Assignments for Protestant Theological Heritage, Fall 2008
Post your assignments below. All further comments and discussions should be posted under the thread entitled: "Comments on Assigments."
107 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Dr Hanna wrote out a rough sketch of the progress of truth from the OT to the SDA church. That progress of truth has happened in the context of both Heavenly and Human history. In times past Satan, then Lucifer, began a debate, about God, His Character, His authority, His mercy, and so forth: which our great grandparents, Adam and Eve, unfortunately took up here on earth. By doing so they drafted the whole of their posterity into that debate in which we presently find ourselves. Thankfully we are not left without an anchor in that debate. The Scripture are our guide as we Protest, do Theology, and seek that Heritage which is promised. I am grateful and thankful, what while we live in this world, filled with debate and dissention; we have a sure lamp for our feet. More specifically as I read the first chapter of Pelikan’s book I was made grateful for God’s guiding gift as I read about the debates within Catholic Church during that time. While I respect the fact that they were struggling with understanding their own theology, they certainly seem to miss the point. As Pelikan argued in chapter one, Augustine was a great influence on the Roman Catholic Church and the reformation that came out of that church. His views impacted 14-15th century doctrinal debates, especially in the area of Mariology, the Eucharist, and unity of the faith; While Anselm of Canterbury was the one who systematized the plan of salvation and the author of the satisfaction theory, which when other theologians—wanting to steer clear of Pelagius’ teaching—was reinterpreted to adhere the to the doctrine of predestination of which Augustine had explicitly said that God both predetermined the saved and the dammed. Even some reformers, Huss and Wycliffe, had their understanding colored by their adherence to Augustinian views. As such, being a protestant, I have to ‘protest’ this reliance upon one man’s view. I admit that I’m not a student of Augustine, and I have not read much of his writings so there may be many good things in his works. However, this I know, that one tract of Scripture can afford me more true knowledge of God than all the writings of Augustine, for it is written “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” 2 Peter 1:19. Had men done this more there would have been no time wasted shoring up false doctrines such as Mary’s as mediatrix, or false practices such as the Eucharist/Mass.
During the lectures, Prof. Martin Hanna gave us the great picture of the transmission of the divine message from the period of the Old Testament patriarchs to the time in which we live today. Every generation builds upon the foundation they received from their preceding generation. Every person received the biblical truth from someone who got it from someone else. Although the message was supported by Bible texts, the explanations are influenced by the personal understanding of the person. The question is always whether the explanation is faithful to the original message (e.g. Isa 8:20) or whether it distorts the meaning and sense of the original idea. Even the writers of the Bible distinguished between right traditions (2Thess 2:15; 3:6) and wrong traditions (Mat 15:3; Col 2:8). A tradition in itself is not bad but it has to stand in accord to the meaning of the original message.
Chapters 1 and 6 of the book show in a very good way that the Roman Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages and even the Protestants wanted to base their beliefs on the original message. At this point a significant hermeneutical decision was made. Who knows better the original meaning of the apostolic statements than the people who did not have such big timely distance or who maybe even knew the apostles themselves? That is why these theologians studied and exposed the church fathers. That is why Augustine had such a great significance for these medieval theologians. However, they ceased to make the Bible their main object of study. The church fathers became the authority on how the Bible should be understood. In the second part of the Middle Ages theologians interpreted and exposed what e.g. Peter Lombard had said about what Augustine had said and so on. The original meaning of Biblical texts and their message became more and more distorted. The Reformers wanted to go back to the roots but even they (e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc.) looked at what Augustine had really said and took it for granted.
For me the class and also the two chapters of the book were very interesting because it showed me the importance of the existence and right application of good and biblical hermeneutical principles, which should lead to good methods. No person reads the Bible without any previous knowledge and conscious or unconscious premises. If we stay at that point, we also stay in a certain hermeneutical circle where we support our premises and own views. That is why it is so important to be open to the Bible and adapt our hermeneutics to the principles that they Bible itself shows. To theologians and pastors that shows the importance of a proper knowledge of the Biblical languages, a Biblical hermeneutic and a good understanding of how to do exegesis. The first interpreter of the Bible should be the Bible itself. A good knowledge of the doctrinal development over the centuries is helpful to understand why we today and also other denominations see it this way or that way. A good knowledge of the beliefs of our Adventist pioneers and the development of our doctrines is important. It is important to read and study Ellen White’s writings. All that can help us to understand the Bible better and more than we could do only by our own studies. We can get new insights etc. But all that should never replace the study of the Biblical text itself. All that shall lead us to the Bible itself.
(When we were babies it was easier for us to chew something that our mother had already in her mouth. But today, it is better for the teeth, which God has given us, to chew something where we still need them. That is why I like European bread! :) That is why I like to do exegesis and study the Bible for myself, and then compare my conclusions to what others have said.)
From last week’s class lecture and discussions, I thought the foundation of Protestantism was laid when we discussed the Protestantism heritage of sola scriptura. For example, how can you protest against the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church if you do not have the surety and weight of Biblical evidence to stand upon when protesting against it? In the class discussion it was also pointed out that to understand the Protestant heritage, you have to understand what they were protesting against, which was Roman Catholic Church tradition. I would agree with this too; but moreover, if you want to spot the counterfeit study the true (truth) even more! According to history and my reading of Pelikan’s Reformation of Church and Dogma, it was Martin Luther’s aim to reform and revive the Church of its errors through the knowledge of the written Word, but the church’s leaders were ‘blind guides’ who wanted to remain blind, therefore Luther became more devoted to exposing the apostasy of the Church through her traditions that were against the Bible’s tradition of the Gospel. There is only one safeguard against error and deception when it comes to private interpretation held by people who do not check scripture with scripture. According to 2 Peter 1:20, “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation;” therefore, it would be good to follow the sola scriptura principle so that we have a true and biblical interpretation of scripture. In addition, another interpretation of this verse is to check with other sources or the community of believers as opposed to holding a view privately as an individual. Again, this principle of sola scriptura is substantiated by Isaiah 28:10, which gives us the Biblical principle of establishing truth. Isaiah 28:10 says, “precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little”. This is a sure foundation and it is ours to stand upon! After all, we as Adventists are supposed to be standing on the shoulders of the Reformers, and the Reformers were standing solidly on sola scriptura, scriptures alone. Speaking of the heritage of Protestantism, sola scriptura is one of our greatest and dearest.
I agree with you Richy that as Adventists we ought to be forward on the principle of sola scriptura, after all, we claim and rightly so that our doctrines are based on the Scriptures. But perhaps we need to step ahead and also pay close attention to the history of the reformation in order that we may repeat history as a people uninformed.
The key theme that has stood out in my mind from the lectures and readings this week is the theme of tradition. As in, what is its place in Christianity? What is the relationship between tradition and the Bible?
As all Protestants know, one of the fundamental reasons for the Protestant Reformation was the fact that Protestants rejected the Catholic emphasis on Tradition, arguing that Christians should base their beliefs and practices on the Bible and the Bible alone, never human tradition. Given that sola scriptura was such a strong underlying principle of the Reformation, it seems that most Protestants take the idea for granted, as if it is perfectly obvious.
However, the “obviousness” of the sola scriptura principle is complicated, for several reasons. To begin with, the Bible has both a positive and a negative perspective on tradition, as we discussed in class. For instance, Paul warns the Colossians against the “vain deceit” of the “tradition of men” and cautions the believers “lest tradition spoil you” (Col. 2:8). On the other hand, he tells the Thessalonians to “stand fast and hold onto the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). This apparently contradictory perspective makes it somewhat confusing to figure out where a Christian should stand with respect to tradition.
A second reason why the sola scriptura principle is complicated is the fact that it is essentially impossible to isolate sola scriptura from historical and cultural context. In fact, we could go so far as to say the ideal of sola scriptura is unrealistic. As was pointed out in class, we read Matthew, John, Paul, etc. in a certain way because of the history of interpretation that has come down to us. Twenty-first century readers cannot escape that tradition of interpretation; like it or not, the tradition affects us. Additionally, cultural conditions also affect our reading of the text. Paul’s culture affected the way he wrote in his time, and our culture affects the way we read him in our time. To try to escape the cultural traditions that surrounded the authors’ writing of the text and our reading of the text is impossible.
Therefore, I am somewhat sympathetic to the Catholic claim that Scripture and tradition cannot be separated. For instance, Catholic scholar R. McBrien states, “it is not as if you have first Scripture and then you have Tradition…Tradition comes before, during, and not just after, the writing of sacred Scripture.” He is right that tradition and Scripture are bound up together. And I can see the point of the Catholic Church when it says, as it did in Dei Verbum (a document of the Second Vatican Council), that it is through tradition that “the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood.” And when the same document concludes that “sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church…are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others,” the position makes some sense. To pretend, as Protestants sometimes do, that we can escape tradition is naïve.
On the other hand, I was really struck by a point made by Dr. Fortin in another class this week. Dr. Fortin said, rather astutely I think, that the biblical pattern for the transmission of God’s messages to his people is that they are first transmitted orally, and then are to be written down. Time and again, this pattern is repeated in the Bible: God gives commands or messages, and his messenger writes them down (see, for example, Ex. 20:3-4; Deut. 29:1 and 31:24-26; Josh. 24:22ff). As Dr. Fortin concluded, if God wants his people to remember something, he has us commit it to writing. In this way, the message is not forgotten or amended or tinkered with. (It's also worth noting the numerous places where the apostles point Christian believers back to the biblical text, and adjure them not to add to or subtract from the words of Scripture. Cf. 2 Tim. 3:14ff; 1 Tim. 4:11; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19.)
So, my conclusion: while we should recognize the appropriate and necessary place of tradition, we Protestants have a responsibility to proclaim the primacy of the text over and above tradition. God himself has indicated that he intended his word to be preserved in Scripture, not in extra-biblical tradition. Only in this way can we avoid alteration of the message. The text is crucial; the text is primary; it is the text which should be our constant governor.
In the age of the reformation of the Roman Catholic Church, the development of theology was moving in full swing. Many of the theology development that I have read in our text book deals with the tough questions that scripture didn’t seem to answers in the minds of medieval theologians of that time. Dogma such as the immaculate conception of Mary, the necessity of Christ’s death, predestination, the Eucharist, the sacrament of penance, and confession. It was clearer to some, however, that scripture defined these doctrines quite well, such as in the case of the reformers as Martin Luther when he returned to reading the Bible for himself, he saw the inconstancies in what the scripture taught plainly when compared to man made traditions of the Roman Catholic Church specifically. A call to return to scripture (sola scriptural) was made. It was noted in class that the reform that was started only went as far as the reformer. It wasn’t the motive of the reformers to destroy the mother Church and raise up a new Church, but rather to create a genuine reform from within. In class we talked about the dangers of cherished traditions getting in the way of reform. I must ask myself, “ Do I read the Bible to discover new truth or reaffirm the foundations of our founders or do I just read the Bible with Bible guides that have been created for me so I don’t stray off and discover something that my present a different perspective?”.
I find in my personal journey that I have accepted many of the Adventist Fundamental beliefs with out really doing a personal study to see if they are complete. I have read and study our beliefs, been to many evangelistic meetings that use proof text to prove their points, but I have failed to sit down and say today I am going to look up everything in the Bible that speaks about righteousness by faith, the Sabbath, death, wine, jewelry, diet, and the trinity etc… I have become complacent and just say, “Well sounds good enough to me, and it paints a nice picture of God.” Why study the scripture if those before us have already made us some of the finest baby food? I think I need to get back to eating the meat of the Bible, just maybe something has been overlooked, or maybe a doctrine is underdeveloped, or there new light. Sounds pretty dangerous??? Especially to the leaders of the Church, we don’t want people studying the Bible for themselves without a Bible study guide. Have we arrive as a Church and need not press on to new discoveries? This I believe breads death to the Church and a will need a thorough revival from within.
Eric, You have said some profound things. Thanks for mentioning my name. Please study the Bible for yourself. I never meant my followers to stop studying for themselves and pushing forward to ever brighter light. Cheers! Martin Luther
Clinton Moriah Protestant Theological Heritage Challenge to Apostolic Continuity In the first part of chapter six the author argues that the Apostolic continuity was a standard around which several different and opposing theological armies could rally. Even though many catholic scholars argue that apostolic continuity with the apostles has been a standard since the ancient church. Three criteria that were used to support this position prior to the reformation were the assumption that the revelation the apostles handed down through scripture were the pillar and bulwark of the Christian’s faith. In addition, the doctrinal and creedal tradition was derived from the apostles and the ecclesiastical structure represents by bishops in the church and their succession has continued through time. This view puts tradition above the scripture and gave the church authority above scripture. There is no real scriptural basis for apostolic succession and the supremacy of tradition above scripture. The reformation movement and radical reformers laid bare the claims, and manmade traditions instituted by the great catholic church under the scrutiny in the light of the written and inspired word of God... Radical reformers spiritually torn to shreds the basis for apostolic continuity and called for a restoration of primitive Christianity. This herald by the call for “sola- scriptura”. These developments led to the arousal of the great theological and historical interest in the twentieth century.
One of the most difficult questions for me as I study Protestant theology is why the followers of Christ are so disjointed and lacking in unity as a people. We spoke in class about trying to find a balance between unity and diversity – that somehow this balance would be the key to true unity among the followers of Christ. In chapter 2 of Pelikan’s book he deals with the issue of church unity as well. He outlines the struggle of the Catholic Church to maintain its claim to being one (as in one holy, catholic, apostolic) while at the same time dealing with pluralistic beliefs within. Pelikan made a statement that caught my attention. He said that the divide between the Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) churches over the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, for example, was more a matter of how they worded their understanding. In substance, Pelikan suggests, their belief was not much different, but the words they chose to describe the belief caused deep division. I know that we cannot write all of our differences off as simple miscommunication of words, but I am curious as to how much our choice of language can contribute to unity or lack thereof. I admire Jesus for His ability to draw clear distinctions. For Him, it seemed, it was not difficult to describe citizenship in the kingdom of God. A person could see clearly and choose whether to be in or out when Christ would speak. At least it really seems that way to me. I tend to think that much of our inability to move forward on a united front in the power of the Holy Spirit is due to our exclusive mentality and the language we choose to describe what it means to be a true Christian. Are we making it more difficult to enter the kingdom of God than Christ made it? I think of all people we should be the most clear, and that we should do all we can to make the kingdom accessible to all people – as it truly is anyway.
Richy Thomas From this week’s reading response, I was reflecting on Justification by Faith as the “hinge that everything hangs upon.” Ellen White, herself once said that justification by ‘faith is the hub and heart’ of everything else. The way I understand it, “solo Christo” was the Latin statement that was made to declare salvation is through Christ alone. Moreover, combined with “sola fide,” which is understood as “faith alone,” makes the statement read: salvation is by faith alone by Christ alone. The good news is that we are saved by Christ’s righteousness, His faithfulness, His life and death! I rejoice with Luther in the Scripture texts that set him free: Romans 1:16, 17 and Ephesians 2:8, 9, etc. I know that we need to rediscover that CHRIST IS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, like Luther did. For the Gospel is good news, when we realize that we are not saved by works or merit. For any good thing that we do falls short of the glory of God. Even our good deeds are likened onto “filthy rags.” [Isaiah ] On another note, I have an understanding that Christ’s righteousness works in and for us. Through Christ’s death, we are justified (imputed righteousness) and through His life (in the Holy Spirit), we are sanctified (imparted righteousness). Romans 5:1, 6-11; Romans 8:1-5 On another note, Luther had an issue with the relationship of grace and works in the book of James. “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone…Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only [James 2:17-24] James writes that both are involved in the life of the believer. However, I do believe that James is not saying that you are saved by works, but works show that measure of faith in the believer. I agree with James though, that true faith works, not to be saved, but to show love and gratitude to SOMEONE who paid the price to set me free!
The lectures serve not only the purpose to transmit information and knowledge about the history of Christianity but urge us to think and re-think some of our prejudices and opinions. As Seventh-day Adventists we all really know the prophecies and interpretations of Daniel and Revelation by heart. Maybe we could recite them in sleep. Yet, sometimes we are, at least that is my own feeling, a little bit suspicious against any Catholic. I don’t want to judge any Adventist since that kind of thinking may not apply to every one but only to me. We have in mind several strange views and beliefs that these persons have or could have. However, the lectures make me think that somehow we sometimes equate the individuals with the system. Yes, the system is corrupt, fallen, and in apostasy. But the book of Revelation mentions that God’s people is in Babylon, and shall be called out of her (Rev 18:4). Since Rev 18:4 will find fulfillment very late in human history, it still applies today. So there are individuals in Babylon (Roman Catholic Church, fallen Protestant Churches, etc.) that are actually God’s people. We are not better than they. Actually, we have a mission … to call the people out of Babylon. We had the privilege of getting to know great Bible truths. Many of these people didn’t have that opportunity yet. We are not allowed to look down at them because of their apparent ignorance or supposed rejection of the truth. During the past years I have realized that many Adventists don’t really know how to study their Bibles, and how to tread difficult topics/issues. Even many theology students complaint e.g. about looking so deep into the Hebrew/Greek text, and said it would be better to just get an outline of the fulfillment of the prophecy. We don’t like hard work, and study thoroughly for ourselves. BUT then we are not “better” than any Catholic. Even they believe what their priest, teacher, professor said without questioning it, and studying it for themselves. Yet, this is another level of discussion, and has nothing to do with an apostate system. It shows only that we make the same mistakes as they, and are brothers in human weaknesses. Actually, I have never really thought about that God might work in the Catholic Church. For me it was always a kind of the “kingdom of darkness.” When Catholics told me about their spiritual experiences I always felt a little bit like I didn’t know what to think about it. I don’t know it yet either. Maybe that “kingdom of darkness” is not that dark what regards the individuals but a little bit more gray. That was a short reflection on my thoughts and feelings about the content of last week’s class.
One of the things that interested in me in reading chapter 2 of the textbook was how the church struggled to define the proper relationship between Scripture and tradition, between Scripture and the authority of the Church.
Of course, both the Catholic church and its critics were aware of the importance of maintaining apostolicity in the church, and all sides saw adherence to the Scriptures as being key to remaining true to the apostolic church. But for some, sola scriptura was necessary, while for others, Scripture was to hold a position of primacy but was not to exclude the authority of the church. It wouldn’t be fair then, to say that the Catholic church was not interested in Scripture; the debate came down to exactly how it was supposed to be used.
This paragraph from the text was particularly interesting to me:
“Both [sides] held…that the authority of Scripture stood ‘first and foremost’ in the determination of articles of faith. Neither of them, on the other hand, was rejecting the authority of the church or proclaiming a doctrine of ‘Scripture alone,’ as certain heretics were seen to be doing. The question between the two views was whether the church, in exercising this doctrinal authority, had the right to promulgate as apostolic doctrines even some beliefs that could not find explicit warrant in what was ‘written in the Bible’ or in what was ‘deduced from this alone by an obvious conclusion,’ but that were rather purported to have ‘come down to us through the successive transmission of the apostles and others.’” (p. 121)
In other words, can the church be dogmatic on ONLY those doctrines that are explicit in the Bible, or are there are also ‘many truths not found in Sacred Scripture, nor necessarily deducible from its content alone, [that] ought to be assented to as a condition for salvation”?
I find this a prickly question, since this issue isn’t entirely alien to me as an Adventist. I mean, there are a few doctrines I espouse as an Adventist that are not exactly explicit in Scripture—for example, the doctrine of the trinity, or the doctrine of the sanctuary, or details of prophetic interpretation. None of these is very clearly spelled out in the Bible; one certainly couldn’t say they are explicit.
If I hold certain beliefs that are not explicit in Scripture, then on what grounds can I criticize Catholics for, say, Mariology? After all, though I would say my beliefs are implicit in the Bible, Catholics would claim that their beliefs about Mary are also in the Bible, although only in incipient form. After mulling it over for a while, I’m coming to the conclusion that I have to be careful how I criticize, because I might be liable to the same criticism.
That said, there is one key point I can think of that would distinguish my belief in the trinity/sanctuary/prophecy from Catholic belief in something like Mariology. That is, my doctrines, while not necessarily explicit in Scripture, are drawn from a wider and broader scriptural base than Catholic belief in the role of Mary. The doctrine of the sanctuary, for example, is drawn from the OT sanctuary, the books of Hebrews, Daniel, Revelation, etc. In contrast, there are several key doctrines in the Catholic church about Mary that are drawn from just a couple verses, so the scriptural base is very narrow.
So then, I guess the key difference and the key issue at stake is not just whether a particular doctrine is EXPLICIT in the Bible, but how broad the scriptural base is.
I am reflecting on our conversations in class last week regarding the “fine-tuning” of our prophetic interpretations. It is strange to me how entrenched I myself can become in my own understanding, even though with prophecy we have to be particularly on the alert. John 14:29 reads like this in the NASB: “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.” When I look at that in terms of our understanding of future events, I understand it to mean that we won’t really have a full understanding of what is going to take place until it actually happens. It seems like prophetic passages in Scripture are often more vague than we interpret them to be. I don’t think it is wrong to wrestle with those passages and to seek to understand them – I mean of course we should do that. It seems as though we are prone to take it to the extreme, though. We (I guess I should really say “I”, but I imagine that I speak for a lot of us) try to paint this end time picture in such detail – detail that realistically can’t be known or understood fully until the time comes. I understand why we do it. I think we are terribly afraid of being deceived. But what if it happens differently than the picture we have painted? What if sometime between now and the very end, for example, Catholics in mass numbers actually started to forsake their false traditions and experienced a revival and reformation. What if they actually were the main recipients of God’s last day outpouring of the Holy Spirit? It doesn’t mean the Catholic institution still couldn’t be instrumental in the last day persecution. I’m just saying, would we be able to accept such a curve ball? Or would we write it off as a false revival? You know what I mean? Other than what the Scriptures make absolutely clear, we cannot set our understanding of future events in stone in such detail. At least that’s what it seems like to me. Christ told the Apostles plainly on numerous occasions how he was going to die, and yet it was not until well after the events had happened that they fully understood the words that he had said. John makes that clear again earlier in his gospel when he says, “So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (John 2:22). It’s not as though these men did not already believe the Scriptures. And they wouldn’t have been following a man whose words they did not believe, right? It was a matter of the fulfilling of events in real time. That is what ultimately helps us to understand prophecy clearly. I guess the question that remains would be whether or not prophecy serves us any purpose before it is actually fulfilled. Of course it does. It directs our thinking to what is important – ultimately the coming of Christ again to take us home, and how we will live this life in light of that reality. It causes us to study and seek help and guidance from our Creator, and He is faithful to enlighten our understanding more and more until the day comes when we see Him face to face.
The paradox of Reformation: Infant baptism Even though Luther and Zwingli were some of the strongest campaigners for Sola Scriptura in some regards their lives and teachings contradicted the spirit and main Slogan of the reformation. They were still unwilling to let go some of their cherished catholic traditions and belief. They fought against the ones they disliked but held on to the ones they were very passionate about. This was evident on the issue of infant baptism. The Anabaptist insisted on enforcing the sole authority of scripture especially applying to baptism definition of signs that Zwingli had applied to the Lord’s Supper. This caused controversy between the Anabaptists, Calvin and Luther. Both Calvin and Luther charged that the Pope and the Anabaptist were alike in their subjectivism. The Anabaptist argued that there was no difference between that Lutherans and the papists since their doctrine and teaching of the Lord’s Supper was false and perverted. The Anabaptist believed in rebaptizing those who had already been baptized as infants from other churches. They were rebaptized as adults who believed in Jesus. The Anabaptist argued that Zwingli had underestimated the power of original and attacked Luther for underestimating the power of free will. Both Luther and Zwingli were accused of teaching that baptism administered involuntarily to infant was the cure for original sin. The Anabaptist were right in this regard .The true Apostolic church followed Christ’s command and baptized only believing Adults. As we reflect on history and the heritage of the reformation its evident that God used the different reform movement who were technically daughters of papacy but also God’s instrument of revival and reformation. However as we discussed in class Satan was not to be on done he also contested for control of the reform movement. Has the Advent movement inherited these reformation genes? How do we avoid the mistakes of some of the reformers?
CLINTON MORIAH COMMENTS ON ERIC'S CONTRIBUTION. Eric you have made some powerful points about the reformation and the errors of the papacy.Keep it up.I like your traditional Adventist approach and over view of the subject.However,some of the reformers ( such as Martin Luther didn't adiquately live up to and teach the true slogan of the reformation.They held on to their own traditions some of the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church . We need to avoid their mistakes.Some reforms focused more on papacy that on God's word.
The discussion in class concerning God being in charge of history can be a tough subject to grapple (wrestling term) with. To think God would make sure (or allow to raise up) the French revolution, which was anti-God to bring the about prophetic predictions seems against His nature. But Daniel the prophet speaks of this characteristic of God in Daniel 2:28 “ But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days… And Daniel 5:21b “…till he (Nebuchadnezzar) knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that He (God) appointeth over it whomsoever He will.” Is it also safe to say that God allowed the Roman Catholic Church to become powerful, and lead in the development of many heretical doctrines in order for prophecy to be fulfilled? Can history take a different coarse than God has predicted to take place? The answer would have to be no, if God can truly see the future. Does God guide history (Set up kingdoms)? I have a hard time seeing God as a movie director pulling strings to make sure His puppet creations carries out history, as He would like it to unfold. If He is that free to get involved with history than, I must ask why prolong this movie any longer, lets bring this dreadful movie to a glorious end.
Can we see it from a different angle and say, since God can foresee the future, He doesn’t interrupt it, but allows it to play out its foreseeable coarse. The statue in Daniel 2 that foresees history of the world empires rise and fall (Babylon, Medes and Persian, Greece, and Rome) is prime example how God sees the future. So does He make it happen in order to be right? I don’t think He has to, I think He allows history to take its coarse. One might think the devil would try to make God wrong by rising up another Kingdom to be the world’s next super power. We see Napoleon and Hitler trying to this, but both were stopped. Did God stop them or did they try to do something that was impossible to do with the circumstances at the time? We as Adventist interpret that the Beast that was healed and the Lamb like beast will try one more time to unite the world. Will God allow them go against His prediction? Nope! This is one place for sure that God will step into earths history and bring it to prophetic end . We know for certain that God will intervene and set up the Last and Final Kingdom spoken of in Daniel 2:44, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”
What about in our own lives? I think of all the bad things that have happen in my life. Some people say that God allows bad things to happen in our lives to make us better people, to test us, and grow us through suffering. I don’t think that paints a pretty good picture of God. I like the Joseph story. His brothers did some awful things to him, and sold him into slavery. Was this God’s plan all along? It almost seems like it. What if he wasn’t sold into slavery, would there of been a famine, or how about an Exodus hundreds of years later? Could Joseph and Israel history taken a different path? I think God could have had his people take a different path, but He uses the choice His people make and than tries to bring the best out of it. In Gen. 50:20 we hear Joseph word, “but as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” Paul says it another way in Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose”
Reading Pelikan it is clear that the discussions regarding the truth about the doctrines of sin and salvation did not find their solutions in the word of God but in the re-examination, defense, and exposition of the ‘church fathers.’ There was little reliance on a thus says the Lord, but very much on a thus says Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. So it was also with the discussion concerning who made up the true church, and the validity of its sacraments. The same hermeneutic was applied as before. Consult the fathers first then the scriptures only as they fit the fathers. Boniface was right that there is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, church. Yet he is dead wrong in the application he made. We have been discussing the book of Revelation in conjunction with the material in Pelikan. Especially what we might glean from there as to what to make of the Catholic system. As I have had opportunity to think on this I have to say that I still have a hard time thinking of the Catholic system as in any way 'God’s church'. I will concede that God used some Catholics to do good things throughout history. I will also concede that not all of what the Catholic churches teaches is wrong, or that it does wrong all the time. But that is not the point. The point is not that it at times has done right. The problem is that it mixes that right with wrong and furthermore sets its own authority above and beyond God. It points to the things its done right as the evidence that it is right, yet glosses over the things it has done wrong. There is one thing specifically that it does wrong, that the Reformation tried to correct, and that is its hermeneutic. It places greater authority on man’s interpretation of Scripture than on Scripture being the guide in interpretation. Unfortunately Protestantism, in that it has followed in the hermeneutical footsteps of its mother—vis a vi the Sabbath, state of the dead, taking in pagan saints, holidays, and practices, and making them ‘Christian’—is also on a hermeneutical slippery slope. That is why Protestantism in general will fall because it has not fully divested itself of Rome’s way doing theology. Our challenge, amid increasing hermeneutical pressures brought upon us by Protestant and Catholic scholarship, is to follow God’s leading, so that the path of the just does shine brighter and brighter unto a perfect day.
From two of Dr. Hanna’s lectures, he pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church was once God’s church and then became corrupt or apostate. I would even agree with his referral to them as becoming the “synagogue of satan” as quoted in Revelation 2:9. However, I respectfully disagree with the statement that it was God’s church, even from the very beginning. It may not be a large or even controversial issue. Yet, I do realize that there are true worshippers of God, or well intentioned, sincere individuals in any denomination, but through my research (or the way I understand it), the RCC, as a system, has always been corrupt, even from the very beginning. In the Great Controversy, Ellen White wrote, “… Romanism as a system is no more in harmony with the gospel of Christ now than at any former period in her history.” Although, I agree that both Peter and Paul were immensely involved with the early Church in Rome, this was earlier than the start of the ‘Romish’ church that begun with influence of Constantine, circa 300 AD. If one were to believe that Peter was involved with starting the RCC, or was the foundational ‘rock,’ i.e. the first pope, then one would be agreeing with a major tenet of the RCC, namely, apostolic succession. I am basing a lot of this from my ‘little’ research and my reading of another great book, “Simon Peter versus Simon the Sorcerer or St. Peter Meets the Competition!!” by Dr. E.L. Martin. The Great Controversy is such a tremendous book to understand our Protestant Theological Heritage. In the same paragraph, Ellen White broadens her firm stance on what true Protestantism was, total separation from Rome: “Protestants have tampered with and patronized popery; they have made compromises and concessions which papists themselves are surprised to see and fail to understand. Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy.” Again, in the same book, she adds, “the people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty.” I know there is a balance to this, namely, that we do not want to be unloving to or shun Roman Catholic individuals, but of ourselves, wake up and be aware of the dangers of this system to the people of God. One huge danger on our horizon is ecumenism, for it leads us in to their plans. However, we are also warned that they, with apostate Protestantism, will reignite the fires of persecution in the near future! ~quotes from Great Controversy, pages 565, 566, 556
The revelations of the past proves that our fore fathers had the liberty of thought despite of the present dominant truth of their times. Knowing how the Holy Scriptures came about, through stories told from generation to generation until it was written, our forefathers were merely following sayings and traditions. During the Christian Apostolic times the pioneers were quoting mostly the Scriptures from memory because Scriptures were so expensive to possess. Gladly, education found its ways to the hearts of those who were hungering to find the truth and were fed up from what they are being spoon fed with (tradition), like the reformers and those who have protested against the established Church institution. I deeply appreciate Dr. Martin Hanna’s introductions and Scriptural expositions proving the history of the Church falling in good or bad hands. His balanced ideas and unbiased commitment to the truth makes his class more interesting to me. I felt like I was climbing up a ladder high enough to see the view the way he saw it and given the chances to express the way I see it. We are privilege to have a professor who has a trained eye and proper understanding of the subject matter both from Scriptures and history. One controversial truth discussed in the class, the Roman Catholic Church as God’s church as God’s church being utilized both by Him and Satan accordingly, is enlightening and disheartening as well. Enlightening, because no one can discredit anyone who claims to be Christian but God, disheartening because of the truth that our choices, empowered by our freedom of choice, were not only meant for a present time but for eternity due to the fact that they are being recorded for the good of the next generations. I believe that truth remains the same for God who has revealed it never change, but what do you think about its implication and meaning to those who learn about it in their own context and circumstances (both past and present) does the truth determine the meaning of whatever happens around us or vice versa? Isn’t it the reason why we have Reformers and Protestants? What motivates reform and protest, truth or ideology? Daniel Ocampo
“How do we contextualize without compromise?” That was one of the statements that caused me to reflect about several things. Yesterday I saw a movie with my wife about the Anabaptists (The Radicals), and was so interesting to see the results produced by the implementation of political authority into the church. One bad thread woven into the cloth will corrupt the whole cloth. It is a small decision apparently without any big difference at one point but at the end you see that this one bad thread goes through the whole product. If the church connects itself somehow with the authority and the power of the state the faith and the work of the church will be corrupted. Yet, at the time of the reformation these ideas of a church totally unconnected to the authorities of a certain state seemed to be dangerous since the whole tax system was built on infant baptism. The rejection of violence for the solution of conflicts was seen as a danger for the whole state and community since every person was needed to fight the Turks who devastated the country. These principles were apparently not practicable in any way. They were foreign to the whole thinking of the community. However, they were in harmony with the Spirit of Christ and the principles taught by Christ in the New Testament. Yet, even the Reformers considered it as dangerous to the cause of the protestant reformation. Contextualize? Yes, because we need to live in this world and help the people to accept Christ as their living savior. Compromise? No, because we want to live in harmony with God and become changed by His Spirit to become more and more sensible for his guidance in our lives.
However, the practical application of the principle – contextualize without compromise – seems to be so hard in life. Some churches in different parts of the world contextualize for being able to better reach the people in that locations. Some view these changes as necessary for the work of the ministry. Others consider them as destructing the very faith delivered by Christ and his apostles. Where does compromise start, and what is still okay? God gave us His Word as our guide in matters of faith and life. It is not easy. I think that even the Catholics during history did not intend to change the biblical beliefs. Yet, they made compromises and in their philosophical reasoning reached conclusions that were foreign to the teachings of the Bible. We as a church have the characteristics of the remnant of the seed of the woman (Rev 12) but we are not immune against making compromises that compromise the biblical faith.
One point that shows me how we implement a principle that was not intended by Christ is the use of “authority” (power, force) to tread people we consider as heretics. There are some examples of an honorable way of treating people with views different than ours, e.g. sitting with them on one table, talk, study, exchange views in a factual and not in an emotional way, let the Bible speak. However, sometimes administrators (the whole range, from conservative to liberal) don’t know how to handle such cases since they and even the pastors are not really trained to handle problematic questions. So they just declare that the view of a certain person is not compatible with the church’s view, and that these people don’t have the right to make definite statements in the area of theology. That would be a right reserved only for theologians. Since these common people are heretics they are disfellowshipped. However, the questions asked by these people remained unanswered. Unfortunately, these questions could have been answered in an easy way so that these people would have understood it. But the administrators did not have the time, the ability, and the desire to do that. Now they feel treated badly. Even more the feel that the church does not have any answers to their questions. So they are strengthened in their way of thinking, and are the more encouraged in the “missionary” activities among church members. Although we don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, we start implementing their principles of authority into our faith, our work in the church, and into our way of treating fellow church members. A “reorganization” regarding this principle in our mind could make some reorganizational work in the church structure unnecessary, and provide a basis for constructive theological conversations as well.
In Pelikan’s comments about the unity of the church in chapter 2, he notes that the various parties (papalists, monarchists, Hussites, etc.) were all committed to maintaining the unity of the church. They all felt that it was the “fundamental attribute of the church” (p. 84). They felt so strongly about this that they believed that even holiness was a subordinate concept to unity. It was thought that outward holiness was something that the church could only work toward within a context of unity. While they believed that God regarded his church as holy already, they understood that the church also would move forward into ever increasing “empirical holiness” (p. 85). In other words, they had a concept of growth in holiness as being manifested in outward actions, and that such growth was quite dependent upon the various parts of the church body remaining united. This was very interesting to me because it helps shed light for me on the extreme difficulty the Catholics must have gone through, both those who split off into their own congregations in the Reformation, as well as those who remained within the Catholic fellowship. I usually view the reformers as staunch separatists, but it really must have been a tremendous paradigm shift for them and a great emotional and spiritual struggle. It makes me appreciate their efforts all the more for being willing to stand up for truth when all the cards must have felt as though stacked against them. It also leaves me with serious questions about unity in the church. What is most pleasing to God – that we break off from the main body when we don’t see things the same way in matters of biblical understanding, or that we remain and seek to patiently reform from within? Or is there another option?
Here is my reflection on part of my reading (Pelikan, of course):
On pages 128-138, in the subheading “Divine Justice and Human Righteousness,” Pelikan addresses the issues of the doctrine of penance, otherwise known as the sacrament of the confession. The reformers largely took issue with this doctrine and wrote much about its many failures and difficulties, explicitly when the doctrine is compared with scripture. Duns Scotus understood that for penance to actually work, “there had to be the assurance that it was God who did the absolving.” [129]. Furthermore, in this line of reasoning, people, who make their confessions to a priest to absolve their sin place quite a bit of faith/trust in the priest to forgive their sin. Scripture makes it clear that only God can forgive sins.
Further in the reading, our author shares some viewpoints and scriptures to the Catholic theological heritage, or their position from scripture for the use of confession/penance. In one paragraph, Pelikan cites a catholic version of the Scriptures, the Vulgate. The scripture verse is Psalm 100:4, which reads: “Enter his Gates by confession.” The other versions of scripture interpret confession as thanksgiving. The Hebrew word is “hdwt” {(Towdah,) although may be translated as ‘confession,’ is predominately translated as ‘thanksgiving,’ which closely parallels the Hebrew corollary word in the next phrase of this same verse, “enter His courts with PRAISE.”
Anyway, the argument for penance is in the following reasoning: “God could, of course, by his ‘absolute will,’ forgive sins without human penance or prayer; but it was his ordinance that ‘no one can be beloved and acceptable to God for eternal life without having in himself a certain infused quality, which is charity or grace.’” [130]
I was going through my notes pondering what to write on, I came across one of the passages for the day found in Colossians 1:18, which stimulated some thought for me. Let take a look at it, “And He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” The questions that comes to mind to me is what “Church” is Christ the head of? Is Paul speaking only to the church of his day, which was primarily Jewish, and a few Gentile believers? What are the criteria for claiming Christ to be the head of the Church? If we take the church in Paul’s day we would for sure see a Church lacking doctrines that we have, that have been hammered out, debated, and developed over centuries.
What would be the first churches beliefs? With its Jewish roots, I would have to say that many of the traditional beliefs were passed on to the new Christian faith. And other beliefs that were once cherished were enlightened with Christ life, death, and resurrection put on new meaning. It would be fair to say the early church was Christ-centric (Salvation in Him alone), it believed in the second coming, clean-food (Peter’s dream), healthy (what ever you do, do for the glory of God), Sabbath, gifts of the Holy Spirit, righteousness by faith, mission oriented, state of the dead (most likely), full emersion baptism, and the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews). I gathered these doctrines by thinking about some of the teachings the New Testament mentions, but most believers did not have the NT in it entirety or the OT, so they might not have been that educated in these teachings.
Can Christ be the head of a church even though it has corruption and false doctrine? That was a question that was discussed in class. It appears that Christ Church sometimes can be in need of a little correction. We saw this in John the revelators inspired letters to the seven churches in Asia. We also see from these letters that Christ doesn’t put up with disobedience forever, but that there is a warning of being removed from being one of the seven candles. Than we come to the question is Christ church a denomination or is it made of believers whom have a living relationship with Christ? In Revelation we find the signs of Christ Remnant church, which are that they keep His commandments and having the faith of Jesus Christ or testimony of Jesus Christ. Just these two identifiers for Christ church weeds out the many churches. So since we have these two identifiers as Adventist, what kind of responsibility does that give us? We have a high calling and a humble work to do.
I think for us and for the church, one of the most relevant sections that I have read from Pelikan was the section on concordance. In this section Pelikan writes of the continuing progress of the doctrine of the catholicity of the church and it seems similar to our own view in some ways. As Pelikan says while the church ever though of its self as universal—hence the term catholic—it was mostly during the 15th century that this doctrine was fleshed out.
Of course, as per usual Catholic fashion, it is not fleshed out so much by scripture but by reliance on church fathers. Yet I digress. Having studied the inception of Catholic Church it is useful to know that the early church [we are talking 1st to 7th century] was concerned with the subject of unity, and continuity. The early church defended its reason d’être by the fact that it was not something new, as both Jews and Pagans charged, but the true inheritors of the OT promises.
This is similar to the claims that Adventists make. Personally I have no problem with those claims. I think we can make the claim that we are God’s remnant, and the inheritors of the reformation. I just think it is interesting that both they [Catholics] and we make the same claim. In our early history we had a great deal of struggle to when it was suggested that we become an organized body, and when we did we had to come to grips with authority in that organization just as the Catholics did. The Catholics viewed the pronouncements that came from a duly representative body of the church as infallible.
Interestingly White makes strong statements concerning a general conference{ you can read the full reference in 9T 261, the paragraph beginning with “I have often been instructed…”} No, not what we regularly think of as the GC, but of a GC in session with duly elected representatives from all parts of the church. She states that private ideas are to be put aside when the church speaks together on an issue because this is “the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth.” {3T 493} The difference between the two, Catholics and Adventists, lies in two main points 1) while Catholics understand that they have authority over the secular realm, we do not, and 2) we do not put all power into a few men—as was done in Battle Creek for a time—nor even into one man. As White puts it “When this power, which God has placed in the church, is accredited wholly to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind would be most subtle and sometimes well-nigh overpowering, for the enemy would hope that through his mind he could affect many others. Let us give to the highest organized authority in the church that which we are prone to give to one man or to a small group of men.” {9T 261} This is were Catholicism goes wrong, may God help us not to follow that path. Anyway I think I will have more to say on this issue, but that is all I will write for now.
First point: Others have already pointed this out about other parts of the textbook, but one of the things that stood out to me while reading chapter 4 was the importance of Augustine to both Catholics and Protestants. The Reformers insisted on the principle of sola scriptura, but they really had a tendency to stress Augustine’s authority.
For example, in the controversy over predestination, Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists were all keen on proving that Augustine was on their side. Calvin, for example, felt the need to clarify that “Augustine is completely on our side” (224), and Pelikan notes that “Reformed theology had special reason to stress…its loyalty to the Augustinian doctrine of original sin” (225). Repeatedly in these pages, there is reference to Augustine and how the Reformers and the Catholics fought to show Augustine’s support for their views.
This reliance on a church father is really striking. Why should Augustine be so significant to them? Was it not enough to be strictly biblical?
Second point: I thought it was interesting in the controversy over the Lord’s Supper that the Reformers repeatedly appealed to common sense (to the intention of Scripture), not just to the literal words of Scripture, for his case that Christ’s body and blood were not literally contained in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper.
For example, Pelikan says Calvin stressed the inviolability of the Word of God, but said we cannot just concentrate on “‘individual words and syllables’ without attention to ‘the mind’ that spoke through them” (205). Bullinger said that “‘we do not need other witnesses here than our own senses, which do not sense or see or taste or feel anything but bread and wine’” (194).
Of course, arguments like these led to the charge that the Reformers had adopted rationalist philosophy. But I think these Reformers made a valid point: it’s not enough just to repeat the words of Scripture unthinkingly; one has to use common sense.
Of course, it’s easy to go overboard with this type of thinking, and all readers have to be careful not to reject something in the Bible just because it seem contrary to reason at first glance. But overall, I think it’s legitimate: we shouldn’t abandon common sense when we approach the Bible and theological questions.
This week we have skillfully discussed in our class through the able leadership of our professor, Dr. Martin Hanna, the scriptural principles used by our forefathers as to who has the right to call for the determination of the true church, her characteristics and manifestations. Each class participant I believe was blessed by the depth of the questions asked and the reflections given, on the other hand, personal presuppositions and “denominational opinion discrimination” could not be avoided to jump into the picture whenever a seemingly new principle, yet old, is presented. Historically, I could say that pride and prejudice among God’s people was the main cause of schism and love became wax cold, as the case maybe in every denominational schisms. We even hear declarations of “anathemas” form both sides involve. While reading Pelikan and the supplementary materials from current church events, I just have noticed that the Roman Catholic Church was the one always aggressive in trying to maintain unity in the community of believers. Please don’t get me wrong on what I have stated I am also aware of that it was their actions, too, why the church was divided. But striking from that point of view they also are the ones who are responsibly pursuing the task of possible reunification of the “Universal Christian Church” though how hard the task maybe. We have heard and read about “dialogues” between Catholics and Protestants with varied results. In totality, for the sake of being balance, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has taken responsible steps forward more than the any Protestant church among so many to take the initiative of doing just the same. Someone might say that they have a hidden agenda why they are doing this, but again let’s try to be objective on the case. I would like to encourage everyone to download a copy of the “Joint Declarations of the Roman Catholic and Protestants: On Justification by Faith” online and read for yourself and see the picture of this article. A lot of Evangelicals are now seeing a “changing image” of the Roman Catholic Church a big reason why even a former SDA pastor turned politician in Hawaii just recently jumped ship to Roman Catholicism. My question is, as Adventist what have we as a church done in fostering scriptural unity among other Christian denominations and post as the initiator of such task, aside from usually condemning evangelistic message from time to time? We claim to be the “remnant” church but have we ever thought of just being “part” of the remnant rather than say “the remnant”?
In class, Dr. Hanna made the point (based on chapter 2 of the textbook) that both sides during the Protestant Reformation agreed that the Nicene Creed was authoritative. Both quoted from it to defend their positions.
This raises the question: Why couldn’t agreement about the Nicene Creed be sufficient for unity? Why the need to agree also on how to interpret it? Should we all have to agree on the details of interpretation?
This question has been bothering me for a while: exactly how much should we have to agree on? On one hand, I believe in absolute truth, so I feel like the church should theoretically be able to agree on everything.
On the other hand, I realize that truth has multiple aspects, and we should allow room for different people to see the same truth from different angles. Also, I think it is appropriate to allow for people to grow in their knowledge over a period of time, without trying to force them to all adopt the same position at the same moment.
It’s hard for me to tell, honestly, what I would have done had I lived during the Protestant Reformation. Would I have felt compelled to leave the Catholic Church, or would I have stayed, believing that it was possible to maintain unity in spite of some theological differences? Would I have tried to participate in reforming the Catholic Church from within, or would I have split away?
It’s difficult to know when the line is crossed and there can be no more unity and fellowship. How does one judge when the differences are minor and when they are severe? How does one know when unity should take priority and when insistence on truth should take priority? These questions aren’t quite as easy as I used to think.
Of course, these aren’t just questions that were relevant during the Protestant Reformation today. They are just as relevant now, within the Adventist church.
It’s still hard to know, even now, when to accept differences for the sake of unity and when to be dogmatic for the sake of what I believe is truth. It’s not easy to tell what qualifies as a minor issue and what qualifies as more significant.
I guess my default position is to try to maintain unity unless the other person insists on breaking it.
Personally, I can tolerate some differences in theological opinion between me and another person if that person is still willing to be workable about it and maintain some sort of dialogue (where hopefully we can both continue to grow in our understanding and challenge each other and move into a more unified understanding).
This seems to be what Luther wanted to do, and I think he was right in the position he took. It’s only when the other side (in this case, the Catholic Church) kicked him out that he broke away.
In the beginning of our lectures during the last week, we talked about the one catholic church. When we talk about the church of the first centuries until the 5th or 6th century, we oftentimes have only the churches in view that existed in the former Roman Empire, especially the western part of it. What about the churches that existed on the other part of those boundaries? What about the Irish-Scottish church, the Syrian churches, the Nestorian churches, the Coptic Church, the Thomas Christians in India, or in other parts of the world? Some of these send their delegates to synods, and councils. However, that faded in later centuries, esp. after the 6th century (when some of them were declared heretics). But actually in the beginning they belonged to the catholic church. When the church became Roman this changed.
The right exercise of authority is an important issue, and has always been a big problem. What would we do and how would we act when political power would become available to us? Could it be that we would abuse it? Would we use political means in the treatment of our heretics? If we are not willing to talk with them, treat them as normal common-sense people that are on the same level, honoring and respecting them, we cannot expect that they treat us in the way we would like to have it. A German saying says, “How one shouts into the woods, so it comes out.” The only good basis for a theological, brotherly conversation is if we tread them how we would like to be treated. If they see that we appreciate them as fellow believers they will more likely be willing to behave in a cooperative manner. Sometimes it is easier to treat people from other faiths in that way since almost nothing depends on it. It is a noncommittal talk. However, talking with heretics seems to be worthless and dangerous. That is why many church administrators shun such conversations or don’t tread these people like they want to be treated or they tell them what the churches standpoint is and that they are located outside of this position. They will clearly defend themselves. But what is our goal? Do we want to reach them? Or do we merely want to protect the church? There are several groups where I think they could be reached. Maybe it is not possible. But maybe we can reconciliate with them. Oftentimes they only overemphasize a certain aspect of truth. When the Roman Catholic Church tried to bring everyone into the unity of faith in the 14th and 15th century they overemphasized certain aspects. The Reformers focused in the other extreme, and it was recognized as an extreme by “the” Church. A mature conversation requires that people are willing and able to bring all aspects of the Biblical witness together willing to listen to each other and not being afraid to loose the own position (and that’s why shunning from every talk).
Another aspect that was very important for me was that salvation does not come by the membership in a certain institution but by the precious substitutionary death of Christ applied to my life. I am not saved by my acceptance of this sacrifice. I am not saved by my life showing that I am saved. But I am saved by Christ and his death. When I have accepted the life belt I have to take hold of it. What saves me is not my taking hold of it but the life belt. When I have accepted it the Holy Spirit creates in me the desire for changes in my life. The changes don’t save me but they show that the Holy Spirit is at work in me, with weaknesses and problems still present. Yet, the acceptance of Christ makes me a follower of him, and places me into a community of other saved people, and calls me into a certain mission. This mission is the calling of other people to salvation and into the mission of our Redeemer. The church’s existence is necessary for the fulfillment of a mission. This mission has to do with the salvation of other human beings. However, the membership in that church does not and cannot guarantee salvation. It can only show the way to Christ who will save them. It can help members and people to grow in that relationship, and to be trained for that ministry.
I appreciated the discussion about the multiple layers of meaning possible within Scripture – the specific example we looked at being John 10 and the parable of the good shepherd. I can understand that we often are unable to see eye to eye as Christians because each person or group holds a particular interpretation as being the only one possible, and they feel responsible to defend that interpretation. I think it is true that we need to have more of a sense of flexibility when it comes to interpreting certain passages of Scripture, or even Scripture as a whole. I guess where I am left concerned is that I start to wonder if there is a firm foundation to stand on, and if so, what that foundation is. I know we say that we stand on Scripture, but we all are well aware that standing on Scripture alone is the position of many people who disagree with one another. Just the other day I was counseling an individual who had recently listened to two teachers he respects very much. Each of these teachers had taken the same Scripture teachings and reasoned to two very different conclusions. My counsel to the individual was to go to those Scriptures himself and see what it is that they actually say, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, to come to his own conclusion. That was the best counsel I could come up with. It’s what I do myself when I feel conflicted between two interpretations. It’s just such a mystery to me that people who appeal to the same Scriptures and seek the help of the same Holy Spirit can come to such varying conclusions. And in the case of the individual I counseled it was not a minor issue. For him it was a matter of whether or not he would be living in disobedience to God if he were to marry somebody else after divorcing his previous wife. I guess my question is whether the Holy Spirit does lead each individual to his or her own understanding of a passage, which may very well be different than the understanding He has given to another person, or are the varying interpretations primarily a factor of our own biases? How does it work?
Predestined to be saved? Sound pretty good! It sure does, but what goes with it doesn’t, and that is the other side of the coin, predestined to be damn. This is a pretty heavy theological topic since it deals with our personal salvation in the lying in the lap of God. In a sense salvation is in the lap of God because it is He who decides whom will be saved. This past weekend I was at a spiritual retreat and we had a time for testimonies. A seminary professor shared how he felt about his salvation saying, “I totally trust God and no longer worry about my Salvation. I trust Him (God), so much that if He decides that I am lost, I will be fine with it. Why? Because I trust that He made the best decision.” (These are not his exact words but paraphrased.) Do we decide our own salvation or does God? Or do we both play a part in the equations. I like to believe that a living Faith that produces some kind of fruit of righteousness saves us. We are not judge by our merits or accumulation of points, but by a living faith relationship that trust God to save, and transform our heart to beat in unison with His. This is living faith begins as a gift from God when we first choose Him to be our Savior. Our living faith though needs to be nurtured by feeding it with spiritual food and exercise. Like any gift that is living and that needs tending to in order to keep alive, can die slowly if not taken care of. One might say we are stewards of our salvation and what we do with it determines what our eternal salvation will be.
The protestant world tends to but put an over size emphasis on grace, so much so, that they came up with a theological concept called double predestination or irresistible grace. This means that Christ has chosen whom will be saved before they are even created in the mother’s womb, and has planted such an irresistible grace that they have no other choice but t be saved. I almost believe in irresistible grace, but I would have to change my perspective to “almost irresistible grace”. Almost irresistible grace is that God pours out all of His love upon us, and that His Spirit is working 24/7 to save each one us. That God’s only mission on this earth right now is to save and not condemn. It is so irresistible that one would have to be completely selfish to resist it. The sad thing is that sin’s power has made many people choose to be selfish and think about the here and now rather than their eternal destiny. God has predestined all to be saved, in that He (Jesus) died for the sins of the world. That must mean every sin that has been committed and will be committed is covered. But just because His blood has been spilled in the human’s behalf, it doesn’t mean it is applied to their account. Jesus still running on the principle of free choice, which is the condition to receive His merit by simply asking it to be applied to the his or her account by living faith.
In class we read Ephesians 1:11-12, which pertains to being predestined to be saved “according to His purpose”. I liked how it was brought out in class by the professor that this predestination did not come about with out conditions. The first condition was spelled out in verse 11, “who first (Condition) trusted in Christ.” We must “first” put our faith/trust in Christ in order for the promise of salvation to be ours. Than verse 12 says, “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise”. The word promise carries the meaning that it has not yet been completed, but that it has a future installment. We must ask ourselves, can a promise be broken? Sure, but can God’s promise be broken? God’s promises can’t be broken, we can be certain of very promise of God. But we can break the deal of the seal of promise, by not holding on our part of the bargain, and that is continuing to live with living faith. To think God forces us to be saved or lost against our hearts desire is slavery. It is as if God is playing a game with us. And it would be an incredibly boring game for God if He were playing both sides choosing who will loose or win. Comparing humanity plight to a game is a ghastly way to see God’s work in the history of redemption.
Free choice on the other hand is based on the principle of Liberty for all to choose whom they will serve. I will close with the words of Joshua, “Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. (A suggestion) And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Your choice) (Joshua 24:14-15).
clinton comments on Marko's comments. Marko has shared some interesting insights.I like the point you made on predestination. Even though most of the reformers used Agustine's views or teachings on predestination they arrived at several different interpretations on predestination.Calvin was at one extreme while othersshare different views in regards to the same issue.
Was Calvin wrong? by Moriah We have discussed in class that Calvin believed in double predestination. He also believed that humans have no free will. He argued that there was election in Christ before the creation of the world, along with redemption and reconciliation, as the foundation of the architecture of Christian doctrine. Calvin believed that they were some people whom God has predestined to Eternal life or salvation and some are predestined to damnation. In other words it doesn’t matter what you do if its God’s eternal will for you to be lost you will be lost. It doesn’t matter if you want to be saved. This gave the idea that God had the list of his elect already and the plan of salvation is just a sham. It conveyed the idea that if God wants you to be lost you will be .There is no freedom of choice in this case. This concept makes God looks unfair and unjust. Calvin was mistaken. He was wrong. God give us freedom of choice. We can choose to be saved or to be lost. John 3:16 says that “whosoever believes will be saved.” It is interesting to note that other reformers like Luther disagreed with Calvin on predestination even though both the Roman Catholics church and the reformers used Augustine views as a the basis for their interpretation.
I was very interested in the discussion in class this week about righteousness by faith, and whether we are saved by grace alone.
According to Luther, salvation comes by grace alone, and there is nothing we can do to merit it. But he took this further to say that even the faith itself is a gift of God, and since it is a gift, the human exercise of faith is completely passive. It is predestined. Therefore, we literally deserve nothing when it comes to salvation.
Dr. Hanna pointed out that Luther may be right that salvation is by grace alone, but he may be wrong in saying that since salvation is by grace alone, there is no active response involved from us. (After all, we disagree with Luther on his strict doctrine of predestination.)
As Dr. Hanna said, there is controversy even among Adventists on this point, because some would say that we are saved by faith, and yet still have to actively respond.
Dr. Hanna’s solution was to draw a distinction between meriting salvation vs. fulfilling conditions for salvation, and says the latter is important. After all, Paul says that we receive righteousness by faith. Does that mean that faith is a condition for salvation? Yes. Does it merit salvation? No.
Some Adventists, however, think that there is no distinction between merit and fulfilling conditions, and that fulfilling conditions must mean that we would somehow merit salvation. Perhaps they would be right, but the distinction at least takes into account the biblical truths that we have free will, that salvation is not imposed on us, and that we are supposed to have active faith.
At any rate, what was interesting to me is that I’m not sure I straightforwardly agree with the Protestant catch phrase that salvation is “by faith alone.” I can’t agree with the way that phrase was meant by the Reformers, because I do not accept the idea of predestination and cannot accept that our salvation is purely passive. We are not mere pawns; Paul speaks of active faith.
I am not exactly supportive of the Catholic view on justification, but I have to admit that I think they are more right in some points regarding justification than the Protestant Reformers.
I realized this for the first time last spring, when I had to read R. C. Sproul’s book Faith Alone, on the difference between Catholic and evangelical ideas of justification. Going into it, I thought I would agree with the Protestant/evangelical view, but discovered that the Reformer’s idea of salvation by faith alone was closely tied to predestination and that it undermined free will.
Where does that leave me? Siding with the Catholics? Odd, but at least partially true.
I particularly enjoyed reading about the wonderful subject of Justification by faith. Pelikan points out that this key doctrine was the one that united all the Protestants and reformers. This set them all apart from the Roman Catholic Church. This reading made me think about how things have changed in our modern times because of ecumenical unity. I know of a certain that Jesuit leaders and theologians are behind this unity to separate the gap between Protestants and Catholics. For they want to bring back the separated daughters back to her mother. How endearing!
Luther stated that the scriptural text of John 6:47 was “the cornerstone of our justification.” [148] Many versions interpret the text of John 6:47 this way: “He who believes has eternal life.” However, I believe the Textus Receptus text rightly translates it: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth ON ME hath everlasting life.” [KJV] Obviously, just by believing in anything besides Jesus will get you no where. It’s got to be faith in Jesus. For, according to Acts 4:12, there is only one Name [Jesus] given for our Salvation. Luther even defined justification as the forgiveness of sins. He put it this way: “only he delivers from sin and grants righteousness and eternal life.” [148] Furthermore, this true understanding of justification is the fullness of the Gospel. I will write more about this next week.
The whole discussion about justification, sanctification, the place of works, the free choice of man, and God’s foreknowledge shows how much we are bound to our presuppositions and previous knowledge. We built upon the things we know. When we get new information or data we try to put them into a system that makes sense. Yet, this system has a lot to do with our previous knowledge and the premises we have. Oftentimes we are forced to overthrow our “baggage” not until we realizes that there are too many problems in the whole system.
The first chapter of the book talked about the doctrine of salvation (and the discussions involved) as well. It was interesting to see that in the Catholic view grace is communicated through the saints and through the sacraments. In fact, the church is responsible for the distribution of grace. The work (sacrament) is important for a mystical effect follows (ex opere operato). We also think that religious actions like baptism and communion service are important but we don’t ascribe a mystical or salvific meaning to it. However, we think that the action transports a content (meaning). If the action looses that meaning it becomes a mere senseless tradition. That is why it is so important to talk about the meaning so that it still has an impact upon our daily life.
Even in Adventism we tackle with some of these problems that exist between the Catholic position and the Evangelical position. Such questions are e.g.: What about when I don’t improve enough in sanctification? Am I still forgiven? When I fall into sin, do I fall out of grace, and need forgiveness again? Is God so harsh to condemn me when I cannot repent of a sin, and ask for forgiveness for it before I die? But since God is a loving God will he not also save me anyhow, even if I could not repent and ask for forgiveness? Yet, is that not cheap grace? However, if my accomplishments are necessary for being saved or forgiven or whatever, is my performance, then, not the foundation for my salvation? Is it important to be baptized in order to be saved? If not, why then baptize? Is it important to take part in the Lord’s Supper? Is it bad to miss it? Is there a salvific meaning in baptism or the Lord’s Supper? If I understand the meaning and the content of that action why do I still need to do it? Do I get lost if I don’t follow the tradition? Such questions show the difficulty of the question.
I appreciated what Prof. Hanna about the whole process of salvation. Salvation actually is a whole process where God wants to bring people back into a direct relationship with him. This process is complete (somehow) when we are back in Heaven, in his presence. Everything that belongs to this process here on earth is part of the plan of salvation. Ellen White suggested at one point that the work of education and the work of salvation are actually one. Even before the fall of man the work of education was in process. It will be in process after salvation is finished as well. However, in the meantime education undergoes an emergency plan called salvation. Actually it is part of the education plan, and is based on the same principles. In the education process parents accept their child how it by their love, and by the daily example of the parents the child is changed into a similar image. God accepts us as we are by his steadfast love, and as we behold him he changes us into his image. That is maybe a little illustration for a part of the salvation process. Salvation is finished when we are back home. Then education continues under other circumstances.
First of all, allow me to give my appreciation to all who’ve responded to my post last week, thank you. Last week we’ve had a rather lengthy but great and interesting discussion about the main issues why the Reformers/Protestants differ from the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of Justification by Faith, regarding conditions and merits, faith’s activity as passive or active in terms of salvation. Fundamental beliefs are important to one’s denominational identity, on the contrary the same either bands or disbands, even people who claim to believe on the same Master and Lord and Savior. I found it quite funny how we humans kept on discussing on minor details about God’s mysteries and end up declaring each other heretic or anathema, it’s a sad part of Christian history but true even on the Adventist.
Reading from the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith, a summary of their 30 years of dialogues declared that both parties agree on the basic truths of Justification by faith and all the other condemnations mentioned in the Council of Trent and the Lutheran Condemnations which were not included on the joint declaration were now deemed insignificant or unimportant. To quote, section 41 says “Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.” Though both claims that nothing serious was taken away from their declared condemnations against each other and claims that most were “simply pointless” and both hopes that “Our consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification must come to influence the life and teachings of our churches. Here it must prove itself.” This undertaking was based on Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17, it has brought mixed opinions and responses from both sides for or against it. But generally it was well applauded and most especially its significance to the progress of the Ecumenical movement. No wonder why a lot of the known Evangelical churches and associations are now closely associated with the Catholic Church. To the conservative, prophecy-based Adventists they will see this as a sign of the fulfillment of prophecy with reference to Revelation 17 and 19 – the harlot woman. To those who reads the same with an open mind will be surprised to know that our Adventist beliefs on justification by faith doesn’t differ much from the Roman Catholic’s understanding, the way they have explained their position on the paper. I tried my best to be open minded on dealing with this joint declaration as part of Protestant-Catholic history but still holds the shield of truth and plays the skeptic and wanted to know the hidden agenda behind all this, knowing that the Roman Catholic Church claims to be both Ecclesiastical and Political powers on earth. But to be fair, I would like to join those who have applauded the effort of finding common grounds and start building relationship based on them. Again, how I wish that as a denomination, we too could sponsor more dialogue like this without compromising the written truth.
This Blog is concerning Chapter 5, section on the Defenders of the faith in Pelikan book Reformation of Church and Dogma. I really liked a passage in this section, “As they watched the Reformation advance from one heterodox deviation to another, its adversaries could, ‘discern the complete fulfillment of the predictions of the divinely inspired Paul’ about the rise of ‘heresies’; and they followed their predecessors, patristic and scholastic, in accepting or even welcoming the opportunity that such ‘heresies’ provided for clarifying orthodoxy.” At one time diverse ideas could coexist in the Catholic Church, but the Reformation wasn’t just another theology in the Church, it was a revolution that was going to pull the Church apart if the Church did not defend its position. Luther’s reform of the Church was no longer a reformation, but was becoming sectarian in nature. So there was a counter reformation that needed to address Luther’s attacks in an apologetic style of defense. Many theologians, priest, and even King of England began to look at Luther’s arguments and find ways to discredit and at the same time reinforce their doctrine.
They would even try to pull out Luther’s inconsistencies in his writings to make him look like a hypocrite. In one such case Luther already outside of the Church still believed in purgatory and the authority of scripture. Luther soon after rejected purgatory, but his past writings was used against him to show his inconsistency. There is always a danger in writing and getting something published, because your words can be used against you. Even a blog such as this one could bring havoc, if we were to write a thought in innocence of discussion, and for someone to your employer and say this is what your homeboy or homegirl believes. We should always allow each other to develop our thoughts on theology. We aren’t made knowing everything. Have any of you changed your view on a particular teaching or position? I have! We see this a lot in the political race right now, one campaign digging up the past to find dirt that can ruin their opponent. I guess we should be careful what we write and not sound dogmatic.
So should we fear reform in the Adventist Church? How about teachings that our contrary to our 28 fundamental beliefs? I don’t think we should fear any new idea or thoughts on our theology. Actually as the passage I quoted above, we should welcome it, because it challenges us to study for ourselves and to defend what we believe. Without any challenges, we may take for granted what we believe and even become lazy. Haven’t you experienced a challenging question, which made you go back and study more? Either you came out stronger on your position, or you learned your position was wrong. I think our seminary should offer a class on apologetics. In this class we would learn how to defend each one of our doctrines, and answers tough questions. We have had a many arise in the midst of our Church with new teachings. Has our Church defended our beliefs the right way, or did they try to get rid of the voices before they caused to much damage? It’s a hard one, especially when the Church desires to keep unity and purity of its teachings. But should the truth be afraid of a challenge or debate? But we fear that many will go down with the dissenter, and this is a valid fear. If its truth, it should be able to with stand any heresy.
Denis wrote… “However, we think that the action transports a content (meaning). If the action looses that meaning it becomes a mere senseless tradition. That is why it is so important to talk about the meaning so that it still has an impact upon our daily life.”
I do appreciate the content of your article because it resounds what I have in mind. The meaning of our practices and their intents I believe depends on the individual involved. Just as Jesus said in John 3:16 “…whosoever…” means salvation is individual and yet the church/body is composed of these individuals.
I like the way Dr. Hanna puts it that salvation is the object of all the process of salvation (salvation in justification, salvation in sanctification and salvation in glorification). I also appreciate the role of education on this matter as you’ve pointed out, very important indeed.
Here is a frightening statement: Pelikan quotes Gabriel Biel’s In Defense of Apostolic Obedience:”the truth that holy mother church defines or accepts as catholic is to be believed with the same veneration as if it were expressed in Holy Writ.” Pelikan goes on to say that by this statement “It could be used to show that without the authority of the church Christians could not trust even in the truths of Scripture.” How completely opposite of God’s true message to us to come to Him and believe His word individually: yet how completely in line with the Anti-Christ message. The Bible says of this power that it “magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.” Daniel 8:11. Furthermore in Revelation 13 we find that this power takes on the persona of Christ, as it is both wounded and ‘resurrected’ , it is worshiped, and after it comes the ‘false prophet’ just as after the resurrection of Jesus came the Holy Spirit. The Roman church is able to do these things because it takes the place of God and it does that not only by standing as the only interpreter of the word, but as the word its self. The roman church has it backward. It is not the church that gives the word shape and life: it is the Word that gives the church shape and life. It is not the church that is the head; to think for me, to know for me, to believe for me. The church is the body not the head, Christ is the head. The head thinks, the body does. Jesus speaks [through His word] and His church is to obey. What is written is above the church, beyond the church, and the church must submit to it, not it to the church. The truth that Holy Writ defines or accepts as catholic is to be believed and acted upon as if it were expressed by God Himself, because it is God that expressed it. In the beginning was the Word and Word was with God and the Word was God. It is written in the word of God, that Jesus said “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word [not the church] is truth.” John 17:17. Instead of going back to Augustine, they should have gone back to the Bible. Ad Fontes!
I feel like I waver a little bit when it comes to understanding righteousness/justification by faith. There are teachers that I respect in the Seminary who teach more closely to Luther’s idea that even the faith we respond with is really a gift from God. In fact, some go so far as to say that many of the passages that speak of salvation by faith are actually referring to the faithfulness of God rather than to any response of faith on the part of the individual sinner. I don’t know. Sometimes it does seem like that is precisely what the meaning of the text is, and yet in other places Paul has to balance his argument and re-emphasize the importance of doing good. It’s almost as if he is trying to prevent the wrong application of the message of free grace, which is what we as Adventists tend to do (at least the more conservative ones among us). It’s like we have this potent message that is wonderfully amazing and joyful, but we are concerned that it might be received the wrong way. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be concerned about that. I think that Paul’s balancing of his arguments and the epistle of James show that such a concern is legitimate. I guess I’m just wondering how the Holy Spirit intends for the message to be received. I think the epistle to the Galatians is a good example of my question. There you have a group of individuals who received the good news of salvation and were running with it as God intended. It was when the idea of works-merit entered their congregation that they began to stumble. I wonder if up until that point they even wondered about the question of works vs. faith alone? I picture them as a group of people filled with joy because of their salvation, and responding freely with the outward signs of good works, not even beginning to think that their good works were meriting them anything. Then, they get pounded with the idea that they are required to obey certain things so that they can maintain their saved status. It ruins everything and Paul has to write the epistle to set them straight. I just wonder if God ever intended us to wrestle with this question of works vs. faith, or if the Gospel is to be received plain and simple as a gift and allowed to work its own results. When the thought even enters my mind that works are involved, it becomes extremely difficult to ever remove myself from the idea that I am somehow earning something. That’s why I think it’s such a treacherous ground to walk on. Once works become involved, no matter what we say the reason is – merit or condition, it tends to ruin the freedom we can run in. Ultimately, I am wondering how God would like for me to understand and receive His grace. Maybe it really is closer to what Luther had in mind. Maybe that’s the only real way to live a life of good works where I don’t start to think that I’m earning salvation on some level. I know I can say and think in my mind all I want that I know I’m not earning anything. It doesn’t change the idea from creeping in, though. And I don’t think God wants that kind of idea in our minds – that our actions are earning us favor with Him.
Pelikan notes that Luther’s view of the ‘Gospel’ was “condemnation, not consolation.” What a wonderful thing to find that God is not against us to condemn us, but with us to save us. If you are a sinner herein is the good news, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Matthew 18:11. Now the question is raised, and has been raised in times past, if this be the case then why are men lost? What is the part of man in salvation? I’ve had opportunity—as I’m sure many of you have—to struggle with exactly how or when does God save. Especially in the light of the different text of scripture my view of salvation is summed up in 1Timothy 4:10,“10 In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers.” This text implies that Jesus is the savior of all, but not all will be saved. How is this possible? This text implies that there are two groups. The all men, in which all are included and then the believers, of whom only some are included. This indicates that what Jesus did, he did for all, but not all will ultimately experience what He did for them. The foundation, the basis, the bottom line of salvation must be God’s act of Grace. The problem is what I mean by salvation. Salvation from what? What I mean is legal justification: without God first dealing with the condemnation passed to all the posterity of Adam, sanctification [the growing up into a Christian character, and obedience] and glorification [being removed from the very presence of sin, and a sinful world] is not possible. This must be dealt with first and foremost. There must first be a Savior before we can be saved. White rights that “The instant man accepted the temptations of Satan, and did the very things God had said he should not do, Christ, the Son of God, stood between the living and the dead, saying, "Let the punishment fall on Me. I will stand in man's place. He shall have another chance." {FLB 75.3} As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. Christ knew that He would have to suffer, yet He became man's substitute. As soon as Adam sinned, the Son of God presented Himself as surety for the human race, with just as much power to avert the doom pronounced upon the guilty as when He died upon the cross of Calvary. {FLB 75.4}” This is what had to be accomplished first. In this sense Jesus is the Savior of all men. He died for all, He saved all. We are all experiencing the second chance right now. What are we doing with it? May God help us to use that second chance wisely.
In the Bible, “antichrist” is literally against or in the place of Christ, (Greek: “anti”). Therefore, anything that is in the place of Christ or against Christ is “antichrist”. (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7) According to the Bible, anything that I place in the place of Christ in my life (or that opposes Him) is “antichrist”. Accordingly, you or I may be antichrist, because if we were to place ourselves, things or people in the place of Christ, we would be opposing the rightful position of Christ Jesus. 1 John 2:28 says that there are “many antichrists”. I believe this, but I also am firm on the position that the papacy is the true antichrist of Scripture.
Now the understanding of all or most Protestants was that the system or office of the Roman Catholic Church was the antichrist of Scripture. A great author, named Roy Allen Anderson wrote: "Every Reformer, without exception, spoke of the papacy as Antichrist" -R. Allen Anderson, Unfolding the Revelation, p.137
Here is an outstanding quote that I discovered on the internet. Here are Martin Luther’s ideas contrasting Christ to the Pope thus:
“Christ washed his disciples' feet : the Pope demands his feet to be kissed even by emperors Christ fled from an earthly crown : the Pope ever seeks earthly dominion Christ is given a crown of thorns : the Pope wears a triple crown of gold Christ paid taxes : the Pope is exempt from taxes Christ lived in humble poverty : the Pope fares sumptuously Christ was bowed to earth with the cross : the Pope is carried about in state Christ rode into Jerusalem on a humble ass : the Pope rides a beautiful caparisoned steed Christ sought neither silver nor gold : the Pope rules cities and empires Christ's kingdom was not with observation : the Pope subjects the whole world Christ drove out the moneychangers : the Pope sells indulgences. Christ ascends to heaven: the Pope will descend into hell” (www.remnantofgod.com)
Therefore, papacy is a total mockery of everything Christian... this is where it is truly antichrist! There is a balance here. For we have to also realize that voicing this is a call of warning about an evil system and not an attack on people, who are truly God’s children, bought and paid for with His Son’s own blood.
1) SANCTIFICATION AS PART OF SALVATION Something that stood out to me from the class discussion last week: Dr. Hanna suggested that the tendency in much Adventist thinking today is to focus almost wholly on justification (the root of salvation) and not think of sanctification (the fruit) as being part of salvation.
I suppose it is probably pretty controversial to suggest that sanctification is part of salvation. After all, sanctification is typically associated with works—the outworking of our faith—and all of us would deny that salvation comes by works.
On the other hand, I appreciate the recognition that salvation is more than just justification.
As Dr. Hanna pointed out, salvation is not just a past experience; Bible writers most often talk about salvation as a continuing or future experience. So we need to get rid of the idea that salvation is something static that happens at a fixed point in time. On the contrary, salvation is a daily experience.
2. FAITH, BUT ALSO HOPE AND LOVE
That ties in nicely with the class discussion today, on faith, hope, and love. Dr. Hanna pointed out that the Catholic church had overemphasized works (works of love?), and the Protestants came along and corrected this emphasis by drawing attention to the significance of faith.
Unfortunately, Protestants perhaps overemphasized faith, and we have a tendency to retain their off-balance approach.
In truth, Paul says that love, not faith, is the most important of the three virtues, so faith isn’t all there is. “By faith alone” therefore falls short in some ways. Justifying faith leads to sanctifying works of love.
3. SYNERGISM VS. MONERGISM
I also appreciated the discussion of the Catholic synergist thinking vs. the Protestant monergist thinking. The Catholic church held that humans and God both worked together in the process of salvation (synergism); Protestants insisted that salvation was the work of God alone (monergism).
Dr. Hanna pointed out that both of these are extremes, at least as they were understood by the two sides. We are able to accomplish nothing for our own salvation, which invalidates the synergist position. On the other hand, the reformers’ monergism was too extreme, because it denies any role for human will.
The right approach here, as in many other places, is in the middle: we contribute nothing to our own salvation, and yet there IS a role for human choice.
OVERALL: I like the fact that our class discussions are able to recognize both positives and negatives in Catholics AND Protestants. It is too flat and one-sided to sing the praises of the Protestant Reformers while castigating Catholics, and I like the fact that this class is more nuanced.
As the book of Dr Pelikan shows in the first chapter, the plurality of doctrines, in Catholic thought in fourteenth and fifteenth century was a daily bread. Theologians were involved in many sorts of discussions. Some of them were inconsequential. For instance, some Catholics theologians were discussing about the color of Virgin Mari’s hair. Other Catholics theologians were discussing about whether a monk who died, and resurrected had to be part as the same order of which he had been a member. I wonder if those theologians had in their mind the real responsibility that God had put on their shoulders. It seems to that they were taking so many times in, as I said before, inconsequential matters. That’s why I justify the reformation movement. While they were arguing about the Virgin Mari’s hair, many people remained in complete darkness. Even worse, those whose God had been put in positions of great responsibility were teaching errors instead of the biblical true. But, we have to acknowledge that many of those discussions were very y important for the beginning of the reformation movement. As an example of those important discussions, I can quote the relevant discussion about the free will and salvation between Saint Augustine and Pelagius. I will talk about that in later postings. But, I want you to pay attention in Augustine’s influence in Catholic theology. He seemed to be the last word in many topics discussed by Catholic theologians in the whole Church’s history. Not only was he very influential in Catholic theology but also in the protestant thinking. As Pelican said in page 22 of his book “there was not important doctrinal issue in the fourteenth and fifteenth century that was not unaffected by the study of Augustine, and on many of the issues his influence was decisive”. as an example of this remarkable influence, one can refer the reformatory preaching of John Wycliffe, who present the idea that “the philosophical theology of Duns Scotus and the radical Agustianism of Bradwardine or a Gregory of Rimini were not the only ground for the doctrine of predestination” . So, He put his proper version of the doctrine in a practical way. But, he gave a definition of the church stemmed from the Augustine. That’s why we are very convinced that as Adventists we have even heritage from Augustinian theology. We are not exempt of the fourteenth and fifteenth theological current. It is not bad to borrow some theological presupposition from Augustine, or another Theologian. But we have to test everything against the scripture. The most important thing is to preserve the biblical message from any philosophical or wrong theological assumption.
This week we talked about one of the central doctrines of Christianity, i.e. salvation. However, that doctrine poses different problems for many Christians. We all are affected by our religious, familiarly, educational, and cultural background. So many people think that their salvation cannot be totally separated from their personal performance, their own works (Catholic tradition). Other people rightly recognize that their own works cannot be the foundation for their salvation (Lutheran tradition). Since the salvation of human beings is totally based on God’s grace and activity, no human effort should be allowed in that great work, they reason. It is not easy to understand that an effort of the human will is necessary but that it is not a merit that saves them. In fact, it is essential to use the will to accept Christ’s substitutionary death, and surrender the will to him as Lord and Savior, as Guide and Counselor in the daily life. Yet, he is the one who saves. We only take hold of Christ’s saving hand by faith in him as a personal Savior. We need God’s grace in cultivating faith in Christ as a Savior. We need it in the forgiveness of our sins. We need it in the lifelong process of sanctification whereby the Holy Spirit works in our hearts to change, guide, and lead us. We need it in the glorification of our bodies when Christ comes the second time to take us home. All through the way we need the amazing grace of God. There is nothing we could produce by ourselves. We oftentimes want to decide for the good, and try it by ourselves. However, it is necessary to use the power of our will “to surrender” to the sweet Spirit of Christ.
Many Christians and even Adventists don’t realize that salvation is more than only forgiveness. But as Adventists we have an understanding of salvation that is not one-sided but broader, more balanced, and more differentiated. Oftentimes we are influenced by our background, as well as by the beliefs of over Christian denominations. That is why it is so important to think. To be an Adventist means to think! Here we have a task as pastors, teachers, and students to do just that, and also to help and train our church members to think more differentiated and see the broader picture.
In class we have been discussing Salvation and how it has been interpreted in the development of protestant theological heritage. Salvation is the theme of the Bible and its what every believer and even most unbelievers hope for. We all look for something better than this temporary life. Death is always in the back of the mind, and we would be a fool if we didn’t desire to be rescued from it. We have been discussing predestination, and freedom of the will in class. The scripture, which was presented in class, I would like to ponder in this blog.
Phil 2:12,13 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
Just reading this passage brings confusion to me. First Paul says to “work out your Salvation with fear and trembling”. Here it appears that we have a part in our salvation, and that part it obedience to God. So we are to live each day in obedience to God with fear and trembling. Doesn’t sound like a very joyful experience to me. Almost dreadful! It almost sounds like my current Christian experience, one of fear and trembling. There is a part of me that wants to get away from this type of relationship with God. Maybe I am interpreting scripture wrong. I don’t want to have a fearful relationship with God and be obedient out of fear. I want a relationship that is one based on God’s love for me. I guess as humans we need to always have in the back of our minds that we need to be careful in our Christian journey because we can lose our Salvation. And the thought of loosing our Salvation should bring fear and trembling, but its not fear that motivates us to walk with God.
Fear comes from the ever-present threat that we have an enemy who wants to steal our salvation. Paul’s words, you could say are to motivate us to be careful in our Christian journey because we could lose our salvation if we do not work in cooperation with God. We are to work our Salvation out, but we are not to work on it alone, God is our partner. Paul continues in verse 13 that it is God who works in us to do His will and good pleasure. So our work is to work in cooperation with God. Salvation is a partnership between God, and us, and it cannot be done alone. God cannot give us Salvation without our cooperation; we need to surrender to His will in order for it to take place in our lives. The God who came in the flesh, who called His follower’s brothers, and friend, should be wonderful to work with, don’t you think?
Several of us have made good substantial comments on our discussions of salvation, and our comments have shown that it is still a difficult concept to grasp entirely. It seems like our confusion or doubt stems from the area of assurance. Our arguments tend to be surrounding the idea of how an individual can make sure he or she is experiencing the “right kind” of salvation. Nobody wants to come down to the end and discover that their experience with God was somehow not authentic and be denied the final culmination of the salvation process, namely, entrance into glory. I think that Dr. Hanna is correct in drawing our attention to a holistic understanding of salvation. I think that he is right on and that his teaching is backed up by Scripture. However, I also have to admit that Scripture does not ALWAYS speak holistically about salvation. What I mean by that is that there are times when salvation is spoken of simply in terms of justification. There are other times when it is spoken of in terms of sanctification. And there are times when the concept of final glorification is the primary focus. AND, there are other concepts that are chosen from time to time that don’t have to do with any of these three. For example, the word for “save” is sometimes used to refer to what Jesus did for people when he simply healed them of a disease. All this seems to point to the fact that we don’t have to understand salvation by always having the holistic model in mind. Sometimes it is enough to experience and understand salvation as simple forgiveness of my sins. Sometimes it is enough to think of it only in terms of seeing Jesus come in the clouds. Sometimes it is enough to think of it primarily as my response to God’s mercy over me. Scripture AS A WHOLE presents a holistic model. That is to be expected. But rarely are individuals asked to take in and understand the whole thing all at once, as far as I can see. Maybe I’m wrong. And I know that God helps us grow in our understanding as we walk with Him day by day, and perhaps His goal is for us to ultimately understand the entire process of salvation. But it also seems that He wants us to savor and rejoice in every individual aspect of it along the way. We should not begrudge others their experience where God has them at a given time – which I don’t mean to imply that our class is doing! I’m speaking more to myself. I know I tend to expect others to be able to grasp things the way I do, and that if they don’t there is something wrong with their salvation experience. I need to be willing to let Luther rejoice in his justification by grace, even if he had never proceeded further than that. And I can’t, for my part, always walk through my salvation experience wondering whether I’m doing it right or understanding it the right way. I don’t really want to teach others to do it that way either. I don’t want to imply that we shouldn’t understand salvation holistically. I think I have indicated in this rambling that I recognize that there are multiple components to the experience of salvation. I think we need to remember, though, that salvation is not necessarily EXPERIENCED holistically. Maybe God experiences it that way, knowing the end from the beginning. But we do not. We may experience more than one component at one time, say for example, working out my salvation as a loving response to God’s justification. But while I can speak of the salvation process in its entirety, I can’t help people experience that all at once practically.
On the topic of atonement, I was interested in the idea of “alien righteousness” that Luther spoke of. The phrase clearly implies that whatever righteousness we have is not our own, but exists outside of us.
There’s a problem with that, though, in that it implies that the sinner still remains a sinner.
In view of that problem, I thought this remark from the textbook was interesting:
“Luther’s language about righteousness ‘outside ourselves’ was a figurative concession to simple believers. In sum, ‘If one asks what righteousness is, one must answer: Christ dwelling in us through faith is our righteousness according to his divinity.’” (151)
Quite fascinating. So the righteousness is outside ourselves in a sense, but it’s inaccurate to think that it is totally separate from us. Christ must dwell in us.
I think this concept is important in combating the accusation that the doctrine of justification by faith involves a mere legal fiction (in which Christ declares us righteous as a legal declaration even though we are clearly unrighteous). Luther’s statement is a good correction against taking the idea of alien righteousness to extremes and suggesting that there need be no transformation in our lives.
2. LUTHER’S DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT
I knew prior to this class that Luther had developed a view of atonement similar to that posed by Anselm. He drew on Anselm’s idea that atonement was a satisfaction, and he emphasized the fact that it was God’s justice and his law which needed to be satisfied. It is on Luther that the contemporary doctrine of penal substitution is primarily based.
What I wasn’t aware of is the fact that Luther’s view wasn’t as simplistic as it is sometimes presented. He had a more well-rounded and multi-faceted view of atonement than is sometimes recognized.
Evangelicals have picked up only one aspect of Luther’s thought (penal substitution), but have missed the other aspects of his thought, where he emphasized, say, the importance of Christ’s righteous life, his cosmic triumph over spiritual powers, the subjective aspect of atonement, etc.
I’m curious now to understand more of Luther’s thinking. My sense is that evangelicals in general and Adventists in particular tend to be a bit one-sided in our presentations on atonement (emphasizing penal satisfaction), and I’d like to see a bit broader perspective. Penal satisfaction is important, but let’s be well-rounded. And considering that Luther is on of our significant theological “mentors,” perhaps we could start by recapturing the other aspects of his doctrine of atonement that we tend to brush over.
I think that I can agree, now that my attention has been called to it, that to us the language of abolition the way it has been used, is not always the best way to distinguish between ceremonial law and the moral law. Firstly when we look at the ‘laws’ in the OT there are many kinds. There is civil law, moral law, health law, family law, ceremonial law, cleanliness laws, marriage law, and so forth. I can also see how using the term ‘fulfilled’ is a better way to deal with these laws in a general sense. Yet then I have to ask, for example, “While I am no longer considered ceremonially unclean for touching a dead animal, how is that law fulfilled today?” I suggest that there are certainly principles that we can take from that law. While the focus when the law was originally given is ceremonial uncleanliness, today we could see it as a matter if hygiene. Certainly we know now that touching dead animals and not washing can give way to disease and sickness. However this may not exhaust the application to that law to our day. Perhaps there is a spiritual dimension that we are not aware of. For example if we work in an abattoir, could it be that the constant familiarity with death of God’s creatures may deaden our conscience in some way? Could we become spiritually affected buy that? Possible. How about that law that declared that witches are to be executed? This is clearly a civil law but how does it apply today, if at all. We can certainly see the abhorrence that God has with witchcraft, yet we would not carry out the civil aspect—corporal punishment—because of the fact that as Christians we do not live under the Theocracy of OT, in which God was the direct ruler of the people: and that corporal punishment of sin is not yet the ministry of Christ and so not ours also. Yet certainly we still see that those who practice this sin will not enter the kingdom heaven [Rev 21:8], so we should still warn others that God it is still offended by this act. Perhaps this law can serve as a reminder to us that we need to be careful of associating with those who are clearly on satans side? Certainly more study need to be done on this issue.
I have always had difficulty with the way we traditionally separate the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament. Initially it does seem to solve some of the dilemmas we come across in defending the Ten Commandments, but when pressed into a corner the arguments just don’t hold water. What we distinguish as moral and ceremonial are just too intricately connected in Scripture, and it does not seem valid to say that one is abolished altogether while the other still stands. I don’t see Paul making that kind of distinction, nor do I see them as being clearly separated in the Old Testament. Even though it is a valid point that the Ten Commandments were spoken by God and written by His own finger, those commandments are intimately tied to the rest of the law structure laid out in the books of Moses. In any case, it helped me to begin considering the language of fulfillment as applicable to the entire Old Testament, rather than separating some parts into a camp called “abolished” and another part into one called “fulfilled”, especially considering the fact that Paul can apply what we would consider “ceremonial” to the life of the believer in Christ. There are times when he takes portions of the Old Testament that are not directly from the Ten Commandments and applies those things in a spiritual way to Christians. So, I guess the question might be what does it mean for something to be fulfilled? What does it mean that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law? Because it does still seem like there is a difference made in the way different laws are applied. Fulfillment obviously does not mean abolishment because the laws still exist and are applied in the life of the believer. But fulfillment seems to mean different things in different cases. “Do not murder” still means just what it says. But, for example, when Paul speaks about not muzzling the ox while it plows – here it seems that the application is not direct because he is applying it to the gospel worker receiving his/her wages. But does that mean I should start muzzling my ox literally? I guess that’s not the case either. So, what does fulfillment mean, and does it mean something different for each kind of law?
Last week we discussed several very interesting topics. I would like to dwell on a matter that we only touched in 2 or 3 sentences on one day. In regard to the doctrine of the atonement, a topic that we study as well during the current Sabbath school lesson, we mentioned Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109) who developed the satisfaction theory in his ‘Cur Deus Homo.’ According to that theory God’s honor needs to be vindicated since He was offended by the sin of the humans. That vindication could only happen through the punishment of the transgressors or the satisfaction of God’s justice so that humanity could be reconciled to God. God provided that satisfaction – through the God-man Jesus Christ – since man could not do it. Anselm’s theory remained the accepted one for the next centuries although it was challenged by Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142). He felt that Anselm’s theory did not do justice to God’s character and the witness of the Bible. He was condemned as a heretic, and was/is often seen that way until today. Some consider him as the father of the moral influence theory, and think that the contemporary judgment upon him was right. Others view him as the originator of that theory accepting it as the right teaching on atonement. And still others reject the whole thing considering him as a brilliant but controversial scholar who was totally misunderstood due to his sometimes extreme arguments in a row of argumentation. In fact, he focused on an aspect overseen by Anselm without negating the substitutionary aspect of Christ’s death but questioning the extreme of Anselm’s satisfaction theory. Luther recognized as well that Anselm’s theory did not cover everything the Bible had to say on atonement. That is why he pointed to the fact that Christ through his death gained the victory over the forces of evil.
Through the whole study of atonement I realized the danger of focusing only on one aspect of a whole matter. That leads to extremes since it turns away from the rest of the aspects of that teaching. Besides that there were really heretical and wrong views, many discussions and debates only resulted from people who recognized the imbalance of a certain teaching discovering some other aspects and focusing on these without realizing that they now are one-sided as well.
clinton moriah Prevenient Grace by Clinton Moriah We discussed in class that prevenient grace is a gift from God. God gives us grace to exercise our will or the power of choice. In addition, he gives further grace that facilitates conversion and repentance. Through the readings I discovered that Luther was probably referring to this kind of grace when he defined it as God’s favor or good will which in himself he bears towards us. He further contrasted a definition of grace as a quality hidden within the heart with a definition of it as continuous and perpetual operation or action through which we are grasped and moved by the Spirit of God. Luther believed in two types of grace.The first is the grace of Christ which is the chief fountain of all grace. The second is the grace we draw from Christ which he distributes among us. He believed that salvation and forgiveness came solely by the grace of Christ and all toil and effort to seek other ways leading to heaven are futile. The gift of prevenient grace is not salvation in itself. I think that is just one aspect. We sinners need to exercise active faith in Christ in order to fully accept justification and sanctification
I was a little intrigued (and caught off guard) in class yesterday with the discussion of predestination. Dr. Hanna suggested that we Adventists have thrown out Luther’s and Calvin’s understandings of predestination, but that we haven’t necessarily replaced their views with a robust theology of our own. For that reason, their assumptions can still affect us, and they affect our views of justification, too.
I definitely agree that we as Adventists don’t have a well-developed view of predestination, and I’d love to see a bit more discussion in this in Adventist theological circles. Predestination is pretty much a dirty word for us.
I share my denomination’s general negativity toward the reformed understanding of predestination, and yet the term “predestination” is biblical. It occurs often enough that I think it would be worth it to us to explore this a little more, and develop our own interpretation of the concept.
Also, I found it particularly interesting that our views of predestination will affect our understandings of justification.
As Dr. Hanna pointed out, the reformers’ views of justification as purely passive stemmed from their view of absolute predestination. Since we don’t have an alternate view of predestination, we fall into accepting the reformers’ presuppositions, and then we tend to accept their doctrine of justification by faith as well.
How might our Adventist understanding of justification be affected if we revisited the topic of predestination and developed a more biblical theology of it? Would we find ourselves still in agreement with Luther’s concept of justification?
Justification by faith alone, “Sola fide” (faith alone), can be understood as the key doctrine that led to the Reformation and ignited the reformers to break from the church of Rome. Although there are many different views of justification for the reformers; however, most of the reformers agreed that it was a central issue to the reformation. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the understanding of redemption through Christ and Him alone. The basic idea is upon how God has achieved the redemption of sinful humanity through the death of Christ on the cross. The Greek word “soteria,” which means “salvation,” is a broad term which focuses on the redemption achieved through the death and resurrection of Christ. In this view of the process of salvation there are images of victory, images of changed legal status, images of changed personal relationship, images of liberation, and images of restoration to wholeness. The doctrine of justification by faith answers how we are saved. It answers how man is redeemed. Justification by Faith as a legal status is understood in Romans 5:8-10, which says if we are justified by His blood then we are reconciled by His death and saved by His life. Therefore, justification is imputed to us because Jesus suffered the penalty of our sin, death. The official position of the reformers was written as: “The single formal cause (of justification) is the righteousness of God-not the righteousness by which God is righteous, but the righteousness by which God makes us righteous, so that when we are endowed with it, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind (Eph. 4:23) and are not only counted righteous but are called and are in reality righteous. . . Nobody can be righteous except God communicates the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ to him or her and this takes place in the justification of the sinner.” [Nature of Justifying Faith. See Cannon 12]
The Reformers argued for the importance of ‘sola fide’ as the heart of the message and essential key to the gospel. There are five statements that sum up what lies at the heart of Protestant belief: By Grace alone (Sola Gratia); Through Faith alone (Sola Fide); In Christ alone (Solus Christus); According to Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura); and For God's Glory alone (Soli Deo Gloria). Sola fide is the key to all four.
In my reading of Chapter 4, I would like to express my thinking/reflection of John Calvin and summarizing his "Institutes of the Christian Faith" with the TULIP model. Calvin believed that justification by faith was the ‘hinge’ that everything hung upon. Perhaps the most important aspect of Calvin's theology was his analysis of the doctrine of Predestination. The five points of Calvinism, otherwise known as “Tulip” are: ‘Total inability’, ‘unconditional election’, ‘particular redemption’, ‘efficacious grace’, and ‘final perseverance’. Total inability was the understanding that man has sunk so far through the Fall of Adam that he is no longer capable of repentance or believing the gospel. He is spiritually dead. Unconditional election is the understanding that God has, before the creation of the world, selected a portion of humanity as his elect to be saved, irrespective of any foreseen merits or faith. Particular redemption has the understanding that Jesus on Calvary bore the full punishment due for his elect only, ensuring their final salvation. He did not die for the non-elect, who are excluded and hopelessly reprobated. Efficacious grace is the understanding that before one can respond to the gospel, God irresistibly draws the sinner to himself, and gives him a new nature. The new birth occurs before belief in Christ. Faith is a gift imparted to the sinner, who is passive in this act. Then final perseverance is the understanding that everyone regenerated by God's grace will persevere and be finally saved. For no one who truly begins the life of faith will ever fall away and perish.
As for me, this disregards all of the Universal texts of the Bible that bring us the good news that God desires "all" to respond to His Salvation and call. John 3:16 is one of my favorite texts that dispells this controversy!
I don’t know about you guys but appears that the author of this book (Pelikan) is pro-Catholic. It appears everything he says about the Catholic Church is in a positive light even when it’s about doctrine totally contrary to the word of God. Or maybe he is just good at not mentioning who is wrong in their theology and just states the evidence why Catholic pioneers believed what they believed. I just find it overly positive (unhealthy) on the side of Catholicism. On page 260-261 there is discussion on the Veneration of the Saints, the author doesn’t spend much time on Luther and Melanchthon’s response to it, but spend the majority of his book’s space defending it. He mentions that devotion to God is supreme, but “invocation of the saints” helps aide that devotion (261). Augustine justifies veneration of the saints not to adore them, but to give honor to what they have contributed to Christianity. He also goes on to say that it doesn’t discredit or interrupt Christ being “Mediator of redemption”, but allow saints to be “mediators of intercession” (261). Support for such Catholic theology comes from 2 Maccabees, which they consider to be part of the canon of scripture.
Protestants do not believe that 2 Maccabees should be part of the canon along with many other books that have been put in the Catholic Bible, known as the apocrypha. Protestant hold this view because these writings were never accepted by Jewish tradition, and its content goes against the scripture that have already been established as authentic by the church fathers. Augustine felt that the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is authentic and inauthentic. From 2 Maccabees teaching such as praying for the dead, purgatory, invocation of saints, and the doctrine of Mary can be established.
It’s not surprising that these teachings were used to make money from the Church congregation to build their huge cathedrals. Their followers could pray for the dead, pray to the saints, and deliver love one’s from purgatory if they gave a little offering. Where did they think they got the authority to say what is true scripture? They feel that the Catholic Church comes from the line of Peter Church leadership. Catholics believe that when Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, he was actually giving Peter the governance power over the sheep according to Erasmus. Christ also told Peter that upon him, Christ would build His church, and therefore Peter’s successors, such as the Pope would be the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
The Catholic Church has no proof or evidence that Peter help establish the Church in Rome. Even if he did, he did not create the beast of Rome. The Catholic Church has made so many false doctrines with no scriptural foundation to make money and control their followers. There is always a danger of any Church to use the word of God to manipulate followers to give money. I think money would come without manipulation if the church used the money not on extravagant buildings or equipment, but actually spreading the gospel and alleviating suffering around the world. How careful we need to be as pastor as we try to inspire people to give without manipulation.
Leonardo Ledezma Blog # 2 I just want to reflect in the topic of free will and salvation. I was commenting with Doctor Hanna about the position within Adventism regarding Free will and salvation. Adventist theology has many similarities with semi-Pelagian view of the topic. The problem is that nobody, within theological world, is interested in being related to Pelagius due his heretical ideas. Of course, when we read many of his theological premises we easily see that he was wrong in most of them. We cannot accept that, as Pelagius said, we can be saved just exercising our will apart from the grace of God. That kind of synergism is an extreme view of the role of the Free will in salvation. But, this is not the case of semi-Pelagianism. Of course, we cannot accept the other extreme which is presented by Augustine. He argues that the acceptation of salvation is a decision of God. In this case the will would have nothing to do with the God’s decision. We just have to accept that decision. We see in the Bible that salvation is an act performed by God and accepted by the human being. There is a sort of cooperation between God and men. If the human being doesn’t accept the salvation, which is freely given to him, the process cannot continue. However, this acceptation is not a meritorious work. I agree with Doctor Hanna when he says that there are many ideas which are a product of theological protestant paradigms. We have to be aware of that kind of paradigms that are not based on the Scriptures but on the protestant tradition. The fact that we have to response to the grace of God is clearly supported by bible. God created us with the capacity of making decisions even when those decisions were wrong. There is no irresistible grace. To accept the idea of an irresistible grace is deny the capacity, given by God Himself, to decide our destiny. God will never force our will to save us.
PREDESTINATION: Once Saved Always Saved Daniel R. Ocampo Historically speaking we (SDAs) are all blank and vacant on this subject matter simply because we believe on the freedom of choice. Reflecting on what I’ve been reading on this subject especially on the “Once Saved Always Saved” theory I can’t help but dig for more meaning. Through careful study of the Scriptures we can say that this really is Biblically non-consistent. The Calvinists and Evangelicals term this also as “Preservation of the Saints” or “Eternal Security”. In chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession of Faith says that: “They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.” Simply put that people are saved not by the free exercise of their will but by “the immutability of the decree of election,” that is, by the decree of God who elects some people to be saved and some to be lost. If this teaching of unconditional predestination were true, then God would in effect cause some people to remain saved, even if they later choose to return to a life of sin, as was strongly pointed out in our class discussion by Dr. Hanna. I believe that the salvation vision of our Reformation pioneers became so “micro” that they might have forgotten the “macro” aspect of the salvation picture as found in the Scriptures. I strongly believed that they have read the entire Scriptures and searched it militantly, but because they were so caught up in their agenda to counter Roman Catholicism their ideas became obscured. For example, Jesus himself taught in Matthew 7:21 that “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in you name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from me , you evildoers.” With this text mentioned, my most agonizing question is: Do I really have the assurance of salvation? Is my eternal destiny secured? I believe that SALVATION IS ASSURED TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE BUT NOT GUARANTEED. That’s why I really appreciated the class discussion of Dr. Hanna today with the use of his diagram wherein he’s trying to pull out and gather all aspects of truth both from Scripture and historical theories and try to come out with a possible holistic picture of Salvation Theology. The more we deal on it the better my understanding of the Biblical perspectives becomes to me. I rate his Socratic style of teaching as Scripturally conservative yet philosophically liberal which I see is the fruit of an open minded scholar. Dr. Hanna, your diagram has helped me see a complex theology become simple, and I appreciate that.
I thought that understanding predestination as God setting boundaries in advance was insightful. In this case, the boundaries are summed up in Christ. Ephesians 1 really seems to make a strong case to support this viewpoint as well. I haven’t counted the number of times Paul says “in Christ” in that chapter, but it’s a lot. He’s speaking in terms of the salvation “model” with a heavy emphasis on the predestination part. It’s almost as if predestination only really applies to Christ. It doesn’t apply to individual human beings at all until they become partakers in Christ. Then and only then are they predestined in any way, because Christ was predestined from before the world began. When a person is “in Christ”, then he or she is considered predestined to salvation. This is how I understand what Dr. Hanna was presenting, and it seems to be faithful to what Scripture teaches. What do you all think? I was surprised at how much I felt myself leaning with the Calvinists on the subject of “learned ignorance.” I realized that it’s an attitude I take whenever I don’ t understand something about God. I don’t really think it’s always the best way to think, but I realize that I have been conditioned to think that way and I’m wondering why. When something seems out of place with our understanding of God what is the best course of action? Like with the doctrine of hell, it’s one of those things that seems inconsistent with the character of God, but there are some plain verses in Scripture that seem to teach its literal existence. I guess my question is, when is it our cue to question traditional interpretation. In the case of hell, we initially questioned it because in our human understanding it would not be right/just/loving for God to eternally punish people. So, in that case the cue was not really from finding inconsistencies between tradition and Scripture. The inconsistencies were found later.
In class we had discussed what law was nailed to the cross, was it the moral law or the ceremonial law, or even both? In this blog I am not being dogmatic and saying what I have written sound doctrine. I just wrote as I was moved by the passages we read in class and as I discovered more verse while writing this blog. In Galatians 3 we find the purpose of the Law. Paul calls the law the schoolmaster that was to bring us to Christ. How? The law revealed our sinfulness, and our inability to keep it perfectly in order to stand righteous. The law brings us to Christ, to our solution to our dilemma of being under the curse of the law. How? Jesus took on Himself the curse of the law on the cross in our behalf. Once we were children of the law, now we become children of God in Christ Jesus through faith. The law was never meant to justify anyone in the sight of God, but the just were always to live by faith. Galatians 3:11 says, “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith.” Abraham did not have the law, and he was justified by faith in the promised One to come from his offspring. The law was meant to condemn everyone who is under it, so that everyone would recognize his or her grim predicament of being lost if with out a Savior. Romans 3:19-20 says, “Now we know that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” The law was a glimpse of God’s character, and it revealed to us what the image of God was to be in us.
The law was to be in the forefront to show us who God is, but Jesus came to better reveal God’s will by showing us it perfectly in the flesh. Jesus has the power condemn us, but instead of doing that He offers us His righteousness (perfect law keeping) to cover our shamefulness. In other word He offers us His perfect record of keeping the law to be written next to our name as if we did it ourselves. This is offered to the believer through faith. Does this mean we no longer have to keep the law because it was already kept for us in Christ Jesus? God Forbid! Now the law (God character) is to be kept in a new living way, and that is through His Spirit. In Class we looked at 2 Corinthians 3:3 and I think it says exactly how the law is not performed in our own power, but by the Holy Spirit writing God character on the tables of our heart. “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink (the Torah), but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone (Ten Commandments), but in fleshy tables of the heart.” (2 Corinthians 3:3). On the cross the law (God’s true character in the Flesh of His Son) was nailed to it. Is the law done away with? To say that would be to say, “God is done away with!” On the cross the law (Christ) died, and so did we. But after the cross Christ was raised up to new life, and so are we to be raised up to new life. Through the Spirit we are now to live the law (God’s character) in a new living way. Romans 6:4 say, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Also Romans 8:11 confirms this, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwells in you.” Today we are not under the Law, but under Christ. Today we are keep the Law, because Christ now lives within, the hope of glory.
The whole discussion on predestination is very interesting. Yeah, it is right that we oftentimes just say that predestination is not biblical when the topic comes up. Some years ago I met a young man who was very eager to convince everyone that the Bible teaches predestination and that God is, in fact, a cruel god. Since the term is used in the Bible it is necessary to study the meaning, use, and context of it. The word in question is “proorizo,” and it is used only six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29f; 1 Co. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). The term means in general to decide something beforehand, determine something beforehand, or lay out borders beforehand (pro orizo = to fix/determine/set something before). When I studied the different passages I came to the following conclusions: (1) God determined the way of salvation beforehand. (2) God determined beforehand that those are called to eternal life that walk this way and respond in love to God’s love. (3) Those that he recognized before, He appointed to reflect the image of His son. (4) He has appointed us to be His children through Jesus Christ. Predestination is connected to (a) a prior determining of conditions, (b) a prior determining of how salvation can be accomplished, (c) a prior determining of what shall happen to those who respond positively to that salvation, (d) a determining of what shall be the further way of people whom He recognized (foreknew) that they would react positively. The will of God fixes some points very clearly but others are rather flexible. The reaction of man is flexible but God foresees it already (foreknowledge). So e.g. Luke 7:30 show that the “boule” (purpose, plan, resolution, decision) of God can be rejected or made invalid by human beings if they don’t follow God’s purpose for them. It is the same term that is used in Acts 4:28 and Eph 1:11. I found the picture of Martin Hanna interesting that God sets boundaries in which human beings make their decisions. Other terms that need to be studied being connected to “proorizo” are “being called,” “purpose,” “plan,” and “foreknow.”
Again, we encountered several very interesting concepts last week. I was reminded of the importance to state clearly the meaning of the terminology in question. Terms are not enough since everyone fills them differently. Words are like a bottle that can hold different kinds of fluids, healthy as well as dangerous fluids. Oftentimes there arise debates and discussions simply because certain words very not clearly defined. The question is, “What do we mean by that?” We could discuss the interpretation of terms like Antichrist or Remnant but the question is whether we discuss the general biblical use of the term or merely the details provided in a certain text that points to a certain historical period. Misunderstandings, divisions, hostility, etc. can be the result. That is why it is so important to define our terminology or at least be aware of when someone else seems to fill the terms differently.
The two presentations of Jamie and Marko were interesting as well. Both presented the proposal of their papers. The topic of both papers focuses on atonement theology (reg. the writings of Luther, and the moral influence theory in modern Adventism). When writing a paper myself on that topic (NT, early church fathers, church fathers, Peter Abelard, and contemporaries of Abelard) earlier this year, I recognized that many extreme views only arose because one aspect was overemphasized and now criticized by someone else who in turn emphasized another aspect being one-sided as well. The writers oftentimes sounded very exclusive in the statements although they only wanted to make sure that the other view wasn’t right. From our viewpoint we could say that these views were not right for the misrepresented the truth or they were not totally wrong since they focused on a true aspect of the broader concept of the truth. Concluding we can say that it is important to try to find all possible information from the Bible on that topic as well as on related topics.
Thinking this morning about David’s presentation on the term “filioque” and the division between the western (Catholic) church and the eastern (Orthodox) church, I was really struck by how inconsequential the argument seemed to me, at least at first glance.
Now granted, I know very little about the debate. But it is very hard for me to imagine how this one concept could result in a permanent split between the eastern and western halves of Christianity.
At least the way David explained it, it seems as if both the Catholics and the Orthodox believers have valid points or valid reasons for arguing as they do.
And frankly, it doesn’t seem like the Bible is really clear on this. I don’t mean to deny that the Bible doesn’t make statements about the equality of the Father and Son, or about who sent the Spirit. But seriously, were the Bible writers really concerned to nail down with precision whether the Father and the Son sent the Spirit, vs. the Father sending the Spirit through the Son?
Honestly. I recognize that the people actually arguing over this issue had reasons for taking it so seriously, but to me, the argument seems very pedantic. People should not be forced to choose between the two, and this sort of issue shouldn’t split the church.
2 applications of the issue:
First, it occurred to me that probably some of the debates that matter a lot to me appear equally pedantic to other people. This ought to encourage me to back off a bit and recognize that a) the issue is perhaps not as earth-shakingly important as I think, and b) the other person might have a valid perspective.
Second, it seems to me that the prime advantage of having these sort of debates is not that they define with absolute precision what is the absolute truth, but that they draw out implications that people wouldn’t have thought of without the debate.
What I mean by this: I doubt that either the Catholics or the Orthodox have the final “correct” word on the filioque matter, and so the significance of their debate is not that they establish conclusively the precise Trinitarian relationships.
What the debate does do, however, is draw out wider implications, such as whether all the members of the Godhead are equal, and whether our theology might tend to deemphasize the role of the Spirit or the role of the Son, or whatever. The debates can help bring us back from unhealthy theological tendencies.
So I think it’s useful to have these sorts of debates; they help us correct extremes. But at the same time, this discussion was a fresh reminder not to take little theological points too seriously.
The discussion about the Filioque seems to be a matter of difference in using the word by the eastern western church. Reading a little bit, I realized that the principal preoccupation was the implications of this in the doctrine o the trinity. In fact, the first time when this word was used was during the controversy against Arians. In the first council of Toledo Visigothic Spain renounced to Arianism and accepted Catholic Christianity. It was at that time when the word was first used as an interpolation of the Creed. Well, some people argue that this word was first used in the Nicene Creed. But there is not any evidence of that. The point is that the discussion arose many questions concerning the nature of the trinity and the relationship between his members. Those questions remain unanswered until now. I can understand that this word was added to Nicene Creed In order to counteract the Arian controversy. But they didn’t realize that this response crated a bigger problem. Now, the most important thing is what the Bible says about the topic. It is quite interesting that this word is not found in the Bible, of course, because is a Latin word. But It seems to be that the concept is found in the New Testament in John 15:26 “Who proceeds from the father”. But, a similar statement is not found regarding to the son. That’s why the Eastern Orthodox Church argue that the Holy Spirit proceed from the father but not from the Son. However several statements which could support the idea that The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the father and the son are found in the New Testament. For instance, In John 16:13-15 Jesus says of the Holy Spirit "he will take what is mine and declare it to you", and it is argued that in the relations between the Persons of the Trinity one Person cannot "take" or "receive" (λήψεται) anything from either of the others except by way of procession. Other texts that have been used include Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19, where the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of the Son", "the Spirit of Christ", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", and texts in the Gospel of John on the sending of the Holy Spirit by Jesus (14:16, 15:26, 16:7). As I can see, it is a very difficult issue due his nature and the information we have. We can not argue that one side has the reason and the other is wrong or vice versa. The divine nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery that has not been revealed in the scripture at least as we know. How can we search in the deep Of God? It is simply impossible without any revelation regarding the theme. Of course, we have to avoid a simplistic explanation of the matter. But we need to do more research on that.
I continue to be surprised at how much we really hold in common with Catholic and other Protestant theology. I’m reflecting on our discussion from last week about reaching “unity of the faith” (from Ephesians 4:11-13) and what that means. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, many differing viewpoints and theological perspectives were allowed to coexist under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. Something new happened with the Reformation in that the necessity of that visible union was challenged. Today it is very difficult sometimes from an outside perspective to see any semblance of unity in Christianity as a whole. It’s interesting to see, though, how certain issues still have a unifying effect. I spoke with my mom on the phone the other night about the homosexual marriage ban in California. She is not a Christian, and her perspective was that it was sad that Christians are quickly willing to unite and pull together their efforts and money to (seemingly in her view) prohibit equal civil rights for homosexuals. It made me really stop to think about how the non-Christian world views us – I mean Christianity as a whole. So many Christians are unwilling to be devoted disciples of Christ on an everyday level that pervades every area of life and human experience. As I reflect on this, it seems like that was why unity of the faith was so readily natural in the infant stages of the church. Their common connection was their discipleship to Jesus. Nothing else mattered – at least it seems to have been the case. Our disunity today seems to stem from our desire to pick a certain issue to champion, and if others cannot see eye-to-eye with us we cast them aside. I wonder if one of the reasons God raised up the Adventist Church was to offer a unifying theological perspective – the ability to pull from different theological traditions and find the good in each one?
I was musing yesterday in class on the difference between the Protestant “exclusive” principle and the orthodox principle.
Protestants insisted on admitting only Scripture; Catholics, however, would admit nothing that CONTRADICTED Scripture.
Frankly, I’m not sure I really understand what Protestants were arguing for, because I don’t think it is possible to take Scripture alone, with absolutely nothing else.
As Christians, we are constantly interpreting Scripture and applying it in our culture, and we develop particular traditions of application. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, we can’t avoid it.
Perhaps, then, what the Protestants meant was that we cannot be DOGMATIC on anything except what is explicitly contained in Scripture? If this is what they meant, then I agree.
However, as Dr. Hanna keeps pointing out in class, we should not adopt a narrow, exclusive understanding of sola scriptura. (This is especially true for us as Adventists, since we have Ellen White to reckon with.)
Technically, the Catholics are right in their thinking: we can accept traditions that aren’t explicitly biblical, but the position we should adopt is to admit nothing that contradicts the Bible. (But of course, the Catholics were wrong in becoming dogmatic on extra biblical teachings.)
So the bottom line, which seems to keep coming up in this class over and over, is that sola scriptura, taken in a strictly literal sense, is untenable.
What this discussion (and others like it) have driven home to me is that Adventists fit neither with Protestants nor with Catholics on many of our fundamental principles. I think I didn’t realize that before this class.
I had thought that the Christian world was divided into three basic groups—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—and assumed that we as Adventists fit into the Protestant group.
This class is teaching me that that identification might not be as simple as I first thought.
The relationship between the two natures of Christ is an interesting topic. So Clinton has taken one of the most important issues in Christology. Of course we perfectly Know how controversial have the topic been among Christians from the beginning. We can mention the first fourth century heresies that denied the principal doctrines like Arians and ebionitism which denied the Divinity of Christ and continue with Docetism and Gnosticism which denied his humanity. We are thankful to the council Of Nicea for the important contribution in our understanding of Divine-human nature of Christ. It was in that council where the relationship between his two natures was definitely defined. In protestant world almost everybody is agree that Jesus has a Divine-human nature as was defined by the Nicea Council. But the later controversies were mostly about how those two natures were united in one person. The first position which is held by Catholics and most protestant church is the hypostatic Union, states those two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. This doctrine is known as Dyopysite position. In contrast, some Christians rejected that position and established another called Myapysite which states that Christ was both divine and human in one nature. That position was adopted by the Oriental orthodox tradition. In this respect, Adventism keeps the Dyopysite position. We believe that Christ has two natures, one human and one divine. Both are united in the one person of Christ. The Ellen white position is not different from this view. The only thing is that in many of her writing he emphasizes Divine nature of Christ while in others she emphasizes The Christ Humanity. We just have to be aware about what emphasis she is trying to put. Then we will realize how consistent she is in her view.
Clinton Moriah response to Denis Comment. I agree with ou Denis It is important to read and study Ellen White’s writings. All that can help us to understand the Bible better and more than we could do only by our own studies. We can get new insights etc. But all that should never replace the study of the Biblical text itself. All that shall lead us to the Bible itself.The tragedy Conservative and liberal ADventism of our time is that we often misuse Ellen White's writings to suit our own views. .
Clinton Moriah Protestant heritage and the Nature of christ. We have discussed in class during my presentation that one of the main reasons for studying the Protestant Theological Heritage is to understand how the legacy of the reformation impacted and gave birth to the Seventh- day Adventist movement. More specifically, the Seventh-day Adventist Christology has its origins in protestant Theology. In Dr Hanna wholistic model of revelation, God has revealed himself in the cosmos through inspiration and the humanity of his supreme revelation of the incarnation in Jesus. In order to obtain a wholistic view of the history of revelation of the understanding of the humanity and Divinity of the supreme revelation of God it is necessary to examine the role of progressive divine revelation in the shifting views on the human and divine nature of Christ from the early Christians church to the reformation and the development of contemporary Adventist Christology. The Bible reminds us that the path of the just is like a shining light. This paper seeks to examine how the light of understanding of the humanity and divinity of Christ of Christ has its roots in the protestant theological heritage. Adventist Christology is a product of God’s progressive revelation to his faithful remnant from the early church to contemporary Adventism.
Moriah response to Dr Daniel's comments I think Daniel shared some insightful points and has raised some thought provoking questions.I deeply appreciate Dr. Martin Hanna’s introductions and Scriptural expositions proving the history of the Church falling in good or bad hands. However, as ministers we need to be careful not to present the biblical view of the remnant with an exclusive catholic mind set.History has reveal that God has his people in both the catholic and protestant organizations.He will call fort his remnant.Adventist aren't called to choose God's remnant.That is God's work.
Moriah clinton response to eric comments on Gal. and the law. I agree with you Eric.I think you have made some good points.However, some Adventist are still struggling with the reality that we don't keep the law to be saved.we can't even keep it. We keep it by God's Grace because we are saved.Law keeping doesn't make us righteous. Jesus makes us righteous.
" Are Adventist the only Remnant?" by Clinton Moriah As Seventh- day Adventists we generally refer to the Roman Catholic Church and protestant churches as papacy and her daughters. There are some Adventists who believe that everything about papacy is evil and corrupt. On the other hand there some who believe that apostate Protestantism is corrupt and we should not have any dialogue with both even if it is to understand our roots from both and share the progressive revelation God has given in Bible prophecy. Sometimes we (SDA) see ourselves as the remnant that came out of nowhere or as if God formed us out of nothing like Adam, thinking we are different for everyone else in history. But as We discussed in class, this is not so. Throughout history God has had “several remnants.” Remnant is those who God has called out from the world to be a repository of God’s grace. These are God’s faithful. Noah and his family were God’s remnant during then flood. They responded to God’s call. They spread the Gospel of the flood and build the ark. God preserved them because of their faith and obedience. Abraham was called out of Ur. He and his family were God’s remnant in his time. Israel voluntary went into Egypt but God called and took them out of Egypt. God had a remnant during the reformation too. He called them out of papal Rome. They were God’s remnant. What makes Seventh-day Adventist different from the other remnants mentioned above? I will humbly suggest that our uniqueness as been a part of God universal remnant is not predicated on our prophetic insights, seven “S’s,” or Commandment keeping, but because we have chosen to obey God’s progressive revelation, our faith in God, acceptance of his grace and submission to his guidance.
One interesting note on the Filioque controversy as it relates to the Protestant slogan "Sola Scriptura": I think I find myself siding with the Orthodox position, theologically speaking. They seem to be more true to the Protestant slogan. They take John 15:26 as definitive for how the Holy Spirit is sent. The Catholic position reflects a desire to elevate Christ to equality with the Father in nature, but in doing so they depart from the simple teaching of John 15:26. At least, this is what the Orthodox position is in a nutshell. This relates also to Jamie's comments on Catholics being willing to accept tradtion that does not contradict Scripture, while Protestants (at least in theory) accept only what can be found in Scripture. The Orthodox position on the Filioque controversy is more in line with the Protestant position in the way Scripture and tradition are viewed.
Ordination is a hot word in Adventistism. Today only about 80% of North American Adventist churches have not yet elected a woman elder in the Church. The word ordination is not even mention in the Bible. The word ordain is mention twice in the New Testament, 1st in 1 Corinthians 7:17 where Paul declares to be ordained to all the churches, and 2nd Paul writing to Titus in Titus 1:5 telling him to ordain elders in every city to bring a sense of order in the Church. None of these verses speak about the gender of the elder. So ordination has very little scriptural support. When it comes to the Church Manual of the Seventh Day Adventist church is says Elder Ordination is recognized by these characteristics: * Call by God to this ministry * God's spiritual gifts enabling the person to perform this ministry * Congregation recognizing and approving God's call * Congregation expressing willingness to follow the individual's leadership
The Roman Catholic Church developed the custom of ordination of Priest and believed it has followed from an unbroken succession from Peter ordination to present day ordination. If we were to look in Adventist history there was a time that our Church did not have ordination of ministers. It came about when many self-proclaimed ministers claimed to be Adventist ministers, but taught contrary to Adventist beliefs. So to end the confusion they adopted ordination and licensing of ministers who are recognized by the Church.
1990 it was voted by delegates of the world Church 1,173 to 377 that ordination of women to preach the gospel should not be allowed because it would disrupt the unity of the world Church. Not because the Bible proves that it is wrong, but that such a vote, would not be accepted culturally
Women and men both can preach the gospel without ordination by the Church. Ellen White preached the Gospel from many pulpits, and was never ordained by man, but was ordained by God. But to be employed by the Church full time to preach the gospel, men are only allowed to have that right if ordained. I heard a conference treasure at an ordination say, “now that you are ordained, you can get the full wage of the Adventist Church.” So instead of receiving the max of 91% for unordained, he can now get 100% of the pastor wage. Some conferences wait to ordain pastors because they can’t fit it in their budget. It seems, sadly, that ordination is tied to how much money you make in the Church and not being called by God. To say that God does not call pastors who are not ordained, because of there is a lack of money would be wrong. It appears that ordination came into our Church for organization and that the Bible does not make a definite point on the issue. If it’s about money, woman and men should be paid the same wage for doing the same job as ordained men. Ordination should never be with held because of lack of funds or gender, but only for the lack of consecration. If we were to read the Bible literally, we would see that God is calling a Priesthood of all believers, male and female. I will close with the passage below.
Pet. 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:
1Pet. 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
The subject of the Eucharist is one that has always interest me. I have wondered how the Catholic Church came up with the view of the Eucharist (Transubstantiation) becoming the blood and body of Christ substantively. They say physical attributes of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance of the bread does. The Catholics take all the verses that mentioning Jesus body and blood and interpret it literally. For example if we interpret John 6:51-53 literally we would hear Jesus say quite clearly that all must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. What is the benefit of eating the flesh and drinking the real blood of Christ? There is great danger in translating verses so literally when Jesus is known for having meaning that comes from the form of symbols.
Luther didn’t fall far from the nest of the Catholic Church when it came to the celebrating the Eucharist. He called his view consubstantiation, and its difference from the Catholic view is that the Real Presence of Christ was not in the bread and wine but behind them. Luther took Matthew 26:26 quite literally when Jesus took the bread and blessed it and gave it to His disciples and said, “take, eat; this is my body.” Luther took Jesus word “this” bread to be “identical” with his body. Jesus is not in the bread but He co-exist along side the bread. Jesus is therefore really present when the Eucharist is served.
Calvin rejected the Catholic and Luther’s literal translation and came up with the view of literally eating and drinking Christ in the faith realm, not in the physical. Calvin argued this argument because he believed that Christ physically left earth and is in Heaven, so anything pertaining to His body must be done in faith. Calvin almost put the Eucharist as a symbolic ceremony but didn’t want to go that far, so he said Christ enters the bread and wine by faith.
I think the Zwinglian view to be the most Biblical because they hold that nothing miraculous happens, but that it was given as a symbolic meal or a memorial to point the believer to what Jesus did on the cross. When the Lord supper is given, the believer sees a glimpse of what Jesus did for them on the cross, and their faith is awakened and renewed by the symbol of the bread and wine that represent Christ sacrifice. I find part taking of the Lord supper to be one of the highlights of my worship experience. I take it very serious and look at my life. I repent of my sins, and humbled at I am pointed to the cross through the emblems of Christ blood being spilled out and his body being broken in my behalf.
Ecumenism is an important issue to be discussed. Fortunately, we will have one partner working on that. I just want to comment some general but essential aspects regarding this topic. The first interesting point is that the unity of church is viewed in very different perspectives for Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant churches. In a broader sense, ecumenism is different from religious pluralism which is better defined as interfaith pluralism. The interfaith movement strives for greater mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions. Ecumenism as interfaith dialogue between representatives of diverse faiths, does not necessarily intend reconciling their adherents into full, organic unity with one another but simply to promote better relations. It promotes toleration, mutual respect and cooperation, whether among Christian denominations, or between Christianity and other faiths. Of course, this is the general view of ecumenism. But, the concept tends to change among churches. For instance, Catholics have the goal of reconciling all who profess Christian faith to bring them into a single, visible organization, i.e. through union with the Roman Catholic Church. This view is based on his presupposition on the concept of the church as one unique church. Catholic sees that there is only one true Catholic Church. That is The Roman Catholic Church. Then, everybody has to come back to the truly Catholic church of Christ. Traditional Orthodox Church maintains that there is but one Church, and Orthodoxy is the Church. Thus, theories like "sister church" or "two lungs" are generally rejected, because in its view the Church is theologically indivisible. However, Protestants tend to emphasize the unity in terms of Church’s teachings. They put his primary focus in Christ as the most important issue over which the dialogue has to be constructed. According to some protestant theologians the church is not really divided but the unity has been darkened by doctrinal controversies. Of course they see the unity of the church in spiritual terms. Again, one important different is that while Catholics and Orthodox emphasize the agreement on dogma, Protestants emphasize agreements on teachings about central issues of faith. The Adventist seventh day Church is included in the group of denomination which does not participate actively in ecumenism. Adventist does not participate in the ecumenical movement but support some of the goal of Ecumenism. Here is paragraph about the official position if the Adventist seventh day Church “Should Adventists cooperate ecumenically? Adventists should cooperate insofar as the authentic gospel is proclaimed and crying human needs are being met. The Seventh-day Adventist Church wants no entangling memberships and refuses any compromising relationships that might tend to water down her distinct witness. However, Adventists wish to be "conscientious cooperators." The ecumenical movement as an agency of cooperation has acceptable aspects; as an agency for organic unity of churches, it is much more suspect”. This paragraph was taken from Adventist News Network (March 7, 2006). Retrieved on 10 January 2007. In my opinion as Adventist we don’t have to try agreeing in every issue of doctrine and teaching with other Christian denominations. And even more when this agreement could compromise the purity of the truth which found in a very clear way in the scripture. It is not just for being different but for being faithful to the Lord of the True.
Where one stands on the doctrine of justification is important, for to be true to the Biblical doctrine of Justification by faith, you cannot be on one extreme, such as antinomianism or the opposite extreme, legalism. There needs to be a Christ-centered balance. Although, I am for balance in this issue and several others, there is something that we are not to be balanced in, and that is to have a full and complete commitment to follow Christ as Savior and Lord. What about Jesus’ “all or nothing” appeal to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:15-16? In this message, Jesus says that you either choose to remain hot or choose to remain cold; therefore, there is no middle ground. Jesus has also argued, “he that is not with me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” (Matthew 12:30) Augustine and Pelagius stand at odds with one another, much like two extreme ditches on a path. One ditch could stand for legalism and the other could stand for antinomianism. The theological arguments of Luther and Calvin are on different sides between Augustine and Pelagius. In a nutshell, the Catholic Church’s position is that one is saved by Christ and the Church (namely, the Eucharist, prayers to Mary and all of the other ‘dead’ saints, confessionals, pilgrimages, indulgences, etc.) and all of its many traditions or the biblical message of being saved by Christ ‘alone’, apart from works by oneself or any system apart from Christ. This is crux of the whole matter, the light that shone setting people such as Luther and Calvin free from the ‘dark ages’ past. Ellen white said that there were only two religions, those that who stand for ‘righteousness by faith’ and those that stand for ‘righteousness by works’.
Catholics believe in salvation by faith, but not faith ALONE and not Christ alone. Therefore, it is understandable that the Council of Trent’s position on justification defended the Augustinian view that justification is the process of regeneration and renewal within human nature which brings about a change in both the outer status and the inner nature of the sinner. The Augustine position viewed man as depraved and spiritually incapable. Whereas, the Pelagian view is that man can be extolled. The Council of Trent was the event of the Roman Catholic church to counter the Reformation. Luther’s discovery of Justification and Righteousness by Faith set the prisoners free, metaphorically speaking, and ignited hearts with the flame of the Holy Spirit. However, an military order was developed at this time to counter the Reformation. An outstanding quote, expresses the event clearly: “Ignatius Loyola founded the Jesuit Order in the 1540s. Its position in the Roman Catholic Church was solidified during the Council of Trent, which ran from 1546 to 1563. The Council of Trent was convened with one great goal in mind: how to stop the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation began in 1517 when Martin Luther, the fearless German friar, nailed 95 theses on the door of the Wittenburg chapel…Luther’s great teachings that the Bible only is the standard for all doctrine and practice, and that a person is justified before God through faith in Jesus Christ alone, sent thrills through the hearts of thousands throughout Europe and shock waves through the halls of the Vatican. Thus, the Council of Trent was convened to counter the Reformation; hence it is known as the Counter Reformation, and the Jesuits would be the chief tools of Rome to undo and destroy every trace of Protestantism wherever it was found.” B. Hughes. “The Secret Terrorists,” 2002, Truth Triumphant, pp. 10, 11
Richy Thomas Blog # 9, really is #10 (I messed the numerical order up last time!)
Counter-Reformation continued:
Yes, you guessed it if you thought I was currently writing about the Counter-Reformation in my research (if any of you were wondering). It is one of the reasons that I have included and am including in this blog some dynamic quotes regarding some serious ecumenical aims. I also would like to share some interesting sources that I have discovered.
Seriously, Rome is the head of the ecumenical movement and that goal is to remove all Protestant dogmas (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola Christos, etc.) and replace them with Catholic theology. They are serious about removing TRUE Protestantism from the map. Here is a quote from one textbook that I kept showing the primary reasons the Catholic Church has become so deeply involved in the ecumenical movement: “From the Vatican’s viewpoint ecumenism has three purposes: First, to draw non-Catholic groups into the Catholic domain; second, to keep Catholics from leaving the Roman Church in the midst of today’s widespread ecumenical activities such as Charismatic Bible studies; and third, to persuade non-Catholics to refrain from seeking to win Catholics to Christ and away from the Catholic Church. In these aims, the Vatican has been hugely successful.” D.W. Cloud, “Evangelicals & Rome,” 1999, Way of Life Literature, Page 61.
Another interesting, yet fitting, quote from a Catholic periodical: “They [Protestants] conveniently forget that they separated from us, not we from them; and that it is for them to return to unity on Catholic terms, not for us to seek union with them, or to accept it, on their terms…Protestantism is rebellion against the authority of Christ vested in His Church. It neither possesses authority, or has any desire to submit to authority…Protestantism has really proved to be the ally of paganism…All forms of Protestantism are unjustified. They should not exist.”-America (Catholic periodical), January 4, 1941, Vol. 64, page 343.
Another quote describing the purpose of the Council of Trent: “The Council of Trent (1545), which had been called by Pope Paul III to counter the reformation and to clarify the Roman Catholic doctrinal position had, instead of reforming the church, entrenched the Catholic doctrinal position and teaching so abhorrent to the reformers. The Council reaffirmed the Church’s position on the doctrines of transubstantiation, faith and works, the mass, the seven sacraments, celibacy, purgatory and indulgences, and increased the Papal power.” “History of Christianity,” page 410
The last two quotes are controversial gems that I found in some old books from the library. They express how they truly feel about “real” Protestants. “In 1825, some eleven years after the revival of the Jesuit Order, a secret meeting of leading Jesuits was held at their College of Chieri near Turin, in Northern Italy. At that gathering, plans were discussed for the advancement of Papal power, world-wide, for the destabilizing of governments who stood in the way and for the crushing of all opposition to Jesuit schemes and ambitions…’What we aim at, is the Empire of the World…We must give them [the great men of earth] to understand that the cause of evil, the bad leaven, will remain as long as Protestantism shall exist, that Protestantism must therefore be utterly abolished…Heretics are the enemies that we are bound to exterminate…Then the Bible that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it.’” H. Macpherson, “The Jesuits in History”, 1997, Ozark Book Publishers, appendix.
“I cannot too much impress upon the minds of my readers that the Jesuits, by their very calling, by the very essence of their institution, are bound to seek, by every means, right or wrong, the destruction of Protestantism. This is the condition of their existence, the duty they must fulfill, or cease to be Jesuits. Accordingly, we find them in this evil dilemma. Either the Jesuits fulfill the duties of their calling, or not. In the first instance, they must be considered as the bitterest enemies of the Protestant faith; in the second, as bad and unworthy priests; and in both cases, therefore, to be equally regarded with aversion and distrust. – G.B. Nicolini, “History of the Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrine, and Design,” 1854, Henry G. Bohn, preface.
Is this controversial material? Yes, but it had to be shared. Could it be the future does favor those who are informed?!!
Separation and unity. In the catholic view ‘separation’—from the catholic church—is one of the great crimes of the reformation since, according to the Roman Church, unity or oneness is one of the signs of authentic Christianity. It can be rightly argued that unity is indeed one of the signs of Christianity, or the true church. It is clear from scripture that unity is God’s desire for the church; and that love would dwell between brethren. However the problem is that within Catholicism the idea of unity has been invested with a sacredness that it does not have. Just because a group is united it does not mean that that is God’s will. The same with separation. Separation is seen as a typically bad thing. However this is not always the case. Unity in error is not holy, and separation from error is a good thing. Accordingly we must admit, in the issues that we are facing as SDA’s, that unity is not always good and separation not always bad. For the sake of unity we may be allowing some, perhaps even whole churches, to continue fellowship where there should be separation. White writes that “To secure peace and unity they were ready to make any concession consistent with fidelity to God; but they felt that even peace would be too dearly purchased at the sacrifice of principle. If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war. Well would it be for the church and the world if the principles that actuated those steadfast souls were revived in the hearts of God's professed people.” {GC88 45.2 emphasis mine}. Furthermore she writes “But Christian unity is not what the world calls consolidation. Unity among brethren results in consolidation with Christ and with the heavenly angels. Such consolidation is heaven-born.--Letter 67, 1903, p. 1.” Here is the challenge, we are to seek unity first not with each other but with Christ. As we become united with Christ we achieve true unity. May God help us and give us grace so that we may be united in truth and in spirit.
I am reflecting on the Catholic counter-Reformation idea of the slippery slope. We discussed in class how the Catholic argument was that rejection of the authority of Rome would ultimately lead to complete rejection of God. This was intriguing to me because Ellen White uses a similar argument in relation to accepting her writings, particularly the Testimonies (see 3 SM 84, for example). There is a difference, though, and I have been pondering how to put it into words.
I used to struggle with the fact that Mrs. White would say that acceptance of her writings was essentially a condition for avoiding deception in the last days. Aren't the Scriptures sufficient after all? But there is a difference, it seems, in what she is saying and what the Catholic argument is in regard to submitting to authority. For the Catholics, it is as though the earthly authority is infallible and must be recognized in and of itself. For Ellen White, she isn't arguing for acceptance of her authority as an individual, it doesn't seem. Rather, she is making the argument that God chose to speak through her as a vessel of His truth, and that individuals were rejecting parts of that testimony not because of conscientious study of the Scriptures, but because the truth presented was inconvenient or offensive. In her case, people were in fact disregarding words the God was meaning to speak to them. In the Catholic case, the concern seems to be more with regard to maintaining cohesion among Christians, not necessarily whether or not we are obeying truth. This also relates to Marko's comments (11.12.08) on the Catholic view of unity.
In thinking on the subject of the atonement I think it is necessary for Adventists to better define this subject because of the face of the challenges, misunderstandings, and heresies concerning this truth. We should strive to develop a more well rounded model than exists at this time. This model would need to include what right about legal and moral aspects of the atonement, as well as, the ransom, and satisfaction idea’s. Concerning the legal view, of them all, I think this is the closest to what we currently hold and I believe it is the very basis for the Atonement; the foundation without which none of the other ideas have any merit. The Bible is clear, that without blood there is no remission of sin, Hebrews 9:22. Yet concerning the Atonement there is more to this facet of God’s work. Jesus said “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.” This text clearly implies that Christ’s work has an influence in the world. Romans six speak of freedom from the bondage, or slavery to sin and the master of sin. Thus the atonement contains some ransom aspects. Perhaps we need to call this more inclusive view the Great Controversy Theory, or the Sanctuary Theory of Atonement.
The discussion of texts like 2Pet 1:4 and John 10:30-36 by writers of different persuasions during the time of the Reformation reminded me of the significance listen to other people. Just recently a pastor in Austria was discharged after 15 years of unsuccessful discussions (moral influence theory) with theologians and pastors. He had come to certain conclusions, preached about it, and did not consult his colleagues. He built upon specific expressions in German that were, however, not existent in the Greek text. Since he was so convinced of his concept, of a whole system, he did not want to consider the opposite. The union was very patient through all that time. They endured several doctrinal differences, and were always willing to talk. But he did not stop with his reasoning, and went further and further, until finally it was not possible to hold him any more. Sometimes there are different interpretations of one text. It is possible that there are right and wrong interpretations. It is possible that they are all wrong, or one-sided. It is possible as well that several aspects of the truth are displayed in these interpretations. The question is if there is support for it in the text, in the context, and the concept that the Bible confers. In German there is a saying: “Have you eaten the wisdom with table spoons?” No! God is the giver of all wisdom. He is the source of all truth. And He has revealed to other persons some aspects of truth that I have not recognized yet. When someone tries to convince me of something new or different, I sometimes feel like to step one step back to get more distance to the other person. However, when I think about it afterwards, I realize that he/she was right. We need God’s grace in every step on the way. We are never at a point where we can say I don’t need God’s grace, help, and guidance any more. We as Christians are together one the same way, and we can help us to grow, to understand better, and get nearer to our Lord and Savior.
The discussion of “Who is the rock in Mat 16:16-18?” is very interesting. I am not really done with that topic.
(a) Apparently, the statement of Jesus, “su ei Petros, kai epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian,” is a play of words. “Petra” is the Greek word for rock. Jesus gave Simon the surname Peter or “Petros” respectively, the male form of “petra” since Simon as a male could hardly be given a female surname. The text in John 1:42 shows that the Aramaic form of that name was “Kephas” (rock). The text in question seems to play with “Petros” and “petra,” else it does not make very much sense why Jesus first addresses Peter (You are “Petros”) and then adds the statement, “and on this rock (petra) I will built my church.” When Jesus says “on this (taute) rock,” He indicates that it is already known with “this.” He does not say “the rock” but “this rock.” From an exegetical viewpoint Jesus plays with the words “Petros” and “petra.”
(b) In the past, some have suggested a distinction in meaning between “petra” (rock) and “Petros” (little stone). However, there is no evidence that this distinction existed at Jesus’ time. Several hundred years before, a Greek philosopher played with the words and assigned such meanings to the words. At Jesus’ time that distinction does not exist in the literature, if it has ever existed.
(c) Jesus speaks directly to Peter (You are Petros) and then he doesn’t say “and on the ‘petra’” but “and on this ‘petra’ I will built my church.” The word “this” (taute) shows that “this petra” (rock) must already have been mentioned and known. The most feasible answer is that it referred to “Petros.” To refer it at this point to the testimony of Peter or to Jesus himself (pointing to himself), would imply to read something into the text that the text itself doesn’t say.
(d) Jesus asks Peter later to tend his church and to feed his sheep. See John 21:15-17.
(e) In fact, Peter had a leadership role in the early church. A superficial look into the first eight to nine chapters of Acts shows Peter as the spokesperson. He is the one who starts the evangelization of the heathen. He is the one who apparently leads the church. He is pictured as a leader. Paul’s epistles paint Peter as an individual in a leading position.
(f) Paul states that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. … Christ himself is, however, the cornerstone. Everything and everyone points to him and gets orientation by him.
(g) The power to bind and to lose is first entrusted to Peter (Mat 16:19) but later it is entrusted to the other disciples as well (Mat 18:18). In John 20:23 the whole thing is apparently directed to a broader circle than merely the twelve.
(h) Immediately after the “glorious” text, where Peter confesses Christ as the Son of God and Jesus declares that Peter would be an important part of the foundation for the building of the church, Peter wants to prevent his Lord from His way of suffering. Jesus calls him even “Satan.” See Mat 16:21-28.
(i) Peter is a fallible human being and not a guarantor for the truth! Peter wants to fight for the kingdom of God with the instruments of Satan (sword). He is rebuked by Jesus. Peter denies Jesus although he had confessed him in Mat 16. Peter is a hypocrite in regard to the heathen-Christians. Paul rebukes him publicly. That happens in the early Christian church.
(j) It is impossible to derive from the NT an office of Peter’s succession. Nothing is said regarding an office that he has given to a successor. He is not a guarantor for the truth. The guarantor for the truth is the Word, the Bible.
Conclusion: Christ considered Peter as a foundation upon which He could build His church. Christ Himself is the cornerstone – that is he proper “foundation” and the most important stone respectively –from which everything gets its orientation. Peter was a fallible human being as we ourselves are. Peter did not pass on an office and did not choose a successor for himself. It is not possible to derive from the NT a successor figure for Peter that would be a contact person for issues and questions for what is truth and what not, how the Scriptures should be interpreted or not. Peter was important for the beginning of the church but both at his life time as well as throughout history until today Christ is the real foundation of the church. We need to focus on him, and get orientation from him.
Last week we discussed how the Catholics sharpened their doctrinal positions in response to the Protestant Reformation, especially by ceasing to allow such doctrinal pluralism within their own fold. I am not an expert on modern Catholicism, but it seems like they have somewhat moved away from this stance. There seems to be a broad range of beliefs tolerated within Catholicism, especially within the context of missions. It seems as though they are more willing than most Protestant churches to incorporate elements of religious and cultural practices/beliefs of the target audience into their umbrella of belief. It seems as though they still value the idea of unification over doctrinal purity.
For a project for another class, I’ve been exploring the issue of sola scriptura and the difficulties associated with it, and the research was relevant to what we’ve discussed in class, so I thought I’d share. Mostly, I wanted to catalogue some of the complexities of the Reformers’ views, which I hadn’t thought about before.
1. The Reformers’ insistence on the principle of sola scriptura introduced an unfortunate and somewhat artificial distinction between Scripture and tradition. Originally, of course, the issue that prompted the cry for reformation was the issue of indulgences, not tradition or church authority. But once the church defended herself through recourse to authority and authoritative tradition, the Reformers needed a stronger authority, which led them to pit Scripture against the tradition of the church. (Heiko Oberman, however, argues that such an antagonism is not fair: since the Reformers also used tradition and developed a tradition of their own, it is better to speak of two different understandings of tradition, rather than a pitting of Scripture against tradition.)
2. Although sola scriptura sounded neat and tidy, “neither Luther nor Calvin was consistent with his own doctrine,” according to Anthony Meredith. For example, though the doctrine of the Trinity was not explicitly declared anywhere in Scripture, this fact did not stop Calvin from burning a lapsed monk at Geneva for denying the doctrine. In this case and others, Protestants often seemed “no less authoritarian in their attitude to scripture than the church they had left.” In fact, Meredith levels at the Reformers the charge of “arbitrariness.” They insisted on the sole authority of Scripture, yet accepted the first four church councils as valid. They preached the primacy of Scripture, yet they rejected or undermined those parts of accepted Scripture of which they did not approve: all the Reformers discarded the apocrypha and Luther pronounced James an “epistle of straw.” Further, when the Radical Reformers began to take the principle to extremes considered too great, the magisterial Reformers drew back from the implications of their own early insistence on the priority of Scripture alone. In the end, it could seem that they had simply replaced one tradition with another, and replaced the church’s authority with the authority of their own writings.
3. Another major complication with the sola scriptura principle was the fact that even the magisterial Reformers could not agree among themselves about precisely what Scripture said on certain matters. The problem of interpretation was a significant one, and the various Reformation theologians had very different hermeneutical approaches. Though the Reformation appealed to Scripture as the source of Christian theology, there was no agreement over how to approach the interpretation of the Bible. This was very evident, for example, in the Eucharistic controversy. (I think this continues to be an issue today.)
4. The Reformers advocated sola scriptura, yet placed barriers between ordinary readers and the text. The Reformers were wary of allowing laity direct access to the text, for they thought this would lead to heresy. After all, the Lollards, Albigensians, and Waldensians all appealed directly to Scripture, and look where they went. So the Reformers still felt that the Bible needed to be interpreted for laity, and much of their writing was intended as just such a preparation. In other words, the Reformers were discarding one set of commentaries and glosses (the Catholic ones) and replacing them with their own.
The week before the Thanksgiving break we were talking about the question of original sin and infant baptism. The Anabaptists concluded that baptism of infants was not necessary because the NT does not talk about it. Without the tradition of the Church, there would be no reason for baptizing babies. Just recently I read something in regard to the question of baptism that was quite interesting. During the years 1523-1525 Zwingli rejected any mystical power or saving efficacy of the baptismal action, and he pointed out that baptism is an act of confession of faith that gives assurance as well. He stated that if baptism is only there to strengthen the faith of the believer, infant baptism would not be really necessary. However, soon he was faced with the Anabaptists (some of their major thinkers were actually Zwingli’s students) who went even further than Zwingli in totally rejecting the baptism of infants. Now he had to reconsider his position, and developed it further. Finally, he concluded that it is right to baptize infants, and unbiblical to deny them the baptism. Yet, I am curious whether he felt somehow urged to put himself on the side of the magistrates. If children were not baptized, there existence did not show up in the records. Since these were the basis for the tax system (church and state taxes), the abrogation of the baptism of infants cut directly at the heart of the tax system, and therefore at the source of income of the church and the state. Zwingli had just come out of a time where the magistrates were not so sure if they should support the Reformers against the Catholic Church. Eventually they decided to support the cause of the Reformation but Zwingli was still afraid to lose their support. If he would go to such an extreme as his students did, he surely would have lost the support of city fathers (magistrates). Apart from theological reasons, the aspects just described could have moved Zwingli to slow down his reformation process since this matter apparently was not really a central matter of faith. I really would like to investigate the sources if it is possible to unearth some reasons why he changed his mind on the significance of infant baptism.
In class we talked a whole lot about how we are similar to the Catholic Church in how we view unity of the Church, authority of the Church, hierarchy government of the Church, and traditions that we both like to keep that don’t have scriptural foundation. In class it was discussed that we need to be careful when we call the Catholic Church and the Pope the Anti-Christ. I have to agree with part of the discussion pertaining that the anti-Christ is much bigger than the Catholic Church, and that its system, theology, and spirit can even be in the midst of Adventist believers. Anything that is not of Christ is anti! But lets not let the Catholic Church of so easy. Lets refresh our selves on the heresy of the beast. Here is a list that I came up with
1. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine 2. Baptism of Infants is a false doctrine 3. Sprinkling Baptism is a false doctrine 4. State of the dead is a false doctrine 5. Worship of Saints is a false doctrine 6. Worship of the Pope is a false doctrine 7. Worship of Mary is a false doctrine 8. Celibacy of Priest is a false doctrine 9. Sunday Worship is a false doctrine 10. Intercession through Priest is a false doctrine 11. Purgatory/ Hell is a false doctrine 12. Indulgences is a false doctrine 13. Worship of the cross, images and relics is a false doctrine 14. Fasting on Fridays is a false doctrine 15. The Rosary is a false doctrine 16. Doctrines of 7 Sacraments to merit eternal life are false doctrines 17. Apocryphal books are false books 18. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is a false doctrine 19. Praying for the dead is a false doctrine. 20. Original sin is a false doctrine
This is just the few that came to my mind. The Catholic Church is full of Anti-Christ and has the most anti-Christ doctrine of any Church on earth. I think its fair to say that it’s the Mother of harlots when we look at this list of false doctrine above. Let be Christian, but lets not hide the truth. The Catholic Church may not be “the” final false Christ (Satan), but they have a huge role in deceiving the world and preparing the way for Satan great masquerading deception. Let’s not be laid back and so easy on the Catholic Church, God has raised the Adventist Church to call people out of Babylon (Catholic Church or any anti-Christ system) and worship the Creator, by Keeping His Commandments in love. Now is the time more than ever to sound the trumpets. This is just my humble opinion….
In this last and final blog I thought I would write on the Counter Reformation with a focus on society of the Jesuits. The Catholic Church was battling heresy and opposition for at least four hundred years. The Reformation brought many of its doctrines and practices into question. The Church may have fought against the reformation, but it did not ignore its need for some changes. There were some genuine reformers that were within the Church (such as Desiderius Erasmus) who brought principles such as simple living, and piety back into the Church. I have to admit their devotion to God is worth a discipline worth emulating.
Ignatius of Loyola in the 1530’s began a very conservative group called the Society of the Jesus or better known by Adventist the Jesuits. He was known as a very brilliant and capable man to carry out his vision for the Church. Is small group of ten, grew to 15,000 by 1630. His goal was for the world to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church in the strictest way without asking any questions. Its mission was to rid all heretics who oppose the Church. They were missionaries, and are credited in spreading Catholicism to the non-western world. They started seminaries around the world to educate and train new leaders. The Jesuits have done a lot of good in that respect.
There is also another side of them that is mysterious. Some think the society educates not only spies but uncover agents to infiltrate protestant denominations to sow seeds of doubt, and change their way of thinking about the Catholic Church. I don’t believe they do this, and have never seen any tangible evidence for it. I do see false teachers in the Adventist Church, and some who are very pro-catholic in their stance, but I don’t think they are Jesuits. I think they are sinful humans who have lost touch of scriptures and the spirit of prophecy.
Richard Thomas Blog # 11 There is a good quote that I recently discovered that ties into what we have been discussing in class. In a book titled, “Babylon Mystery Religion,” Ralph Woodrow wrote, "Mankind in general, has followed variations of one kind or another, of the religion of Babylon, to this day…Rome...assimilated religions from her many conquered territories. All these religions had commonalities, for they all came from Babylon. These practices infiltrated and overcame the professing Christian Church, which later came to be dominated by Rome itself…This is the cup which the Babylonish system has made all the world to drink. It is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church of Rome, but she certainly plays a major role in today’s religious deception…The Romish system is based upon a mixture. The word "Catholic" means Universal...the true Christian goal is not religion based on mixture, but a return to the original, simple, powerful, and spiritual faith that was once delivered to the saints." (- Ralph Woodrow; Pg. 161, “Babylon Mystery Religion,” 1966) I would agree that the Church of Rome is Babylon, and that after time she became more and more corrupt as she adopted the practices of paganism and mixing all religions together. It surely is true that the Catholic Church is a universal religion. I can’t help but think of the text in Revelation 13:4, which says that “all the world wondered after the beast.” The International Sabbath School Quarterly, Feb. 29, 1896 even said that when the early church “departed from God and imbibed pagan errors, she became Babylon." - In the great book, “The Great Controversy,” pg 382, Ellen White wrote something similar to this: "It was by departure from the LORD, and alliance with the heathen, that the...church became a harlot."
Richard Thomas 12th and final blog: I decided to put some more thought and find quotes from other Protestant leaders in the past to bring out more of their historical understanding of the anti-christ. In doing this, I ask myself and I beg you to consider how we as a church have shifted from our Protestant Theological Heritage: For Martin Luther, on the subject of the identity of antichrist once remarked: "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. Furthermore, John Calvin wrote in his famous Institutes: “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian) also stated that "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.
Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52. There is a dangerous progress in the SDA Church, when leaders start to think that the little horn is something other than the Vatican. Some have even suggested that the little horn of Daniel 7 could be a Muslim power. Yet, others are looking at the 1260 day prophecy as not referring to the dark ages. Although, I am open for new interpretations that challenge me theologically, I still sense the danger here. Finally, let us prayerfully consider this POWERFUL quotation about the danger that we are in when we remain silent. It is taken from one of my favorite books besides the Bible, “the Great Controversy”: "Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High. The papacy is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.” (570-571) Let me remind you that the office of the Inquisition is still active today! May God help us live a loving and truthful testimony!
I would like to just expand some of the thoughts that were expressed in class. If we are to truly take the scripture as our teacher on the matter of Christ’s work, then we must taken in all of the phases of Christ ministry as essential for the accomplishment of His work. The fact that Christ is God in the fullest sense is necessary, for without that then only a man died on that cross and if that is so that why not any other man. That Christ lived a righteous life is necessary for had he not done so he would not be a perfect sacrifice. His Death is important because without it there could be no remission of sin. His resurrection is important for without that there would be no consummation of our hopes in Christ. His ministry in the heavens is important else how would there be an end of sin. Perhaps what is necessary to help others to understand the truth concerning the heavenly sanctuary is to show them the phases, or seasons, of Christ’s ministry, and how one part builds on the next. I know as a church we have written much material on the subject of the sanctuary, but we may not have apprehended the best method by which we could make that truth known. Also, perhaps the greatest lack of ability in teaching this truth is that we do not live this truth out in our own lives, and thus we lack the Spirit that would give us the power to preach [in both word and deed]. May God help us to give the trumpet the right sound.
I've been musing a lot in the past few weeks on the topic of tradition in the Catholic church vs. tradition the Protestant movement, and it's been a little perplexing to think through exactly how I feel about the subject of tradition (vs. the authority of Scripture).
For one thing, a little study into the Protestant Reformers' views on tradition showed me that they weren't necessarily as "anti-tradition" as I'd thought. Generally speaking, the Reformers held that the Church fathers and councils were subordinate to Scripture, but the fathers continued to have importance and relevance as exegetical guides.
In practice, the Reformers appealed to tradition when it was helpful, and appealed to a more ancient tradition—Scripture—when it was not. Cameron notes that “the early Fathers had a persuasive force: Augustine, above all, was cited to support the reformers’ views and to defend them from the accusation of novelty. They could however be disregarded if convenient; even Augustine could on occasion be criticized.” By way of specific examples, Pelikan observes that during the controversy among Protestants over the proper understanding of the Eucharist, Reformed theologians made ready use of the authorities of antiquity, whom they believed to be on their side of the argument over against the Lutherans and the Catholics. One of the express arguments of the Reformed camp, therefore, was that they were teaching nothing with respect to the Eucharist that the ancient authorities had already already taught. On the other hand, ancient authorities did not support the Reformed view on the question of celibacy, and so Reformed believers appealed to Scripture instead. In this manner, Protestants were able to make use of tradition when it was to their advantage, without being tied to it when it was not to their advantage.
Also, Pelikan sort of indicates (and I've read other scholars concur) that the Reformation was sort of a "reappropriation" of the Augustinian tradition. In other words, the Reformation wasn't just a debate over Scripture, but also over the correct interpretation of Augustine.
I find all of this very interesting. The upshot of what I've said is that the Reformers really weren't as anti-tradition as I used to picture them. True, the Radicals were much more against tradition than the Magisterial Reformers, but still...this research is making me rethink just exactly how consistent the Reformers were. And it's also forcing me to figure out more how I view the proper role of tradition.
Clinton Moriah response to Richard's comments on papacy. My bro Richard, I always enjoy your comments. You have made some very insightful comments on Papacy and the pope. However, we need to be very careful in our presentation of the gospel that we don't present like the politicians of our times and their political campaign in attacking persons but ignoring concepts and ideas that are anti- Christ in nature. To who much is given much is required.
Apostolicity and Papacy by Clinton Moriah We discussed in Class the church doctrine of Apostolicity and how it impacted the reformation. Apostolicity was the way in which the Roman church sought to define its oneness and its holiness and its catholicity. These debates gradually forced theologians and leaders to choose between faithfulness to doctrinal and creedal tradition and to the ecclesiastical structure of the church or faithfulness to God and Scripture.The church maintained that tradition was necessary in doctrinal issues. Instead of obeying God's word the church became obsessed with uplifting manmade traditions and political power.The spirit of Greed and apostasy had arrested the leadership of the church.
Dr Hanna discussed in class the role of Sola Scriptura in the reformation. Prior to the reformation the theology of the truth of the gospel was suppressed by the Catholic Church.. The church placed emphasis on tradition over the truth of the scripture. The reformation exposed the errors and traditions of the church to the scrutiny of the light of scripture. The Bible was upheld as the supreme authority and rule for faith and doctrine. The reformation presented that Preaching of the word of God as central to doctrine and practical Christianity. The doctrine of the Eucharist was presented in the light of God’s word and not tradition of the church. Luther played a vital role with the reformers in challenging the Church to return to the Scripture. The scripture was declared as the primary rule of doctrine. As a result of the reformation the wall between the people and the clergy was raptured.The wall between the people and the scripture was broken down. Prior to the reformation the Bible was kept from the ordinary people and they were kept in ignorance and enslaved to the traditions and politics of the church that drove the common people with a staff of fear.
Moriah clinton response to Jamie Kelly You have made some insightful comments Jamie. Its funny how both the reformers and the Catholic church leaders used the writings of Agustine in their debates.
Clinton Response to Marco on Pelikan. You have made some great comments Marco and highlighted possible flaws in Pelican't view. At the same time we need to acknowledge that God used the Catholic church in preserving and initiating some aspects of truth.The reform movement came out of the Papacy.We have been blessed to have divine guidance and progressive revelation as a church.
Dr Hanna discussed in class that as Protestants, we tend to focus on the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church, but Ellen G.White states that God was leading in that heritage.Our view of the trinity has its heritage in Catholic theology. Even though the early catholic view of the trinity involved ontological concepts dualism which were pagan concepts that were rejected by our pioneers there was truth in the concept of the trinity that God revealed in time to Ellen White and his remnant church. Adventist pioneers rejected the whole concept of the trinity at first, but then studied more God revealed the truth to them. Our tendency was to reject historical insights because they were mixed with error, but then discovered that the truth was closer to Roman Catholic theology than we thought. Sometimes problems arise simply because we misunderstand terms and allow our own biases to cloud our vision.
"Reformation roots in Adventist christology" by Clinton Moriah
We discussed in class that Adventis teaching on the nature of christ has its roots in Catholic an protestant theology. However, even though Adventists understanding of the nature of Christ has its roots in Catholic and protestant Christology, Adventists are privilege to be blessed with the prophetic ministry of Ellen white who has contributed significantly to the current Adventists understanding of the Humanity of Christ. Both Calvin and Luther believed that Christ assumed sinful nature. Ellen White and contemporary Adventists believed that “He took upon himself fallen suffering human nature. Several controversies have erupted as a result of protestant and Adventist theologians attempting to define Christ humanity as prelapsarian (pre-fall) or postlapsarian (post-fall). Ellen White describes Christ mission in two dimensions. She speaks of the pre-fall and a post- fall dimension. Through the writings and counsels of the prophetic ministry of Ellen in the light of scripture and Progressive revelation, Contemporary Adventism has concluded that Christ’s humanity was neither pre- fall nor post fall. It was unique. Adventist understanding on the humanity of Christ has progressively maturity from its pioneers to contemporary Adventism.
I like to write this reflection in conjunction with what we have discussed in class this week. Gonzalez’s book in chapter one talks about how the Roman church used indulgences and different mischievious ways to raise funds for the building of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome. Although there were a few within the Roman Catholic church who lived their lives according to the biblical model of living, the vast majority of the leadership was corrupt from down and up the ladder. For those who are truly determined to be representatives of God’s authority on earth to gain money in such a way was very heart breaking for a society where nationalism was rising. But even beyond conceivable is the idea of using the means acquired in such a way to build a place of worship such as St. Peter’s Cathedral. Did the leaders who were doing these things feel comfortable when they finally completed the build and conduct masses in it? Were they thinking of the ethical implications to their actions in the eyes of the nations which they were seeking to evangelize? Perhaps they had seen it not insidious to the gospel or to their honor for that matter. If this is not the case, maybe the framework by which they interpreted what was sagacious in religious terms was quite at variant with what the protestants think today. One surprising fact is that there were leaders from within the Catholic church who were striving to maintain strict piety that led to reformation. Such leaders were found to be good models in the midst of corruption. Yet knowing that God had given them christian heritage that is based on Scriptures, couldn’t the apostasy had been suppressed and event checked? God knows why there are wolves in sheep clothings.
107 comments:
Dr Hanna wrote out a rough sketch of the progress of truth from the OT to the SDA church. That progress of truth has happened in the context of both Heavenly and Human history. In times past Satan, then Lucifer, began a debate, about God, His Character, His authority, His mercy, and so forth: which our great grandparents, Adam and Eve, unfortunately took up here on earth. By doing so they drafted the whole of their posterity into that debate in which we presently find ourselves. Thankfully we are not left without an anchor in that debate. The Scripture are our guide as we Protest, do Theology, and seek that Heritage which is promised. I am grateful and thankful, what while we live in this world, filled with debate and dissention; we have a sure lamp for our feet. More specifically as I read the first chapter of Pelikan’s book I was made grateful for God’s guiding gift as I read about the debates within Catholic Church during that time. While I respect the fact that they were struggling with understanding their own theology, they certainly seem to miss the point. As Pelikan argued in chapter one, Augustine was a great influence on the Roman Catholic Church and the reformation that came out of that church. His views impacted 14-15th century doctrinal debates, especially in the area of Mariology, the Eucharist, and unity of the faith; While Anselm of Canterbury was the one who systematized the plan of salvation and the author of the satisfaction theory, which when other theologians—wanting to steer clear of Pelagius’ teaching—was reinterpreted to adhere the to the doctrine of predestination of which Augustine had explicitly said that God both predetermined the saved and the dammed. Even some reformers, Huss and Wycliffe, had their understanding colored by their adherence to Augustinian views. As such, being a protestant, I have to ‘protest’ this reliance upon one man’s view. I admit that I’m not a student of Augustine, and I have not read much of his writings so there may be many good things in his works. However, this I know, that one tract of Scripture can afford me more true knowledge of God than all the writings of Augustine, for it is written “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” 2 Peter 1:19. Had men done this more there would have been no time wasted shoring up false doctrines such as Mary’s as mediatrix, or false practices such as the Eucharist/Mass.
During the lectures, Prof. Martin Hanna gave us the great picture of the transmission of the divine message from the period of the Old Testament patriarchs to the time in which we live today. Every generation builds upon the foundation they received from their preceding generation. Every person received the biblical truth from someone who got it from someone else. Although the message was supported by Bible texts, the explanations are influenced by the personal understanding of the person. The question is always whether the explanation is faithful to the original message (e.g. Isa 8:20) or whether it distorts the meaning and sense of the original idea. Even the writers of the Bible distinguished between right traditions (2Thess 2:15; 3:6) and wrong traditions (Mat 15:3; Col 2:8). A tradition in itself is not bad but it has to stand in accord to the meaning of the original message.
Chapters 1 and 6 of the book show in a very good way that the Roman Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages and even the Protestants wanted to base their beliefs on the original message. At this point a significant hermeneutical decision was made. Who knows better the original meaning of the apostolic statements than the people who did not have such big timely distance or who maybe even knew the apostles themselves? That is why these theologians studied and exposed the church fathers. That is why Augustine had such a great significance for these medieval theologians. However, they ceased to make the Bible their main object of study. The church fathers became the authority on how the Bible should be understood. In the second part of the Middle Ages theologians interpreted and exposed what e.g. Peter Lombard had said about what Augustine had said and so on. The original meaning of Biblical texts and their message became more and more distorted. The Reformers wanted to go back to the roots but even they (e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc.) looked at what Augustine had really said and took it for granted.
For me the class and also the two chapters of the book were very interesting because it showed me the importance of the existence and right application of good and biblical hermeneutical principles, which should lead to good methods. No person reads the Bible without any previous knowledge and conscious or unconscious premises. If we stay at that point, we also stay in a certain hermeneutical circle where we support our premises and own views. That is why it is so important to be open to the Bible and adapt our hermeneutics to the principles that they Bible itself shows. To theologians and pastors that shows the importance of a proper knowledge of the Biblical languages, a Biblical hermeneutic and a good understanding of how to do exegesis. The first interpreter of the Bible should be the Bible itself. A good knowledge of the doctrinal development over the centuries is helpful to understand why we today and also other denominations see it this way or that way. A good knowledge of the beliefs of our Adventist pioneers and the development of our doctrines is important. It is important to read and study Ellen White’s writings. All that can help us to understand the Bible better and more than we could do only by our own studies. We can get new insights etc. But all that should never replace the study of the Biblical text itself. All that shall lead us to the Bible itself.
(When we were babies it was easier for us to chew something that our mother had already in her mouth. But today, it is better for the teeth, which God has given us, to chew something where we still need them. That is why I like European bread! :) That is why I like to do exegesis and study the Bible for myself, and then compare my conclusions to what others have said.)
From last week’s class lecture and discussions, I thought the foundation of Protestantism was laid when we discussed the Protestantism heritage of sola scriptura. For example, how can you protest against the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church if you do not have the surety and weight of Biblical evidence to stand upon when protesting against it? In the class discussion it was also pointed out that to understand the Protestant heritage, you have to understand what they were protesting against, which was Roman Catholic Church tradition. I would agree with this too; but moreover, if you want to spot the counterfeit study the true (truth) even more!
According to history and my reading of Pelikan’s Reformation of Church and Dogma, it was Martin Luther’s aim to reform and revive the Church of its errors through the knowledge of the written Word, but the church’s leaders were ‘blind guides’ who wanted to remain blind, therefore Luther became more devoted to exposing the apostasy of the Church through her traditions that were against the Bible’s tradition of the Gospel.
There is only one safeguard against error and deception when it comes to private interpretation held by people who do not check scripture with scripture. According to 2 Peter 1:20, “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation;” therefore, it would be good to follow the sola scriptura principle so that we have a true and biblical interpretation of scripture. In addition, another interpretation of this verse is to check with other sources or the community of believers as opposed to holding a view privately as an individual. Again, this principle of sola scriptura is substantiated by Isaiah 28:10, which gives us the Biblical principle of establishing truth. Isaiah 28:10 says, “precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little”. This is a sure foundation and it is ours to stand upon! After all, we as Adventists are supposed to be standing on the shoulders of the Reformers, and the Reformers were standing solidly on sola scriptura, scriptures alone. Speaking of the heritage of Protestantism, sola scriptura is one of our greatest and dearest.
I agree with you Richy that as Adventists we ought to be forward on the principle of sola scriptura, after all, we claim and rightly so that our doctrines are based on the Scriptures. But perhaps we need to step ahead and also pay close attention to the history of the reformation in order that we may repeat history as a people uninformed.
The key theme that has stood out in my mind from the lectures and readings this week is the theme of tradition. As in, what is its place in Christianity? What is the relationship between tradition and the Bible?
As all Protestants know, one of the fundamental reasons for the Protestant Reformation was the fact that Protestants rejected the Catholic emphasis on Tradition, arguing that Christians should base their beliefs and practices on the Bible and the Bible alone, never human tradition. Given that sola scriptura was such a strong underlying principle of the Reformation, it seems that most Protestants take the idea for granted, as if it is perfectly obvious.
However, the “obviousness” of the sola scriptura principle is complicated, for several reasons. To begin with, the Bible has both a positive and a negative perspective on tradition, as we discussed in class. For instance, Paul warns the Colossians against the “vain deceit” of the “tradition of men” and cautions the believers “lest tradition spoil you” (Col. 2:8). On the other hand, he tells the Thessalonians to “stand fast and hold onto the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). This apparently contradictory perspective makes it somewhat confusing to figure out where a Christian should stand with respect to tradition.
A second reason why the sola scriptura principle is complicated is the fact that it is essentially impossible to isolate sola scriptura from historical and cultural context. In fact, we could go so far as to say the ideal of sola scriptura is unrealistic. As was pointed out in class, we read Matthew, John, Paul, etc. in a certain way because of the history of interpretation that has come down to us. Twenty-first century readers cannot escape that tradition of interpretation; like it or not, the tradition affects us. Additionally, cultural conditions also affect our reading of the text. Paul’s culture affected the way he wrote in his time, and our culture affects the way we read him in our time. To try to escape the cultural traditions that surrounded the authors’ writing of the text and our reading of the text is impossible.
Therefore, I am somewhat sympathetic to the Catholic claim that Scripture and tradition cannot be separated. For instance, Catholic scholar R. McBrien states, “it is not as if you have first Scripture and then you have Tradition…Tradition comes before, during, and not just after, the writing of sacred Scripture.” He is right that tradition and Scripture are bound up together. And I can see the point of the Catholic Church when it says, as it did in Dei Verbum (a document of the Second Vatican Council), that it is through tradition that “the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood.” And when the same document concludes that “sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church…are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others,” the position makes some sense. To pretend, as Protestants sometimes do, that we can escape tradition is naïve.
On the other hand, I was really struck by a point made by Dr. Fortin in another class this week. Dr. Fortin said, rather astutely I think, that the biblical pattern for the transmission of God’s messages to his people is that they are first transmitted orally, and then are to be written down. Time and again, this pattern is repeated in the Bible: God gives commands or messages, and his messenger writes them down (see, for example, Ex. 20:3-4; Deut. 29:1 and 31:24-26; Josh. 24:22ff). As Dr. Fortin concluded, if God wants his people to remember something, he has us commit it to writing. In this way, the message is not forgotten or amended or tinkered with. (It's also worth noting the numerous places where the apostles point Christian believers back to the biblical text, and adjure them not to add to or subtract from the words of Scripture. Cf. 2 Tim. 3:14ff; 1 Tim. 4:11; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19.)
So, my conclusion: while we should recognize the appropriate and necessary place of tradition, we Protestants have a responsibility to proclaim the primacy of the text over and above tradition. God himself has indicated that he intended his word to be preserved in Scripture, not in extra-biblical tradition. Only in this way can we avoid alteration of the message. The text is crucial; the text is primary; it is the text which should be our constant governor.
9-06-08 Eric Washburn
#1 BLOG
In the age of the reformation of the Roman Catholic Church, the development of theology was moving in full swing. Many of the theology development that I have read in our text book deals with the tough questions that scripture didn’t seem to answers in the minds of medieval theologians of that time. Dogma such as the immaculate conception of Mary, the necessity of Christ’s death, predestination, the Eucharist, the sacrament of penance, and confession. It was clearer to some, however, that scripture defined these doctrines quite well, such as in the case of the reformers as Martin Luther when he returned to reading the Bible for himself, he saw the inconstancies in what the scripture taught plainly when compared to man made traditions of the Roman Catholic Church specifically. A call to return to scripture (sola scriptural) was made. It was noted in class that the reform that was started only went as far as the reformer. It wasn’t the motive of the reformers to destroy the mother Church and raise up a new Church, but rather to create a genuine reform from within. In class we talked about the dangers of cherished traditions getting in the way of reform. I must ask myself, “ Do I read the Bible to discover new truth or reaffirm the foundations of our founders or do I just read the Bible with Bible guides that have been created for me so I don’t stray off and discover something that my present a different perspective?”.
I find in my personal journey that I have accepted many of the Adventist Fundamental beliefs with out really doing a personal study to see if they are complete. I have read and study our beliefs, been to many evangelistic meetings that use proof text to prove their points, but I have failed to sit down and say today I am going to look up everything in the Bible that speaks about righteousness by faith, the Sabbath, death, wine, jewelry, diet, and the trinity etc… I have become complacent and just say, “Well sounds good enough to me, and it paints a nice picture of God.” Why study the scripture if those before us have already made us some of the finest baby food? I think I need to get back to eating the meat of the Bible, just maybe something has been overlooked, or maybe a doctrine is underdeveloped, or there new light. Sounds pretty dangerous??? Especially to the leaders of the Church, we don’t want people studying the Bible for themselves without a Bible study guide. Have we arrive as a Church and need not press on to new discoveries? This I believe breads death to the Church and a will need a thorough revival from within.
Eric, You have said some profound things. Thanks for mentioning my name. Please study the Bible for yourself. I never meant my followers to stop studying for themselves and pushing forward to ever brighter light. Cheers! Martin Luther
Clinton Moriah
Protestant Theological Heritage
Challenge to Apostolic Continuity
In the first part of chapter six the author argues that the Apostolic continuity was a standard around which several different and opposing theological armies could rally. Even though many catholic scholars argue that apostolic continuity with the apostles has been a standard since the ancient church. Three criteria that were used to support this position prior to the reformation were the assumption that the revelation the apostles handed down through scripture were the pillar and bulwark of the Christian’s faith.
In addition, the doctrinal and creedal tradition was derived from the apostles and the ecclesiastical structure represents by bishops in the church and their succession has continued through time. This view puts tradition above the scripture and gave the church authority above scripture. There is no real scriptural basis for apostolic succession and the supremacy of tradition above scripture. The reformation movement and radical reformers laid bare the claims, and manmade traditions instituted by the great catholic church under the scrutiny in the light of the written and inspired word of God... Radical reformers spiritually torn to shreds the basis for apostolic continuity and called for a restoration of primitive Christianity. This herald by the call for “sola- scriptura”. These developments led to the arousal of the great theological and historical interest in the twentieth century.
One of the most difficult questions for me as I study Protestant theology is why the followers of Christ are so disjointed and lacking in unity as a people. We spoke in class about trying to find a balance between unity and diversity – that somehow this balance would be the key to true unity among the followers of Christ. In chapter 2 of Pelikan’s book he deals with the issue of church unity as well. He outlines the struggle of the Catholic Church to maintain its claim to being one (as in one holy, catholic, apostolic) while at the same time dealing with pluralistic beliefs within. Pelikan made a statement that caught my attention. He said that the divide between the Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) churches over the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, for example, was more a matter of how they worded their understanding. In substance, Pelikan suggests, their belief was not much different, but the words they chose to describe the belief caused deep division. I know that we cannot write all of our differences off as simple miscommunication of words, but I am curious as to how much our choice of language can contribute to unity or lack thereof. I admire Jesus for His ability to draw clear distinctions. For Him, it seemed, it was not difficult to describe citizenship in the kingdom of God. A person could see clearly and choose whether to be in or out when Christ would speak. At least it really seems that way to me. I tend to think that much of our inability to move forward on a united front in the power of the Holy Spirit is due to our exclusive mentality and the language we choose to describe what it means to be a true Christian. Are we making it more difficult to enter the kingdom of God than Christ made it? I think of all people we should be the most clear, and that we should do all we can to make the kingdom accessible to all people – as it truly is anyway.
Richy Thomas
From this week’s reading response, I was reflecting on Justification by Faith as the “hinge that everything hangs upon.” Ellen White, herself once said that justification by ‘faith is the hub and heart’ of everything else. The way I understand it, “solo Christo” was the Latin statement that was made to declare salvation is through Christ alone. Moreover, combined with “sola fide,” which is understood as “faith alone,” makes the statement read: salvation is by faith alone by Christ alone. The good news is that we are saved by Christ’s righteousness, His faithfulness, His life and death! I rejoice with Luther in the Scripture texts that set him free: Romans 1:16, 17 and Ephesians 2:8, 9, etc.
I know that we need to rediscover that CHRIST IS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, like Luther did. For the Gospel is good news, when we realize that we are not saved by works or merit. For any good thing that we do falls short of the glory of God. Even our good deeds are likened onto “filthy rags.” [Isaiah ] On another note, I have an understanding that Christ’s righteousness works in and for us. Through Christ’s death, we are justified (imputed righteousness) and through His life (in the Holy Spirit), we are sanctified (imparted righteousness). Romans 5:1, 6-11; Romans 8:1-5
On another note, Luther had an issue with the relationship of grace and works in the book of James. “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone…Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only [James 2:17-24] James writes that both are involved in the life of the believer. However, I do believe that James is not saying that you are saved by works, but works show that measure of faith in the believer. I agree with James though, that true faith works, not to be saved, but to show love and gratitude to SOMEONE who paid the price to set me free!
The lectures serve not only the purpose to transmit information and knowledge about the history of Christianity but urge us to think and re-think some of our prejudices and opinions. As Seventh-day Adventists we all really know the prophecies and interpretations of Daniel and Revelation by heart. Maybe we could recite them in sleep. Yet, sometimes we are, at least that is my own feeling, a little bit suspicious against any Catholic. I don’t want to judge any Adventist since that kind of thinking may not apply to every one but only to me. We have in mind several strange views and beliefs that these persons have or could have. However, the lectures make me think that somehow we sometimes equate the individuals with the system. Yes, the system is corrupt, fallen, and in apostasy. But the book of Revelation mentions that God’s people is in Babylon, and shall be called out of her (Rev 18:4). Since Rev 18:4 will find fulfillment very late in human history, it still applies today. So there are individuals in Babylon (Roman Catholic Church, fallen Protestant Churches, etc.) that are actually God’s people. We are not better than they. Actually, we have a mission … to call the people out of Babylon. We had the privilege of getting to know great Bible truths. Many of these people didn’t have that opportunity yet. We are not allowed to look down at them because of their apparent ignorance or supposed rejection of the truth.
During the past years I have realized that many Adventists don’t really know how to study their Bibles, and how to tread difficult topics/issues. Even many theology students complaint e.g. about looking so deep into the Hebrew/Greek text, and said it would be better to just get an outline of the fulfillment of the prophecy. We don’t like hard work, and study thoroughly for ourselves. BUT then we are not “better” than any Catholic. Even they believe what their priest, teacher, professor said without questioning it, and studying it for themselves. Yet, this is another level of discussion, and has nothing to do with an apostate system. It shows only that we make the same mistakes as they, and are brothers in human weaknesses.
Actually, I have never really thought about that God might work in the Catholic Church. For me it was always a kind of the “kingdom of darkness.” When Catholics told me about their spiritual experiences I always felt a little bit like I didn’t know what to think about it. I don’t know it yet either. Maybe that “kingdom of darkness” is not that dark what regards the individuals but a little bit more gray.
That was a short reflection on my thoughts and feelings about the content of last week’s class.
One of the things that interested in me in reading chapter 2 of the textbook was how the church struggled to define the proper relationship between Scripture and tradition, between Scripture and the authority of the Church.
Of course, both the Catholic church and its critics were aware of the importance of maintaining apostolicity in the church, and all sides saw adherence to the Scriptures as being key to remaining true to the apostolic church. But for some, sola scriptura was necessary, while for others, Scripture was to hold a position of primacy but was not to exclude the authority of the church. It wouldn’t be fair then, to say that the Catholic church was not interested in Scripture; the debate came down to exactly how it was supposed to be used.
This paragraph from the text was particularly interesting to me:
“Both [sides] held…that the authority of Scripture stood ‘first and foremost’ in the determination of articles of faith. Neither of them, on the other hand, was rejecting the authority of the church or proclaiming a doctrine of ‘Scripture alone,’ as certain heretics were seen to be doing. The question between the two views was whether the church, in exercising this doctrinal authority, had the right to promulgate as apostolic doctrines even some beliefs that could not find explicit warrant in what was ‘written in the Bible’ or in what was ‘deduced from this alone by an obvious conclusion,’ but that were rather purported to have ‘come down to us through the successive transmission of the apostles and others.’” (p. 121)
In other words, can the church be dogmatic on ONLY those doctrines that are explicit in the Bible, or are there are also ‘many truths not found in Sacred Scripture, nor necessarily deducible from its content alone, [that] ought to be assented to as a condition for salvation”?
I find this a prickly question, since this issue isn’t entirely alien to me as an Adventist. I mean, there are a few doctrines I espouse as an Adventist that are not exactly explicit in Scripture—for example, the doctrine of the trinity, or the doctrine of the sanctuary, or details of prophetic interpretation. None of these is very clearly spelled out in the Bible; one certainly couldn’t say they are explicit.
If I hold certain beliefs that are not explicit in Scripture, then on what grounds can I criticize Catholics for, say, Mariology? After all, though I would say my beliefs are implicit in the Bible, Catholics would claim that their beliefs about Mary are also in the Bible, although only in incipient form. After mulling it over for a while, I’m coming to the conclusion that I have to be careful how I criticize, because I might be liable to the same criticism.
That said, there is one key point I can think of that would distinguish my belief in the trinity/sanctuary/prophecy from Catholic belief in something like Mariology. That is, my doctrines, while not necessarily explicit in Scripture, are drawn from a wider and broader scriptural base than Catholic belief in the role of Mary. The doctrine of the sanctuary, for example, is drawn from the OT sanctuary, the books of Hebrews, Daniel, Revelation, etc. In contrast, there are several key doctrines in the Catholic church about Mary that are drawn from just a couple verses, so the scriptural base is very narrow.
So then, I guess the key difference and the key issue at stake is not just whether a particular doctrine is EXPLICIT in the Bible, but how broad the scriptural base is.
I am reflecting on our conversations in class last week regarding the “fine-tuning” of our prophetic interpretations. It is strange to me how entrenched I myself can become in my own understanding, even though with prophecy we have to be particularly on the alert. John 14:29 reads like this in the NASB: “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.” When I look at that in terms of our understanding of future events, I understand it to mean that we won’t really have a full understanding of what is going to take place until it actually happens. It seems like prophetic passages in Scripture are often more vague than we interpret them to be. I don’t think it is wrong to wrestle with those passages and to seek to understand them – I mean of course we should do that. It seems as though we are prone to take it to the extreme, though. We (I guess I should really say “I”, but I imagine that I speak for a lot of us) try to paint this end time picture in such detail – detail that realistically can’t be known or understood fully until the time comes. I understand why we do it. I think we are terribly afraid of being deceived. But what if it happens differently than the picture we have painted? What if sometime between now and the very end, for example, Catholics in mass numbers actually started to forsake their false traditions and experienced a revival and reformation. What if they actually were the main recipients of God’s last day outpouring of the Holy Spirit? It doesn’t mean the Catholic institution still couldn’t be instrumental in the last day persecution. I’m just saying, would we be able to accept such a curve ball? Or would we write it off as a false revival? You know what I mean? Other than what the Scriptures make absolutely clear, we cannot set our understanding of future events in stone in such detail. At least that’s what it seems like to me. Christ told the Apostles plainly on numerous occasions how he was going to die, and yet it was not until well after the events had happened that they fully understood the words that he had said. John makes that clear again earlier in his gospel when he says, “So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (John 2:22). It’s not as though these men did not already believe the Scriptures. And they wouldn’t have been following a man whose words they did not believe, right? It was a matter of the fulfilling of events in real time. That is what ultimately helps us to understand prophecy clearly.
I guess the question that remains would be whether or not prophecy serves us any purpose before it is actually fulfilled. Of course it does. It directs our thinking to what is important – ultimately the coming of Christ again to take us home, and how we will live this life in light of that reality. It causes us to study and seek help and guidance from our Creator, and He is faithful to enlighten our understanding more and more until the day comes when we see Him face to face.
The paradox of Reformation: Infant baptism
Even though Luther and Zwingli were some of the strongest campaigners for Sola Scriptura in some regards their lives and teachings contradicted the spirit and main Slogan of the reformation. They were still unwilling to let go some of their cherished catholic traditions and belief. They fought against the ones they disliked but held on to the ones they were very passionate about. This was evident on the issue of infant baptism. The Anabaptist insisted on enforcing the sole authority of scripture especially applying to baptism definition of signs that Zwingli had applied to the Lord’s Supper.
This caused controversy between the Anabaptists, Calvin and Luther. Both Calvin and Luther charged that the Pope and the Anabaptist were alike in their subjectivism. The Anabaptist argued that there was no difference between that Lutherans and the papists since their doctrine and teaching of the Lord’s Supper was false and perverted.
The Anabaptist believed in rebaptizing those who had already been baptized as infants from other churches. They were rebaptized as adults who believed in Jesus. The Anabaptist argued that Zwingli had underestimated the power of original and attacked Luther for underestimating the power of free will. Both Luther and Zwingli were accused of teaching that baptism administered involuntarily to infant was the cure for original sin.
The Anabaptist were right in this regard .The true Apostolic church followed Christ’s command and baptized only believing Adults. As we reflect on history and the heritage of the reformation its evident that God used the different reform movement who were technically daughters of papacy but also God’s instrument of revival and reformation. However as we discussed in class Satan was not to be on done he also contested for control of the reform movement. Has the Advent movement inherited these reformation genes? How do we avoid the mistakes of some of the reformers?
CLINTON MORIAH COMMENTS
ON ERIC'S CONTRIBUTION.
Eric you have made some powerful points about the reformation and the errors of the papacy.Keep it up.I like your traditional Adventist approach and over view of the subject.However,some of the reformers ( such as Martin Luther didn't adiquately live up to and teach the true slogan of the reformation.They held on to their own traditions some of the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church . We need to avoid their mistakes.Some reforms focused more on papacy that on God's word.
Eric Washburn
Blog #2
Is God in Charge of History?
The discussion in class concerning God being in charge of history can be a tough subject to grapple (wrestling term) with. To think God would make sure (or allow to raise up) the French revolution, which was anti-God to bring the about prophetic predictions seems against His nature. But Daniel the prophet speaks of this characteristic of God in Daniel 2:28 “ But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days… And Daniel 5:21b “…till he (Nebuchadnezzar) knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that He (God) appointeth over it whomsoever He will.” Is it also safe to say that God allowed the Roman Catholic Church to become powerful, and lead in the development of many heretical doctrines in order for prophecy to be fulfilled? Can history take a different coarse than God has predicted to take place? The answer would have to be no, if God can truly see the future. Does God guide history (Set up kingdoms)? I have a hard time seeing God as a movie director pulling strings to make sure His puppet creations carries out history, as He would like it to unfold. If He is that free to get involved with history than, I must ask why prolong this movie any longer, lets bring this dreadful movie to a glorious end.
Can we see it from a different angle and say, since God can foresee the future, He doesn’t interrupt it, but allows it to play out its foreseeable coarse. The statue in Daniel 2 that foresees history of the world empires rise and fall (Babylon, Medes and Persian, Greece, and Rome) is prime example how God sees the future. So does He make it happen in order to be right? I don’t think He has to, I think He allows history to take its coarse. One might think the devil would try to make God wrong by rising up another Kingdom to be the world’s next super power. We see Napoleon and Hitler trying to this, but both were stopped. Did God stop them or did they try to do something that was impossible to do with the circumstances at the time? We as Adventist interpret that the Beast that was healed and the Lamb like beast will try one more time to unite the world. Will God allow them go against His prediction? Nope! This is one place for sure that God will step into earths history and bring it to prophetic end . We know for certain that God will intervene and set up the Last and Final Kingdom spoken of in Daniel 2:44, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”
What about in our own lives? I think of all the bad things that have happen in my life. Some people say that God allows bad things to happen in our lives to make us better people, to test us, and grow us through suffering. I don’t think that paints a pretty good picture of God. I like the Joseph story. His brothers did some awful things to him, and sold him into slavery. Was this God’s plan all along? It almost seems like it. What if he wasn’t sold into slavery, would there of been a famine, or how about an Exodus hundreds of years later? Could Joseph and Israel history taken a different path? I think God could have had his people take a different path, but He uses the choice His people make and than tries to bring the best out of it. In Gen. 50:20 we hear Joseph word, “but as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” Paul says it another way in Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose”
Reading Pelikan it is clear that the discussions regarding the truth about the doctrines of sin and salvation did not find their solutions in the word of God but in the re-examination, defense, and exposition of the ‘church fathers.’ There was little reliance on a thus says the Lord, but very much on a thus says Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. So it was also with the discussion concerning who made up the true church, and the validity of its sacraments. The same hermeneutic was applied as before. Consult the fathers first then the scriptures only as they fit the fathers. Boniface was right that there is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, church. Yet he is dead wrong in the application he made. We have been discussing the book of Revelation in conjunction with the material in Pelikan. Especially what we might glean from there as to what to make of the Catholic system. As I have had opportunity to think on this I have to say that I still have a hard time thinking of the Catholic system as in any way 'God’s church'. I will concede that God used some Catholics to do good things throughout history. I will also concede that not all of what the Catholic churches teaches is wrong, or that it does wrong all the time. But that is not the point. The point is not that it at times has done right. The problem is that it mixes that right with wrong and furthermore sets its own authority above and beyond God. It points to the things its done right as the evidence that it is right, yet glosses over the things it has done wrong. There is one thing specifically that it does wrong, that the Reformation tried to correct, and that is its hermeneutic. It places greater authority on man’s interpretation of Scripture than on Scripture being the guide in interpretation. Unfortunately Protestantism, in that it has followed in the hermeneutical footsteps of its mother—vis a vi the Sabbath, state of the dead, taking in pagan saints, holidays, and practices, and making them ‘Christian’—is also on a hermeneutical slippery slope. That is why Protestantism in general will fall because it has not fully divested itself of Rome’s way doing theology. Our challenge, amid increasing hermeneutical pressures brought upon us by Protestant and Catholic scholarship, is to follow God’s leading, so that the path of the just does shine brighter and brighter unto a perfect day.
Richy Thomas
From two of Dr. Hanna’s lectures, he pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church was once God’s church and then became corrupt or apostate. I would even agree with his referral to them as becoming the “synagogue of satan” as quoted in Revelation 2:9. However, I respectfully disagree with the statement that it was God’s church, even from the very beginning. It may not be a large or even controversial issue. Yet, I do realize that there are true worshippers of God, or well intentioned, sincere individuals in any denomination, but through my research (or the way I understand it), the RCC, as a system, has always been corrupt, even from the very beginning. In the Great Controversy, Ellen White wrote, “… Romanism as a system is no more in harmony with the gospel of Christ now than at any former period in her history.” Although, I agree that both Peter and Paul were immensely involved with the early Church in Rome, this was earlier than the start of the ‘Romish’ church that begun with influence of Constantine, circa 300 AD. If one were to believe that Peter was involved with starting the RCC, or was the foundational ‘rock,’ i.e. the first pope, then one would be agreeing with a major tenet of the RCC, namely, apostolic succession. I am basing a lot of this from my ‘little’ research and my reading of another great book, “Simon Peter versus Simon the Sorcerer or St. Peter Meets the Competition!!” by Dr. E.L. Martin.
The Great Controversy is such a tremendous book to understand our Protestant Theological Heritage. In the same paragraph, Ellen White broadens her firm stance on what true Protestantism was, total separation from Rome: “Protestants have tampered with and patronized popery; they have made compromises and concessions which papists themselves are surprised to see and fail to understand. Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy.” Again, in the same book, she adds, “the people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty.” I know there is a balance to this, namely, that we do not want to be unloving to or shun Roman Catholic individuals, but of ourselves, wake up and be aware of the dangers of this system to the people of God. One huge danger on our horizon is ecumenism, for it leads us in to their plans. However, we are also warned that they, with apostate Protestantism, will reignite the fires of persecution in the near future!
~quotes from Great Controversy, pages 565, 566, 556
The revelations of the past proves that our fore fathers had the liberty of thought despite of the present dominant truth of their times. Knowing how the Holy Scriptures came about, through stories told from generation to generation until it was written, our forefathers were merely following sayings and traditions. During the Christian Apostolic times the pioneers were quoting mostly the Scriptures from memory because Scriptures were so expensive to possess. Gladly, education found its ways to the hearts of those who were hungering to find the truth and were fed up from what they are being spoon fed with (tradition), like the reformers and those who have protested against the established Church institution.
I deeply appreciate Dr. Martin Hanna’s introductions and Scriptural expositions proving the history of the Church falling in good or bad hands. His balanced ideas and unbiased commitment to the truth makes his class more interesting to me. I felt like I was climbing up a ladder high enough to see the view the way he saw it and given the chances to express the way I see it. We are privilege to have a professor who has a trained eye and proper understanding of the subject matter both from Scriptures and history.
One controversial truth discussed in the class, the Roman Catholic Church as God’s church as God’s church being utilized both by Him and Satan accordingly, is enlightening and disheartening as well. Enlightening, because no one can discredit anyone who claims to be Christian but God, disheartening because of the truth that our choices, empowered by our freedom of choice, were not only meant for a present time but for eternity due to the fact that they are being recorded for the good of the next generations. I believe that truth remains the same for God who has revealed it never change, but what do you think about its implication and meaning to those who learn about it in their own context and circumstances (both past and present) does the truth determine the meaning of whatever happens around us or vice versa? Isn’t it the reason why we have Reformers and Protestants? What motivates reform and protest, truth or ideology?
Daniel Ocampo
“How do we contextualize without compromise?” That was one of the statements that caused me to reflect about several things. Yesterday I saw a movie with my wife about the Anabaptists (The Radicals), and was so interesting to see the results produced by the implementation of political authority into the church. One bad thread woven into the cloth will corrupt the whole cloth. It is a small decision apparently without any big difference at one point but at the end you see that this one bad thread goes through the whole product. If the church connects itself somehow with the authority and the power of the state the faith and the work of the church will be corrupted. Yet, at the time of the reformation these ideas of a church totally unconnected to the authorities of a certain state seemed to be dangerous since the whole tax system was built on infant baptism. The rejection of violence for the solution of conflicts was seen as a danger for the whole state and community since every person was needed to fight the Turks who devastated the country. These principles were apparently not practicable in any way. They were foreign to the whole thinking of the community. However, they were in harmony with the Spirit of Christ and the principles taught by Christ in the New Testament. Yet, even the Reformers considered it as dangerous to the cause of the protestant reformation. Contextualize? Yes, because we need to live in this world and help the people to accept Christ as their living savior. Compromise? No, because we want to live in harmony with God and become changed by His Spirit to become more and more sensible for his guidance in our lives.
However, the practical application of the principle – contextualize without compromise – seems to be so hard in life. Some churches in different parts of the world contextualize for being able to better reach the people in that locations. Some view these changes as necessary for the work of the ministry. Others consider them as destructing the very faith delivered by Christ and his apostles. Where does compromise start, and what is still okay? God gave us His Word as our guide in matters of faith and life. It is not easy. I think that even the Catholics during history did not intend to change the biblical beliefs. Yet, they made compromises and in their philosophical reasoning reached conclusions that were foreign to the teachings of the Bible. We as a church have the characteristics of the remnant of the seed of the woman (Rev 12) but we are not immune against making compromises that compromise the biblical faith.
One point that shows me how we implement a principle that was not intended by Christ is the use of “authority” (power, force) to tread people we consider as heretics. There are some examples of an honorable way of treating people with views different than ours, e.g. sitting with them on one table, talk, study, exchange views in a factual and not in an emotional way, let the Bible speak. However, sometimes administrators (the whole range, from conservative to liberal) don’t know how to handle such cases since they and even the pastors are not really trained to handle problematic questions. So they just declare that the view of a certain person is not compatible with the church’s view, and that these people don’t have the right to make definite statements in the area of theology. That would be a right reserved only for theologians. Since these common people are heretics they are disfellowshipped. However, the questions asked by these people remained unanswered. Unfortunately, these questions could have been answered in an easy way so that these people would have understood it. But the administrators did not have the time, the ability, and the desire to do that. Now they feel treated badly. Even more the feel that the church does not have any answers to their questions. So they are strengthened in their way of thinking, and are the more encouraged in the “missionary” activities among church members. Although we don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, we start implementing their principles of authority into our faith, our work in the church, and into our way of treating fellow church members. A “reorganization” regarding this principle in our mind could make some reorganizational work in the church structure unnecessary, and provide a basis for constructive theological conversations as well.
In Pelikan’s comments about the unity of the church in chapter 2, he notes that the various parties (papalists, monarchists, Hussites, etc.) were all committed to maintaining the unity of the church. They all felt that it was the “fundamental attribute of the church” (p. 84). They felt so strongly about this that they believed that even holiness was a subordinate concept to unity. It was thought that outward holiness was something that the church could only work toward within a context of unity. While they believed that God regarded his church as holy already, they understood that the church also would move forward into ever increasing “empirical holiness” (p. 85). In other words, they had a concept of growth in holiness as being manifested in outward actions, and that such growth was quite dependent upon the various parts of the church body remaining united. This was very interesting to me because it helps shed light for me on the extreme difficulty the Catholics must have gone through, both those who split off into their own congregations in the Reformation, as well as those who remained within the Catholic fellowship. I usually view the reformers as staunch separatists, but it really must have been a tremendous paradigm shift for them and a great emotional and spiritual struggle. It makes me appreciate their efforts all the more for being willing to stand up for truth when all the cards must have felt as though stacked against them. It also leaves me with serious questions about unity in the church. What is most pleasing to God – that we break off from the main body when we don’t see things the same way in matters of biblical understanding, or that we remain and seek to patiently reform from within? Or is there another option?
Richy Thomas
Here is my reflection on part of my reading (Pelikan, of course):
On pages 128-138, in the subheading “Divine Justice and Human Righteousness,” Pelikan addresses the issues of the doctrine of penance, otherwise known as the sacrament of the confession. The reformers largely took issue with this doctrine and wrote much about its many failures and difficulties, explicitly when the doctrine is compared with scripture. Duns Scotus understood that for penance to actually work, “there had to be the assurance that it was God who did the absolving.” [129]. Furthermore, in this line of reasoning, people, who make their confessions to a priest to absolve their sin place quite a bit of faith/trust in the priest to forgive their sin. Scripture makes it clear that only God can forgive sins.
Further in the reading, our author shares some viewpoints and scriptures to the Catholic theological heritage, or their position from scripture for the use of confession/penance. In one paragraph, Pelikan cites a catholic version of the Scriptures, the Vulgate. The scripture verse is Psalm 100:4, which reads: “Enter his Gates by confession.” The other versions of scripture interpret confession as thanksgiving. The Hebrew word is “hdwt” {(Towdah,) although may be translated as ‘confession,’ is predominately translated as ‘thanksgiving,’ which closely parallels the Hebrew corollary word in the next phrase of this same verse, “enter His courts with PRAISE.”
Anyway, the argument for penance is in the following reasoning:
“God could, of course, by his ‘absolute will,’ forgive sins without human penance or prayer; but it was his ordinance that ‘no one can be beloved and acceptable to God for eternal life without having in himself a certain infused quality, which is charity or grace.’” [130]
Richy Thomas
In case, any of you were wondering...I do NOT support the foundation of the Confessional by any means, for reason of scripture alone.
Oh, and I forgot that Hebrew words could not be readable in this blog. So, you can look it up independently if you were more interested. Thanks!
Eric Washburn
Blog # 3
September 21, 2008
I was going through my notes pondering what to write on, I came across one of the passages for the day found in Colossians 1:18, which stimulated some thought for me. Let take a look at it, “And He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” The questions that comes to mind to me is what “Church” is Christ the head of? Is Paul speaking only to the church of his day, which was primarily Jewish, and a few Gentile believers? What are the criteria for claiming Christ to be the head of the Church? If we take the church in Paul’s day we would for sure see a Church lacking doctrines that we have, that have been hammered out, debated, and developed over centuries.
What would be the first churches beliefs? With its Jewish roots, I would have to say that many of the traditional beliefs were passed on to the new Christian faith. And other beliefs that were once cherished were enlightened with Christ life, death, and resurrection put on new meaning. It would be fair to say the early church was Christ-centric (Salvation in Him alone), it believed in the second coming, clean-food (Peter’s dream), healthy (what ever you do, do for the glory of God), Sabbath, gifts of the Holy Spirit, righteousness by faith, mission oriented, state of the dead (most likely), full emersion baptism, and the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews). I gathered these doctrines by thinking about some of the teachings the New Testament mentions, but most believers did not have the NT in it entirety or the OT, so they might not have been that educated in these teachings.
Can Christ be the head of a church even though it has corruption and false doctrine? That was a question that was discussed in class. It appears that Christ Church sometimes can be in need of a little correction. We saw this in John the revelators inspired letters to the seven churches in Asia. We also see from these letters that Christ doesn’t put up with disobedience forever, but that there is a warning of being removed from being one of the seven candles. Than we come to the question is Christ church a denomination or is it made of believers whom have a living relationship with Christ? In Revelation we find the signs of Christ Remnant church, which are that they keep His commandments and having the faith of Jesus Christ or testimony of Jesus Christ. Just these two identifiers for Christ church weeds out the many churches. So since we have these two identifiers as Adventist, what kind of responsibility does that give us? We have a high calling and a humble work to do.
I think for us and for the church, one of the most relevant sections that I have read from Pelikan was the section on concordance. In this section Pelikan writes of the continuing progress of the doctrine of the catholicity of the church and it seems similar to our own view in some ways. As Pelikan says while the church ever though of its self as universal—hence the term catholic—it was mostly during the 15th century that this doctrine was fleshed out.
Of course, as per usual Catholic fashion, it is not fleshed out so much by scripture but by reliance on church fathers. Yet I digress. Having studied the inception of Catholic Church it is useful to know that the early church [we are talking 1st to 7th century] was concerned with the subject of unity, and continuity. The early church defended its reason d’être by the fact that it was not something new, as both Jews and Pagans charged, but the true inheritors of the OT promises.
This is similar to the claims that Adventists make. Personally I have no problem with those claims. I think we can make the claim that we are God’s remnant, and the inheritors of the reformation. I just think it is interesting that both they [Catholics] and we make the same claim. In our early history we had a great deal of struggle to when it was suggested that we become an organized body, and when we did we had to come to grips with authority in that organization just as the Catholics did. The Catholics viewed the pronouncements that came from a duly representative body of the church as infallible.
Interestingly White makes strong statements concerning a general conference{ you can read the full reference in 9T 261, the paragraph beginning with “I have often been instructed…”} No, not what we regularly think of as the GC, but of a GC in session with duly elected representatives from all parts of the church. She states that private ideas are to be put aside when the church speaks together on an issue because this is “the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth.” {3T 493} The difference between the two, Catholics and Adventists, lies in two main points 1) while Catholics understand that they have authority over the secular realm, we do not, and 2) we do not put all power into a few men—as was done in Battle Creek for a time—nor even into one man. As White puts it “When this power, which God has placed in the church, is accredited wholly to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind would be most subtle and sometimes well-nigh overpowering, for the enemy would hope that through his mind he could affect many others. Let us give to the highest organized authority in the church that which we are prone to give to one man or to a small group of men.” {9T 261} This is were Catholicism goes wrong, may God help us not to follow that path. Anyway I think I will have more to say on this issue, but that is all I will write for now.
First point: Others have already pointed this out about other parts of the textbook, but one of the things that stood out to me while reading chapter 4 was the importance of Augustine to both Catholics and Protestants. The Reformers insisted on the principle of sola scriptura, but they really had a tendency to stress Augustine’s authority.
For example, in the controversy over predestination, Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists were all keen on proving that Augustine was on their side. Calvin, for example, felt the need to clarify that “Augustine is completely on our side” (224), and Pelikan notes that “Reformed theology had special reason to stress…its loyalty to the Augustinian doctrine of original sin” (225). Repeatedly in these pages, there is reference to Augustine and how the Reformers and the Catholics fought to show Augustine’s support for their views.
This reliance on a church father is really striking. Why should Augustine be so significant to them? Was it not enough to be strictly biblical?
Second point: I thought it was interesting in the controversy over the Lord’s Supper that the Reformers repeatedly appealed to common sense (to the intention of Scripture), not just to the literal words of Scripture, for his case that Christ’s body and blood were not literally contained in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper.
For example, Pelikan says Calvin stressed the inviolability of the Word of God, but said we cannot just concentrate on “‘individual words and syllables’ without attention to ‘the mind’ that spoke through them” (205). Bullinger said that “‘we do not need other witnesses here than our own senses, which do not sense or see or taste or feel anything but bread and wine’” (194).
Of course, arguments like these led to the charge that the Reformers had adopted rationalist philosophy. But I think these Reformers made a valid point: it’s not enough just to repeat the words of Scripture unthinkingly; one has to use common sense.
Of course, it’s easy to go overboard with this type of thinking, and all readers have to be careful not to reject something in the Bible just because it seem contrary to reason at first glance. But overall, I think it’s legitimate: we shouldn’t abandon common sense when we approach the Bible and theological questions.
Daniel Ocampo
Talking about Universal church unity…remnant…
This week we have skillfully discussed in our class through the able leadership of our professor, Dr. Martin Hanna, the scriptural principles used by our forefathers as to who has the right to call for the determination of the true church, her characteristics and manifestations. Each class participant I believe was blessed by the depth of the questions asked and the reflections given, on the other hand, personal presuppositions and “denominational opinion discrimination” could not be avoided to jump into the picture whenever a seemingly new principle, yet old, is presented.
Historically, I could say that pride and prejudice among God’s people was the main cause of schism and love became wax cold, as the case maybe in every denominational schisms. We even hear declarations of “anathemas” form both sides involve. While reading Pelikan and the supplementary materials from current church events, I just have noticed that the Roman Catholic Church was the one always aggressive in trying to maintain unity in the community of believers. Please don’t get me wrong on what I have stated I am also aware of that it was their actions, too, why the church was divided. But striking from that point of view they also are the ones who are responsibly pursuing the task of possible reunification of the “Universal Christian Church” though how hard the task maybe. We have heard and read about “dialogues” between Catholics and Protestants with varied results. In totality, for the sake of being balance, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has taken responsible steps forward more than the any Protestant church among so many to take the initiative of doing just the same. Someone might say that they have a hidden agenda why they are doing this, but again let’s try to be objective on the case.
I would like to encourage everyone to download a copy of the “Joint Declarations of the Roman Catholic and Protestants: On Justification by Faith” online and read for yourself and see the picture of this article. A lot of Evangelicals are now seeing a “changing image” of the Roman Catholic Church a big reason why even a former SDA pastor turned politician in Hawaii just recently jumped ship to Roman Catholicism. My question is, as Adventist what have we as a church done in fostering scriptural unity among other Christian denominations and post as the initiator of such task, aside from usually condemning evangelistic message from time to time? We claim to be the “remnant” church but have we ever thought of just being “part” of the remnant rather than say “the remnant”?
Daniel Ocampo
In class, Dr. Hanna made the point (based on chapter 2 of the textbook) that both sides during the Protestant Reformation agreed that the Nicene Creed was authoritative. Both quoted from it to defend their positions.
This raises the question: Why couldn’t agreement about the Nicene Creed be sufficient for unity? Why the need to agree also on how to interpret it? Should we all have to agree on the details of interpretation?
This question has been bothering me for a while: exactly how much should we have to agree on? On one hand, I believe in absolute truth, so I feel like the church should theoretically be able to agree on everything.
On the other hand, I realize that truth has multiple aspects, and we should allow room for different people to see the same truth from different angles. Also, I think it is appropriate to allow for people to grow in their knowledge over a period of time, without trying to force them to all adopt the same position at the same moment.
It’s hard for me to tell, honestly, what I would have done had I lived during the Protestant Reformation.
Would I have felt compelled to leave the Catholic Church, or would I have stayed, believing that it was possible to maintain unity in spite of some theological differences? Would I have tried to participate in reforming the Catholic Church from within, or would I have split away?
It’s difficult to know when the line is crossed and there can be no more unity and fellowship. How does one judge when the differences are minor and when they are severe? How does one know when unity should take priority and when insistence on truth should take priority? These questions aren’t quite as easy as I used to think.
Of course, these aren’t just questions that were relevant during the Protestant Reformation today. They are just as relevant now, within the Adventist church.
It’s still hard to know, even now, when to accept differences for the sake of unity and when to be dogmatic for the sake of what I believe is truth. It’s not easy to tell what qualifies as a minor issue and what qualifies as more significant.
I guess my default position is to try to maintain unity unless the other person insists on breaking it.
Personally, I can tolerate some differences in theological opinion between me and another person if that person is still willing to be workable about it and maintain some sort of dialogue (where hopefully we can both continue to grow in our understanding and challenge each other and move into a more unified understanding).
This seems to be what Luther wanted to do, and I think he was right in the position he took. It’s only when the other side (in this case, the Catholic Church) kicked him out that he broke away.
In the beginning of our lectures during the last week, we talked about the one catholic church. When we talk about the church of the first centuries until the 5th or 6th century, we oftentimes have only the churches in view that existed in the former Roman Empire, especially the western part of it. What about the churches that existed on the other part of those boundaries? What about the Irish-Scottish church, the Syrian churches, the Nestorian churches, the Coptic Church, the Thomas Christians in India, or in other parts of the world? Some of these send their delegates to synods, and councils. However, that faded in later centuries, esp. after the 6th century (when some of them were declared heretics). But actually in the beginning they belonged to the catholic church. When the church became Roman this changed.
The right exercise of authority is an important issue, and has always been a big problem. What would we do and how would we act when political power would become available to us? Could it be that we would abuse it? Would we use political means in the treatment of our heretics? If we are not willing to talk with them, treat them as normal common-sense people that are on the same level, honoring and respecting them, we cannot expect that they treat us in the way we would like to have it. A German saying says, “How one shouts into the woods, so it comes out.” The only good basis for a theological, brotherly conversation is if we tread them how we would like to be treated. If they see that we appreciate them as fellow believers they will more likely be willing to behave in a cooperative manner. Sometimes it is easier to treat people from other faiths in that way since almost nothing depends on it. It is a noncommittal talk. However, talking with heretics seems to be worthless and dangerous. That is why many church administrators shun such conversations or don’t tread these people like they want to be treated or they tell them what the churches standpoint is and that they are located outside of this position. They will clearly defend themselves. But what is our goal? Do we want to reach them? Or do we merely want to protect the church? There are several groups where I think they could be reached. Maybe it is not possible. But maybe we can reconciliate with them. Oftentimes they only overemphasize a certain aspect of truth. When the Roman Catholic Church tried to bring everyone into the unity of faith in the 14th and 15th century they overemphasized certain aspects. The Reformers focused in the other extreme, and it was recognized as an extreme by “the” Church. A mature conversation requires that people are willing and able to bring all aspects of the Biblical witness together willing to listen to each other and not being afraid to loose the own position (and that’s why shunning from every talk).
Another aspect that was very important for me was that salvation does not come by the membership in a certain institution but by the precious substitutionary death of Christ applied to my life. I am not saved by my acceptance of this sacrifice. I am not saved by my life showing that I am saved. But I am saved by Christ and his death. When I have accepted the life belt I have to take hold of it. What saves me is not my taking hold of it but the life belt. When I have accepted it the Holy Spirit creates in me the desire for changes in my life. The changes don’t save me but they show that the Holy Spirit is at work in me, with weaknesses and problems still present. Yet, the acceptance of Christ makes me a follower of him, and places me into a community of other saved people, and calls me into a certain mission. This mission is the calling of other people to salvation and into the mission of our Redeemer. The church’s existence is necessary for the fulfillment of a mission. This mission has to do with the salvation of other human beings. However, the membership in that church does not and cannot guarantee salvation. It can only show the way to Christ who will save them. It can help members and people to grow in that relationship, and to be trained for that ministry.
I appreciated the discussion about the multiple layers of meaning possible within Scripture – the specific example we looked at being John 10 and the parable of the good shepherd. I can understand that we often are unable to see eye to eye as Christians because each person or group holds a particular interpretation as being the only one possible, and they feel responsible to defend that interpretation. I think it is true that we need to have more of a sense of flexibility when it comes to interpreting certain passages of Scripture, or even Scripture as a whole. I guess where I am left concerned is that I start to wonder if there is a firm foundation to stand on, and if so, what that foundation is. I know we say that we stand on Scripture, but we all are well aware that standing on Scripture alone is the position of many people who disagree with one another. Just the other day I was counseling an individual who had recently listened to two teachers he respects very much. Each of these teachers had taken the same Scripture teachings and reasoned to two very different conclusions. My counsel to the individual was to go to those Scriptures himself and see what it is that they actually say, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, to come to his own conclusion. That was the best counsel I could come up with. It’s what I do myself when I feel conflicted between two interpretations. It’s just such a mystery to me that people who appeal to the same Scriptures and seek the help of the same Holy Spirit can come to such varying conclusions. And in the case of the individual I counseled it was not a minor issue. For him it was a matter of whether or not he would be living in disobedience to God if he were to marry somebody else after divorcing his previous wife. I guess my question is whether the Holy Spirit does lead each individual to his or her own understanding of a passage, which may very well be different than the understanding He has given to another person, or are the varying interpretations primarily a factor of our own biases? How does it work?
Eric Washburn
Blog # 4
September 28, 2008
Predestined to be saved? Sounds pretty good!
Predestined to be saved? Sound pretty good! It sure does, but what goes with it doesn’t, and that is the other side of the coin, predestined to be damn. This is a pretty heavy theological topic since it deals with our personal salvation in the lying in the lap of God. In a sense salvation is in the lap of God because it is He who decides whom will be saved. This past weekend I was at a spiritual retreat and we had a time for testimonies. A seminary professor shared how he felt about his salvation saying, “I totally trust God and no longer worry about my Salvation. I trust Him (God), so much that if He decides that I am lost, I will be fine with it. Why? Because I trust that He made the best decision.” (These are not his exact words but paraphrased.) Do we decide our own salvation or does God? Or do we both play a part in the equations. I like to believe that a living Faith that produces some kind of fruit of righteousness saves us. We are not judge by our merits or accumulation of points, but by a living faith relationship that trust God to save, and transform our heart to beat in unison with His. This is living faith begins as a gift from God when we first choose Him to be our Savior. Our living faith though needs to be nurtured by feeding it with spiritual food and exercise. Like any gift that is living and that needs tending to in order to keep alive, can die slowly if not taken care of. One might say we are stewards of our salvation and what we do with it determines what our eternal salvation will be.
The protestant world tends to but put an over size emphasis on grace, so much so, that they came up with a theological concept called double predestination or irresistible grace. This means that Christ has chosen whom will be saved before they are even created in the mother’s womb, and has planted such an irresistible grace that they have no other choice but t be saved. I almost believe in irresistible grace, but I would have to change my perspective to “almost irresistible grace”. Almost irresistible grace is that God pours out all of His love upon us, and that His Spirit is working 24/7 to save each one us. That God’s only mission on this earth right now is to save and not condemn. It is so irresistible that one would have to be completely selfish to resist it. The sad thing is that sin’s power has made many people choose to be selfish and think about the here and now rather than their eternal destiny. God has predestined all to be saved, in that He (Jesus) died for the sins of the world. That must mean every sin that has been committed and will be committed is covered. But just because His blood has been spilled in the human’s behalf, it doesn’t mean it is applied to their account. Jesus still running on the principle of free choice, which is the condition to receive His merit by simply asking it to be applied to the his or her account by living faith.
In class we read Ephesians 1:11-12, which pertains to being predestined to be saved “according to His purpose”. I liked how it was brought out in class by the professor that this predestination did not come about with out conditions. The first condition was spelled out in verse 11, “who first (Condition) trusted in Christ.” We must “first” put our faith/trust in Christ in order for the promise of salvation to be ours. Than verse 12 says, “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise”. The word promise carries the meaning that it has not yet been completed, but that it has a future installment. We must ask ourselves, can a promise be broken? Sure, but can God’s promise be broken? God’s promises can’t be broken, we can be certain of very promise of God. But we can break the deal of the seal of promise, by not holding on our part of the bargain, and that is continuing to live with living faith. To think God forces us to be saved or lost against our hearts desire is slavery. It is as if God is playing a game with us. And it would be an incredibly boring game for God if He were playing both sides choosing who will loose or win. Comparing humanity plight to a game is a ghastly way to see God’s work in the history of redemption.
Free choice on the other hand is based on the principle of Liberty for all to choose whom they will serve. I will close with the words of Joshua, “Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. (A suggestion) And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Your choice) (Joshua 24:14-15).
clinton comments on Marko's comments.
Marko has shared some interesting insights.I like the point you made on predestination. Even though most of the reformers used Agustine's views or teachings on predestination they arrived at several different interpretations on predestination.Calvin was at one extreme while othersshare different views in regards to the same issue.
Was Calvin wrong? by Moriah
We have discussed in class that Calvin believed in double predestination. He also believed that humans have no free will. He argued that there was election in Christ before the creation of the world, along with redemption and reconciliation, as the foundation of the architecture of Christian doctrine. Calvin believed that they were some people whom God has predestined to Eternal life or salvation and some are predestined to damnation. In other words it doesn’t matter what you do if its God’s eternal will for you to be lost you will be lost. It doesn’t matter if you want to be saved.
This gave the idea that God had the list of his elect already and the plan of salvation is just a sham. It conveyed the idea that if God wants you to be lost you will be .There is no freedom of choice in this case. This concept makes God looks unfair and unjust. Calvin was mistaken. He was wrong. God give us freedom of choice. We can choose to be saved or to be lost. John 3:16 says that “whosoever believes will be saved.” It is interesting to note that other reformers like Luther disagreed with Calvin on predestination even though both the Roman Catholics church and the reformers used Augustine views as a the basis for their interpretation.
I was very interested in the discussion in class this week about righteousness by faith, and whether we are saved by grace alone.
According to Luther, salvation comes by grace alone, and there is nothing we can do to merit it. But he took this further to say that even the faith itself is a gift of God, and since it is a gift, the human exercise of faith is completely passive. It is predestined. Therefore, we literally deserve nothing when it comes to salvation.
Dr. Hanna pointed out that Luther may be right that salvation is by grace alone, but he may be wrong in saying that since salvation is by grace alone, there is no active response involved from us. (After all, we disagree with Luther on his strict doctrine of predestination.)
As Dr. Hanna said, there is controversy even among Adventists on this point, because some would say that we are saved by faith, and yet still have to actively respond.
Dr. Hanna’s solution was to draw a distinction between meriting salvation vs. fulfilling conditions for salvation, and says the latter is important.
After all, Paul says that we receive righteousness by faith. Does that mean that faith is a condition for salvation? Yes. Does it merit salvation? No.
Some Adventists, however, think that there is no distinction between merit and fulfilling conditions, and that fulfilling conditions must mean that we would somehow merit salvation. Perhaps they would be right, but the distinction at least takes into account the biblical truths that we have free will, that salvation is not imposed on us, and that we are supposed to have active faith.
At any rate, what was interesting to me is that I’m not sure I straightforwardly agree with the Protestant catch phrase that salvation is “by faith alone.” I can’t agree with the way that phrase was meant by the Reformers, because I do not accept the idea of predestination and cannot accept that our salvation is purely passive. We are not mere pawns; Paul speaks of active faith.
I am not exactly supportive of the Catholic view on justification, but I have to admit that I think they are more right in some points regarding justification than the Protestant Reformers.
I realized this for the first time last spring, when I had to read R. C. Sproul’s book Faith Alone, on the difference between Catholic and evangelical ideas of justification. Going into it, I thought I would agree with the Protestant/evangelical view, but discovered that the Reformer’s idea of salvation by faith alone was closely tied to predestination and that it undermined free will.
Where does that leave me? Siding with the Catholics? Odd, but at least partially true.
Richy
Blog #4
I particularly enjoyed reading about the wonderful subject of Justification by faith. Pelikan points out that this key doctrine was the one that united all the Protestants and reformers. This set them all apart from the Roman Catholic Church. This reading made me think about how things have changed in our modern times because of ecumenical unity. I know of a certain that Jesuit leaders and theologians are behind this unity to separate the gap between Protestants and Catholics. For they want to bring back the separated daughters back to her mother. How endearing!
Luther stated that the scriptural text of John 6:47 was “the cornerstone of our justification.” [148] Many versions interpret the text of John 6:47 this way: “He who believes has eternal life.” However, I believe the Textus Receptus text rightly translates it: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth ON ME hath everlasting life.” [KJV] Obviously, just by believing in anything besides Jesus will get you no where. It’s got to be faith in Jesus. For, according to Acts 4:12, there is only one Name [Jesus] given for our Salvation.
Luther even defined justification as the forgiveness of sins. He put it this way: “only he delivers from sin and grants righteousness and eternal life.” [148] Furthermore, this true understanding of justification is the fullness of the Gospel. I will write more about this next week.
The whole discussion about justification, sanctification, the place of works, the free choice of man, and God’s foreknowledge shows how much we are bound to our presuppositions and previous knowledge. We built upon the things we know. When we get new information or data we try to put them into a system that makes sense. Yet, this system has a lot to do with our previous knowledge and the premises we have. Oftentimes we are forced to overthrow our “baggage” not until we realizes that there are too many problems in the whole system.
The first chapter of the book talked about the doctrine of salvation (and the discussions involved) as well. It was interesting to see that in the Catholic view grace is communicated through the saints and through the sacraments. In fact, the church is responsible for the distribution of grace. The work (sacrament) is important for a mystical effect follows (ex opere operato). We also think that religious actions like baptism and communion service are important but we don’t ascribe a mystical or salvific meaning to it. However, we think that the action transports a content (meaning). If the action looses that meaning it becomes a mere senseless tradition. That is why it is so important to talk about the meaning so that it still has an impact upon our daily life.
Even in Adventism we tackle with some of these problems that exist between the Catholic position and the Evangelical position. Such questions are e.g.: What about when I don’t improve enough in sanctification? Am I still forgiven? When I fall into sin, do I fall out of grace, and need forgiveness again? Is God so harsh to condemn me when I cannot repent of a sin, and ask for forgiveness for it before I die? But since God is a loving God will he not also save me anyhow, even if I could not repent and ask for forgiveness? Yet, is that not cheap grace? However, if my accomplishments are necessary for being saved or forgiven or whatever, is my performance, then, not the foundation for my salvation? Is it important to be baptized in order to be saved? If not, why then baptize? Is it important to take part in the Lord’s Supper? Is it bad to miss it? Is there a salvific meaning in baptism or the Lord’s Supper? If I understand the meaning and the content of that action why do I still need to do it? Do I get lost if I don’t follow the tradition? Such questions show the difficulty of the question.
I appreciated what Prof. Hanna about the whole process of salvation. Salvation actually is a whole process where God wants to bring people back into a direct relationship with him. This process is complete (somehow) when we are back in Heaven, in his presence. Everything that belongs to this process here on earth is part of the plan of salvation. Ellen White suggested at one point that the work of education and the work of salvation are actually one. Even before the fall of man the work of education was in process. It will be in process after salvation is finished as well. However, in the meantime education undergoes an emergency plan called salvation. Actually it is part of the education plan, and is based on the same principles. In the education process parents accept their child how it by their love, and by the daily example of the parents the child is changed into a similar image. God accepts us as we are by his steadfast love, and as we behold him he changes us into his image. That is maybe a little illustration for a part of the salvation process. Salvation is finished when we are back home. Then education continues under other circumstances.
Daniel Ocampo
October 5, 2008
On the Issue of Justification by Faith
First of all, allow me to give my appreciation to all who’ve responded to my post last week, thank you. Last week we’ve had a rather lengthy but great and interesting discussion about the main issues why the Reformers/Protestants differ from the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of Justification by Faith, regarding conditions and merits, faith’s activity as passive or active in terms of salvation. Fundamental beliefs are important to one’s denominational identity, on the contrary the same either bands or disbands, even people who claim to believe on the same Master and Lord and Savior. I found it quite funny how we humans kept on discussing on minor details about God’s mysteries and end up declaring each other heretic or anathema, it’s a sad part of Christian history but true even on the Adventist.
Reading from the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith, a summary of their 30 years of dialogues declared that both parties agree on the basic truths of Justification by faith and all the other condemnations mentioned in the Council of Trent and the Lutheran Condemnations which were not included on the joint declaration were now deemed insignificant or unimportant. To quote, section 41 says “Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.” Though both claims that nothing serious was taken away from their declared condemnations against each other and claims that most were “simply pointless” and both hopes that “Our consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification must come to influence the life and teachings of our churches. Here it must prove itself.”
This undertaking was based on Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17, it has brought mixed opinions and responses from both sides for or against it. But generally it was well applauded and most especially its significance to the progress of the Ecumenical movement. No wonder why a lot of the known Evangelical churches and associations are now closely associated with the Catholic Church. To the conservative, prophecy-based Adventists they will see this as a sign of the fulfillment of prophecy with reference to Revelation 17 and 19 – the harlot woman. To those who reads the same with an open mind will be surprised to know that our Adventist beliefs on justification by faith doesn’t differ much from the Roman Catholic’s understanding, the way they have explained their position on the paper. I tried my best to be open minded on dealing with this joint declaration as part of Protestant-Catholic history but still holds the shield of truth and plays the skeptic and wanted to know the hidden agenda behind all this, knowing that the Roman Catholic Church claims to be both Ecclesiastical and Political powers on earth. But to be fair, I would like to join those who have applauded the effort of finding common grounds and start building relationship based on them. Again, how I wish that as a denomination, we too could sponsor more dialogue like this without compromising the written truth.
Daniel Ocampo
Eric Washburn
10-05-08
Blog #5
This Blog is concerning Chapter 5, section on the Defenders of the faith in Pelikan book Reformation of Church and Dogma. I really liked a passage in this section, “As they watched the Reformation advance from one heterodox deviation to another, its adversaries could, ‘discern the complete fulfillment of the predictions of the divinely inspired Paul’ about the rise of ‘heresies’; and they followed their predecessors, patristic and scholastic, in accepting or even welcoming the opportunity that such ‘heresies’ provided for clarifying orthodoxy.” At one time diverse ideas could coexist in the Catholic Church, but the Reformation wasn’t just another theology in the Church, it was a revolution that was going to pull the Church apart if the Church did not defend its position. Luther’s reform of the Church was no longer a reformation, but was becoming sectarian in nature. So there was a counter reformation that needed to address Luther’s attacks in an apologetic style of defense. Many theologians, priest, and even King of England began to look at Luther’s arguments and find ways to discredit and at the same time reinforce their doctrine.
They would even try to pull out Luther’s inconsistencies in his writings to make him look like a hypocrite. In one such case Luther already outside of the Church still believed in purgatory and the authority of scripture. Luther soon after rejected purgatory, but his past writings was used against him to show his inconsistency. There is always a danger in writing and getting something published, because your words can be used against you. Even a blog such as this one could bring havoc, if we were to write a thought in innocence of discussion, and for someone to your employer and say this is what your homeboy or homegirl believes. We should always allow each other to develop our thoughts on theology. We aren’t made knowing everything. Have any of you changed your view on a particular teaching or position? I have! We see this a lot in the political race right now, one campaign digging up the past to find dirt that can ruin their opponent. I guess we should be careful what we write and not sound dogmatic.
So should we fear reform in the Adventist Church? How about teachings that our contrary to our 28 fundamental beliefs? I don’t think we should fear any new idea or thoughts on our theology. Actually as the passage I quoted above, we should welcome it, because it challenges us to study for ourselves and to defend what we believe. Without any challenges, we may take for granted what we believe and even become lazy. Haven’t you experienced a challenging question, which made you go back and study more? Either you came out stronger on your position, or you learned your position was wrong. I think our seminary should offer a class on apologetics. In this class we would learn how to defend each one of our doctrines, and answers tough questions. We have had a many arise in the midst of our Church with new teachings. Has our Church defended our beliefs the right way, or did they try to get rid of the voices before they caused to much damage? It’s a hard one, especially when the Church desires to keep unity and purity of its teachings. But should the truth be afraid of a challenge or debate? But we fear that many will go down with the dissenter, and this is a valid fear. If its truth, it should be able to with stand any heresy.
Daniel responds to Denis…
Denis wrote… “However, we think that the action transports a content (meaning). If the action looses that meaning it becomes a mere senseless tradition. That is why it is so important to talk about the meaning so that it still has an impact upon our daily life.”
I do appreciate the content of your article because it resounds what I have in mind. The meaning of our practices and their intents I believe depends on the individual involved. Just as Jesus said in John 3:16 “…whosoever…” means salvation is individual and yet the church/body is composed of these individuals.
I like the way Dr. Hanna puts it that salvation is the object of all the process of salvation (salvation in justification, salvation in sanctification and salvation in glorification). I also appreciate the role of education on this matter as you’ve pointed out, very important indeed.
Daniel
Here is a frightening statement: Pelikan quotes Gabriel Biel’s In Defense of Apostolic Obedience:”the truth that holy mother church defines or accepts as catholic is to be believed with the same veneration as if it were expressed in Holy Writ.” Pelikan goes on to say that by this statement “It could be used to show that without the authority of the church Christians could not trust even in the truths of Scripture.” How completely opposite of God’s true message to us to come to Him and believe His word individually: yet how completely in line with the Anti-Christ message. The Bible says of this power that it “magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.” Daniel 8:11. Furthermore in Revelation 13 we find that this power takes on the persona of Christ, as it is both wounded and ‘resurrected’ , it is worshiped, and after it comes the ‘false prophet’ just as after the resurrection of Jesus came the Holy Spirit. The Roman church is able to do these things because it takes the place of God and it does that not only by standing as the only interpreter of the word, but as the word its self. The roman church has it backward. It is not the church that gives the word shape and life: it is the Word that gives the church shape and life. It is not the church that is the head; to think for me, to know for me, to believe for me. The church is the body not the head, Christ is the head. The head thinks, the body does. Jesus speaks [through His word] and His church is to obey. What is written is above the church, beyond the church, and the church must submit to it, not it to the church. The truth that Holy Writ defines or accepts as catholic is to be believed and acted upon as if it were expressed by God Himself, because it is God that expressed it. In the beginning was the Word and Word was with God and the Word was God. It is written in the word of God, that Jesus said “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word [not the church] is truth.” John 17:17. Instead of going back to Augustine, they should have gone back to the Bible. Ad Fontes!
I feel like I waver a little bit when it comes to understanding righteousness/justification by faith. There are teachers that I respect in the Seminary who teach more closely to Luther’s idea that even the faith we respond with is really a gift from God. In fact, some go so far as to say that many of the passages that speak of salvation by faith are actually referring to the faithfulness of God rather than to any response of faith on the part of the individual sinner. I don’t know. Sometimes it does seem like that is precisely what the meaning of the text is, and yet in other places Paul has to balance his argument and re-emphasize the importance of doing good. It’s almost as if he is trying to prevent the wrong application of the message of free grace, which is what we as Adventists tend to do (at least the more conservative ones among us). It’s like we have this potent message that is wonderfully amazing and joyful, but we are concerned that it might be received the wrong way. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be concerned about that. I think that Paul’s balancing of his arguments and the epistle of James show that such a concern is legitimate. I guess I’m just wondering how the Holy Spirit intends for the message to be received. I think the epistle to the Galatians is a good example of my question. There you have a group of individuals who received the good news of salvation and were running with it as God intended. It was when the idea of works-merit entered their congregation that they began to stumble. I wonder if up until that point they even wondered about the question of works vs. faith alone? I picture them as a group of people filled with joy because of their salvation, and responding freely with the outward signs of good works, not even beginning to think that their good works were meriting them anything. Then, they get pounded with the idea that they are required to obey certain things so that they can maintain their saved status. It ruins everything and Paul has to write the epistle to set them straight. I just wonder if God ever intended us to wrestle with this question of works vs. faith, or if the Gospel is to be received plain and simple as a gift and allowed to work its own results. When the thought even enters my mind that works are involved, it becomes extremely difficult to ever remove myself from the idea that I am somehow earning something. That’s why I think it’s such a treacherous ground to walk on. Once works become involved, no matter what we say the reason is – merit or condition, it tends to ruin the freedom we can run in. Ultimately, I am wondering how God would like for me to understand and receive His grace. Maybe it really is closer to what Luther had in mind. Maybe that’s the only real way to live a life of good works where I don’t start to think that I’m earning salvation on some level. I know I can say and think in my mind all I want that I know I’m not earning anything. It doesn’t change the idea from creeping in, though. And I don’t think God wants that kind of idea in our minds – that our actions are earning us favor with Him.
Pelikan notes that Luther’s view of the ‘Gospel’ was “condemnation, not consolation.” What a wonderful thing to find that God is not against us to condemn us, but with us to save us. If you are a sinner herein is the good news, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Matthew 18:11. Now the question is raised, and has been raised in times past, if this be the case then why are men lost? What is the part of man in salvation? I’ve had opportunity—as I’m sure many of you have—to struggle with exactly how or when does God save. Especially in the light of the different text of scripture my view of salvation is summed up in 1Timothy 4:10,“10 In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers.” This text implies that Jesus is the savior of all, but not all will be saved. How is this possible? This text implies that there are two groups. The all men, in which all are included and then the believers, of whom only some are included. This indicates that what Jesus did, he did for all, but not all will ultimately experience what He did for them. The foundation, the basis, the bottom line of salvation must be God’s act of Grace. The problem is what I mean by salvation. Salvation from what? What I mean is legal justification: without God first dealing with the condemnation passed to all the posterity of Adam, sanctification [the growing up into a Christian character, and obedience] and glorification [being removed from the very presence of sin, and a sinful world] is not possible. This must be dealt with first and foremost. There must first be a Savior before we can be saved. White rights that “The instant man accepted the temptations of Satan, and did the very things God had said he should not do, Christ, the Son of God, stood between the living and the dead, saying, "Let the punishment fall on Me. I will stand in man's place. He shall have another chance." {FLB 75.3} As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. Christ knew that He would have to suffer, yet He became man's substitute. As soon as Adam sinned, the Son of God presented Himself as surety for the human race, with just as much power to avert the doom pronounced upon the guilty as when He died upon the cross of Calvary. {FLB 75.4}” This is what had to be accomplished first. In this sense Jesus is the Savior of all men. He died for all, He saved all. We are all experiencing the second chance right now. What are we doing with it? May God help us to use that second chance wisely.
Richy Thomas
Blog #5
Understanding of Antichrist.
In the Bible, “antichrist” is literally against or in the place of Christ, (Greek: “anti”). Therefore, anything that is in the place of Christ or against Christ is “antichrist”. (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7) According to the Bible, anything that I place in the place of Christ in my life (or that opposes Him) is “antichrist”. Accordingly, you or I may be antichrist, because if we were to place ourselves, things or people in the place of Christ, we would be opposing the rightful position of Christ Jesus. 1 John 2:28 says that there are “many antichrists”. I believe this, but I also am firm on the position that the papacy is the true antichrist of Scripture.
Now the understanding of all or most Protestants was that the system or office of the Roman Catholic Church was the antichrist of Scripture. A great author, named Roy Allen Anderson wrote: "Every Reformer, without exception, spoke of the papacy as Antichrist" -R. Allen Anderson, Unfolding the Revelation, p.137
Here is an outstanding quote that I discovered on the internet. Here are Martin Luther’s ideas contrasting Christ to the Pope thus:
“Christ washed his disciples' feet : the Pope demands his feet to be kissed even by emperors
Christ fled from an earthly crown : the Pope ever seeks earthly dominion
Christ is given a crown of thorns : the Pope wears a triple crown of gold
Christ paid taxes : the Pope is exempt from taxes
Christ lived in humble poverty : the Pope fares sumptuously
Christ was bowed to earth with the cross : the Pope is carried about in state
Christ rode into Jerusalem on a humble ass : the Pope rides a beautiful caparisoned steed
Christ sought neither silver nor gold : the Pope rules cities and empires
Christ's kingdom was not with observation : the Pope subjects the whole world
Christ drove out the moneychangers : the Pope sells indulgences.
Christ ascends to heaven: the Pope will descend into hell”
(www.remnantofgod.com)
Therefore, papacy is a total mockery of everything Christian... this is where it is truly antichrist! There is a balance here. For we have to also realize that voicing this is a call of warning about an evil system and not an attack on people, who are truly God’s children, bought and paid for with His Son’s own blood.
1) SANCTIFICATION AS PART OF SALVATION
Something that stood out to me from the class discussion last week: Dr. Hanna suggested that the tendency in much Adventist thinking today is to focus almost wholly on justification (the root of salvation) and not think of sanctification (the fruit) as being part of salvation.
I suppose it is probably pretty controversial to suggest that sanctification is part of salvation. After all, sanctification is typically associated with works—the outworking of our faith—and all of us would deny that salvation comes by works.
On the other hand, I appreciate the recognition that salvation is more than just justification.
As Dr. Hanna pointed out, salvation is not just a past experience; Bible writers most often talk about salvation as a continuing or future experience. So we need to get rid of the idea that salvation is something static that happens at a fixed point in time. On the contrary, salvation is a daily experience.
2. FAITH, BUT ALSO HOPE AND LOVE
That ties in nicely with the class discussion today, on faith, hope, and love. Dr. Hanna pointed out that the Catholic church had overemphasized works (works of love?), and the Protestants came along and corrected this emphasis by drawing attention to the significance of faith.
Unfortunately, Protestants perhaps overemphasized faith, and we have a tendency to retain their off-balance approach.
In truth, Paul says that love, not faith, is the most important of the three virtues, so faith isn’t all there is. “By faith alone” therefore falls short in some ways. Justifying faith leads to sanctifying works of love.
3. SYNERGISM VS. MONERGISM
I also appreciated the discussion of the Catholic synergist thinking vs. the Protestant monergist thinking. The Catholic church held that humans and God both worked together in the process of salvation (synergism); Protestants insisted that salvation was the work of God alone (monergism).
Dr. Hanna pointed out that both of these are extremes, at least as they were understood by the two sides. We are able to accomplish nothing for our own salvation, which invalidates the synergist position. On the other hand, the reformers’ monergism was too extreme, because it denies any role for human will.
The right approach here, as in many other places, is in the middle: we contribute nothing to our own salvation, and yet there IS a role for human choice.
OVERALL: I like the fact that our class discussions are able to recognize both positives and negatives in Catholics AND Protestants. It is too flat and one-sided to sing the praises of the Protestant Reformers while castigating Catholics, and I like the fact that this class is more nuanced.
As the book of Dr Pelikan shows in the first chapter, the plurality of doctrines, in Catholic thought in fourteenth and fifteenth century was a daily bread. Theologians were involved in many sorts of discussions. Some of them were inconsequential. For instance, some Catholics theologians were discussing about the color of Virgin Mari’s hair. Other Catholics theologians were discussing about whether a monk who died, and resurrected had to be part as the same order of which he had been a member. I wonder if those theologians had in their mind the real responsibility that God had put on their shoulders. It seems to that they were taking so many times in, as I said before, inconsequential matters. That’s why I justify the reformation movement. While they were arguing about the Virgin Mari’s hair, many people remained in complete darkness. Even worse, those whose God had been put in positions of great responsibility were teaching errors instead of the biblical true.
But, we have to acknowledge that many of those discussions were very y important for the beginning of the reformation movement. As an example of those important discussions, I can quote the relevant discussion about the free will and salvation between Saint Augustine and Pelagius. I will talk about that in later postings. But, I want you to pay attention in Augustine’s influence in Catholic theology. He seemed to be the last word in many topics discussed by Catholic theologians in the whole Church’s history. Not only was he very influential in Catholic theology but also in the protestant thinking. As Pelican said in page 22 of his book “there was not important doctrinal issue in the fourteenth and fifteenth century that was not unaffected by the study of Augustine, and on many of the issues his influence was decisive”. as an example of this remarkable influence, one can refer the reformatory preaching of John Wycliffe, who present the idea that “the philosophical theology of Duns Scotus and the radical Agustianism of Bradwardine or a Gregory of Rimini were not the only ground for the doctrine of predestination” . So, He put his proper version of the doctrine in a practical way. But, he gave a definition of the church stemmed from the Augustine. That’s why we are very convinced that as Adventists we have even heritage from Augustinian theology. We are not exempt of the fourteenth and fifteenth theological current.
It is not bad to borrow some theological presupposition from Augustine, or another Theologian. But we have to test everything against the scripture. The most important thing is to preserve the biblical message from any philosophical or wrong theological assumption.
This week we talked about one of the central doctrines of Christianity, i.e. salvation. However, that doctrine poses different problems for many Christians. We all are affected by our religious, familiarly, educational, and cultural background. So many people think that their salvation cannot be totally separated from their personal performance, their own works (Catholic tradition). Other people rightly recognize that their own works cannot be the foundation for their salvation (Lutheran tradition). Since the salvation of human beings is totally based on God’s grace and activity, no human effort should be allowed in that great work, they reason. It is not easy to understand that an effort of the human will is necessary but that it is not a merit that saves them. In fact, it is essential to use the will to accept Christ’s substitutionary death, and surrender the will to him as Lord and Savior, as Guide and Counselor in the daily life. Yet, he is the one who saves. We only take hold of Christ’s saving hand by faith in him as a personal Savior. We need God’s grace in cultivating faith in Christ as a Savior. We need it in the forgiveness of our sins. We need it in the lifelong process of sanctification whereby the Holy Spirit works in our hearts to change, guide, and lead us. We need it in the glorification of our bodies when Christ comes the second time to take us home. All through the way we need the amazing grace of God. There is nothing we could produce by ourselves. We oftentimes want to decide for the good, and try it by ourselves. However, it is necessary to use the power of our will “to surrender” to the sweet Spirit of Christ.
Many Christians and even Adventists don’t realize that salvation is more than only forgiveness. But as Adventists we have an understanding of salvation that is not one-sided but broader, more balanced, and more differentiated. Oftentimes we are influenced by our background, as well as by the beliefs of over Christian denominations. That is why it is so important to think. To be an Adventist means to think! Here we have a task as pastors, teachers, and students to do just that, and also to help and train our church members to think more differentiated and see the broader picture.
Eric Washburn
10-12-08
Blog #6
In class we have been discussing Salvation and how it has been interpreted in the development of protestant theological heritage. Salvation is the theme of the Bible and its what every believer and even most unbelievers hope for. We all look for something better than this temporary life. Death is always in the back of the mind, and we would be a fool if we didn’t desire to be rescued from it. We have been discussing predestination, and freedom of the will in class. The scripture, which was presented in class, I would like to ponder in this blog.
Phil 2:12,13 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
Just reading this passage brings confusion to me. First Paul says to “work out your Salvation with fear and trembling”. Here it appears that we have a part in our salvation, and that part it obedience to God. So we are to live each day in obedience to God with fear and trembling. Doesn’t sound like a very joyful experience to me. Almost dreadful! It almost sounds like my current Christian experience, one of fear and trembling. There is a part of me that wants to get away from this type of relationship with God. Maybe I am interpreting scripture wrong. I don’t want to have a fearful relationship with God and be obedient out of fear. I want a relationship that is one based on God’s love for me. I guess as humans we need to always have in the back of our minds that we need to be careful in our Christian journey because we can lose our Salvation. And the thought of loosing our Salvation should bring fear and trembling, but its not fear that motivates us to walk with God.
Fear comes from the ever-present threat that we have an enemy who wants to steal our salvation. Paul’s words, you could say are to motivate us to be careful in our Christian journey because we could lose our salvation if we do not work in cooperation with God. We are to work our Salvation out, but we are not to work on it alone, God is our partner. Paul continues in verse 13 that it is God who works in us to do His will and good pleasure. So our work is to work in cooperation with God. Salvation is a partnership between God, and us, and it cannot be done alone. God cannot give us Salvation without our cooperation; we need to surrender to His will in order for it to take place in our lives. The God who came in the flesh, who called His follower’s brothers, and friend, should be wonderful to work with, don’t you think?
Several of us have made good substantial comments on our discussions of salvation, and our comments have shown that it is still a difficult concept to grasp entirely. It seems like our confusion or doubt stems from the area of assurance. Our arguments tend to be surrounding the idea of how an individual can make sure he or she is experiencing the “right kind” of salvation. Nobody wants to come down to the end and discover that their experience with God was somehow not authentic and be denied the final culmination of the salvation process, namely, entrance into glory. I think that Dr. Hanna is correct in drawing our attention to a holistic understanding of salvation. I think that he is right on and that his teaching is backed up by Scripture. However, I also have to admit that Scripture does not ALWAYS speak holistically about salvation. What I mean by that is that there are times when salvation is spoken of simply in terms of justification. There are other times when it is spoken of in terms of sanctification. And there are times when the concept of final glorification is the primary focus. AND, there are other concepts that are chosen from time to time that don’t have to do with any of these three. For example, the word for “save” is sometimes used to refer to what Jesus did for people when he simply healed them of a disease. All this seems to point to the fact that we don’t have to understand salvation by always having the holistic model in mind. Sometimes it is enough to experience and understand salvation as simple forgiveness of my sins. Sometimes it is enough to think of it only in terms of seeing Jesus come in the clouds. Sometimes it is enough to think of it primarily as my response to God’s mercy over me. Scripture AS A WHOLE presents a holistic model. That is to be expected. But rarely are individuals asked to take in and understand the whole thing all at once, as far as I can see. Maybe I’m wrong. And I know that God helps us grow in our understanding as we walk with Him day by day, and perhaps His goal is for us to ultimately understand the entire process of salvation. But it also seems that He wants us to savor and rejoice in every individual aspect of it along the way. We should not begrudge others their experience where God has them at a given time – which I don’t mean to imply that our class is doing! I’m speaking more to myself. I know I tend to expect others to be able to grasp things the way I do, and that if they don’t there is something wrong with their salvation experience. I need to be willing to let Luther rejoice in his justification by grace, even if he had never proceeded further than that. And I can’t, for my part, always walk through my salvation experience wondering whether I’m doing it right or understanding it the right way. I don’t really want to teach others to do it that way either.
I don’t want to imply that we shouldn’t understand salvation holistically. I think I have indicated in this rambling that I recognize that there are multiple components to the experience of salvation. I think we need to remember, though, that salvation is not necessarily EXPERIENCED holistically. Maybe God experiences it that way, knowing the end from the beginning. But we do not. We may experience more than one component at one time, say for example, working out my salvation as a loving response to God’s justification. But while I can speak of the salvation process in its entirety, I can’t help people experience that all at once practically.
1. ALIEN RIGHTEOUSNESS
On the topic of atonement, I was interested in the idea of “alien righteousness” that Luther spoke of. The phrase clearly implies that whatever righteousness we have is not our own, but exists outside of us.
There’s a problem with that, though, in that it implies that the sinner still remains a sinner.
In view of that problem, I thought this remark from the textbook was interesting:
“Luther’s language about righteousness ‘outside ourselves’ was a figurative concession to simple believers. In sum, ‘If one asks what righteousness is, one must answer: Christ dwelling in us through faith is our righteousness according to his divinity.’” (151)
Quite fascinating. So the righteousness is outside ourselves in a sense, but it’s inaccurate to think that it is totally separate from us. Christ must dwell in us.
I think this concept is important in combating the accusation that the doctrine of justification by faith involves a mere legal fiction (in which Christ declares us righteous as a legal declaration even though we are clearly unrighteous). Luther’s statement is a good correction against taking the idea of alien righteousness to extremes and suggesting that there need be no transformation in our lives.
2. LUTHER’S DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT
I knew prior to this class that Luther had developed a view of atonement similar to that posed by Anselm. He drew on Anselm’s idea that atonement was a satisfaction, and he emphasized the fact that it was God’s justice and his law which needed to be satisfied. It is on Luther that the contemporary doctrine of penal substitution is primarily based.
What I wasn’t aware of is the fact that Luther’s view wasn’t as simplistic as it is sometimes presented. He had a more well-rounded and multi-faceted view of atonement than is sometimes recognized.
Evangelicals have picked up only one aspect of Luther’s thought (penal substitution), but have missed the other aspects of his thought, where he emphasized, say, the importance of Christ’s righteous life, his cosmic triumph over spiritual powers, the subjective aspect of atonement, etc.
I’m curious now to understand more of Luther’s thinking. My sense is that evangelicals in general and Adventists in particular tend to be a bit one-sided in our presentations on atonement (emphasizing penal satisfaction), and I’d like to see a bit broader perspective. Penal satisfaction is important, but let’s be well-rounded. And considering that Luther is on of our significant theological “mentors,” perhaps we could start by recapturing the other aspects of his doctrine of atonement that we tend to brush over.
Ceremonial and moral law
I think that I can agree, now that my attention has been called to it, that to us the language of abolition the way it has been used, is not always the best way to distinguish between ceremonial law and the moral law. Firstly when we look at the ‘laws’ in the OT there are many kinds. There is civil law, moral law, health law, family law, ceremonial law, cleanliness laws, marriage law, and so forth. I can also see how using the term ‘fulfilled’ is a better way to deal with these laws in a general sense. Yet then I have to ask, for example, “While I am no longer considered ceremonially unclean for touching a dead animal, how is that law fulfilled today?” I suggest that there are certainly principles that we can take from that law. While the focus when the law was originally given is ceremonial uncleanliness, today we could see it as a matter if hygiene. Certainly we know now that touching dead animals and not washing can give way to disease and sickness. However this may not exhaust the application to that law to our day. Perhaps there is a spiritual dimension that we are not aware of. For example if we work in an abattoir, could it be that the constant familiarity with death of God’s creatures may deaden our conscience in some way? Could we become spiritually affected buy that? Possible. How about that law that declared that witches are to be executed? This is clearly a civil law but how does it apply today, if at all. We can certainly see the abhorrence that God has with witchcraft, yet we would not carry out the civil aspect—corporal punishment—because of the fact that as Christians we do not live under the Theocracy of OT, in which God was the direct ruler of the people: and that corporal punishment of sin is not yet the ministry of Christ and so not ours also. Yet certainly we still see that those who practice this sin will not enter the kingdom heaven [Rev 21:8], so we should still warn others that God it is still offended by this act. Perhaps this law can serve as a reminder to us that we need to be careful of associating with those who are clearly on satans side? Certainly more study need to be done on this issue.
I have always had difficulty with the way we traditionally separate the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament. Initially it does seem to solve some of the dilemmas we come across in defending the Ten Commandments, but when pressed into a corner the arguments just don’t hold water. What we distinguish as moral and ceremonial are just too intricately connected in Scripture, and it does not seem valid to say that one is abolished altogether while the other still stands. I don’t see Paul making that kind of distinction, nor do I see them as being clearly separated in the Old Testament. Even though it is a valid point that the Ten Commandments were spoken by God and written by His own finger, those commandments are intimately tied to the rest of the law structure laid out in the books of Moses. In any case, it helped me to begin considering the language of fulfillment as applicable to the entire Old Testament, rather than separating some parts into a camp called “abolished” and another part into one called “fulfilled”, especially considering the fact that Paul can apply what we would consider “ceremonial” to the life of the believer in Christ. There are times when he takes portions of the Old Testament that are not directly from the Ten Commandments and applies those things in a spiritual way to Christians. So, I guess the question might be what does it mean for something to be fulfilled? What does it mean that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law? Because it does still seem like there is a difference made in the way different laws are applied. Fulfillment obviously does not mean abolishment because the laws still exist and are applied in the life of the believer. But fulfillment seems to mean different things in different cases. “Do not murder” still means just what it says. But, for example, when Paul speaks about not muzzling the ox while it plows – here it seems that the application is not direct because he is applying it to the gospel worker receiving his/her wages. But does that mean I should start muzzling my ox literally? I guess that’s not the case either. So, what does fulfillment mean, and does it mean something different for each kind of law?
Last week we discussed several very interesting topics. I would like to dwell on a matter that we only touched in 2 or 3 sentences on one day. In regard to the doctrine of the atonement, a topic that we study as well during the current Sabbath school lesson, we mentioned Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109) who developed the satisfaction theory in his ‘Cur Deus Homo.’ According to that theory God’s honor needs to be vindicated since He was offended by the sin of the humans. That vindication could only happen through the punishment of the transgressors or the satisfaction of God’s justice so that humanity could be reconciled to God. God provided that satisfaction – through the God-man Jesus Christ – since man could not do it. Anselm’s theory remained the accepted one for the next centuries although it was challenged by Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142). He felt that Anselm’s theory did not do justice to God’s character and the witness of the Bible. He was condemned as a heretic, and was/is often seen that way until today. Some consider him as the father of the moral influence theory, and think that the contemporary judgment upon him was right. Others view him as the originator of that theory accepting it as the right teaching on atonement. And still others reject the whole thing considering him as a brilliant but controversial scholar who was totally misunderstood due to his sometimes extreme arguments in a row of argumentation. In fact, he focused on an aspect overseen by Anselm without negating the substitutionary aspect of Christ’s death but questioning the extreme of Anselm’s satisfaction theory. Luther recognized as well that Anselm’s theory did not cover everything the Bible had to say on atonement. That is why he pointed to the fact that Christ through his death gained the victory over the forces of evil.
Through the whole study of atonement I realized the danger of focusing only on one aspect of a whole matter. That leads to extremes since it turns away from the rest of the aspects of that teaching. Besides that there were really heretical and wrong views, many discussions and debates only resulted from people who recognized the imbalance of a certain teaching discovering some other aspects and focusing on these without realizing that they now are one-sided as well.
clinton moriah
Prevenient Grace by Clinton Moriah
We discussed in class that prevenient grace is a gift from God. God gives us grace to exercise our will or the power of choice. In addition, he gives further grace that facilitates conversion and repentance. Through the readings I discovered that Luther was probably referring to this kind of grace when he defined it as God’s favor or good will which in himself he bears towards us. He further contrasted a definition of grace as a quality hidden within the heart with a definition of it as continuous and perpetual operation or action through which we are grasped and moved by the Spirit of God. Luther believed in two types of grace.The first is the grace of Christ which is the chief fountain of all grace. The second is the grace we draw from Christ which he distributes among us. He believed that salvation and forgiveness came solely by the grace of Christ and all toil and effort to seek other ways leading to heaven are futile. The gift of prevenient grace is not salvation in itself. I think that is just one aspect. We sinners need to exercise active faith in Christ in order to fully accept justification and sanctification
Moriah's response to Jamie's comments.
Jamie i appreciate the comments you made abouth luther.
I was a little intrigued (and caught off guard) in class yesterday with the discussion of predestination. Dr. Hanna suggested that we Adventists have thrown out Luther’s and Calvin’s understandings of predestination, but that we haven’t necessarily replaced their views with a robust theology of our own. For that reason, their assumptions can still affect us, and they affect our views of justification, too.
I definitely agree that we as Adventists don’t have a well-developed view of predestination, and I’d love to see a bit more discussion in this in Adventist theological circles. Predestination is pretty much a dirty word for us.
I share my denomination’s general negativity toward the reformed understanding of predestination, and yet the term “predestination” is biblical. It occurs often enough that I think it would be worth it to us to explore this a little more, and develop our own interpretation of the concept.
Also, I found it particularly interesting that our views of predestination will affect our understandings of justification.
As Dr. Hanna pointed out, the reformers’ views of justification as purely passive stemmed from their view of absolute predestination. Since we don’t have an alternate view of predestination, we fall into accepting the reformers’ presuppositions, and then we tend to accept their doctrine of justification by faith as well.
How might our Adventist understanding of justification be affected if we revisited the topic of predestination and developed a more biblical theology of it? Would we find ourselves still in agreement with Luther’s concept of justification?
Richy Thomas
Blog #6
Justification by Faith Alone
Justification by faith alone, “Sola fide” (faith alone), can be understood as the key doctrine that led to the Reformation and ignited the reformers to break from the church of Rome. Although there are many different views of justification for the reformers; however, most of the reformers agreed that it was a central issue to the reformation.
The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the understanding of redemption through Christ and Him alone. The basic idea is upon how God has achieved the redemption of sinful humanity through the death of Christ on the cross. The Greek word “soteria,” which means “salvation,” is a broad term which focuses on the redemption achieved through the death and resurrection of Christ. In this view of the process of salvation there are images of victory, images of changed legal status, images of changed personal relationship, images of liberation, and images of restoration to wholeness. The doctrine of justification by faith answers how we are saved. It answers how man is redeemed. Justification by Faith as a legal status is understood in Romans 5:8-10, which says if we are justified by His blood then we are reconciled by His death and saved by His life. Therefore, justification is imputed to us because Jesus suffered the penalty of our sin, death.
The official position of the reformers was written as: “The single formal cause (of justification) is the righteousness of God-not the righteousness by which God is righteous, but the righteousness by which God makes us righteous, so that when we are endowed with it, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind (Eph. 4:23) and are not only counted righteous but are called and are in reality righteous. . . Nobody can be righteous except God communicates the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ to him or her and this takes place in the justification of the sinner.” [Nature of Justifying Faith. See Cannon 12]
The Reformers argued for the importance of ‘sola fide’ as the heart of the message and essential key to the gospel. There are five statements that sum up what lies at the heart of Protestant belief: By Grace alone (Sola Gratia); Through Faith alone (Sola Fide); In Christ alone (Solus Christus); According to Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura); and For God's Glory alone (Soli Deo Gloria). Sola fide is the key to all four.
Richy
Blog # 7
In my reading of Chapter 4, I would like to express my thinking/reflection of John Calvin and summarizing his "Institutes of the Christian Faith" with the TULIP model.
Calvin believed that justification by faith was the ‘hinge’ that everything hung upon.
Perhaps the most important aspect of Calvin's theology was his analysis of the doctrine of Predestination.
The five points of Calvinism, otherwise known as “Tulip” are: ‘Total inability’, ‘unconditional election’, ‘particular redemption’, ‘efficacious grace’, and ‘final perseverance’.
Total inability was the understanding that man has sunk so far through the Fall of Adam that he is no longer capable of repentance or believing the gospel. He is spiritually dead. Unconditional election is the understanding that God has, before the creation of the world, selected a portion of humanity as his elect to be saved, irrespective of any foreseen merits or faith. Particular redemption has the understanding that Jesus on Calvary bore the full punishment due for his elect only, ensuring their final salvation. He did not die for the non-elect, who are excluded and hopelessly reprobated. Efficacious grace is the understanding that before one can respond to the gospel, God irresistibly draws the sinner to himself, and gives him a new nature. The new birth occurs before belief in Christ. Faith is a gift imparted to the sinner, who is passive in this act. Then final perseverance is the understanding that everyone regenerated by God's grace will persevere and be finally saved. For no one who truly begins the life of faith will ever fall away and perish.
As for me, this disregards all of the Universal texts of the Bible that bring us the good news that God desires "all" to respond to His Salvation and call. John 3:16 is one of my favorite texts that dispells this controversy!
Eric Washburn
10-20-08
Blog #7
I don’t know about you guys but appears that the author of this book (Pelikan) is pro-Catholic. It appears everything he says about the Catholic Church is in a positive light even when it’s about doctrine totally contrary to the word of God. Or maybe he is just good at not mentioning who is wrong in their theology and just states the evidence why Catholic pioneers believed what they believed. I just find it overly positive (unhealthy) on the side of Catholicism. On page 260-261 there is discussion on the Veneration of the Saints, the author doesn’t spend much time on Luther and Melanchthon’s response to it, but spend the majority of his book’s space defending it. He mentions that devotion to God is supreme, but “invocation of the saints” helps aide that devotion (261). Augustine justifies veneration of the saints not to adore them, but to give honor to what they have contributed to Christianity. He also goes on to say that it doesn’t discredit or interrupt Christ being “Mediator of redemption”, but allow saints to be “mediators of intercession” (261). Support for such Catholic theology comes from 2 Maccabees, which they consider to be part of the canon of scripture.
Protestants do not believe that 2 Maccabees should be part of the canon along with many other books that have been put in the Catholic Bible, known as the apocrypha. Protestant hold this view because these writings were never accepted by Jewish tradition, and its content goes against the scripture that have already been established as authentic by the church fathers. Augustine felt that the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is authentic and inauthentic. From 2 Maccabees teaching such as praying for the dead, purgatory, invocation of saints, and the doctrine of Mary can be established.
It’s not surprising that these teachings were used to make money from the Church congregation to build their huge cathedrals. Their followers could pray for the dead, pray to the saints, and deliver love one’s from purgatory if they gave a little offering. Where did they think they got the authority to say what is true scripture? They feel that the Catholic Church comes from the line of Peter Church leadership. Catholics believe that when Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, he was actually giving Peter the governance power over the sheep according to Erasmus. Christ also told Peter that upon him, Christ would build His church, and therefore Peter’s successors, such as the Pope would be the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
The Catholic Church has no proof or evidence that Peter help establish the Church in Rome. Even if he did, he did not create the beast of Rome. The Catholic Church has made so many false doctrines with no scriptural foundation to make money and control their followers. There is always a danger of any Church to use the word of God to manipulate followers to give money. I think money would come without manipulation if the church used the money not on extravagant buildings or equipment, but actually spreading the gospel and alleviating suffering around the world. How careful we need to be as pastor as we try to inspire people to give without manipulation.
Leonardo Ledezma
Blog # 2
I just want to reflect in the topic of free will and salvation. I was commenting with Doctor Hanna about the position within Adventism regarding Free will and salvation. Adventist theology has many similarities with semi-Pelagian view of the topic. The problem is that nobody, within theological world, is interested in being related to Pelagius due his heretical ideas. Of course, when we read many of his theological premises we easily see that he was wrong in most of them. We cannot accept that, as Pelagius said, we can be saved just exercising our will apart from the grace of God. That kind of synergism is an extreme view of the role of the Free will in salvation. But, this is not the case of semi-Pelagianism. Of course, we cannot accept the other extreme which is presented by Augustine. He argues that the acceptation of salvation is a decision of God. In this case the will would have nothing to do with the God’s decision. We just have to accept that decision.
We see in the Bible that salvation is an act performed by God and accepted by the human being. There is a sort of cooperation between God and men. If the human being doesn’t accept the salvation, which is freely given to him, the process cannot continue. However, this acceptation is not a meritorious work. I agree with Doctor Hanna when he says that there are many ideas which are a product of theological protestant paradigms. We have to be aware of that kind of paradigms that are not based on the Scriptures but on the protestant tradition.
The fact that we have to response to the grace of God is clearly supported by bible. God created us with the capacity of making decisions even when those decisions were wrong. There is no irresistible grace. To accept the idea of an irresistible grace is deny the capacity, given by God Himself, to decide our destiny. God will never force our will to save us.
PREDESTINATION: Once Saved Always Saved
Daniel R. Ocampo
Historically speaking we (SDAs) are all blank and vacant on this subject matter simply because we believe on the freedom of choice. Reflecting on what I’ve been reading on this subject especially on the “Once Saved Always Saved” theory I can’t help but dig for more meaning. Through careful study of the Scriptures we can say that this really is Biblically non-consistent. The Calvinists and Evangelicals term this also as “Preservation of the Saints” or “Eternal Security”.
In chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession of Faith says that: “They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.”
Simply put that people are saved not by the free exercise of their will but by “the immutability of the decree of election,” that is, by the decree of God who elects some people to be saved and some to be lost. If this teaching of unconditional predestination were true, then God would in effect cause some people to remain saved, even if they later choose to return to a life of sin, as was strongly pointed out in our class discussion by Dr. Hanna.
I believe that the salvation vision of our Reformation pioneers became so “micro” that they might have forgotten the “macro” aspect of the salvation picture as found in the Scriptures. I strongly believed that they have read the entire Scriptures and searched it militantly, but because they were so caught up in their agenda to counter Roman Catholicism their ideas became obscured. For example, Jesus himself taught in Matthew 7:21 that “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in you name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from me , you evildoers.”
With this text mentioned, my most agonizing question is: Do I really have the assurance of
salvation? Is my eternal destiny secured? I believe that SALVATION IS ASSURED TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE BUT NOT GUARANTEED. That’s why I really appreciated the class discussion of Dr. Hanna today with the use of his diagram wherein he’s trying to pull out and gather all aspects of truth both from Scripture and historical theories and try to come out with a possible holistic picture of Salvation Theology. The more we deal on it the better my understanding of the Biblical perspectives becomes to me. I rate his Socratic style of teaching as Scripturally conservative yet philosophically liberal which I see is the fruit of an open minded scholar. Dr. Hanna, your diagram has helped me see a complex theology become simple, and I appreciate that.
Daniel
I thought that understanding predestination as God setting boundaries in advance was insightful. In this case, the boundaries are summed up in Christ. Ephesians 1 really seems to make a strong case to support this viewpoint as well. I haven’t counted the number of times Paul says “in Christ” in that chapter, but it’s a lot. He’s speaking in terms of the salvation “model” with a heavy emphasis on the predestination part. It’s almost as if predestination only really applies to Christ. It doesn’t apply to individual human beings at all until they become partakers in Christ. Then and only then are they predestined in any way, because Christ was predestined from before the world began. When a person is “in Christ”, then he or she is considered predestined to salvation. This is how I understand what Dr. Hanna was presenting, and it seems to be faithful to what Scripture teaches. What do you all think?
I was surprised at how much I felt myself leaning with the Calvinists on the subject of “learned ignorance.” I realized that it’s an attitude I take whenever I don’ t understand something about God. I don’t really think it’s always the best way to think, but I realize that I have been conditioned to think that way and I’m wondering why. When something seems out of place with our understanding of God what is the best course of action? Like with the doctrine of hell, it’s one of those things that seems inconsistent with the character of God, but there are some plain verses in Scripture that seem to teach its literal existence. I guess my question is, when is it our cue to question traditional interpretation. In the case of hell, we initially questioned it because in our human understanding it would not be right/just/loving for God to eternally punish people. So, in that case the cue was not really from finding inconsistencies between tradition and Scripture. The inconsistencies were found later.
Eric Washburn
10-26-08
Blog #8
In class we had discussed what law was nailed to the cross, was it the moral law or the ceremonial law, or even both? In this blog I am not being dogmatic and saying what I have written sound doctrine. I just wrote as I was moved by the passages we read in class and as I discovered more verse while writing this blog. In Galatians 3 we find the purpose of the Law. Paul calls the law the schoolmaster that was to bring us to Christ. How? The law revealed our sinfulness, and our inability to keep it perfectly in order to stand righteous. The law brings us to Christ, to our solution to our dilemma of being under the curse of the law. How? Jesus took on Himself the curse of the law on the cross in our behalf. Once we were children of the law, now we become children of God in Christ Jesus through faith. The law was never meant to justify anyone in the sight of God, but the just were always to live by faith. Galatians 3:11 says, “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith.” Abraham did not have the law, and he was justified by faith in the promised One to come from his offspring. The law was meant to condemn everyone who is under it, so that everyone would recognize his or her grim predicament of being lost if with out a Savior. Romans 3:19-20 says, “Now we know that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” The law was a glimpse of God’s character, and it revealed to us what the image of God was to be in us.
The law was to be in the forefront to show us who God is, but Jesus came to better reveal God’s will by showing us it perfectly in the flesh. Jesus has the power condemn us, but instead of doing that He offers us His righteousness (perfect law keeping) to cover our shamefulness. In other word He offers us His perfect record of keeping the law to be written next to our name as if we did it ourselves. This is offered to the believer through faith. Does this mean we no longer have to keep the law because it was already kept for us in Christ Jesus? God Forbid! Now the law (God character) is to be kept in a new living way, and that is through His Spirit. In Class we looked at 2 Corinthians 3:3 and I think it says exactly how the law is not performed in our own power, but by the Holy Spirit writing God character on the tables of our heart. “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink (the Torah), but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone (Ten Commandments), but in fleshy tables of the heart.” (2 Corinthians 3:3). On the cross the law (God’s true character in the Flesh of His Son) was nailed to it. Is the law done away with? To say that would be to say, “God is done away with!” On the cross the law (Christ) died, and so did we. But after the cross Christ was raised up to new life, and so are we to be raised up to new life. Through the Spirit we are now to live the law (God’s character) in a new living way. Romans 6:4 say, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Also Romans 8:11 confirms this, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwells in you.” Today we are not under the Law, but under Christ. Today we are keep the Law, because Christ now lives within, the hope of glory.
The whole discussion on predestination is very interesting. Yeah, it is right that we oftentimes just say that predestination is not biblical when the topic comes up. Some years ago I met a young man who was very eager to convince everyone that the Bible teaches predestination and that God is, in fact, a cruel god. Since the term is used in the Bible it is necessary to study the meaning, use, and context of it. The word in question is “proorizo,” and it is used only six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29f; 1 Co. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). The term means in general to decide something beforehand, determine something beforehand, or lay out borders beforehand (pro orizo = to fix/determine/set something before). When I studied the different passages I came to the following conclusions:
(1) God determined the way of salvation beforehand.
(2) God determined beforehand that those are called to eternal life that walk this way and respond in love to God’s love.
(3) Those that he recognized before, He appointed to reflect the image of His son.
(4) He has appointed us to be His children through Jesus Christ.
Predestination is connected to (a) a prior determining of conditions, (b) a prior determining of how salvation can be accomplished, (c) a prior determining of what shall happen to those who respond positively to that salvation, (d) a determining of what shall be the further way of people whom He recognized (foreknew) that they would react positively.
The will of God fixes some points very clearly but others are rather flexible. The reaction of man is flexible but God foresees it already (foreknowledge). So e.g. Luke 7:30 show that the “boule” (purpose, plan, resolution, decision) of God can be rejected or made invalid by human beings if they don’t follow God’s purpose for them. It is the same term that is used in Acts 4:28 and Eph 1:11. I found the picture of Martin Hanna interesting that God sets boundaries in which human beings make their decisions.
Other terms that need to be studied being connected to “proorizo” are “being called,” “purpose,” “plan,” and “foreknow.”
Again, we encountered several very interesting concepts last week.
I was reminded of the importance to state clearly the meaning of the terminology in question. Terms are not enough since everyone fills them differently. Words are like a bottle that can hold different kinds of fluids, healthy as well as dangerous fluids. Oftentimes there arise debates and discussions simply because certain words very not clearly defined. The question is, “What do we mean by that?” We could discuss the interpretation of terms like Antichrist or Remnant but the question is whether we discuss the general biblical use of the term or merely the details provided in a certain text that points to a certain historical period. Misunderstandings, divisions, hostility, etc. can be the result. That is why it is so important to define our terminology or at least be aware of when someone else seems to fill the terms differently.
The two presentations of Jamie and Marko were interesting as well. Both presented the proposal of their papers. The topic of both papers focuses on atonement theology (reg. the writings of Luther, and the moral influence theory in modern Adventism). When writing a paper myself on that topic (NT, early church fathers, church fathers, Peter Abelard, and contemporaries of Abelard) earlier this year, I recognized that many extreme views only arose because one aspect was overemphasized and now criticized by someone else who in turn emphasized another aspect being one-sided as well. The writers oftentimes sounded very exclusive in the statements although they only wanted to make sure that the other view wasn’t right. From our viewpoint we could say that these views were not right for the misrepresented the truth or they were not totally wrong since they focused on a true aspect of the broader concept of the truth. Concluding we can say that it is important to try to find all possible information from the Bible on that topic as well as on related topics.
Thinking this morning about David’s presentation on the term “filioque” and the division between the western (Catholic) church and the eastern (Orthodox) church, I was really struck by how inconsequential the argument seemed to me, at least at first glance.
Now granted, I know very little about the debate. But it is very hard for me to imagine how this one concept could result in a permanent split between the eastern and western halves of Christianity.
At least the way David explained it, it seems as if both the Catholics and the Orthodox believers have valid points or valid reasons for arguing as they do.
And frankly, it doesn’t seem like the Bible is really clear on this. I don’t mean to deny that the Bible doesn’t make statements about the equality of the Father and Son, or about who sent the Spirit. But seriously, were the Bible writers really concerned to nail down with precision whether the Father and the Son sent the Spirit, vs. the Father sending the Spirit through the Son?
Honestly. I recognize that the people actually arguing over this issue had reasons for taking it so seriously, but to me, the argument seems very pedantic. People should not be forced to choose between the two, and this sort of issue shouldn’t split the church.
2 applications of the issue:
First, it occurred to me that probably some of the debates that matter a lot to me appear equally pedantic to other people. This ought to encourage me to back off a bit and recognize that a) the issue is perhaps not as earth-shakingly important as I think, and b) the other person might have a valid perspective.
Second, it seems to me that the prime advantage of having these sort of debates is not that they define with absolute precision what is the absolute truth, but that they draw out implications that people wouldn’t have thought of without the debate.
What I mean by this: I doubt that either the Catholics or the Orthodox have the final “correct” word on the filioque matter, and so the significance of their debate is not that they establish conclusively the precise Trinitarian relationships.
What the debate does do, however, is draw out wider implications, such as whether all the members of the Godhead are equal, and whether our theology might tend to deemphasize the role of the Spirit or the role of the Son, or whatever. The debates can help bring us back from unhealthy theological tendencies.
So I think it’s useful to have these sorts of debates; they help us correct extremes. But at the same time, this discussion was a fresh reminder not to take little theological points too seriously.
Blog # 3
The discussion about the Filioque seems to be a matter of difference in using the word by the eastern western church. Reading a little bit, I realized that the principal preoccupation was the implications of this in the doctrine o the trinity. In fact, the first time when this word was used was during the controversy against Arians. In the first council of Toledo Visigothic Spain renounced to Arianism and accepted Catholic Christianity. It was at that time when the word was first used as an interpolation of the Creed. Well, some people argue that this word was first used in the Nicene Creed. But there is not any evidence of that. The point is that the discussion arose many questions concerning the nature of the trinity and the relationship between his members. Those questions remain unanswered until now. I can understand that this word was added to Nicene Creed In order to counteract the Arian controversy. But they didn’t realize that this response crated a bigger problem.
Now, the most important thing is what the Bible says about the topic. It is quite interesting that this word is not found in the Bible, of course, because is a Latin word. But It seems to be that the concept is found in the New Testament in John 15:26 “Who proceeds from the father”. But, a similar statement is not found regarding to the son. That’s why the Eastern Orthodox Church argue that the Holy Spirit proceed from the father but not from the Son. However several statements which could support the idea that The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the father and the son are found in the New Testament. For instance, In John 16:13-15 Jesus says of the Holy Spirit "he will take what is mine and declare it to you", and it is argued that in the relations between the Persons of the Trinity one Person cannot "take" or "receive" (λήψεται) anything from either of the others except by way of procession. Other texts that have been used include Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19, where the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of the Son", "the Spirit of Christ", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", and texts in the Gospel of John on the sending of the Holy Spirit by Jesus (14:16, 15:26, 16:7).
As I can see, it is a very difficult issue due his nature and the information we have. We can not argue that one side has the reason and the other is wrong or vice versa. The divine nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery that has not been revealed in the scripture at least as we know. How can we search in the deep Of God? It is simply impossible without any revelation regarding the theme. Of course, we have to avoid a simplistic explanation of the matter. But we need to do more research on that.
I continue to be surprised at how much we really hold in common with Catholic and other Protestant theology. I’m reflecting on our discussion from last week about reaching “unity of the faith” (from Ephesians 4:11-13) and what that means. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, many differing viewpoints and theological perspectives were allowed to coexist under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. Something new happened with the Reformation in that the necessity of that visible union was challenged. Today it is very difficult sometimes from an outside perspective to see any semblance of unity in Christianity as a whole. It’s interesting to see, though, how certain issues still have a unifying effect. I spoke with my mom on the phone the other night about the homosexual marriage ban in California. She is not a Christian, and her perspective was that it was sad that Christians are quickly willing to unite and pull together their efforts and money to (seemingly in her view) prohibit equal civil rights for homosexuals. It made me really stop to think about how the non-Christian world views us – I mean Christianity as a whole. So many Christians are unwilling to be devoted disciples of Christ on an everyday level that pervades every area of life and human experience. As I reflect on this, it seems like that was why unity of the faith was so readily natural in the infant stages of the church. Their common connection was their discipleship to Jesus. Nothing else mattered – at least it seems to have been the case. Our disunity today seems to stem from our desire to pick a certain issue to champion, and if others cannot see eye-to-eye with us we cast them aside. I wonder if one of the reasons God raised up the Adventist Church was to offer a unifying theological perspective – the ability to pull from different theological traditions and find the good in each one?
I was musing yesterday in class on the difference between the Protestant “exclusive” principle and the orthodox principle.
Protestants insisted on admitting only Scripture; Catholics, however, would admit nothing that CONTRADICTED Scripture.
Frankly, I’m not sure I really understand what Protestants were arguing for, because I don’t think it is possible to take Scripture alone, with absolutely nothing else.
As Christians, we are constantly interpreting Scripture and applying it in our culture, and we develop particular traditions of application. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, we can’t avoid it.
Perhaps, then, what the Protestants meant was that we cannot be DOGMATIC on anything except what is explicitly contained in Scripture? If this is what they meant, then I agree.
However, as Dr. Hanna keeps pointing out in class, we should not adopt a narrow, exclusive understanding of sola scriptura. (This is especially true for us as Adventists, since we have Ellen White to reckon with.)
Technically, the Catholics are right in their thinking: we can accept traditions that aren’t explicitly biblical, but the position we should adopt is to admit nothing that contradicts the Bible. (But of course, the Catholics were wrong in becoming dogmatic on extra biblical teachings.)
So the bottom line, which seems to keep coming up in this class over and over, is that sola scriptura, taken in a strictly literal sense, is untenable.
What this discussion (and others like it) have driven home to me is that Adventists fit neither with Protestants nor with Catholics on many of our fundamental principles. I think I didn’t realize that before this class.
I had thought that the Christian world was divided into three basic groups—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—and assumed that we as Adventists fit into the Protestant group.
This class is teaching me that that identification might not be as simple as I first thought.
The relationship between the two natures of Christ is an interesting topic. So Clinton has taken one of the most important issues in Christology. Of course we perfectly Know how controversial have the topic been among Christians from the beginning. We can mention the first fourth century heresies that denied the principal doctrines like Arians and ebionitism which denied the Divinity of Christ and continue with Docetism and Gnosticism which denied his humanity. We are thankful to the council Of Nicea for the important contribution in our understanding of Divine-human nature of Christ. It was in that council where the relationship between his two natures was definitely defined.
In protestant world almost everybody is agree that Jesus has a Divine-human nature as was defined by the Nicea Council. But the later controversies were mostly about how those two natures were united in one person. The first position which is held by Catholics and most protestant church is the hypostatic Union, states those two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. This doctrine is known as Dyopysite position. In contrast, some Christians rejected that position and established another called Myapysite which states that Christ was both divine and human in one nature. That position was adopted by the Oriental orthodox tradition.
In this respect, Adventism keeps the Dyopysite position. We believe that Christ has two natures, one human and one divine. Both are united in the one person of Christ. The Ellen white position is not different from this view. The only thing is that in many of her writing he emphasizes Divine nature of Christ while in others she emphasizes The Christ Humanity. We just have to be aware about what emphasis she is trying to put. Then we will realize how consistent she is in her view.
Clinton Moriah response to Denis Comment.
I agree with ou Denis It is important to read and study Ellen White’s writings. All that can help us to understand the Bible better and more than we could do only by our own studies. We can get new insights etc. But all that should never replace the study of the Biblical text itself. All that shall lead us to the Bible itself.The tragedy Conservative and liberal ADventism of our time is that we often misuse Ellen White's writings to suit our own views.
.
Clinton Moriah
Protestant heritage and the Nature of christ.
We have discussed in class during my presentation that one of the main reasons for studying the Protestant Theological Heritage is to understand how the legacy of the reformation impacted and gave birth to the Seventh- day Adventist movement. More specifically, the Seventh-day Adventist Christology has its origins in protestant Theology.
In Dr Hanna wholistic model of revelation, God has revealed himself in the cosmos through inspiration and the humanity of his supreme revelation of the incarnation in Jesus. In order to obtain a wholistic view of the history of revelation of the understanding of the humanity and Divinity of the supreme revelation of God it is necessary to examine the role of progressive divine revelation in the shifting views on the human and divine nature of Christ from the early Christians church to the reformation and the development of contemporary Adventist Christology.
The Bible reminds us that the path of the just is like a shining light. This paper seeks to examine how the light of understanding of the humanity and divinity of Christ of Christ has its roots in the protestant theological heritage. Adventist Christology is a product of God’s progressive revelation to his faithful remnant from the early church to contemporary Adventism.
Moriah response to Dr Daniel's comments
I think Daniel shared some insightful points and has raised some thought provoking questions.I deeply appreciate Dr. Martin Hanna’s introductions and Scriptural expositions proving the history of the Church falling in good or bad hands. However, as ministers we need to be careful not to present the biblical view of the remnant with an exclusive catholic mind set.History has reveal that God has his people in both the catholic and protestant organizations.He will call fort his remnant.Adventist aren't called to choose God's remnant.That is God's work.
Moriah clinton response to eric comments on Gal. and the law.
I agree with you Eric.I think you have made some good points.However, some Adventist are still struggling with the reality that we don't keep the law to be saved.we can't even keep it. We keep it by God's Grace because we are saved.Law keeping doesn't make us righteous. Jesus makes us righteous.
" Are Adventist the only Remnant?" by Clinton Moriah
As Seventh- day Adventists we generally refer to the Roman Catholic Church and protestant churches as papacy and her daughters. There are some Adventists who believe that everything about papacy is evil and corrupt. On the other hand there some who believe that apostate Protestantism is corrupt and we should not have any dialogue with both even if it is to understand our roots from both and share the progressive revelation God has given in Bible prophecy.
Sometimes we (SDA) see ourselves as the remnant that came out of nowhere or as if God formed us out of nothing like Adam, thinking we are different for everyone else in history. But as We discussed in class, this is not so. Throughout history God has had “several remnants.” Remnant is those who God has called out from the world to be a repository of God’s grace.
These are God’s faithful. Noah and his family were God’s remnant during then flood. They responded to God’s call. They spread the Gospel of the flood and build the ark. God preserved them because of their faith and obedience. Abraham was called out of Ur. He and his family were God’s remnant in his time. Israel voluntary went into Egypt but God called and took them out of Egypt. God had a remnant during the reformation too. He called them out of papal Rome. They were God’s remnant. What makes Seventh-day Adventist different from the other remnants mentioned above? I will humbly suggest that our uniqueness as been a part of God universal remnant is not predicated on our prophetic insights, seven “S’s,” or Commandment keeping, but because we have chosen to obey God’s progressive revelation, our faith in God, acceptance of his grace and submission to his guidance.
One interesting note on the Filioque controversy as it relates to the Protestant slogan "Sola Scriptura": I think I find myself siding with the Orthodox position, theologically speaking. They seem to be more true to the Protestant slogan. They take John 15:26 as definitive for how the Holy Spirit is sent. The Catholic position reflects a desire to elevate Christ to equality with the Father in nature, but in doing so they depart from the simple teaching of John 15:26. At least, this is what the Orthodox position is in a nutshell. This relates also to Jamie's comments on Catholics being willing to accept tradtion that does not contradict Scripture, while Protestants (at least in theory) accept only what can be found in Scripture. The Orthodox position on the Filioque controversy is more in line with the Protestant position in the way Scripture and tradition are viewed.
Eric Washburn
11-10-08
Blog #9
Ordinations need to be re-examined
Ordination is a hot word in Adventistism. Today only about 80% of North American Adventist churches have not yet elected a woman elder in the Church. The word ordination is not even mention in the Bible. The word ordain is mention twice in the New Testament, 1st in 1 Corinthians 7:17 where Paul declares to be ordained to all the churches, and 2nd Paul writing to Titus in Titus 1:5 telling him to ordain elders in every city to bring a sense of order in the Church. None of these verses speak about the gender of the elder. So ordination has very little scriptural support. When it comes to the Church Manual of the Seventh Day Adventist church is says Elder Ordination is recognized by these characteristics:
* Call by God to this ministry
* God's spiritual gifts enabling the person to perform this ministry
* Congregation recognizing and approving God's call
* Congregation expressing willingness to follow the individual's leadership
The Roman Catholic Church developed the custom of ordination of Priest and believed it has followed from an unbroken succession from Peter ordination to present day ordination. If we were to look in Adventist history there was a time that our Church did not have ordination of ministers. It came about when many self-proclaimed ministers claimed to be Adventist ministers, but taught contrary to Adventist beliefs. So to end the confusion they adopted ordination and licensing of ministers who are recognized by the Church.
1990 it was voted by delegates of the world Church 1,173 to 377 that ordination of women to preach the gospel should not be allowed because it would disrupt the unity of the world Church. Not because the Bible proves that it is wrong, but that such a vote, would not be accepted culturally
Women and men both can preach the gospel without ordination by the Church. Ellen White preached the Gospel from many pulpits, and was never ordained by man, but was ordained by God. But to be employed by the Church full time to preach the gospel, men are only allowed to have that right if ordained. I heard a conference treasure at an ordination say, “now that you are ordained, you can get the full wage of the Adventist Church.” So instead of receiving the max of 91% for unordained, he can now get 100% of the pastor wage. Some conferences wait to ordain pastors because they can’t fit it in their budget. It seems, sadly, that ordination is tied to how much money you make in the Church and not being called by God. To say that God does not call pastors who are not ordained, because of there is a lack of money would be wrong. It appears that ordination came into our Church for organization and that the Bible does not make a definite point on the issue. If it’s about money, woman and men should be paid the same wage for doing the same job as ordained men. Ordination should never be with held because of lack of funds or gender, but only for the lack of consecration. If we were to read the Bible literally, we would see that God is calling a Priesthood of all believers, male and female. I will close with the passage below.
Pet. 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:
1Pet. 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Eric Washburn
11-10-08
Blog # 10
The subject of the Eucharist is one that has always interest me. I have wondered how the Catholic Church came up with the view of the Eucharist (Transubstantiation) becoming the blood and body of Christ substantively. They say physical attributes of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance of the bread does. The Catholics take all the verses that mentioning Jesus body and blood and interpret it literally. For example if we interpret John 6:51-53 literally we would hear Jesus say quite clearly that all must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. What is the benefit of eating the flesh and drinking the real blood of Christ? There is great danger in translating verses so literally when Jesus is known for having meaning that comes from the form of symbols.
Luther didn’t fall far from the nest of the Catholic Church when it came to the celebrating the Eucharist. He called his view consubstantiation, and its difference from the Catholic view is that the Real Presence of Christ was not in the bread and wine but behind them. Luther took Matthew 26:26 quite literally when Jesus took the bread and blessed it and gave it to His disciples and said, “take, eat; this is my body.” Luther took Jesus word “this” bread to be “identical” with his body. Jesus is not in the bread but He co-exist along side the bread. Jesus is therefore really present when the Eucharist is served.
Calvin rejected the Catholic and Luther’s literal translation and came up with the view of literally eating and drinking Christ in the faith realm, not in the physical. Calvin argued this argument because he believed that Christ physically left earth and is in Heaven, so anything pertaining to His body must be done in faith. Calvin almost put the Eucharist as a symbolic ceremony but didn’t want to go that far, so he said Christ enters the bread and wine by faith.
I think the Zwinglian view to be the most Biblical because they hold that nothing miraculous happens, but that it was given as a symbolic meal or a memorial to point the believer to what Jesus did on the cross. When the Lord supper is given, the believer sees a glimpse of what Jesus did for them on the cross, and their faith is awakened and renewed by the symbol of the bread and wine that represent Christ sacrifice. I find part taking of the Lord supper to be one of the highlights of my worship experience. I take it very serious and look at my life. I repent of my sins, and humbled at I am pointed to the cross through the emblems of Christ blood being spilled out and his body being broken in my behalf.
Ecumenism is an important issue to be discussed. Fortunately, we will have one partner working on that. I just want to comment some general but essential aspects regarding this topic. The first interesting point is that the unity of church is viewed in very different perspectives for Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant churches. In a broader sense, ecumenism is different from religious pluralism which is better defined as interfaith pluralism. The interfaith movement strives for greater mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions. Ecumenism as interfaith dialogue between representatives of diverse faiths, does not necessarily intend reconciling their adherents into full, organic unity with one another but simply to promote better relations. It promotes toleration, mutual respect and cooperation, whether among Christian denominations, or between Christianity and other faiths. Of course, this is the general view of ecumenism. But, the concept tends to change among churches. For instance, Catholics have the goal of reconciling all who profess Christian faith to bring them into a single, visible organization, i.e. through union with the Roman Catholic Church. This view is based on his presupposition on the concept of the church as one unique church. Catholic sees that there is only one true Catholic Church. That is The Roman Catholic Church. Then, everybody has to come back to the truly Catholic church of Christ. Traditional Orthodox Church maintains that there is but one Church, and Orthodoxy is the Church. Thus, theories like "sister church" or "two lungs" are generally rejected, because in its view the Church is theologically indivisible. However, Protestants tend to emphasize the unity in terms of Church’s teachings. They put his primary focus in Christ as the most important issue over which the dialogue has to be constructed. According to some protestant theologians the church is not really divided but the unity has been darkened by doctrinal controversies. Of course they see the unity of the church in spiritual terms. Again, one important different is that while Catholics and Orthodox emphasize the agreement on dogma, Protestants emphasize agreements on teachings about central issues of faith.
The Adventist seventh day Church is included in the group of denomination which does not participate actively in ecumenism. Adventist does not participate in the ecumenical movement but support some of the goal of Ecumenism. Here is paragraph about the official position if the Adventist seventh day Church “Should Adventists cooperate ecumenically? Adventists should cooperate insofar as the authentic gospel is proclaimed and crying human needs are being met. The Seventh-day Adventist Church wants no entangling memberships and refuses any compromising relationships that might tend to water down her distinct witness. However, Adventists wish to be "conscientious cooperators." The ecumenical movement as an agency of cooperation has acceptable aspects; as an agency for organic unity of churches, it is much more suspect”. This paragraph was taken from Adventist News Network (March 7, 2006). Retrieved on 10 January 2007. In my opinion as Adventist we don’t have to try agreeing in every issue of doctrine and teaching with other Christian denominations. And even more when this agreement could compromise the purity of the truth which found in a very clear way in the scripture. It is not just for being different but for being faithful to the Lord of the True.
Richy Thomas
Blog #8
Biblical balance on Justification:
Where one stands on the doctrine of justification is important, for to be true to the Biblical doctrine of Justification by faith, you cannot be on one extreme, such as antinomianism or the opposite extreme, legalism. There needs to be a Christ-centered balance. Although, I am for balance in this issue and several others, there is something that we are not to be balanced in, and that is to have a full and complete commitment to follow Christ as Savior and Lord. What about Jesus’ “all or nothing” appeal to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:15-16? In this message, Jesus says that you either choose to remain hot or choose to remain cold; therefore, there is no middle ground. Jesus has also argued, “he that is not with me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” (Matthew 12:30)
Augustine and Pelagius stand at odds with one another, much like two extreme ditches on a path. One ditch could stand for legalism and the other could stand for antinomianism. The theological arguments of Luther and Calvin are on different sides between Augustine and Pelagius.
In a nutshell, the Catholic Church’s position is that one is saved by Christ and the Church (namely, the Eucharist, prayers to Mary and all of the other ‘dead’ saints, confessionals, pilgrimages, indulgences, etc.) and all of its many traditions or the biblical message of being saved by Christ ‘alone’, apart from works by oneself or any system apart from Christ. This is crux of the whole matter, the light that shone setting people such as Luther and Calvin free from the ‘dark ages’ past. Ellen white said that there were only two religions, those that who stand for ‘righteousness by faith’ and those that stand for ‘righteousness by works’.
Richy Thomas
Blog #10
Justification Part 2; Counter-Reformation:
Catholics believe in salvation by faith, but not faith ALONE and not Christ alone. Therefore, it is understandable that the Council of Trent’s position on justification defended the Augustinian view that justification is the process of regeneration and renewal within human nature which brings about a change in both the outer status and the inner nature of the sinner. The Augustine position viewed man as depraved and spiritually incapable. Whereas, the Pelagian view is that man can be extolled.
The Council of Trent was the event of the Roman Catholic church to counter the Reformation. Luther’s discovery of Justification and Righteousness by Faith set the prisoners free, metaphorically speaking, and ignited hearts with the flame of the Holy Spirit. However, an military order was developed at this time to counter the Reformation. An outstanding quote, expresses the event clearly: “Ignatius Loyola founded the Jesuit Order in the 1540s. Its position in the Roman Catholic Church was solidified during the Council of Trent, which ran from 1546 to 1563. The Council of Trent was convened with one great goal in mind: how to stop the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation began in 1517 when Martin Luther, the fearless German friar, nailed 95 theses on the door of the Wittenburg chapel…Luther’s great teachings that the Bible only is the standard for all doctrine and practice, and that a person is justified before God through faith in Jesus Christ alone, sent thrills through the hearts of thousands throughout Europe and shock waves through the halls of the Vatican. Thus, the Council of Trent was convened to counter the Reformation; hence it is known as the Counter Reformation, and the Jesuits would be the chief tools of Rome to undo and destroy every trace of Protestantism wherever it was found.” B. Hughes. “The Secret Terrorists,” 2002, Truth Triumphant, pp. 10, 11
This is history that should not be ignored!
Richy Thomas
Blog # 9, really is #10 (I messed the numerical order up last time!)
Counter-Reformation continued:
Yes, you guessed it if you thought I was currently writing about the Counter-Reformation in my research (if any of you were wondering). It is one of the reasons that I have included and am including in this blog some dynamic quotes regarding some serious ecumenical aims. I also would like to share some interesting sources that I have discovered.
Seriously, Rome is the head of the ecumenical movement and that goal is to remove all Protestant dogmas (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola Christos, etc.) and replace them with Catholic theology. They are serious about removing TRUE Protestantism from the map. Here is a quote from one textbook that I kept showing the primary reasons the Catholic Church has become so deeply involved in the ecumenical movement: “From the Vatican’s viewpoint ecumenism has three purposes: First, to draw non-Catholic groups into the Catholic domain; second, to keep Catholics from leaving the Roman Church in the midst of today’s widespread ecumenical activities such as Charismatic Bible studies; and third, to persuade non-Catholics to refrain from seeking to win Catholics to Christ and away from the Catholic Church. In these aims, the Vatican has been hugely successful.” D.W. Cloud, “Evangelicals & Rome,” 1999, Way of Life Literature, Page 61.
Another interesting, yet fitting, quote from a Catholic periodical: “They [Protestants] conveniently forget that they separated from us, not we from them; and that it is for them to return to unity on Catholic terms, not for us to seek union with them, or to accept it, on their terms…Protestantism is rebellion against the authority of Christ vested in His Church. It neither possesses authority, or has any desire to submit to authority…Protestantism has really proved to be the ally of paganism…All forms of Protestantism are unjustified. They should not exist.”-America (Catholic periodical), January 4, 1941, Vol. 64, page 343.
Another quote describing the purpose of the Council of Trent:
“The Council of Trent (1545), which had been called by Pope Paul III to counter the reformation and to clarify the Roman Catholic doctrinal position had, instead of reforming the church, entrenched the Catholic doctrinal position and teaching so abhorrent to the reformers. The Council reaffirmed the Church’s position on the doctrines of transubstantiation, faith and works, the mass, the seven sacraments, celibacy, purgatory and indulgences, and increased the Papal power.” “History of Christianity,” page 410
The last two quotes are controversial gems that I found in some old books from the library. They express how they truly feel about “real” Protestants.
“In 1825, some eleven years after the revival of the Jesuit Order, a secret meeting of leading Jesuits was held at their College of Chieri near Turin, in Northern Italy. At that gathering, plans were discussed for the advancement of Papal power, world-wide, for the destabilizing of governments who stood in the way and for the crushing of all opposition to Jesuit schemes and ambitions…’What we aim at, is the Empire of the World…We must give them [the great men of earth] to understand that the cause of evil, the bad leaven, will remain as long as Protestantism shall exist, that Protestantism must therefore be utterly abolished…Heretics are the enemies that we are bound to exterminate…Then the Bible that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it.’” H. Macpherson, “The Jesuits in History”, 1997, Ozark Book Publishers, appendix.
“I cannot too much impress upon the minds of my readers that the Jesuits, by their very calling, by the very essence of their institution, are bound to seek, by every means, right or wrong, the destruction of Protestantism. This is the condition of their existence, the duty they must fulfill, or cease to be Jesuits. Accordingly, we find them in this evil dilemma. Either the Jesuits fulfill the duties of their calling, or not. In the first instance, they must be considered as the bitterest enemies of the Protestant faith; in the second, as bad and unworthy priests; and in both cases, therefore, to be equally regarded with aversion and distrust. – G.B. Nicolini, “History of the Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrine, and Design,” 1854, Henry G. Bohn, preface.
Is this controversial material? Yes, but it had to be shared. Could it be the future does favor those who are informed?!!
Separation and unity. In the catholic view ‘separation’—from the catholic church—is one of the great crimes of the reformation since, according to the Roman Church, unity or oneness is one of the signs of authentic Christianity. It can be rightly argued that unity is indeed one of the signs of Christianity, or the true church. It is clear from scripture that unity is God’s desire for the church; and that love would dwell between brethren. However the problem is that within Catholicism the idea of unity has been invested with a sacredness that it does not have. Just because a group is united it does not mean that that is God’s will. The same with separation. Separation is seen as a typically bad thing. However this is not always the case. Unity in error is not holy, and separation from error is a good thing. Accordingly we must admit, in the issues that we are facing as SDA’s, that unity is not always good and separation not always bad. For the sake of unity we may be allowing some, perhaps even whole churches, to continue fellowship where there should be separation. White writes that “To secure peace and unity they were ready to make any concession consistent with fidelity to God; but they felt that even peace would be too dearly purchased at the sacrifice of principle. If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war. Well would it be for the church and the world if the principles that actuated those steadfast souls were revived in the hearts of God's professed people.” {GC88 45.2 emphasis mine}. Furthermore she writes “But Christian unity is not what the world calls consolidation. Unity among brethren results in consolidation with Christ and with the heavenly angels. Such consolidation is heaven-born.--Letter 67, 1903, p. 1.” Here is the challenge, we are to seek unity first not with each other but with Christ. As we become united with Christ we achieve true unity. May God help us and give us grace so that we may be united in truth and in spirit.
I am reflecting on the Catholic counter-Reformation idea of the slippery slope. We discussed in class how the Catholic argument was that rejection of the authority of Rome would ultimately lead to complete rejection of God. This was intriguing to me because Ellen White uses a similar argument in relation to accepting her writings, particularly the Testimonies (see 3 SM 84, for example). There is a difference, though, and I have been pondering how to put it into words.
I used to struggle with the fact that Mrs. White would say that acceptance of her writings was essentially a condition for avoiding deception in the last days. Aren't the Scriptures sufficient after all? But there is a difference, it seems, in what she is saying and what the Catholic argument is in regard to submitting to authority. For the Catholics, it is as though the earthly authority is infallible and must be recognized in and of itself. For Ellen White, she isn't arguing for acceptance of her authority as an individual, it doesn't seem. Rather, she is making the argument that God chose to speak through her as a vessel of His truth, and that individuals were rejecting parts of that testimony not because of conscientious study of the Scriptures, but because the truth presented was inconvenient or offensive. In her case, people were in fact disregarding words the God was meaning to speak to them. In the Catholic case, the concern seems to be more with regard to maintaining cohesion among Christians, not necessarily whether or not we are obeying truth. This also relates to Marko's comments (11.12.08) on the Catholic view of unity.
In thinking on the subject of the atonement I think it is necessary for Adventists to better define this subject because of the face of the challenges, misunderstandings, and heresies concerning this truth. We should strive to develop a more well rounded model than exists at this time. This model would need to include what right about legal and moral aspects of the atonement, as well as, the ransom, and satisfaction idea’s. Concerning the legal view, of them all, I think this is the closest to what we currently hold and I believe it is the very basis for the Atonement; the foundation without which none of the other ideas have any merit. The Bible is clear, that without blood there is no remission of sin, Hebrews 9:22. Yet concerning the Atonement there is more to this facet of God’s work. Jesus said “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.” This text clearly implies that Christ’s work has an influence in the world. Romans six speak of freedom from the bondage, or slavery to sin and the master of sin. Thus the atonement contains some ransom aspects. Perhaps we need to call this more inclusive view the Great Controversy Theory, or the Sanctuary Theory of Atonement.
The discussion of texts like 2Pet 1:4 and John 10:30-36 by writers of different persuasions during the time of the Reformation reminded me of the significance listen to other people. Just recently a pastor in Austria was discharged after 15 years of unsuccessful discussions (moral influence theory) with theologians and pastors. He had come to certain conclusions, preached about it, and did not consult his colleagues. He built upon specific expressions in German that were, however, not existent in the Greek text. Since he was so convinced of his concept, of a whole system, he did not want to consider the opposite. The union was very patient through all that time. They endured several doctrinal differences, and were always willing to talk. But he did not stop with his reasoning, and went further and further, until finally it was not possible to hold him any more. Sometimes there are different interpretations of one text. It is possible that there are right and wrong interpretations. It is possible that they are all wrong, or one-sided. It is possible as well that several aspects of the truth are displayed in these interpretations. The question is if there is support for it in the text, in the context, and the concept that the Bible confers. In German there is a saying: “Have you eaten the wisdom with table spoons?” No! God is the giver of all wisdom. He is the source of all truth. And He has revealed to other persons some aspects of truth that I have not recognized yet. When someone tries to convince me of something new or different, I sometimes feel like to step one step back to get more distance to the other person. However, when I think about it afterwards, I realize that he/she was right. We need God’s grace in every step on the way. We are never at a point where we can say I don’t need God’s grace, help, and guidance any more. We as Christians are together one the same way, and we can help us to grow, to understand better, and get nearer to our Lord and Savior.
The discussion of “Who is the rock in Mat 16:16-18?” is very interesting. I am not really done with that topic.
(a) Apparently, the statement of Jesus, “su ei Petros, kai epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian,” is a play of words. “Petra” is the Greek word for rock. Jesus gave Simon the surname Peter or “Petros” respectively, the male form of “petra” since Simon as a male could hardly be given a female surname. The text in John 1:42 shows that the Aramaic form of that name was “Kephas” (rock). The text in question seems to play with “Petros” and “petra,” else it does not make very much sense why Jesus first addresses Peter (You are “Petros”) and then adds the statement, “and on this rock (petra) I will built my church.” When Jesus says “on this (taute) rock,” He indicates that it is already known with “this.” He does not say “the rock” but “this rock.” From an exegetical viewpoint Jesus plays with the words “Petros” and “petra.”
(b) In the past, some have suggested a distinction in meaning between “petra” (rock) and “Petros” (little stone). However, there is no evidence that this distinction existed at Jesus’ time. Several hundred years before, a Greek philosopher played with the words and assigned such meanings to the words. At Jesus’ time that distinction does not exist in the literature, if it has ever existed.
(c) Jesus speaks directly to Peter (You are Petros) and then he doesn’t say “and on the ‘petra’” but “and on this ‘petra’ I will built my church.” The word “this” (taute) shows that “this petra” (rock) must already have been mentioned and known. The most feasible answer is that it referred to “Petros.” To refer it at this point to the testimony of Peter or to Jesus himself (pointing to himself), would imply to read something into the text that the text itself doesn’t say.
(d) Jesus asks Peter later to tend his church and to feed his sheep. See John 21:15-17.
(e) In fact, Peter had a leadership role in the early church. A superficial look into the first eight to nine chapters of Acts shows Peter as the spokesperson. He is the one who starts the evangelization of the heathen. He is the one who apparently leads the church. He is pictured as a leader. Paul’s epistles paint Peter as an individual in a leading position.
(f) Paul states that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. … Christ himself is, however, the cornerstone. Everything and everyone points to him and gets orientation by him.
(g) The power to bind and to lose is first entrusted to Peter (Mat 16:19) but later it is entrusted to the other disciples as well (Mat 18:18). In John 20:23 the whole thing is apparently directed to a broader circle than merely the twelve.
(h) Immediately after the “glorious” text, where Peter confesses Christ as the Son of God and Jesus declares that Peter would be an important part of the foundation for the building of the church, Peter wants to prevent his Lord from His way of suffering. Jesus calls him even “Satan.” See Mat 16:21-28.
(i) Peter is a fallible human being and not a guarantor for the truth! Peter wants to fight for the kingdom of God with the instruments of Satan (sword). He is rebuked by Jesus. Peter denies Jesus although he had confessed him in Mat 16. Peter is a hypocrite in regard to the heathen-Christians. Paul rebukes him publicly. That happens in the early Christian church.
(j) It is impossible to derive from the NT an office of Peter’s succession. Nothing is said regarding an office that he has given to a successor. He is not a guarantor for the truth. The guarantor for the truth is the Word, the Bible.
Conclusion: Christ considered Peter as a foundation upon which He could build His church. Christ Himself is the cornerstone – that is he proper “foundation” and the most important stone respectively –from which everything gets its orientation. Peter was a fallible human being as we ourselves are. Peter did not pass on an office and did not choose a successor for himself. It is not possible to derive from the NT a successor figure for Peter that would be a contact person for issues and questions for what is truth and what not, how the Scriptures should be interpreted or not. Peter was important for the beginning of the church but both at his life time as well as throughout history until today Christ is the real foundation of the church. We need to focus on him, and get orientation from him.
Last week we discussed how the Catholics sharpened their doctrinal positions in response to the Protestant Reformation, especially by ceasing to allow such doctrinal pluralism within their own fold. I am not an expert on modern Catholicism, but it seems like they have somewhat moved away from this stance. There seems to be a broad range of beliefs tolerated within Catholicism, especially within the context of missions. It seems as though they are more willing than most Protestant churches to incorporate elements of religious and cultural practices/beliefs of the target audience into their umbrella of belief. It seems as though they still value the idea of unification over doctrinal purity.
For a project for another class, I’ve been exploring the issue of sola scriptura and the difficulties associated with it, and the research was relevant to what we’ve discussed in class, so I thought I’d share. Mostly, I wanted to catalogue some of the complexities of the Reformers’ views, which I hadn’t thought about before.
1. The Reformers’ insistence on the principle of sola scriptura introduced an unfortunate and somewhat artificial distinction between Scripture and tradition. Originally, of course, the issue that prompted the cry for reformation was the issue of indulgences, not tradition or church authority. But once the church defended herself through recourse to authority and authoritative tradition, the Reformers needed a stronger authority, which led them to pit Scripture against the tradition of the church. (Heiko Oberman, however, argues that such an antagonism is not fair: since the Reformers also used tradition and developed a tradition of their own, it is better to speak of two different understandings of tradition, rather than a pitting of Scripture against tradition.)
2. Although sola scriptura sounded neat and tidy, “neither Luther nor Calvin was consistent with his own doctrine,” according to Anthony Meredith. For example, though the doctrine of the Trinity was not explicitly declared anywhere in Scripture, this fact did not stop Calvin from burning a lapsed monk at Geneva for denying the doctrine. In this case and others, Protestants often seemed “no less authoritarian in their attitude to scripture than the church they had left.” In fact, Meredith levels at the Reformers the charge of “arbitrariness.” They insisted on the sole authority of Scripture, yet accepted the first four church councils as valid. They preached the primacy of Scripture, yet they rejected or undermined those parts of accepted Scripture of which they did not approve: all the Reformers discarded the apocrypha and Luther pronounced James an “epistle of straw.” Further, when the Radical Reformers began to take the principle to extremes considered too great, the magisterial Reformers drew back from the implications of their own early insistence on the priority of Scripture alone. In the end, it could seem that they had simply replaced one tradition with another, and replaced the church’s authority with the authority of their own writings.
3. Another major complication with the sola scriptura principle was the fact that even the magisterial Reformers could not agree among themselves about precisely what Scripture said on certain matters. The problem of interpretation was a significant one, and the various Reformation theologians had very different hermeneutical approaches. Though the Reformation appealed to Scripture as the source of Christian theology, there was no agreement over how to approach the interpretation of the Bible. This was very evident, for example, in the Eucharistic controversy. (I think this continues to be an issue today.)
4. The Reformers advocated sola scriptura, yet placed barriers between ordinary readers and the text. The Reformers were wary of allowing laity direct access to the text, for they thought this would lead to heresy. After all, the Lollards, Albigensians, and Waldensians all appealed directly to Scripture, and look where they went. So the Reformers still felt that the Bible needed to be interpreted for laity, and much of their writing was intended as just such a preparation. In other words, the Reformers were discarding one set of commentaries and glosses (the Catholic ones) and replacing them with their own.
The week before the Thanksgiving break we were talking about the question of original sin and infant baptism. The Anabaptists concluded that baptism of infants was not necessary because the NT does not talk about it. Without the tradition of the Church, there would be no reason for baptizing babies. Just recently I read something in regard to the question of baptism that was quite interesting. During the years 1523-1525 Zwingli rejected any mystical power or saving efficacy of the baptismal action, and he pointed out that baptism is an act of confession of faith that gives assurance as well. He stated that if baptism is only there to strengthen the faith of the believer, infant baptism would not be really necessary. However, soon he was faced with the Anabaptists (some of their major thinkers were actually Zwingli’s students) who went even further than Zwingli in totally rejecting the baptism of infants. Now he had to reconsider his position, and developed it further. Finally, he concluded that it is right to baptize infants, and unbiblical to deny them the baptism. Yet, I am curious whether he felt somehow urged to put himself on the side of the magistrates. If children were not baptized, there existence did not show up in the records. Since these were the basis for the tax system (church and state taxes), the abrogation of the baptism of infants cut directly at the heart of the tax system, and therefore at the source of income of the church and the state. Zwingli had just come out of a time where the magistrates were not so sure if they should support the Reformers against the Catholic Church. Eventually they decided to support the cause of the Reformation but Zwingli was still afraid to lose their support. If he would go to such an extreme as his students did, he surely would have lost the support of city fathers (magistrates). Apart from theological reasons, the aspects just described could have moved Zwingli to slow down his reformation process since this matter apparently was not really a central matter of faith. I really would like to investigate the sources if it is possible to unearth some reasons why he changed his mind on the significance of infant baptism.
Eric Washburn
12-04-08
Blog #11
In class we talked a whole lot about how we are similar to the Catholic Church in how we view unity of the Church, authority of the Church, hierarchy government of the Church, and traditions that we both like to keep that don’t have scriptural foundation. In class it was discussed that we need to be careful when we call the Catholic Church and the Pope the Anti-Christ. I have to agree with part of the discussion pertaining that the anti-Christ is much bigger than the Catholic Church, and that its system, theology, and spirit can even be in the midst of Adventist believers. Anything that is not of Christ is anti! But lets not let the Catholic Church of so easy. Lets refresh our selves on the heresy of the beast. Here is a list that I came up with
1. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine
2. Baptism of Infants is a false doctrine
3. Sprinkling Baptism is a false doctrine
4. State of the dead is a false doctrine
5. Worship of Saints is a false doctrine
6. Worship of the Pope is a false doctrine
7. Worship of Mary is a false doctrine
8. Celibacy of Priest is a false doctrine
9. Sunday Worship is a false doctrine
10. Intercession through Priest is a false doctrine
11. Purgatory/ Hell is a false doctrine
12. Indulgences is a false doctrine
13. Worship of the cross, images and relics is a false doctrine
14. Fasting on Fridays is a false doctrine
15. The Rosary is a false doctrine
16. Doctrines of 7 Sacraments to merit eternal life are false doctrines
17. Apocryphal books are false books
18. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is a false doctrine
19. Praying for the dead is a false doctrine.
20. Original sin is a false doctrine
This is just the few that came to my mind. The Catholic Church is full of Anti-Christ and has the most anti-Christ doctrine of any Church on earth. I think its fair to say that it’s the Mother of harlots when we look at this list of false doctrine above. Let be Christian, but lets not hide the truth. The Catholic Church may not be “the” final false Christ (Satan), but they have a huge role in deceiving the world and preparing the way for Satan great masquerading deception. Let’s not be laid back and so easy on the Catholic Church, God has raised the Adventist Church to call people out of Babylon (Catholic Church or any anti-Christ system) and worship the Creator, by Keeping His Commandments in love. Now is the time more than ever to sound the trumpets. This is just my humble opinion….
Eric Washburn
12-04-08
Blog #12
In this last and final blog I thought I would write on the Counter Reformation with a focus on society of the Jesuits. The Catholic Church was battling heresy and opposition for at least four hundred years. The Reformation brought many of its doctrines and practices into question. The Church may have fought against the reformation, but it did not ignore its need for some changes. There were some genuine reformers that were within the Church (such as Desiderius Erasmus) who brought principles such as simple living, and piety back into the Church. I have to admit their devotion to God is worth a discipline worth emulating.
Ignatius of Loyola in the 1530’s began a very conservative group called the Society of the Jesus or better known by Adventist the Jesuits. He was known as a very brilliant and capable man to carry out his vision for the Church. Is small group of ten, grew to 15,000 by 1630. His goal was for the world to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church in the strictest way without asking any questions. Its mission was to rid all heretics who oppose the Church. They were missionaries, and are credited in spreading Catholicism to the non-western world. They started seminaries around the world to educate and train new leaders. The Jesuits have done a lot of good in that respect.
There is also another side of them that is mysterious. Some think the society educates not only spies but uncover agents to infiltrate protestant denominations to sow seeds of doubt, and change their way of thinking about the Catholic Church. I don’t believe they do this, and have never seen any tangible evidence for it. I do see false teachers in the Adventist Church, and some who are very pro-catholic in their stance, but I don’t think they are Jesuits. I think they are sinful humans who have lost touch of scriptures and the spirit of prophecy.
Richard Thomas
Blog # 11
There is a good quote that I recently discovered that ties into what we have been discussing in class. In a book titled, “Babylon Mystery Religion,” Ralph Woodrow wrote, "Mankind in general, has followed variations of one kind or another, of the religion of Babylon, to this day…Rome...assimilated religions from her many conquered territories. All these religions had commonalities, for they all came from Babylon. These practices infiltrated and overcame the professing Christian Church, which later came to be dominated by Rome itself…This is the cup which the Babylonish system has made all the world to drink. It is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church of Rome, but she certainly plays a major role in today’s religious deception…The Romish system is based upon a mixture. The word "Catholic" means Universal...the true Christian goal is not religion based on mixture, but a return to the original, simple, powerful, and spiritual faith that was once delivered to the saints." (- Ralph Woodrow; Pg. 161, “Babylon Mystery Religion,” 1966) I would agree that the Church of Rome is Babylon, and that after time she became more and more corrupt as she adopted the practices of paganism and mixing all religions together. It surely is true that the Catholic Church is a universal religion. I can’t help but think of the text in Revelation 13:4, which says that “all the world wondered after the beast.”
The International Sabbath School Quarterly, Feb. 29, 1896 even said that when the early church “departed from God and imbibed pagan errors, she became Babylon." -
In the great book, “The Great Controversy,” pg 382, Ellen White wrote something similar to this: "It was by departure from the LORD, and alliance with the heathen, that the...church became a harlot."
Richard Thomas
12th and final blog:
I decided to put some more thought and find quotes from other Protestant leaders in the past to bring out more of their historical understanding of the anti-christ. In doing this, I ask myself and I beg you to consider how we as a church have shifted from our Protestant Theological Heritage:
For Martin Luther, on the subject of the identity of antichrist once remarked: "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom.
Furthermore, John Calvin wrote in his famous Institutes: “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."
Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian) also stated that "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.
Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
There is a dangerous progress in the SDA Church, when leaders start to think that the little horn is something other than the Vatican. Some have even suggested that the little horn of Daniel 7 could be a Muslim power. Yet, others are looking at the 1260 day prophecy as not referring to the dark ages. Although, I am open for new interpretations that challenge me theologically, I still sense the danger here.
Finally, let us prayerfully consider this POWERFUL quotation about the danger that we are in when we remain silent. It is taken from one of my favorite books besides the Bible, “the Great Controversy”:
"Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High. The papacy is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.” (570-571)
Let me remind you that the office of the Inquisition is still active today! May God help us live a loving and truthful testimony!
The phases of Christ ministry.
I would like to just expand some of the thoughts that were expressed in class. If we are to truly take the scripture as our teacher on the matter of Christ’s work, then we must taken in all of the phases of Christ ministry as essential for the accomplishment of His work. The fact that Christ is God in the fullest sense is necessary, for without that then only a man died on that cross and if that is so that why not any other man. That Christ lived a righteous life is necessary for had he not done so he would not be a perfect sacrifice. His Death is important because without it there could be no remission of sin. His resurrection is important for without that there would be no consummation of our hopes in Christ. His ministry in the heavens is important else how would there be an end of sin. Perhaps what is necessary to help others to understand the truth concerning the heavenly sanctuary is to show them the phases, or seasons, of Christ’s ministry, and how one part builds on the next. I know as a church we have written much material on the subject of the sanctuary, but we may not have apprehended the best method by which we could make that truth known. Also, perhaps the greatest lack of ability in teaching this truth is that we do not live this truth out in our own lives, and thus we lack the Spirit that would give us the power to preach [in both word and deed]. May God help us to give the trumpet the right sound.
I've been musing a lot in the past few weeks on the topic of tradition in the Catholic church vs. tradition the Protestant movement, and it's been a little perplexing to think through exactly how I feel about the subject of tradition (vs. the authority of Scripture).
For one thing, a little study into the Protestant Reformers' views on tradition showed me that they weren't necessarily as "anti-tradition" as I'd thought. Generally speaking, the Reformers held that the Church fathers and councils were subordinate to Scripture, but the fathers continued to have importance and relevance as exegetical guides.
In practice, the Reformers appealed to tradition when it was helpful, and appealed to a more ancient tradition—Scripture—when it was not. Cameron notes that “the early Fathers had a persuasive force: Augustine, above all, was cited to support the reformers’ views and to defend them from the accusation of novelty. They could however be disregarded if convenient; even Augustine could on occasion be criticized.” By way of specific examples, Pelikan observes that during the controversy among Protestants over the proper understanding of the Eucharist, Reformed theologians made ready use of the authorities of antiquity, whom they believed to be on their side of the argument over against the Lutherans and the Catholics. One of the express arguments of the Reformed camp, therefore, was that they were teaching nothing with respect to the Eucharist that the ancient authorities had already already taught. On the other hand, ancient authorities did not support the Reformed view on the question of celibacy, and so Reformed believers appealed to Scripture instead. In this manner, Protestants were able to make use of tradition when it was to their advantage, without being tied to it when it was not to their advantage.
Also, Pelikan sort of indicates (and I've read other scholars concur) that the Reformation was sort of a "reappropriation" of the Augustinian tradition. In other words, the Reformation wasn't just a debate over Scripture, but also over the correct interpretation of Augustine.
I find all of this very interesting. The upshot of what I've said is that the Reformers really weren't as anti-tradition as I used to picture them. True, the Radicals were much more against tradition than the Magisterial Reformers, but still...this research is making me rethink just exactly how consistent the Reformers were. And it's also forcing me to figure out more how I view the proper role of tradition.
Clinton Moriah response to Richard's comments on papacy.
My bro Richard, I always enjoy your comments. You have made some very insightful comments on Papacy and the pope. However, we need to be very careful in our presentation of the gospel that we don't present like the politicians of our times and their political campaign in attacking persons but ignoring concepts and ideas that are anti- Christ in nature. To who much is given much is required.
Apostolicity and Papacy by Clinton Moriah
We discussed in Class the church doctrine of Apostolicity and how it impacted the reformation. Apostolicity was the way in which the Roman church sought to define its oneness and its holiness and its catholicity. These debates gradually forced theologians and leaders to choose between faithfulness to doctrinal and creedal tradition and to the ecclesiastical structure of the church or faithfulness to God and Scripture.The church maintained that tradition was necessary in doctrinal issues.
Instead of obeying God's word the church became obsessed with uplifting manmade traditions and political power.The spirit of Greed and apostasy had arrested the leadership of the church.
The beauty of the Reformation by Clinton Moriah
Dr Hanna discussed in class the role of Sola Scriptura in the reformation. Prior to the reformation the theology of the truth of the gospel was suppressed by the Catholic Church.. The church placed emphasis on tradition over the truth of the scripture. The reformation exposed the errors and traditions of the church to the scrutiny of the light of scripture. The Bible was upheld as the supreme authority and rule for faith and doctrine. The reformation presented that Preaching of the word of God as central to doctrine and practical Christianity. The doctrine of the Eucharist was presented in the light of God’s word and not tradition of the church.
Luther played a vital role with the reformers in challenging the Church to return to the Scripture. The scripture was declared as the primary rule of doctrine. As a result of the reformation the wall between the people and the clergy was raptured.The wall between the people and the scripture was broken down. Prior to the reformation the Bible was kept from the ordinary people and they were kept in ignorance and enslaved to the traditions and politics of the church that drove the common people with a staff of fear.
Moriah clinton response to Jamie Kelly
You have made some insightful comments Jamie. Its funny how both the reformers and the Catholic church leaders used the writings of Agustine in their debates.
Clinton Response to Marco on Pelikan. You have made some great comments Marco and highlighted possible flaws in Pelican't view. At the same time we need to acknowledge that God used the Catholic church in preserving and initiating some aspects of truth.The reform movement came out of the Papacy.We have been blessed to have divine guidance and progressive revelation as a church.
" trinity Heritage" by Clinton Moriah
Dr Hanna discussed in class that as Protestants, we tend to focus on the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church, but Ellen G.White states that God was leading in that heritage.Our view of the trinity has its heritage in Catholic theology. Even though the early catholic view of the trinity involved ontological concepts dualism which were pagan concepts that were rejected by our pioneers there was truth in the concept of the trinity that God revealed in time to Ellen White and his remnant church.
Adventist pioneers rejected the whole concept of the trinity at first, but then studied more God revealed the truth to them. Our tendency was to reject historical insights because they were mixed with error, but then discovered that the truth was closer to Roman Catholic theology than we thought. Sometimes problems arise simply because we misunderstand terms and allow our own biases to cloud our vision.
"Reformation roots in Adventist christology" by Clinton Moriah
We discussed in class that Adventis teaching on the nature of christ has its roots in Catholic an protestant theology.
However, even though Adventists understanding of the nature of Christ has its roots in Catholic and protestant Christology, Adventists are privilege to be blessed with the prophetic ministry of Ellen white who has contributed significantly to the current Adventists understanding of the Humanity of Christ. Both Calvin and Luther believed that Christ assumed sinful nature. Ellen White and contemporary Adventists believed that “He took upon himself fallen suffering human nature. Several controversies have erupted as a result of protestant and Adventist theologians attempting to define Christ humanity as prelapsarian (pre-fall) or postlapsarian (post-fall). Ellen White describes Christ mission in two dimensions. She speaks of the pre-fall and a post- fall dimension. Through the writings and counsels of the prophetic ministry of Ellen in the light of scripture and Progressive revelation, Contemporary Adventism has concluded that Christ’s humanity was neither pre- fall nor post fall. It was unique. Adventist understanding on the humanity of Christ has progressively maturity from its pioneers to contemporary Adventism.
I like to write this reflection in conjunction with what we have discussed in class this week. Gonzalez’s book in chapter one talks about how the Roman church used indulgences and different mischievious ways to raise funds for the building of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome. Although there were a few within the Roman Catholic church who lived their lives according to the biblical model of living, the vast majority of the leadership was corrupt from down and up the ladder. For those who are truly determined to be representatives of God’s authority on earth to gain money in such a way was very heart breaking for a society where nationalism was rising. But even beyond conceivable is the idea of using the means acquired in such a way to build a place of worship such as St. Peter’s Cathedral. Did the leaders who were doing these things feel comfortable when they finally completed the build and conduct masses in it? Were they thinking of the ethical implications to their actions in the eyes of the nations which they were seeking to evangelize? Perhaps they had seen it not insidious to the gospel or to their honor for that matter. If this is not the case, maybe the framework by which they interpreted what was sagacious in religious terms was quite at variant with what the protestants think today. One surprising fact is that there were leaders from within the Catholic church who were striving to maintain strict piety that led to reformation. Such leaders were found to be good models in the midst of corruption. Yet knowing that God had given them christian heritage that is based on Scriptures, couldn’t the apostasy had been suppressed and event checked? God knows why there are wolves in sheep clothings.
Post a Comment