the will of the law-maker. When Ellen White makes reference to a reception of guilt, or an inheritance of guilt from Adam, she does not leave the will-factor out of the picture.
It is inevitable that children should suffer from the consequences of parental wrongdoing, but they are not punished for the parents' guilt, except as they participate in their sins. It is usually the case, however, that children walk in the steps of their parents. By inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father's sin. Wrong tendencies, perverted appetites, and debased morals, as well as physical disease and degeneracy, are transmitted as a legacy from father to son, to the third and fourth generation. This fearful truth should have a solemn power to restrain men from following a course of sin. -- PP 306 (Emphasis mine.)
These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt, and death. -- Baker Letter, p. 1 (Emphasis mine.)
Ellen White wrote in careful conformity to dictionary definitions, and according to the dictionaries an inheritance is something that can be retained, rejected, divided, bought, sold, or lost, according to the choices of the recipient's will. Calvinistic concepts of inherited guilt as something that no human can avoid or escape would need to be described as a biological, or flesh to flesh, inheritance of guilt. In that case the inheritance could not be rejected or disposed of by any means since it would be in the flesh. No such expression and no such thought can be found in the writings of Ellen White. She never describes guilt or its transmission in terms of flesh, nor in terms of an unavoidable state or condition.
According to the teaching of Ellen White, and of the Seventh-day Adventist church in general until recent years, all earth-born children, including Jesus, inherit the fallen nature of Adam as weakness, not as guilt. At the point in time when the will of the child chooses to sin, guilt enters the picture. (Ellen White attributes the death of infants to separation from the tree of life, not to inherited guilt. See page 19.)
The will of the child Jesus never chose to sin, therefore never experienced guilt. According to Ellen White, this possibility is open to all:
According to the teaching of Ellen White, and of the Seventh-day Adventist church in general until recent years, all earth-born children, including Jesus, inherit the fallen nature of Adam as weakness, not as guilt. At the point in time when the will of the child chooses to sin, guilt enters the picture. (Ellen White attributes the death of infants to separation from the tree of life, not to inherited guilt. See page 19.)
The will of the child Jesus never chose to sin, therefore never experienced guilt. According to Ellen White, this possibility is open to all:
He has demonstrated that a lifelong obedience is possible. --Ms. 1, 1892 (Emphasis mine.)
There is no excuse for sinning. -- DA 311-312
Let the children bear in mind that the child Jesus had upon Himself human nature, and was in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was tempted of Satan like all children are tempted. -- YI 8/23/94
Just as firmly as Ellen White rejects the concept that we unavoidably inherit guilt from Adam, she also rejects the concept that we inherit such a severe weakness from Adam that sinning is unavoidable.
Since the sin of Adam, men in every age have excused themselves from sinning, charging God with their sin, saying that they could not keep His commandments. -- AST 9/14/03
There are many who in their hearts murmur against God. They say, "We inherit the fallen nature of Adam, and are not responsible for our natural imperfections." They find fault with God's requirements, and complain that He demands what they have no power to give. Satan made the same complaint in heaven, but such thoughts dishonor God. -- ST 8/29/92
Finally, let us consider this question: Do we know of any unavoidable inheritance other than biological inheritance?
Since this is a supremely important question, let us carefully define our terms.
By biological we mean something that resides in the flesh of man in such a way that it can be transmitted from flesh to flesh, as from the flesh of the parent to the flesh of the child.
By inheritance we mean something that we receive from our ancestors by reason of being born.
By unavoidable we mean something that no human being on earth can escape, since it is an ever-present consequence of being born, with no exceptions (except by the miraculous intervention of God).
With our definitions established, let us return to our question:
Do we know of any unavoidable inheritance other than biological inheritance?
First, is biological, flesh-to-flesh inheritance actually unavoidable?
We must concede that it is. There is no way that we can reject the chromosonal conditions that in our very conception set us up for blue or brown eyes, black or blond hair, white or brown skin, etc. Biological inheritance is altogether, unconditionally unavoidable, it would seem.
Second, are there other types of inheritance that are equally unavoidable?
We cannot conceive of any.
Let the student test this proposition by making a list of all of the types of inheritance that he can call to mind. It will be immediately apparent that each and every one of them can be avoided.
An inheritance of money? We don't have to accept it, or keep it.
An inheritance of land or property? We can reject it, or dispose of it. An inheritance of citizenship in a certain country? We can renounce it.
Though the list be ever so long, the result will be the same. We are forced to the conclusion that there is no universally unavoidable inheritance other than biological inheritance.
Therefore for us to say that man's inheritance of guilt from Adam is unavoidable, and in the same sentence say that it is not biological, is to fondly contradict ourselves in a single sentence. An unavoidable, non-biological inheritance simply does not and cannot exist.
It follows, then, that if a baby is born with guilt inherited from Adam, this must be for one or the other of two, and only two reasons:
1. The inheritance is biological and therefore unavoidable. In this case, it is generally conceded that the responsibility traces back to the creator of human biology, who made the flesh of man in such a way that it can and does carry and transmit guilt.
2. The so-called inheritance is by the direct will of God, reflecting an administrative attitude on the part of the Ruler of the universe, and is therefore unavoidable. In this case the responsibility is obviously and unquestionably God's, but the word inheritance must be re-defined, since the guilt comes from God, and not from the parents. Thus it is not a genuine inheritance.
Those who have tried to invent a third arrangement by which man is born into (but does not inherit) a state or condition (undefined) which unavoidably places him under the judgment and condemnation of God (but is not guilt) have only muddied the waters. This is an attempt to describe something as unavoidable, yet neither biological nor the applied will of God, and this is impossible. No such thing exists. Hence to follow this argument requires us to depart from reason an reality, and take a flight into the realm of sheer fantasy.
At the risk of being tedious, we must pause to consider this unusual use of the terms, state and condition.
These, we recognize, are both appositional terms, that have no specific meaning unless they are used in connection with other words. We may speak of a state of health, or a condition of the weather or of a condition of the economy, but it is meaningless to speak of a state or a condition, period. These words must modify something, and they cannot modify themselves. This may appear to the student to be absurdly technical, but the level on which the arguments are now being presented forces us to point out that there is no state of state, there is no state of condition, there is no condition of state, there is no condition of condition. Yet when I have sought carefully to find in those arguments an answer to the essential question, State of what? Condition of what?, I have found nothing that goes beyond this:
Since this is a supremely important question, let us carefully define our terms.
By biological we mean something that resides in the flesh of man in such a way that it can be transmitted from flesh to flesh, as from the flesh of the parent to the flesh of the child.
By inheritance we mean something that we receive from our ancestors by reason of being born.
By unavoidable we mean something that no human being on earth can escape, since it is an ever-present consequence of being born, with no exceptions (except by the miraculous intervention of God).
With our definitions established, let us return to our question:
Do we know of any unavoidable inheritance other than biological inheritance?
First, is biological, flesh-to-flesh inheritance actually unavoidable?
We must concede that it is. There is no way that we can reject the chromosonal conditions that in our very conception set us up for blue or brown eyes, black or blond hair, white or brown skin, etc. Biological inheritance is altogether, unconditionally unavoidable, it would seem.
Second, are there other types of inheritance that are equally unavoidable?
We cannot conceive of any.
Let the student test this proposition by making a list of all of the types of inheritance that he can call to mind. It will be immediately apparent that each and every one of them can be avoided.
An inheritance of money? We don't have to accept it, or keep it.
An inheritance of land or property? We can reject it, or dispose of it. An inheritance of citizenship in a certain country? We can renounce it.
Though the list be ever so long, the result will be the same. We are forced to the conclusion that there is no universally unavoidable inheritance other than biological inheritance.
Therefore for us to say that man's inheritance of guilt from Adam is unavoidable, and in the same sentence say that it is not biological, is to fondly contradict ourselves in a single sentence. An unavoidable, non-biological inheritance simply does not and cannot exist.
It follows, then, that if a baby is born with guilt inherited from Adam, this must be for one or the other of two, and only two reasons:
1. The inheritance is biological and therefore unavoidable. In this case, it is generally conceded that the responsibility traces back to the creator of human biology, who made the flesh of man in such a way that it can and does carry and transmit guilt.
2. The so-called inheritance is by the direct will of God, reflecting an administrative attitude on the part of the Ruler of the universe, and is therefore unavoidable. In this case the responsibility is obviously and unquestionably God's, but the word inheritance must be re-defined, since the guilt comes from God, and not from the parents. Thus it is not a genuine inheritance.
Those who have tried to invent a third arrangement by which man is born into (but does not inherit) a state or condition (undefined) which unavoidably places him under the judgment and condemnation of God (but is not guilt) have only muddied the waters. This is an attempt to describe something as unavoidable, yet neither biological nor the applied will of God, and this is impossible. No such thing exists. Hence to follow this argument requires us to depart from reason an reality, and take a flight into the realm of sheer fantasy.
At the risk of being tedious, we must pause to consider this unusual use of the terms, state and condition.
These, we recognize, are both appositional terms, that have no specific meaning unless they are used in connection with other words. We may speak of a state of health, or a condition of the weather or of a condition of the economy, but it is meaningless to speak of a state or a condition, period. These words must modify something, and they cannot modify themselves. This may appear to the student to be absurdly technical, but the level on which the arguments are now being presented forces us to point out that there is no state of state, there is no state of condition, there is no condition of state, there is no condition of condition. Yet when I have sought carefully to find in those arguments an answer to the essential question, State of what? Condition of what?, I have found nothing that goes beyond this:
Original sin is a state or condition of original sin.
I do not find this very helpful.
Describe guilt or define guilt however we may, I see no way that we can escape the conclusion that if it is neither a biological inheritance nor the applied will of God, it is not unavoidable.
There is no unavoidable non-biological inheritance. And if it is the applied will of God, the word inheritance is hardly applicable. Judgment would be the more appropriate term.
This is no problem to the Adventist, who does not visualize the Lord applying a judgment of guilt to tiny infants, including the infant Jesus. It is a problem to the Calvinist, and has required him to invent an altogether extra-Biblical theory that the Lord Jesus Christ came to this earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, in order to keep the guilt of Adam from resting upon the infant Jesus.
May I respectfully and I hope not unkindly suggest that this is the Calvinist's problem, and not ours. We would have nothing to gain and much to lose by accepting into our theology an artificial problem: the unavoidable transmission of guilt from Adam to all of his descendants, including Jesus; a problem that can only be remedied by an equally artificial solution: the doctrine that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.
Our position that all men inherit weakness from Adam but do not inherit guilt is, I am convinced, by far the best understanding of scripture, and is the only possible understanding of the inspired counsels that have come to us through Ellen White, such as this, one of her most simple and clear and yet most meaningful statements:
Describe guilt or define guilt however we may, I see no way that we can escape the conclusion that if it is neither a biological inheritance nor the applied will of God, it is not unavoidable.
There is no unavoidable non-biological inheritance. And if it is the applied will of God, the word inheritance is hardly applicable. Judgment would be the more appropriate term.
This is no problem to the Adventist, who does not visualize the Lord applying a judgment of guilt to tiny infants, including the infant Jesus. It is a problem to the Calvinist, and has required him to invent an altogether extra-Biblical theory that the Lord Jesus Christ came to this earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, in order to keep the guilt of Adam from resting upon the infant Jesus.
May I respectfully and I hope not unkindly suggest that this is the Calvinist's problem, and not ours. We would have nothing to gain and much to lose by accepting into our theology an artificial problem: the unavoidable transmission of guilt from Adam to all of his descendants, including Jesus; a problem that can only be remedied by an equally artificial solution: the doctrine that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.
Our position that all men inherit weakness from Adam but do not inherit guilt is, I am convinced, by far the best understanding of scripture, and is the only possible understanding of the inspired counsels that have come to us through Ellen White, such as this, one of her most simple and clear and yet most meaningful statements:
Just that which you may be, He was in human nature. -- Letter 106, 1896.
Does The Bible Have Anything To Say Against Genetic Engineering?
Does The Bible Have Anything To Say Against Genetic Engineering? | ||
|
By: Greg Ciola
Source: www.healthtruthrevealed.com
March 25, 2007 |
||
|
Quite surprisingly, this question is one that has rarely been discussed by anyone in the scientific community. Yet, it may quite possibly be the most important
question of all regarding all aspects of biotechnology. There is ample evidence from both the Bible and
extra-biblical books that shows strong disapproval of genetic engineering. The author of all life is God and according to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis,
He created every species to reproduce after its own kind.
Thus, there is no room in God’s creation for man to step in and start modifying DNA by cross transplanting the genes
from one organism or species into the DNA of another. In essence, man is now creating species variants that God
never intended to exist. Such alteration of species specificity is a serious violation of God’s natural order and I believe it to be a corruption of life and an abomination unto the LORD.“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and
the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:11-12)
Unfortunately, the biotech industry has upstaged God’s role in creation by attempting to modify every aspect of life through their dark science. The genetic codes of each
species’ DNA are God’s doing. They were not put there by some random act of evolution, as most scientists would like us to believe. In effect, what they are doing is mocking God by declaring that nearly everything He made is defective and can be improved upon. When you read the pertinent quotes from the biotech industry, they make this
technology sound so innocent and beneficial, yet the unavoidable conclusion is that every aspect of what they are doing is in violation of God’s law. In the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy there are clear instructions on how the Israelites were to farm their land and grow
their food. By establishing the nation of Israel as a priestly nation, they were to follow the divine laws given
to them by God and teach His principles to the rest of the world. Evidently, God was very upset at the way the
other nations were farming and growing their foods. Numerous scriptures rail against their practices as being
an abomination unto Him. Listed below are just two of the many powerful scriptures that I believe clearly point
out that genetic engineering is a violation of God’s law.
“Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.” (Leviticus 19:19)
“Thou shall not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou has sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse
sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” Deuteronomy 22:9-11)Notice that if a field is plowed with an ox and an ass, it is a defilement and a violation of God’s law. And if a field is planted with various mixed seeds, it too is a defilement and violation of God’s law. Therefore, since God is adamant about not mixing – whether it be in plowing, planting or in the clothes we wear – what do you think His thoughts would be on gene mixing? Let me assure you that when DNA genes are taken from one organism and inserted into another, it too is a defilement of the land and a violation of God’s law! Furthermore, when we eat foods grown in violation of God’s law, they become a defilement to our bodies whether we know it or not. Who, other than Satan, would want to defile and corrupt every aspect
of God’s earth and in the process defile and corrupt every person’s body? Anyone who can see this biotech time bomb with spiritual eyes will understand that genetically modified foods are not about improving crops and providing
better alternatives to the world. They’re about playing God and polluting His whole creation. God’s law doesn’t sanction genetic engineering and it never will, despite the best efforts of the biotech industry to try and present
these altered organisms as something beneficial to the human race. It may very well be genetically modified
foods and genetic engineering that finally bring the wrath of God down upon us. I personally believe that this gene altering technology is one of the most critical issues the world is now facing and that a coming food apocalypse is not far off. The world was already destroyed once at the time of Noah because of what the ancient Book of Jasher
seems to clearly indicate was a form of genetic engineering. If scientists insist on playing God, it may not be long before such a divine destruction happens again.
Let’s take a closer look at what this most interesting book has to say. While the Book of Jasher is not actually
in Holy Scripture, it is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. The fact that the Bible cites it twice validates that there was such a book by this name in the early history of the nation of Israel. A preserved copy
of this scroll was discovered in the early 1800s. Basically it is a parallel narrative of all the familiar stories of the first five books of Moses with the exception that it goes into much more detail. With regards to the story of Noah and the flood, Jasher sheds new light on some of the key events that were taking place before God
destroyed the world. In light of our current discussion, one of these passages is very pertinent.“And the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth,
the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had
corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.” (Jasher 4:18)It’s also rather interesting to note
that when Jesus’ apostles asked Him what it would be like before His return He said it would be like the time of Noah. Might He have been referring to coming events similar to those cited in the Book of Jasher? Is modern genetic research simply a replay of ancient history? The evidence is certainly enough to make one stop and think. Notice how God describes the destruction He was about to bring to the world during Noah’s time in the book of Genesis. “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:7)No doubt there were many reasons why it repented the LORD that He made man, but one of the most significant ones appears to deal with genetic
modification. It is obvious from both Genesis and Jasher that the whole world had become altered because of the genetic technology that was taking place.“The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with
violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon earth.” (Genesis 6:11-12) After much deliberation and research, it is my belief that genetically modified foods and genetic engineering as a whole may be leading
up to a final battle between good and evil. The biotech companies have drawn a line in the sand and are
determined to fight with all of their resources to implement this technology on a global scale. Despite past protests against them in Europe and a growing
juggernaut here in America, genetic engineering plods relentlessly forward – apparently unstoppable! Yet if God’s
word can be trusted – and it can – then it’s just a matter of time before He steps in to put a halt to this outrage.
These huge, multinational biotech companies may in fact, be getting into a battle that’s more than they bargained for. If you don’t think food is a critical issue in the eyes of God, let me remind you that it was the consumption of a forbidden food in the Garden of Eden that led to the
fall of man. Adam and Eve broke God’s very first commandment and ate proscribed food from the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil. Do you really think Satan would forego a strategy that worked so well for him back in the beginning? Might he now also have the whole world breaking God’s food laws and eating the wrong food in the form of GMOs? And just remember one very important thing, Satan doesn’t care whether you know it or not. As long as he can
stand before our Heavenly Father and accuse us to Him, that’s all that matters. (See Revelation 12:10)If you are still not convinced that GMOs violate God’s law, there is
yet another powerful Bible reference that seems to speak directly to the issue of genetically modified foods.
It comes from the Book of Matthew in the New Testament. Jesus relates a parable that, to me, is very applicable
to the subject.“And another parable put he forth unto
them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept,
his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought
forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, did not
thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy has done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather
up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let them both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of
harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn
them: but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:24-30)For those of you who don’t know what tares are, they are the next best comparison to a genetically engineered version of wheat. Tares are a counterfeit form of wheat.
They look exactly like wheat and when they are growing side by side next to good wheat there is no way to tell the difference until they reach harvest time. When tares reach
their peak they turn black on the top, the grain is not edible, and the seeds from them in many cases cannot be replanted just like Terminator seeds. Doesn’t this parable fit our genetic engineering story to a T? God created the world and sowed good seed (with His DNA blueprint) in the earth. But while we were all sleeping, an enemy came and sowed counterfeit crops (GMOs) in all of our fields. They may look just like the real deal, even when growing side by side with God’s food. (Doesn’t genetically modified corn look exactly like regular corn?) But they’re not the same –
no more than the wheat and the tares are the same. genetically modified crops are counterfeit crops sown and grown by God’s enemies. Jesus went on to explain the interpretation of this parable.“He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The son of man shall send forth his angels, and they
shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 13:37-43)Do you see now how pertinent this
parable really is? I think it proves rather convincingly that biotechnology is satanically inspired. In my estimation, the multinational biotech companies are playing with fire and they may very well get burned. Through their DNA modification research, these corporations have now crossed over into the realm of the supernatural. Our world will never be the same again as a result of the alterations they are making to nature. Regrettably, GMOs have now been
released into the environment and there is no turning back.
Even if the biotech industry stopped growing genetically modified food tomorrow, it would be impossible to totally purge their long-lasting side effects from the earth. The
hard, plain truth is that all of the farms in America and around the world growing crops that contain GMOs are already defiled in God’s eyes. Planting crops free of GMOs on the same land that once grew them would also defile and corrupt the new crops. To be purified, the land must be made to rest for a considerable period of time – a highly unlikely scenario when you consider the financial
impact such an action would have. Yet, only such a long rest of the land will make the ground once again acceptable to God. There appears to be no easy way out of the crisis we have created. In light of the seriousness of the
situation, might the following quote from Habakkuk have anticipated the coming genetic engineering apocalypse?
“Though the fig tree may not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines; though the labor of the olive may fail, and the
fields yield no food; though the flock be cut off from the fold, and there be no herd in the stalls – Yet I will
rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.” (Habakkuk 3:17-18)Dr. Mae-Wan Ho from the Institute of Science in Society whom I already quoted several times throughout this book made a very interesting statement that’s very appropriate to our subject of religion and GMOs. “To people whose lives are so inextricably interwoven with their indigenous plant
varieties, what else can GM crops be but an abomination? And why should the rest of us not recover to some extent
this aesthetic and spiritual connection to our food?”
I’m not the only one who has seen the link between genetic engineering and God’s Law. The following information
comes from the Alliance For Bio-Integrity and is being reproduced with their permission. It is an excerpt from a
story titled – “Why The Genetic Engineering Of Our Food Offends Principles Of Most Religions.” If you would like to read a full copy of the story it can be obtained on
the Internet at: www.biointegrity.org/RelReject.html
“Religious individuals have strong grounds to reject the products of genetic engineering based not only
on concern for personal safety but also on concern for the integrity of God's creation and the integrity of
humanity's relationship with God. Such rejection has a religious dimension and is a religious right. “However, the FDA's failure to require labeling of genetically altered foods is effectively restricting Americans from exercising this right and subjects individuals to foods they have sound religious reasons to avoid. FDA policy thus appears to violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
which protects free exercise of religion. Further, because bioengineered foods have been implanted with genes
(and resultant substances) that are foreign to them, FDA policy also appears to violate Section 403(i) of the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act, which requires that added substances to a food be labeled, as well as Section 403(a),
which prohibits "false or misleading" labeling and mandates disclosure of material facts. While this lack of labeling
poses a serious problem for all citizens, it is most injurious to individuals who for either health or religious reasons must strictly avoid specific categories of foods (e.g. allergy sufferers; Jews, Muslims, devout vegetarians). “People concerned about maintaining the integrity of their food, the integrity of God's creation, and the integrity of their religious principles should avoid purchasing bioengineered foods and act to reform the government policy that restricts their freedom to do so
-- while it waives rational restrictions on commercially altering the blueprints of life.”
###
If you’d like to order a copy of the book of
Jasher it can be obtained from Crusador
Enterprises by calling (800) 593-6273 or
by going online to www.healthtruthrevealed.com. | ||
Cell phone vs. the Bible
CELL PHONE vs. BIBLE
I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our
cellphone?
What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
What if we flipped through it several time a day?
What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
What if we used it to receive messages from the text?
What if we treated it like we couldn't live without it?
What if we gave it to Kids as gifts?
What if we used it when we traveled?
What if we used it in case of emergency?
This is something to make you go....hmm...where is my Bible?
Oh, and one more thing. Unlike our cell phone, we don't have to worry about our Bible being disconnected because Jesus already paid the bill. Makes you stop and think "where are my priorities? And no dropped calls!
I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our
cellphone?
What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
What if we flipped through it several time a day?
What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
What if we used it to receive messages from the text?
What if we treated it like we couldn't live without it?
What if we gave it to Kids as gifts?
What if we used it when we traveled?
What if we used it in case of emergency?
This is something to make you go....hmm...where is my Bible?
Oh, and one more thing. Unlike our cell phone, we don't have to worry about our Bible being disconnected because Jesus already paid the bill. Makes you stop and think "where are my priorities? And no dropped calls!
What are we doing with God's blueprints of life?
|
shuman (15% human sheep): do I need more mascara? |
|
|
|
ORIGINAL CAPTION: Scientists have created the world's first human-sheep chimera - which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs. The sheep have 15 percent human cells and 85 percent animal cells - and their evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer. (Claudia Joseph / UK Sunday Mail) |
--
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> Subject: Does The Bible Have Anything To Say Against Genetic Engineering Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:54:41 -0400 |
The first GM food crop containing human genes will likely be approved for commercial production shortly. It is a strain of rice that produces some of the human proteins found in breast milk and saliva, which manufacturer Ventria Biosciences believes could be used to treat children with diarrhea. Create a free website at Webs.com