After all, salvation is to know God and Jesus Christ whom He sent to this world (John 17:3). Interestingly, God has revealed Himself in all created things (visible and invisible), so that no one is justified to claim ignorance of Him. In fact, to claim ignorance is an rebellion against God and God by His nature (which is love) allows such rebellious ones to have their way and suffer the consequences of their choices (Romans 1:18-32).
But in spite of the revelation of creation, we must not neglect proclaiming the gospel nor be ashamed of it, “because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…” Romans 1:18-32.
I think that the plan of salvation as good as it sounds and is, necessitates judgment and such divine judgment is justified in the light of Romans 1.
Romans 2 “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law” Romans 2:12. The judgment of God is just – on those who “all who sin apart from the law” (Gentiles) and “all who sin under the law (Jews), because to the Gentiles, creation reveals God (Romans 1) and to the Jews both creation and torah reveals God – none is excused. Interestingly, even Gentiles do the things contained in the law (Romans 2:14-15).
Paul declares in Romans 2:28-29 that a true Jew is one in the spirit and not in the flesh. Thus, Paul implies that our relationship with God is not based on the flesh (race, color, gender etc.) but on the spirit which is manifested in our works/character. Therefore, everyone has the privilege of knowing God and experiencing His saving grace.
Romans 3 In Romans 3 Paul declares in the light of his argument so far (from Romans 1) that there is NO advantage of one over the other (between the Jews and Gentiles) in terms of access to God and our justification. In fact, in Romans 3:23, he asserts that “all have sinned” (Jews and Gentiles alike) “and fall short of the glory of God.” Interestingly, both the Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith (Romans 3:30) and not by their works, yet, the law of God still binds on all (Romans 3:31).
Romans 1&2 Paul does a detailed job of describing what the wrath of God is in chapter one. He describes a letting go or abandonment as the mechanism. Since Paul is using the past tense, he is not predicting the future mechanism of God's wrath at the judgment, just the past. However, it is interesting that even though he is writing to a roman audience, one that uses law in a very active manner- Paul does not balance out this "passive" picture of God's wrath with an "active" infliction of suffering. This differs from the OT where every bad event was seen as an active form of God's wrath upon the Isrealites (except for those rare cases- like Job which prefigure Jesus' own comments about the causality of disasters.) I wonder if Paul will clarify the mechanism of God's wrath at the cross. God's methods are models for His people- in education, medicine, parenting and government. So it does matter when and how to utilize active or passive means of punishment/rewards. I also enjoyed Paul's reversal of the Jewish mentality of most favored nation. Even though he is clear that ignorance is not bliss- those without the law perish without the law- he states that the very gift from God to the Jews, namely, their law serves to condemn them even worse. Because it is the doers of the law that are right, not the hearers. And we well know that no one can do the law perfectly. Hence, Paul has effectively reduced both camps (the whole world) to the same pitiful condition of sin and condemnation- awaiting God's good news.
"Justification in Romans 3:21-24" by A. Rodriguez This was a good paper and brought up the same issues as Romans, though it went further and explained how generously God justifies all who believe. But in point 6 where Rodriguez takes such pains to make sure that universal justification is not possible- I believe he goes beyond the text and doesn't admit it. The linguistic argument he uses (not from the Greek, but from rhetorical logic)is the "all" implied in "and are justified freely by his grace" is the same "all" in the previous verse of "all who believe." He doesn't mention that there is another "all" between these two spots- that says "all have sinned". This option is not acceptable to Rodriguez, so he doesn't mention it. But both in proximity and natural flow, the antecedent is usually the closest one, not the one farther away. As a bible scholar, Rodriguez should have pointed out both options, explained the implications of both readings and used Paul's OTHER verses to explain which one is more consistent with Paul's understanding. This would restore Rodriguez's credibility a little in my eyes. As it stands, this points out how apologetics can be imposed upon the text before it has a chance to stand freely on its own- a danger Dr. Hanna pointed out this morning.
Sorry, that was me, Arlyn above. I actually typed three responses before one got posted correctly. And I still messed up.
Assignment #2 Salvation by Faith by Jan Paulsen From the beginning I was intrigued in how Paul uses that famous phrase from Habakkuk, "The righteous will live by his faith." Hab 2:4. The Hebrew reads "the righteous will live by his faithfulness (to God-implied)." Paul nuances it just a little and allows it to say the "But the righteous man shall live by faith." J. Paulsen takes this point and drives home- "It is in the New Testament that we meet the full force of that which is called faith, and it is invariably rooted in one particular event in history: the death/resurrection/ascension of Jesus Christ." We see again, how faith and salvation is reduced to one part of Jesus ministry- but at least he includes the ascension and resurrection on top of the death. Most protestant denominations would be stretched by these two additions. I enjoy Paulsen's enthusiasm- but his logic is funny. He establishes that "Faith is, first of all, something objective." I think he meant faith is based upon something objective- because he goes on to say "We believe because we know! This knowledge, then, is essential for salvation." But in actuality- we don't know anything about Christ's death firsthand, it is secondhand information from inspired witnesses. So to even accept their centuries old account in the Bible as historical fact-requires faith! More accurately, we first believe- then we incorporate it as fact- and it grows our faith even more as it becomes verified by our existential experience with Him. Now, I still am struggling with this transfer of merits. The Bible does use models and this is an easily visualized one, but raises a lot of questions too. The biggest being- it keeps salvation in a legal paradigm, is that the best paradigm we have? Jesus' righteousness is in essence- just another, more effective commodity. As Paulsen says,"We abandon our achievement scorecards and confess at the end of the day only Christ's achievement matters." He goes on:"The fallacy of Judaism, however(and legalism in general), was that it used the law to establish its own righteousness." But isn't it still using the law to establish our own righteousness- if the only new part of the salvation formula in the NT is substituting Jesus' merits instead of our own and since it measures up,the law can now declare us righteous. The law has been used to establish Christianity's own righteousness. Only the transactional commodity has changed. Hence, some believe that when the Bible states Abraham believed in God and it was credited to him as righteousness, it really meant Abraham believed in Christ's merits and Christ's merits were transferred to Abraham so he was now declared righteous by law. Was this what Paul had in mind when he quoted that verse?
Romans 3&4 So much in these two chapters!- propitiation, righteousness apart from the law but witnessed to by the law, blood, forbearance over previous sins, justly justifying the sinner, the establishment of the law in face of Faith. Each one deserves a thesis. But for space, and relevance, I jump to Abraham's mention. The description of Abraham's faith is given in 4:18-24. It seems to stay within the Abraham narrative- Abraham trusted God to do what God had promised even against the odds. There is no mention of Jesus and the cross and merits. Of course, we know that God in the story was the Son of God and so Abraham trusted the same Jesus we trust. However, Paul doesn't use a transactional commodity of the blood of Jesus in this setting, or of Jesus' merits here. Faith is a wholehearted trust and living in that assurance. And living in that assurance means for Abraham- that faith was modeled every time he "contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in the faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore it was creditied to Him as righteousness." For Abraham, faith was having sex with a postmenopausal woman with confidence.
Paul makes a distinction between the sinners who are not imputed with sin and those who are. And also the nature of two deaths. In verse 14 Paul asserts that sin is not taken into account when there is no law. I will assume from the preceding description of the law that Paul is still talking about the Mosaic law here. Verse 15 states "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam who was a pattern of the one to come." What I am impressed with is that Paul is fairly sophisticated in realizing that the first physical death is a given condition of mortality arising from Adam's sin and even though it affects all because all sinned (v.12), it is not the death required by the Law of sinners. This distinction between the first and second final sinner's death was first elucidated by Jesus, now in Paul and more fully in Revelation by John. Only within that distinction can we understand Jesus words of eternal life as literally true from the moment we accept Him and believe without reservation Paul's following words that assert- "how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." The first death is an interruption nap of mortality, related to sin but the final sentence on it. So eternal life begins now, may have a short unconscious interruption, but will continue into eternity and never taste real death- something no man has tasted except Jesus.
In the same way, 5:19 Creation also suffers the effects of sin. Again, without imputation since it cannot understand law, but nevertheless it groans with the pains of childbirth, as does our mortal bodies for the glorification that awaits it when the sons of God are truly freed to be revealed and adopted by God into immortality again. This message is pertinent for Christians are sometimes accused of being negligent of creation's distress since we see it as a temporary dwelling. But Paul here asserts that both our bodies and this earth will not be replaced but glorified- transformed and not substituted. Hence, it makes sense to care for and develop an attachment for this present body and earth for it is our eternal abode- only glorified and redeemed. This idea of a physical resurrection and glorification was considered rather repulsive by the Greeks, but remains a christian valuation of material reality. We and all creation, our bodies and this earth all yearn for salvation too.
Corrections to above: 1. Romans 5 & 6 (not 3 &4) 2. "The first death is an interruption nap of mortality, related to sin but NOT the final sentence on it."
(Last paragraph of Assignment #3 above states 5:19, when I meant 8:19.)
Romans 7 & 8 Steps to Christ chapters 1-5
Chapter 7 in Romans has this famous struggle between the evil that is "present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner." This is one of the best descriptions of present human nature- both evil and good- or innately corrupted good which is helpless to free itself from evil, the image of God held prisoner to fallen nature. EGW in Steps to Christ concurs in chapter 5 "You desire to give yourself to Him, but you are weak in moral power, in slavery to doubt, and controlled by the habits of your life of sin. Your promises and resolutions are like ropes of sand. You cannot control your thoughts, your impulses, your affections." Then Paul addresses this predicament- "Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord"(7:25) EGW echoes, "By yielding up your will to Christ, you ally yourself with the power that is above all principalities and powers. You will have strength from above to hold you steadfast, and thus through constant surrender to God you will be enabled to live the new life, even the life of faith." Both speakers describe the conversion experience in terms of connecting with Christ, the divine solution that frees us from this inner conflict.
Romans 8:1 was very precious to me in high school when my academy bible teacher hammered the past tense into my achievement oriented, doubting heart. "Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Mr. Boyer said to me "If you have accepted Christ, regardless of your continuing struggles, you are no longer condemned by the law, you must be protestant, not catholic. Justification is not faith plus your works. It is faith alone, period." Morris Venden uses the analogy that once you are in the elevator with Christ, you are going up, even if you fall down in the elevator. No wonder Paul can't resist using the "adoption" paradigm to bring this point home, adoption is not undone by bad behavior. A legal paradigm does grant emotional assurance- because it is not dependent on feelings for validity.
Back to the life of faith that springs from the choice to align with God. Abraham was justified(considered right with God) because he willed to serve God regardless of his feelings. Genesis is totally silent on his feelings during the sacrifice of Isaac test- the Hasidim think Abraham was fully resolute without misgivings=their definition of pure faith; Christian philosophers tend to magnify his imagined sufferings and rational confusion. What the text reports is what Abraham did. Interpreted through this salvific paradigm of choice- he chose to align himself with God's will. And in that imparted divine strength, he got up early in morning, saddled up two servants, saddled his donkey, chopped wood, got his son and set out once more to an unknown destination.
Comments on BRI document entitled “How Perfect is Perfect and Is Christian Perfection possible ?”
By Dojcin Zivadinovic
As known, I am interested in the subject of Christian perfection and I have been studying in depth this subject for past two years. Therefore, after reading the document on Christian perfection by Edward Hepenstall posted on the website of BRI I have decided to share some thoughts on this.
I believe we all agree that Bible writers often mention and encourage faithful to strive towards perfection. In 2 Corinthians 13: 9 Paul expressly affirms that the goal of the Christian life is our perfection. “…For we are glad that ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.”
In Hebrews 6: 1 Paul states again: “…Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection.”
1 Thessalonians 5: 23 talks about the sanctification of a man is for the body, mind and soul. “…May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you wholly and may your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This surely confirms Adventist emphasis on Health and ‘wholistic’ approach to man being.
The disagreement comes as to what the word “perfection” or “entire [whole] sanctification” actually means for Bible writers. Galatians 5: 16-18 say: “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” As long as Man is walking with the Spirit, He is the Son of God (Romans 8: 13) and in his fellowship with God he experiences the perfection of justification. Justified person becomes pure and blameless before God and as long he dwells in the Spirit of the Savior, he is in light and eternal life becomes his heritage. However, even those who are justified struggle in this world which interferes between man and God and sometimes, actually often we fall from God’s presence, detach our mind from God, loose faith, forget about God’s promise detach our mind from Spirit of Christ. In this case we are in Sin [capital S] that often lead towards sins or acts of sin [small s]. Then, after we realize that we have sinned again, we ask grace before our mediator and repenting from our sinful disease we run back under the wings of our merciful Lord who ever wants to love us and forgive us. Consequently, in life of true Christian there are less and less of these “excursions to sin”, and longer we spend in the presence of God our character changes, our intellect becomes sharper and our thoughts become purer, we still fall every once in a while but not so often any more and through faith in God’s mercy we grow daily in grace. This is called sanctification, our mind is getting more and more in God’s image as we daily experience the miracle of justification and new birth of our mind in the Spirit of the Lord. However, Apostle invites us to be “sanctified wholly”. In Ephesians 5: 25-27, Apostle writes: “…Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
“…May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you wholly and may your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess 5: 23) Paul in 2 Corinthians 7: 1 invites Christians to allow God to make the work of sanctification perfect in us: “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
Is it possible to have the experience with the Lord of entire sanctification? Where a man dwells so firmly in the Lord as to not be attracted with Sin any more in all of its aspects. Man whose character becomes so similar to Christ that Bible calls him taam – perfect as it called Job.
This man can still commit sin but his character becomes reflection of Love of God. As John says in 1 John 4: 12, we can become “perfect in love” and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1: 4) and be pure and blameless and without guile, following the Lamb wherever it goes (Revelation 14: 5)
Here is what Ellen White says about the Entire Sanctification
“…It is our life-work to be reaching forward to the perfection of Christian character, striving constantly for conformity to God's will. Day by day we are to press upward, ever upward, until of us it can be said, "Ye are complete in Him." {ST, September 3, 1902 par. 13}
“…None need fail of attaining, in his sphere, to perfection of Christian character. By the sacrifice of Christ, provision has been made for the believer to receive all things that pertain to life and godliness. God calls upon us to reach the standard of perfection and places before us the example of Christ's character. In His humanity, perfected by a life of constant resistance of evil, the Saviour showed that through co-operation with Divinity, human beings may in this life attain to perfection of character. This is God's assurance to us that we, too, may obtain complete victory.” {AA 531.2} COMMENT: If perfection is a simple Christian maturity or certain level of sanctification, Ellen White would not say that it is possible already in this life to achieve it, for that would be natural. “…This message I am given to bear, as the Lord's messenger. The unity for which Christ prayed is a sacred pledge of discipleship. Those who enter heaven must be one with Christ. Unless they should bear the same perfection of character that He bore while on this earth, they would spoil heaven. The trial and test is to come here in this world. Here we are to be stamped with the image and superscription of God.” {SpTB07 44.4} “…Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Man is to be perfect in his sphere, even as God is perfect in His sphere. How can such a lofty standard be reached? The required perfection is based on the perfection of Christ, "who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." He gave the command requiring perfection, He who was by birth a human being, though allied to divinity. He has passed over the road we are to tread, and He says, "Without Me ye can do nothing." But with Him we can do everything. Thus a perfect character can be obtained. God never issues a command without furnishing the grace sufficient for its fulfilment. Ample provision has been made that man shall be a partaker of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1: 4) {ST, July 26, 1899 par. 1} “…If you make God your strength, you may, under the most discouraging circumstances, attain a height and breadth of Christian perfection which you hardly think it possible to reach. Your thoughts may be elevated, you may have noble aspirations, clear perceptions of truth, and purposes of action which shall raise you above all sordid motives. Both thought and action will be necessary if you would attain to perfection of character.” {4T 568.1}
Why Did Jesus Die? How God Saves Us By George W. Reid I found this article primarily helpful in defining the definition of love. When we read in 1 John 4:8 that “God is Love” we find that it is quite easy to become sidetracked in the sentimental emotions of the sacrifice of Christ without conjuring up the grit of what love in sacrifice is all about. The author highlights that the love displayed in salvation plan is “aggressive” and “an unshakable commitment, inviolable, a predisposition in our favor that cannot be discouraged.” Did he die because he simply missed us or wanted to show subjectively what love is all about? Based on our definition of love, I would have to say no. Christ’s sacrifice was motivated by principle, and a determined resolve to pay the ransom for humanity. This ransom was real and not subjective. It was done not simply to show angels and fallen man how much he loved us but to live up to the standard and principles that governs the heavenly realm. Dr. Reid highlighted a powerful and telling passage of scripture "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). This substitution was literal and imperative if man was to be saved and it is portrayed as no mystery to man, for it is outlined in the Word. I beg to point out that it was no mystery to Lucifer for he played according to the notion that Jesus was the sin-bearer for man and thus did all in his carnal effort to prevent the perfect sacrifice. As I explored this article I was able to come to some conclusions that will strengthen my position with my view on prayer. I believe that prayer is a necessity in the plan of salvation. I am not where I would like to be presently in my research but I believe that Christ prayed not only subjectively to portray our example but of principle that yielded effect. If Christ died according to Scripture then should we pray according to Scripture as well? I am growing closer to formulating my thoughts.
(This is a revision to the article as certain phrases can distort the message I would like to convey) Why Did Jesus Die? How God Saves Us By George W. Reid I found this article primarily helpful in defining the definition of love. When we read in 1 John 4:8 that “God is Love” we find that it is quite easy to become sidetracked in the sentimental emotions of the sacrifice of Christ without conjuring up the grit of what love in sacrifice is all about. The author highlights that the love displayed in salvation plan is “aggressive” and “an unshakable commitment, inviolable, a predisposition in our favor that cannot be discouraged.” Did he die because he simply missed us or wanted to show subjectively what love is all about? Based on our definition of love, I would have to say no. Christ’s sacrifice was motivated by principle and a determined resolve to pay the ransom for humanity. This ransom was real and not only subjective. It was done not only to show angels and fallen man how much he loved us but to live up to the standard and principles that governs the heavenly realm. Dr. Reid highlighted a powerful and telling passage of scripture "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). This substitution was literal and imperative if man was to be saved and it is no mystery to man, for it is outlined in the Word. I beg to point out also that it was no mystery to Lucifer for he played according to the belief that Jesus was the Ransom and thus did all in his carnal effort to prevent the perfect sacrifice. As I explored this article I was able to come to some conclusions that will strengthen my position with my view on prayer. I believe that prayer is a necessity in the plan of salvation. I believe that Christ prayed not only subjectively to portray our example but of principle that yielded effect. If Christ died according to Scripture then we should also pray according to Scripture in light of the plan of salvation.
Christ Saved the Human Race Ángel Manuel Rodríguez Angel did an excellent work in highlighting the dilemma that faces Adventists when confronting passages of EGW which seems to advocate that Christ died and saved the world. Many evangelicals believe that the cross has ensured the salvation of all mankind and some are quick to use statements as “He redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world” as proof that Ellen adhered to that view. Angel simply recommended the reader to explore the full passages and take her words in context. Fittingly Ellen explains herself throughout as she consistently maintain that Christ’s death was a ransom that redeemed sinful man thus bridging the gulf between heaven and earth. It is important however to point out our differences with some evangelicals here. ‘Saved’ for some means that all of humanity is automatically saved and will be in the kingdom, but I am gathering here that saved means free access to God through Jesus Christ. If this is true it doesn’t contradict the view that Jesus has the deed of possession, and has won us through creation and redemption, but widens the span of salvation to include free-will. The price has been paid but ‘all who will’ is the cry to those who would be saved. If Satan through deception has brought blight upon mankind and through force and manipulation keeps man in sin, Jesus would be no different if through his sacrifice those unwilling to go to heaven were forced to abide by His principles. Though Christ has gained the right to redeem us, he chooses not to force us into the kingdom. This leads me to conclude that much of Jesus’ life was spent in being an example to mankind in living and modeling the principles of the kingdom. He taught us by example the mode and reason of baptism, of prayer, of empowerment through the Spirit, and then declares, “Follow me.” This call is given to all those who would be saved, for his actions are leading to the habits and thoughts of men and women being trained heavenly. Jesus in fact is teaching us how to choose heaven. His gift he knew was perfect but the praxis of Christian living needed to be taught. As a child needs to be taught how to feed itself, Jesus painstakingly taught mankind how to choose right.
In this post I would like to make a comment on the argument that Paul hadn’t achieved perfection and therefore it is impossible for man to achieve it while on this earth. Let us read carefully what Paul writes in Philippians 3: 9-15: “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.
If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”
Paul wanting not to boast with his spiritual achievements, humbly admits: “not as if were already perfect… and I count not myself to have apprehended it [this perfection].”
When I read these words from Paul, I am reminded of one other passage in the Old Testament that speaks of a person who although called most upright man on earth was unable to claim for himself that he was indeed perfect. According to that person, to claim perfectness is an evidence against it.
Let us read the text in Job 9: 20, 21. Job was attacked from his friends who were convinced that he had sinnned and Job replied following:
“…If I justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect (taam), it shall also prove me perverse. Though I were perfect (taam), yet my soul would not know it”
Job 9: 20-22 teaches us that a perfect man cannot claim that he is entirely perfected because that would be presumptuous. Job says that though he was perfect he would never be aware of it because a perfect person always thinks humbly of his capacities.
Therefore, when Paul says “not though I were already perfect” this does not need to be taken as proof for impossibility of Christian perfection in the Bible. No, this shows simply that a perfect person will never boast with it because that would automatically prove his imperfectness and presumptiveness.
A truly perfect Christian never deems himself to be better than other and on a higher spiritual level than other. Closer we are to Jesus, less we think of our own greatness.
Assignment #5 Steps to Christ 6-8 Romans 9&10 How Perfect is "Perfect" or Is Christian Perfection Possible? by E. Heppenstall Crosscurrents by C. Webster chapter 4 "The Christology of Edward Heppenstall" section 5:"His contrast between the nature of Christ's perfection and man's perfection.
Interest sparked by Dojcin, I ranged over to perfection articles just to wade through a few issues. Knowing this is my first foray into Adventist perfection (historically, a constant open ulcer) I suspect this reflection paper will reveal more the state of my ignorance and first impressions than a mature seasoned view. (Big S= original sin with it's effects on intrinsic nature, Small s=active choices of sinful nature)
I learned that one of the foundational issues underlying perfection is the question of the nature of Christ. If one chooses to believe that Christ's nature is one of fallen man and sinful and yet He was able to live a (small s) sinless life- then (s) sinlessness is considered possible, nay, a necessary goal for the committed christian too, by the help of the Holy Spirit. Ethics, example, faith and man's response to salvation is emphasized. Sanctification by faith leans toward co=operation, alignment, working with God.
If one chooses to believe that Christ's nature is (S)Sinless (optionally: may be physically weakened by Sin, just never spiritually weakened or inclined toward sin)then Christ is a unique Adam-like being and it would be almost impossible to reproduce His sinlessness in our lives. Heppenstall is in this camp. Relational perfection by transference, grace and man's helplessness is emphasized over ethics. "Christ was inherently righteous whereas sinful man is only righteous in relationship with Christ. The moment the relationship is broken man loses his righteousness and perfection totally." (Webster)
No wonder, then that Heppenstall says "Salvation by grace alone means that absolute perfection and sinlessness cannot be realized here and now." He is referring to sin in both the nature of man and in man's actions.
Romans 9&10 talks about the sovereignity of God. Paul really does a nice sidestepping of the issue when he answers the logical question-if God is sovereign and unopposable, then how can He assign fault to man who cannot resist His will?
Paul's equating man's rights to a lump of clay is a weak argument because he overlooks the main god- given attribute man has- freedom and choice. A attribute which Paul himself had used earlier in Romans to prove how awfully sinful and deserving of death all mankind is-they chose to ignore and reject God- Romans 1. But since Paul next veers off into arguments of God's sovereign Grace (not punishment) being irrational-God's patience, vessels of mercy, calling outsiders "his", saving for Himself a remnant- he redeems himself for being sloppy initially.
Romans 1 and 2 I recognize in Paul’s writings of the first two chapters a deliberate attempt at creating the platform whereby all are judged. Paul desires to make it known that it is the power of God that brings salvation and the deed of none. In chapter 1 verse 20, he destroys the notion that Gentiles have an excuse for not obeying God for he points to Creation and highlights that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” Paul portrays in chapter 1 the shadow of judgment that looms upon the Gentile world creating as it were a foreboding prospect for them. If the wrath of God is to be revealed, chapter 1 implicitly asks the question, “what can the Gentiles do?” The Jews who read chapter 1 would agree in chorus that the judgments must fall upon the Gentiles but in chapter 2 Paul destroys their level of comfort by suggesting that God is no respecter of persons. He pinpoints that the Jews will ultimately be judged by the law which they hold so dear. He directs his attention to circumcision in vs. 25-29 and pinpoints that many of the Jews are circumcised outwardly but not of the heart. Paul is desirous of the Jews looking deep within to see if they are in the faith, instead of external forms. If the topic is dealing with salvation, he is building the base that circumcision or keeping the law, means nothing without the heart substance. Salvation as chapter one highlights is from God. The Jews are at the periphery admiring the things of God, but have lacked not only the deep knowledge of God but the knowledge of Christ.
Romans 3 & 4 Paul declares that he is a sinner in 3:7 and for good reasons for he pinpoints that no matter how righteous his deeds may be, they do nothing in adding to the righteousness of God. Chapter 3 forcibly shows to all Jews and Gentiles that there is none that doeth righteousness, no not one. Knowing that his Jewish hearers would stand aghast at such a bold statement he uses arguments found in vs. 11-18 to echo that which their fathers did against Christ. Though they thought they were acting righteously they persecuted Christ maliciously and of the cruelest kind. He shows the hypocrisy of the heart of man and makes it known that there is nothing that commends us to God, for inwardly we are all corrupt. Now that this is made known he brings in the topic of justification and explains in vs. 24 that we are justified freely by Christ’s grace. It cannot be by law, or by works, but by faith in Christ. To be saved mankind must have absolute dependence upon Jesus Christ. In chapter 4 Paul responds to individuals who would then ask the obvious, what of Abraham? Was he not justified by works? Ultimately Paul declares in vs. 13 that Abraham’s testimony was that of righteousness by faith. He argues that God blessed Abraham before he was circumcised so it was not of the ceremonial laws. We also know that Abraham and his father Terah were idol-worshippers in Ur so based on that not even his obedient to the moral laws after were the basis of his salvation. Obviously Abraham was called by grace and justified according to his faith in God. That Abraham believed God and obeyed him shows that he was placing his faith in what Christ would do on his behalf. Of Abraham God imputed his righteousness as an example of the countless others whose hope is wrapped up in what Christ Jesus would do on their behalf. Thus Paul sates, “but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”
The reading of Romans 11 was left by the Holy Spirit for me to read this week because He knew that I would need it. Paul is not being stingy with the gospel, or withholding it from Jews, but he earnestly desires that they would understand and accept and be saved. If he can spur them to be jealous and take a second look at Christ by vigorously preaching it to the gentiles and bringing them in, he will do so. Some verses at the end of Chapter 12 were just for me- ""Do not be wise in your own estimation..Respect what is right in the sight of all men."
I have stumbled across a new approach to plumbing the depths of the Bible- new to me, of course- that I recently find hard evidence for in the NT regarding how to understand the akedah. And it was so precious to me because it was new, fresh, unique and not utilized to its fullest potential in all the commentaries I had read.(they incorporate the NT insight, but do not take the method and utilize it themselves in new ways) Because it was "my baby" of an idea and there was initial interest by a Jewish scholar when shared, I was worried that it would be "adopted" by someone just as interested in the topic but far more qualified and able to study and publish on it, thereby robbing me of the opportunity to use it as my own dissertation. Paul shames me. He did not hoard his "new" insight that Christ is the fulfillment of the whole Jewish system. In fact, he yearns and believes the Jews should and would make even better "branches"to the olive tree. And he is eager to share it if given any opportunity.
This is the mind of Christ. Recognizing that there are always human politics in every field, including theology, yet, the Holy Spirit is fully able to help each theologian plumb more treasures. And there is no dearth of truth to find. And Dr. Hanna's lecture shows that there is much real work to be done, with much energy wasted on the superficial issues. So, best case scenario, God directed me to these two professors precisely because they could be blessed and be a blessing to me too- being experts in narrative critical analysis, professors in the akedah for years, and fully Jews with their background of cultural understanding. It would be helpful to know such scholars to do a good dissertation if this topic remains my choice for it, since the seminary does not have an expert in this approach. And, worst case scenario, if by seeing the self-sacrificing love option as the preferred and ideal solution to the akedah (as supported by the OT alone) they take the idea and publish it as their own, so there is less need for my dissertation, still, it could mean they may be one step closer to seeing the correlation in Christ as the fulfillment of such a principle and a reflection of the God they love already. And bringing them one step closer to Christ would be the best thing that could happen.
In essence, my understanding is this, and I welcome all help on it. The Akedah is a fascinating test of Abraham in Genesis 22. Morally, it was murder. Religiously, it was sacrifice. Contractually, it was fulfilling God's will to destroy the embodiment of God's will. The New Testament does something very creative- it inserts the idea (Hebrews 11:19) of resurrection into Abraham's mind (which is an unknown event in Genesis)to reconcile how a man of faith can perform an act that would seem to cancel the covenant of faith and go against all that God seemed to stand for. So Hebrews asserts the opposite of Kierkegaard. It claims that Abraham was enabled to go through with his act of faith because he "reasoned" and came up with a mental solution of faith first.
Romans 4 points out how Abraham's faith in God allowed him to experience the paradoxical miracle of two "dead" (reproductively)bodies empowered by God to produce "life". So faith leads to experience, then builds rationally on this experience further extrapolation of faith into unknown realms. Here, the NT is actually utilizing Abraham's past experience with God as the rational basis for the extrapolating leap of faith- into a physical resurrection, a new concept to Abraham and the known world at that time. This is not the same as a leap into the blind, or "absurd" as Kierkegaard would define it- for Kierkegaard believes it was an act of faith into a irrational nothingness only because one believes in the Person who demands it, without any understanding of the meaning. (actually, this is not an invalid idea of faith itself- but if we take both the OT and NT interpretations of the akedah, it is probably not the method Abraham chose. And even then, our faith in the person of God is based upon our past experiences with Him- so it is still rememberance and reflection oriented- hence the need for Sabbath time to do such review.)
But Hebrews 11 and Romans 4 together present a method they believe Abraham used- faith based upon prior evidence that is God given- synthesized into a NEW creative rational understanding which does reconcile the tension of how God will fulfill the covenant through Isaac even while demanding his death.
Now, using this method given by the NT and the narrative analysis tools- I believe that there may have been other solutions to the akedah that were not realized. And that (in the narrative analysis approach- where a writer/narrator consciously chooses stories for their relevance, unity and religious purpose)upon looking back over the selected stories of Abraham as given in Genesis (since we aren't told everything about his life)the narrator and perhaps by implication God may have been preparing Abraham for this final test all along.
And if so, what other possibilities of solutions exist? Do they tie in more of Abraham's experiential knowledge with God? Do they resolve better the ethical tension in this test of murder vs sacrifice and the allusions to religious child sacrifice inherent in the command? Were there more ways than one to fulfill God's will based upon what God had taught him in the previous chapters? The test begins with "After these things God tested Abraham..." clearly inviting the audience to reflect upon what preceded the test in order to understand the test. And this is what most interpreters miss- how does all that precedes bear significantly upon this test?
(Not that he could choose to do all of them, and accepting that he did choose one that was excellent and affirmed by the angel as a correct solution.)
I suggest one possible solution to the akedah that is "out of the box" but based upon a more comprehensive synthesis of of his experiences with God beyond the reproductive miracle. There is more than two options (not just yes or no) to the command to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering. I would like to tentatively suggest that Abraham could have offered himself to God as a substitutionary offering in place of Isaac to fulfill the command in Genesis 22:1 and God would have been pleased. Because, with this proposal- Abraham is fulfilling God's command based on divine ethics(an adjustment which God seemed to be open to before when Abraham challenged God at Sodom and Gomorrah- based on divine ethics(human ethics had no problem with communal justice in Abraham's time)- that the Judge of all the earth would be injust to destroy righteous individuals along with sinners. Besides, God went even further than Abraham on this principle. Abraham stopped too soon at 10, God acted and saved the last three, who turned out to be barely righteous even then!). Such a solution would prove loyalty and fear of God above all else, remain true to the covenant, remain true to the filial bond of fatherly love toward Isaac, remain true to the marital love to Sarah whose life was wrapped up in Isaac, reverse his long habit of sacrificing family members (sarah) for his own survival, and still fulfill the angel's affirmation as stated- "Now I know that you fear God in that you have not witheld your son from me...Because you have done this and not witheld your son from me." Relinquishing Isaac can be accomplished by killing Isaac, killing oneself, or cutting off all ties with Isaac (as Abraham had to do to Ishmael in the previous chapter at God's command).
Other biblical support for self-sacrificing love being a favored option and principle of the God of Genesis will be given in my paper- this theme comes out clearer and clearer as the Genesis narratives culminate in the Joseph and Judah story.
It resonates with the cross and the whole theme of the Bible. Its method of derivation is found in the NT. The salvific example would have been incredible, without the ethical dilemna of killing a righteous lad (which was affirmed as injust by both God and Abraham when they negotiated used it as the foundation to "negotiate" acceptable "collateral damage" in Genesis 18). The sacrifice of Isaac could have been just as powerful if it has been transformed into the sacrifice of Abraham; the binding of Isaac into the binding of Abraham. The Christ figure being Abraham.
But I am in no way minimizing or ignoring the salvific example of an innocent victim (Isaac) being sacrificed by his father to God. Just pointing out that as a result, most scholars feel Abraham's chosen deed- though righteous- had a costly negative consequence in the family life of Isaac and Sarah toward Abraham (and possibly in their view of his God, for a while). (That's another sacrifice in itself.)
I am exploring biblical possibilities that the Bible itself allows and demonstrates. And instead of assuming that what happens in the Bible is always the pinnacle of faith and the perfect choice (for it is clear God is very gracious even toward his faulty favorites) perhaps, it is also valid to derive from the biblical evidence other possibilities and evaluate them in light of how God handled it.
By the way, the various interpretations given to the akedah as to what was happening is the most voluminous bunch of literature I have ever seen. So much work for this paper!
Correction: I went further than I meant to say in the passion of writing above. Let me take a step back, I don't believe that suicide is the ideal answer.
The command literally says "offer up Isaac for an ascent offering". So even if Abraham offered himself up-I was envisioning him waiting (alive) on the altar for God to take him. Because the stuck ram (which was prepared in advance by God) would have caught his eye eventually too.
But how powerful a witness that would have been if Abraham did this with his whole family and possibly entire encampment! For the command in Genesis 12:1 has a middle imperative form of a verb- "go you- for you" which is used only one other time in Genesis 22:1 and since Abraham took his whole family (including Lot) in response to the first command- and Sarah turned out to be vital to the fulfillment of that command's blessing; I argue that this second command to "go you-for you" could have been also extended to the faith community of Abraham, at least his immediate family. (who especially needs to re-align her priorities for God over Isaac? Sarah.)
...as it was, I would bet Sarah never let Isaac alone on a trip with Abraham again. :)
My first reflection is on the gospel to the Romans and concerns the use of the sola scriptura principle in developing the theological understanding of the issue of justification by faith in Romans 3. The book of Romans has always been hailed as the benchmark because it sets forth the principles of salvation. My concern for Seventh-day Adventists is that the proper understanding of justification by faith within Romans 3 has been built upon a canon within a canon approach rather than on the sola scriptura approach. In other words, the exegete comes to Romans 3:21-26, exegetes the passage and concludes by saying we’re saved by grace alone through faith alone period, works have absolutely nothing to do with it because if they did then we would be saved through faith and works. At this point the issue is “resolved.” There are several concerns I see with this approach. The first is that the issue of the proper theological understanding of justification by faith can simply be solved by this kind of exegetical approach. The exegete must assume two things that the passage does not spell out: i) what is the proper understanding of the One who justifies and ii) the proper understanding of the one who is justified. Second, why does the exegete begin and end in Romans 3? Didn’t Jesus tell the two who walked on the road to Emmaus to look at all the scriptures that pertain to the subject matter (Luke 24:27)? By sticking to Romans 3 and going no further, some are not using the sola scriptura principle and the analogy of Scripture in order to understand what it means to be justified by faith. In other words they exegete the passage as if the rest of the Bible didn’t exist and therefore could not add to the understanding of the subject matter. Third, why not take the same approach with Rom 2:13 that is taken with Rom 3:21-26? Rom 2:13 says “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified?” The words “justification” in Rom 3:21-26 and “justified” in Rom 2:13 are the same. One says by faith, the other says it’s the doer who is justified. The two are obviously not in contradiction with one another. We must develop an approach to the issue that is true to the analogy of Scripture while at the same time handling what seem to be contradictions.
Reflection #2 In Rom 1:16, 17 it tells us that the righteousness of God is revealed through the gospel, thus equating righteousness with the gospel. Furthermore the principles of the gospel which are understood and experienced on the basis of the Scriptures (Rom 1:1, 2) should produce righteousness in the life of the believer through faith. In order for the gospel to do that, it must possess power (Rom 1:16). However in Rom 1:29-32 the people are filled with all kinds of unrighteousness and sin. In 2 Tim 3:1-7 Paul presents a similar list of sins and says that these people have a form of godliness but are denying its power suggesting that they are believers who are going through the motions of Christianity, saying they are saved and that they believe in the gospel, yet at the same time are in a dreadful condition.
There are several clues in Rom 1:19-32 which can help us to understand how the power of the gospel can be neutralized. In Rom 1:21 it tells us that these people knew God, professed wisdom and even glorified Him, albeit not as God. The point is, these people claimed i) to know Him, ii) to be wise, and iii) to glorify Him. In Rom 1:21-23 the Bible tells us that a doctrine of God based upon natural theology ultimately leads to creating a false god. The 2nd Commandment which is alluded to in Rom 1:21-23 teaches that we should not make any graven image in heaven above, the earth beneath or the water under the earth, we should also not bow down and serve them. Natural theology seeks to develop an interpretation of God based solely upon nature or reason apart from Revelation which consequently violates the 2nd Commandment. This commandment also informs us of the cause and effect relationship that exists between “making” and “bowing down.” In Rom 1:21 it says that they became futile or vain in their thought processes which resulted in changing the glory of God into an “image made like unto corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Imagination and creativity is the root of “making” since you must think in order to “make.” This represents an attempt to create a doctrine of God based upon human reason “corruptible man.” The result of this is expressed in Rom 1:24, “wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonor their bodies among themselves.”
In Rom 1:25 another result of this is that they “worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” As in the 2nd Commandment, worship always assumes a doctrine of God, whether it’s based upon Revelation or reason (apart from Revelation). The end result of all this is stated in Rom 1:29-32. Thus the power of the Gospel can be neutralized by a doctrine of God that is based upon reason developed from the creation and apart from Revelation. This leads to service and worship and finally results in the degrading sins found in Rom 1:29-32. This is of vital interest to me because the subject worship should not be divorced from the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of God and ethics: they are all integrated therefore one should ask how any doctrine of worship is going to affect the rest of the structure.
assignment #8 Steps to Christ chapters 8 &9 Romans 13&14
It is a real challenge to read these passages while keeping the akedah foremost in mind. "The spirit of Christ's self-sacrificing love is the spirit that pervades heaven, and is the very essence of its bliss. This is the spirit that Christ's followers will possess, the work that they will do."(EGW)So loving, so happy.
This same Christ said to Abraham, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him up there as a burnt offering..." And Romans 13:9 says "For this, You shall not commit adultery (does it count when you purposely set up your neighbor to commit adultery with your wife as Abraham did and didn't try to stop him?), You shall not murder (what if God says to kill your son who is a lad? Is what God says- righteous by definition?), You shall not steal (or aggrandize yourself by accepting ill-gotten guilt presents from rulers you have betrayed as Abraham did)You shall not covet (and use and abuse those dependent upon you to get what you want then kick them out of the family when you get your goal another way) and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself,Love does no wrong to a neighbor; (but its okay to do so to one's own son? or wife?) therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (God's law was his command to Abraham, since the Sinaic law wasn't in written form yet).
So, this is an example of faith that merits credit as righteousness.
Or shall we more accurately say that in spite of all the above, Abraham was willing to keep learning, to say "yes" to God (which was, in his time, "Behold, here I am")and for his unshakable commitment- God considered him righteous who certainly was not.
Next monday-wednesday is Rosh Hosanah and in that liturgy the akedah is read, the ram's horn is blown and there is a tradition within Judaism of transferred merits from the Abraham's deed that is used for one's account to earn forgiveness of sins. This is a salvific deed that allows for merit tranfer too. "There was...a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived...According to this haggadah, Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for all Israel in all generations." (The Torah: A Modern Commentary pg.151)I think I'll look for a reformed synagogue and try to experience it.
But I still rail against Kierkegaard's interpretation which though sounding eloquent, is not different from the stance of any other religious child sacrifice. His last sentence in Fear and Trembling is "So either there is a paradox, that the single individual as the particular stands in an absolute sense to the absolute, or Abraham is done for."
And is the stance of radical moslems who strap bombs on their children, kiss and send them to paradise to fulfill the will of Allah as they feel their duty leads. Who are we to judge such faith? or to call one wrong and the other right just because of the deity's different names? If one argues that our Yahweh stopped the sacrifice- it is still clear that the intent to kill the child was honored. And the intent was deemed righteous and holy. So the problem remains...
Comment on The Article “The Dynamics of Salvation” at BRI web site. By Dojcin Zivadinovic First of All I appreciate the effort of the article to remind us that Salvation is a mystery which has been revealed to us but the depts of this subject will be the center of our study for the entire eternity. Our minds will ever continue to be stretched by contemplation of "the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints" (Col. 1:26), and we will discern ever richer treasures of divine love and wisdom. I believe many Christians are struggling to understand God and accept faith and at last to be saved simply because of the erroneous teaching about salvation.
This post about salvation will be long so I will split it into two sections. First one will be justification and another sanctification
As I said there are many wrong views on salvation. Many Protestants teach sola gracia and irresistible grace kind of justification that eliminates personal choice. Others do believe in our personal choice to choose Jesus the Savior but completely forget about the daily surrender to God and the sanctification of the soul, body and mind. On the other hand millions of other Christians believe that Jesus has to be appeased with certain rites, sacrifices and mediation of departed saints. All of these views of salvation are rather helping in detaching Man from God than making him closer. That’s why it is important to establish a proper and logical Biblical view of Salvation or How does the Man gets saved. It is the most important issues of all. Here are the most important steps in the process of salvation as I see them. I will be little simplistic for the purposes of better understanding, so you correct me if I am wrong.
1. RECOGNIZING OUR SITUATION We first have to recognize that we are lost. We stand condemned before God (Rom. 3:19, 20) In order that we might conscientiously get saved, we must recognize our lostness and imperfection. Since Adam’s Sin we live in condemnation and we don’t know how to come back to perfect world of peace and love. We don’t know how to get back to God who created us. We are doomed...
2. HEARING the GOOD NEWS However, there is a solution ! The Salvation comes by hearing the Good News of Jesus who has paid our debt. God Loved mankind so much that he decided to take our penalty on Him so that we can live. The consequence of our sin is death and even if we never sinned we are born under the shadow of death because we are in separation from God. Our life is given to us as a time to hear and accept the salvation. Every man has multiple opportunities throughout his life to hear the Good News of Salvation. Will he accept this news though, that is the question?
3. ACCEPTING the GOOD NEWS The Good News is that we don’t have to die because God loves us and he decided to sacrifice His Son for our sake. We only need to accept this free gift with our mind and heart. It’s something like marriage proposal. God asks us if we will marry him and enjoy eternal happiness, power and love but he doesn’t force us to accept his proposal. We need to say: ‘I do’ and mean it. God didn’t prive us from our free choice, in contrary the free choice is the reason why we got lost in the first place – because God gave us the freedom to choose whether we will trust and love Him or not. Now, through His sacrifice He made it possible for us to exercise our free will to take Him back. Article says: “Without the drawing of God, no person will come to Him (John 6:44; ibid., p. 390). Our faces are turned away from Him and we lack even the desire to return. Our will is so weakened that we continually choose only evil (Jer. 13:23). But the Holy Spirit empowers our wills, awakening within us a longing for God. He leads us to repent…” Basically he does everything necessary to prove you that his intentions are pure. However He can not give a response in our place, we are the ones who will or accept it or harden our hearts and reject the offer and choose death and darkness.
Comment on The Article “The Dynamics of Salvation” at BRI web site. Part 2 By Dojcin Zivadinovic
here is the second part of my comment on How to get saved. I do get little simplistic sometimes so forgive me and comment if you don't agree with my wording.
4. THE NEW STATUS IN CHRIST - JUSTIFICATION IF we accept God’s gift for us, we are under his care now and we are called “justified”. We are no longer to be in fear of death and punishment because we have been adopted in the large family of God’s children. We now enjoy the blessings of our father –
a.) The Holy Spirit who testifies in our bodies that we are loved, forgiven and accepted by father. This is called Assurance. Many Christians have been saved and justified but haven’t experienced the assurance of this truth. Many Children of this world are loved by their parents but they have never felt this love. God wants us to feel his love and He gives us Assurance of Holy Spirit (Rom 8).
b.) The Changed Mind. In the moment we have been forgiven and justified, The Spirit of God starts working on restoring our sinful and corrupt mind. Romans 12: 2 Says: “don’t conform yourselves to this sinful world but be transformed by the renewal of our mind”. This renewal is a supernatural action of Holy Spirit. The sinful and low things we liked before we now abhor, and we can see this difference in us. More we long to stay in contact with father in prayer and studying His word, more the desires of this world will become strangers to us. This process of renewing ourselves to his image is called Sanctification. This process however, starts already with conversion or justification.
All this sounds real nice, however, there is a small clause on the bottom of page that says something like this: Even after justification, and after we have been pardoned and forgiven we can still choose to turn God down. We are not led into a trap to be “bound forever” or “once saved- forever saved”. We still have right to break our marriage contract. Although we have made initial steps to accepting God, we can in any moment decide to turn back to life without God and ultimately eternal death. In every moment of our spiritual walk with God we are free to drop our salvation. However, if we decide to remain with God we will advance in our new life empowered with the Spirit of Christ/
5. THE NEW LIFE IN CHRIST – Sanctification or “Holy Walk”
After we have accepted God in our heart, we start growing in grace. God wants us to become more and more similar to his image so that His other children can desire to be saved just by looking at your character. Here again. You have another choice to make. Are you going to allow Christ to deepen His connections with you, are you going to set up meetings with him, are you going to spend time with Him in prayer and grow in Spirit and in Grace. God wants to restore you mentally, spiritually and even physically. All you need is to allow Him on a daily basis to dwell in you and surrender you will to his in the time of temptations. Oh, yes and bytheway, the temptations will come. The evil one wants you to return back to his realm of darkness and death. He will portray the sin and evil very beautiful to your eyes. However, don’t allow him to trick you. All you need to do when you see the temptation is to get on your knees and pray that Jesus can crucify your sinful mind and give you the mind which hates sin. When ever you can during the day surrender your mind to Christ through prayer. This is called “mortification of your sinful nature” which still exist in you.(Gal 5: 24) However, if you don’t feed your sinful nature it will eventually starve and die. - Well actually no one knows if it ever dies completely but in any case it can get pretty dead and Jesus will master your mind and make His love perfect in you.
6. GLORIFICATION
Jesus 2nd coming we are changed and saved forever we go to heaven… more about it next time...
What is the understanding of phrase, “in the likeness of sinful flesh” in Rom 8:3? Does it mean that Christ’s flesh is unlike ours, thus expressing dissimilarity between Christ’s flesh and ours or does it express similarity? And if it expresses similarity with our flesh, then why use the word “likeness,” after all isn’t it possible for likeness to assume unlikeness? Furthermore why does Paul say that Christ “was made according to the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3) but then switch to the “likeness of sinful flesh” in Rom 8:3?
First, let’s look at the word “likeness” in Rom 8:3 and compare it with Phil 2:7. Rom 8:3 says that God sent His son “in the likeness [o`moiw,mati] of sinful flesh.” Phil 2:7 states He “was made in the likeness [o`moiw,mati] of men.” If we conclude that in Rom 8:3 Christ was essentially different from us at the level of the flesh, then have we not set ourselves up for a docetic conclusion regarding Phil 2:7? Would we be willing to make the same conclusion regarding Phil 2:7 by stating that Jesus was not really a man but only had the appearance of a man based on the word “likeness?”
Second, let’s look at the word “flesh” in the context of Rom 8:3. The law could not be kept on account of the weakness or inability of the flesh, yet the passage also states that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. V.4 states that what Christ accomplished in the flesh, which is the righteous requirement of the law, is to be repeated and fulfilled in us who obey not the flesh but the Spirit. If Christ’s flesh is essentially different from ours, then how is this to be accomplished in us? Would it only be legally but not experientially?
Third, let’s look at the word “flesh” in the context of the chapter. The Greek word for flesh is mentioned about ten times in this chapter. In most of these verses in Rom 8, to be in the flesh means to mind the things of the flesh (8:5), which means that the carnally minded person is not subject to God’s law but is in fact in enmity with it (8:6,7). Based on this, to be “in the flesh,” (8:8) should not be interpreted in an ontological sense but rather in a relational sense based on the previous verses. Furthermore Rom 8:1,12,13 talk about living after the flesh or obeying the dictates of the flesh. Thus the controversy in this chapter seems to be revolving around whether sinful flesh can indeed keep the law. There are several things in this chapter which indicate that apart from Christ, it’s simply impossible to keep the law. Rom 8:1,2 says that condemnation represents the lot of those who do not have the law of the Spirit of life found in Christ. Rom 8:13 says that it’s only by the Spirit that we can indeed put to death the deeds of the body or the flesh so that we can live.
Some mistakenly conclude that the phrase “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” refers to His sinless human nature which seems very problematic in light of what flesh means in the rest of the chapter. However Rom 8:3 does address His sinless character when Paul says that He “condemned sin in the flesh.” If sin is the transgression of the law as John states, then the condemnation of sin in the flesh refers to His sinless character that was wrought in the arena of the flesh, so that through the Holy Spirit’s power we might be able to do the same.
So then why the word “likeness?” “that the intention behind the use of ὁμοίωμα here (cf. its use in Phil 2:7, where there is no specific mention of sin) was to take account of the fact that the Son of God was not, in being sent by His Father, changed into a man, but rather assumed human nature while still remaining Himself. On this view, the word ὁμοίωμα does have its sense of ‘likeness’; but the intention is not in any way to call in question or to water down the reality of Christ’s σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, but to draw attention to the fact that, while the Son of God truly assumed σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, He never became σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας and nothing more, nor even σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας indwelt by the Holy Spirit and nothing more (as a Christian might be described as being), but always remained Himself.”
Response to Karl's post on “likeness of sinful flesh” and “likeness of men”. (Rom 8: 3 and Phil 2: 7)
Karl, I took great interest in your post and I was drawing some conclusions from my self before I finished your post. However, here are my views concerning this topic you addressed. You point well that there is danger of docetism in Philippians 2: 7. That’s why I believe Philippians 2: 7 can not be taken isolated and are to be compared with broader understanding of Scriptures. Therefore, Philippians 2: 7 are to be understood in the light of Romans 8: 3 and broader context of NT. When Paul and rest of NT Scriptures use words such as “flesh”, “body”, “earthly mind”, “born of man” etc… it generally refers to a sinful nature of man. The corrupt side, the weak side, the sinful side, the inconsistent side etc.. So when Paul says that Jesus “made himself in likeness of men”, by that he doesn’t mean he wasn’t really human but he made himself “like a sinner”, “like a man”. Yet Paul’s words are precise enough and never tell us that Jesus made himself sinner. (Romans 8: 3) He might actually say: “he made himself man” and he wouldn’t be wrong but he wouldn’t describe the entire complexity of Jesus’ nature. That is why he often says he was made in “likeness of man” because he by birth was different than all men. What was that difference, his divinity, his absence of sinful tendencies, this is yet another topic… Second remark: Paul nowhere calls us to repeat the victory of Christ. Scripture calls him our exemple but never says “you must do exactly what my Son did”. Why? Because we cannot, already by birth we were different. What did Jesus overcame? By dwelling in the Spirit of God, Christ overcame constant attempts of the enemy to separate him from Father. Finally when Our Sins separated Him, he said”: My father why did you abandon me”? Not for his sins, because he loved until the end but it was for our sins that he was punished for. Now How about us? What do we have to overcome? First we don’t have a same starting point, we need to be spiritually “born again” something Jesus never experienced since he never “spiritually died” as our predecessor Adam did. We need an encounter with God. A justification. After man enters union with God’s Spirit through justification a Man gets in the same position as Christ was by birth. A man is now to overcome all obstacle by abiding in the Spirit of God. Now what Christ has made possible for us we are to experience, the walk in the Spirit (Rom 8: 13). However, our problem is that we for some reason drop out of the Spirit many times per day. Why is it so? Well for beginning, we pray once in the morning and think that is enough, while Scripture plainly encourage us to “pray at all time”. We think we can overcome with our will, when Paul calls us to overcome by “dwelling in the Spirit”, we think that we have to defeat the temptations when they come even though Christ plainly told us to pray “to not [even] be led into the temptation”. The one who dwells in Christ never comes to judgment, never needs to think about the Law because it becomes natural to him and never has to bother about internal temptation because he simply doesn’t like sin while dwelling in God’s presence. If he doesn’t even like sin, how can he be tempted? When we experience temptation, this means that by circumstances we have detached our minds from God and we are actually feeling the urge to sin, where there is no desire there is no temptation, where there is desire there is absence of Mind of Christ. Therefore in my view, the presence of internal desire and therefore presence of tangible internal temptation is equivalent by “dwelling in flesh” It is the indicator that we need justifying grace and sanctifying Spirit again and the best thing to do is to get on our knees and ask for Spirit of Christ and His nature which will enable me to hate sin and love righteousness. Let us therefore mortify our sinful bodies by the Spirit of Christ that lives in us. (Rom 8: 13, Col 3: 5)
in reference to Betty's reflection #6 I appreciated your comment on the fact that growth in christ is not automatic. I think that is something that is hard for many to understand, but it is a good point. And in answer to your question, I think he is talking to believers because he has been talking about thier baptism. But the idea of being under the law is meaning that they use the law to save them, true believer keep the law, but are not under the law. Jesus saves them. I hope that thought helps.
Reflection on Romans 5 It is my view presently that a working model of justification must take into consideration what was conceived for us in the courts of heaven. If Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world, it means that his pardoning of our sins was and is available according to that plan. I believe the Holy Spirit has always been pleading with mankind to look unto the things of God and such has been described as striving with mankind. When we respond to the spirit’s pleading we are lead to accept the righteousness of Christ, which is often spoken of as imputed righteousness. The Spirit not only works to strive with us but produces hope, joy as well as assurance. The Spirit plead with us before we accepted Christ, but after doing so the Spirit worketh in us, hope, as is seen in 5:5. In this model, the Spirit’s role cannot be to point us to the law alone, nor to our works, for one would lead to condemnation, the other to futility, but He points us to the “righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Vs. 21.
Romans 6
Here in Romans 6 Paul highlights the believer’s union with Christ in both his life and his death. The ability to conceive of this, to appreciate the magnitude of these words, is nothing but the Spirit of God working in us. That we can respond to this message is nothing short of a miracle. Paul tells us that “knowing that Christ being raised” vs. 9. It is important to recognize that knowing and then doing is a theme that Paul strikes in this chapter. He emphasizes the grace that God is working in our lives vs. 14 and I gather that from this grace, we have the ability to choose to do right. After accepting the mission of Christ in our lives, we have no more excuse to sin vs. 22 but to do well. Apparently we are no longer subject to sin but through Christ, and the spirit working in us, we can choose, we can will, to follow Christ.
Romans 7
In my mind chapter 7 can best be understood in light of the beatitudes of Christ. Who after reading Matthew chapter 5-7 can say they can fulfill it perfectly. This is an impossibility, well an impossibility if not for the Spirit that worketh in us. The words of Christ in those passages will forever condemn us for we cannot in our own works manifest the deeds. Thus Paul can assuredly say of all of God’s holy requirements, “For I know that in me dewelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” Whether Paul is speaking of the believer before Christ or the one in Christ I know not, but I do know that the only cause for boast is summarized in vs. 25 “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
"Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves...For even Christ did not please Himself; as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on Me." Romans 15:1,2 This principle of the strong serving not just the weak but the bearing the weaknesses of those who are weak is a principle of self-sacrificing love. We are called to take on their burdens, their shame, their limitations as if it were ours and be of "the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 15:5.
Salvation is this, redemption through our Lord who was willing to take on our problem of sin and become one of us so that He could heal and help us out of our predicament. God condescending to be one with us. On the other hand, Paul strikes another triumphant note when he assures us that "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." Romans 16:20. (peace requires violence? yes.)
I am not sure if Paul is referring to the second coming here, or to a particular opponent of the gospel that is in Rome, or to the problem Judaizers just preceding this phrase. It is strong language and refers back to the imagery of the crushing of the serpent promised in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:15. I had always believed that prophecy to refer to Christ's life on earth and his death on the cross in particular. However, Paul is using this imagery in the future tense. Is this another sequential repetitive typology?
Salvation comes to us not through concepts, but events. Events of encountering the divine. Concepts are reflections upon those events and are malleable and influenced by one another. But that the event happened and that perception of the meaning preceded understanding is the way man thinks. The steps are pre-conception, divine encounter, perception of that encounter, symbolization, concept, word(verbal or written),evaluative record, transmittance to another.
Salvation is that same way, man had little understanding of sin, and even littler understanding of salvation. In the Garden, God sought out man. God clothed man. God explained the changes about to happen, God utilized the snake's head crushing and emnity as two symbols of His response to their predicament. Paul read and understood these symbols to represent the struggle between good and evil and he believed it would end soon. Amen.
In response to whay Wendy posted, i gree with her the fact that we are saved only by blood of Jesus. We by ourselves have no power to save ourselves, but Jesus will give us the power to overcome sin. On the other side, i would like her to comment more on the reading of Ellen white confession, regarding salvation. What new insight did she get as she read?
I appreciated the full and quote exhaustive study on Sin and Sinful nature in the Bible by Gherard Pfandl. While, i tend to agree with his views and conclusions, it came to my attention that one verse he quote in support of idea that Sin is an act is actually in my view not a valid text for suppor this concept.
When quoting, 1 John 3: 4, Gerhard wrote that "The Bible generally defines sin as an act". 1 John 3:4says: “sin is the transgression of the law”, or “sin is lawlessness” (NASB).
I believe that before drawing such conclusions, we have to determine what the word Law intents in this text and in general. Is the Law in question 10 commandments? ? Or rather apostle talks about the Divine Law of Love which is reformulated in the 10 commandments?
Jesus’ definition of Law was that it consists of two main commandments. Love for God and Love for the Neighbor.
So if the Law equals LOVE, than the phrase “sin is the transgression of the Law” sounds much different. It is not an act anymore but a STATE. To sin is to be out of Love of God, to sin is not to have mind of God, not to be inlove with God.
"transgression of the law" then is not something we do but something we are in.
Paul repeats this idea in Romans 13:8, 10
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."
"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
And again in Galatians 5: 14 "or all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
So if the Law is Love (everyone) than "transgression of the Law" is not to Love everyone. To love or not to love is not an act but a state of mind. Mind separated from the source of Love - God.
Therefore, when verse says "sin is the transgression of the Law", it actually means "sin is separation from Love".
A lot of people quote 1 John 3: 4 with the intent to prove that sin is essentially act of transgression, something we do, our actions and deeds that counter God’s will.
This is certainly true in a sense that separation from God produces the acts of sin. However, once we learn what “Law” really means, it becomes clear that we could keep 10 commandments and yet still "sin". I actually know people who respected the 10 commandments their entire life without any spot (that I know). They are looked as great saints in our community. However, if Jesus would come to them and ask them to give all they have to the poor (as he asked the young ruler) they would not be able to do it. They would claim that Ten Commandments do not urge them to do this.
There are certain things that “written law” didn’t intend to reformulate but are within the Spirit of the Law.
Finally, to resume “not to transgress the Law” in 1 John 3: 4has to be seen in broader sense of not separating ourselves from the Law/Love of God.
In Rom 9 the apostle stresses the fact that those who are the children of the promise are counted for the seed (Rom 9:8). These are placed in contrast to those who are merely Israelites according to the flesh. In order to clinch the argument regarding the importance of the promise, in v.11 he says “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” He gives further supporting evidence by appealing to several historical incidents: i) “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Rom 9:13), ii) at the golden calf where the Lord told Moses “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” (Rom 9:15) iii) the role of the Pharaoh (Rom 9:17-18), and iv) the potter and the clay.
Some read Paul’s reasoning as an arbitrary election of some to salvation and others to damnation. Furthermore, who are you to question God’s justice and sovereignty? To do so would be no different than the clay asking the potter, “why did you form me this way?” However is this the way that we are to understand the doctrine of election? The word itself is mentioned 7 times in the NT: 4 of the references are in the book of Romans, 1 in Acts, 1 in Thess and the other in 2 Peter. Unfortunately the prerequisite for understanding the doctrine of election has been the doctrine of eternal decrees which are then interpreted upon the basis of Greek metaphysics. Basically the creation of the universe represents the outworking of God’s irresistible decrees, best understood on the basis of Plato’s two worlds theory where the earthly is merely the reduplication of the heavenly timeless decrees. It’s within this framework the doctrine of election is usually understood. The question is, does interpretation measure up with the Scripture evidence?
First, the word is first mentioned in Acts 9:15 where the Lord says to Ananias that Saul “is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” The word “chosen” is the same as the word “elected.” God chose Saul, He also chose Moses, David, Samson and the prophets in order to accomplish specific tasks which in no way implied that they were elected to salvation while the rest were lost. He gives to some 5 talents while to others He gives 1 which is the best way for understanding the potter and the clay references in Rom 9. It’s also the best way for understanding what God said to Moses when He said that He will have mercy on whosoever He will which was said in response to Moses request to see God’s glory. This is something that not everyone is granted because God is too wise to err and yet He will not withhold any good thing from those who walk uprightly.
Second, in Rom 9:11 the promise of God is given through election, which is not of works. This implies that it is of grace which is confirmed by Rom 11:5 where Paul refers to “a remnant according to the election of grace.” In the next verse, Rom 11:6, he emphatically states that this election is not of works but of grace and in Rom 11:7 some who sought election obtained it while the rest were hardened. The only way they could have obtained it was through grace and not by works. In other words, those who were willing to fall on the rock and be broken received the grace of God through faith while others rejected the means that God had ordained for their election and the result was that their hearts were hardened. That this grace was received through faith is clear in Rom 9:30-10:4. These verses connect the stumblingstone and rock of offense as the means whereby righteousness is attained. All who did not comply with these conditions were hardened (Rom 11:7) which best explains the process of how Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. The same sun melts butter but hardens clay.
Third, Rom 11:28 says, “as far as election is concerned, they [children of Israel] are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” The verses previous to Rom 11:28 indicate that it’s only believing Jews that are grafted into the tree. Thus the elect are those who believe God.
Fourth, in the introduction to Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians the apostle reminds them that God has chosen them (1 Thess 1:4). In 1 Thess 1:5-8, he outlines the process of that choice which included the reception of the gospel “in much affliction,” which led to them being examples and which finally led them to preach the word. God’s choice was accomplished when they cooperated with the Holy Spirit.
Fifth, 2 Pet 1:10 is a very interesting text for those who believe that election is based on God’s irresistible decrees in timeless eternity past. The reason is that it directs us to be diligent in order “to make your calling and election sure.” In light of this very brief analysis, Ellen White offers a very interesting interpretation of election in Rom 9:13 where the Lord states, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
"Esau and Jacob had alike been instructed in the knowledge of God, and both were free to walk in His commandments and to receive His favor; but they had not both chosen to do this. The two brothers had walked in different ways, and their paths would continue to diverge more and more widely. {PP 207.3}
There was no arbitrary choice on the part of God by which Esau was shut out from the blessings of salvation. The gifts of His grace through Christ are free to all. There is no election but one’s own by which any may perish. God has set forth in His word the conditions upon which every soul will be elected to eternal life--obedience to His commandments, through faith in Christ. God has elected a character in harmony with His law, and anyone who shall reach the standard of His requirement will have an entrance into the kingdom of glory. Christ Himself said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life." John 3:36. "Not everyone that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21. And in the Revelation He declares, [BEGIN P.208] "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Revelation 22:14. As regards man’s final salvation, this is the only election brought to view in the word of God. {PP 207.4}
Every soul is elected who will work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. He is elected who will put on the armor and fight the good fight of faith. He is elected who will watch unto prayer, who will search the Scriptures, and flee from temptation. He is elected who will have faith continually, and who will be obedient to every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The provisions of redemption are free to all; the results of redemption will be enjoyed by those who have complied with the conditions." {PP 208.1}
I just finished reading Dr. Rodriguez article titled, “Christ Saved the Human Race.” This reflection is not about that article but about some of the Spirit of Prophecy statements in that article that confirmed a study I did about the setting or context of the Plan of Salvation. Here’s an example of one of the statements.
“On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to rescue the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who by a lie framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and who thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's kingdom. Satan refused to let his captives go. He held them as his subjects because of their belief of his lie. He had thus become their jailor. But he had no right to demand that a price be paid for them; because he had not obtained possession of them by lawful conquest, but under false pretense. God, being the creditor, had a right to make any provision for the redemption of human beings. Justice demanded that a certain price be paid. The Son of God was the only One who could pay this price. He volunteered to come to this earth and pass over the ground where Adam fell. He came as the redeemer of the lost race, to conquer the wily foe, and by His steadfast allegiance to right, to save all who should accept Him as their Saviour.” (Letter 20, 1903)
In this statement, the redemption price of the race is placed within the greater framework of the great controversy theme. Actually nearly half of the statements that Rodriguez quoted about some aspects of the plan of redemption are placed within this great controversy framework. As I was studying through the Conflict of the Ages series, this is something that I picked up on a few years ago and it led me back to the Scriptures to see if there were certain models of salvation that were placed within the greater framework of the great controversy theme.
Yet before going to some of the Scripture support, I was amazed at one statement which was a commentary about the sacrifice of Isaac. This is how it reads.
“The sacrifice required of Abraham was not alone for his own good, nor solely for the benefit of succeeding generations; but it was also for the instruction of the sinless intelligences of heaven and of other worlds. The field of the controversy between Christ and Satan--the field on which the plan of redemption is wrought out--is the lesson book of the universe” (PP 154).
This statement says that the plan of redemption is wrought out on a field, yet it doesn’t stop there, it also identifies the field as “the field of the controversy between Christ and Satan.” One of the things that has been stressed in our salvation seminar is the need to think higher, deeper and broader about the subject of salvation. In the statement above, the field is broader than the plan of salvation, which itself is wrought out on a field. This to me is an incredible theological statement.
We can unpack the theological implications of this statement by looking at the analogy of battles and fields. Wars and battles are fought on fields; they are always together and inseparable. In many instances the field determines how the battle is fought. According to the passage above the field is the great controversy between Christ and Satan and the battle is the plan of redemption. Since the field to a great extent determines the battle, this has great theological implications.
First, the doctrine of Christ/God must be viewed from the great controversy theme.
Second, the plan of redemption, which includes: incarnation, salvation, justification, sanctification, judgment, glorification, etc…must be placed in a broader framework. The truth of the matter is that whether the interpreter realizes it or not he/she is always assuming a broader framework when talking about the plan of redemption. The question is this: the framework or field is either the historical great controversy theme or the timelessness of Greek philosophy. Why these two fields?
The answer is that they provide the broadest possible philosophical and theological presuppositions which form the necessary preconditions for our understanding of the plan of salvation. Without these preconditions, which are always assumed, it would not be possible to discuss the subject of salvation in a meaningful way because metaphysics and ontology creates the framework for meaning. If we switch back to the analogy of battles and fields, the field is the necessary precondition that makes a battle possible. In the material and earthly realm, battles always assume one of the following fields: land, sea, air and space. In the spiritual world, philosophy and theology have only uncovered two fields, time and timelessness.
When Ellen White placed the plan of salvation within the great controversy theme, she was interpreting ontology (the study and interpretation of reality) as compatible with time and space. Although the Bible has always assumed this, theology has never ditched the timeless interpretation of reality. Even those who have dismissed the whole idea of transcendence as understood by the classical and modern models, still assume the timeless interpretation of transcendence but now within immanence. Although she may not have used the technical language of metaphysics and ontology, nevertheless the Holy Spirit qualified her to understand the true interpretation of ontology via the great controversy theme. The statement in PP 154 is only one of many statements in the Conflict of the Ages Series in which she clearly and deliberately discusses the varying aspects of the plan of salvation within the great controversy theme. Only someone who is “systematically trained” can grasp these issues. This is one reason why I believe she is a theologian and that her writings are not just devotional and “inspirational” ditties.
In light of this the task of the theologian is twofold: i) to help people realize that the plan of redemption does not occur in a vacuum, a playing field is always assumed and ii) to interpret the plan of redemption (the battle) within the right context (the field) and to show how they relate together.
In my next reflection I will discuss the Biblical models of salvation in order to see if they are placed within a broader great controversy framework.
How I wish I was more philosophical and systematic! But anyway, here is a paradigm I was working on a few days ago sparked by Dr. Hanna's lecture in which he diagrammed how God is bigger than what we know and that even the cosmos is smaller than Him.
1. With that in mind, since God can and does exist outside of time as well as in time, outside of the created cosmos as well as inside it, God is the largest sphere of reality that can possibly be. He can be in or out of His creation.
2. And within the created cosmos (including all fallen and unfallen beings) there must have been history both before Lucifer started the Great Controversy and theoretically will exist after the resolution of the Great Controversy. This Great Controvesy is only one event in the midst of many others.
3. Within that Great Controversy is the Plan of Redemption that is the divine response to the problem of Sin. God responds to more than sin and sin-filled beings, but "Redemption" is that part which specifically addresses sin and it's effects on the cosmos, on both the fallen and unfallen beings and creation.
4. Within that Plan of Redemption or Salvation is the part of God's actions that affect fallen beings and fallen creation predominantly.
5. Within that Salvation which affects fallen entities is the narrower aspect that addresses human sin only. This is the realm that the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement applies.
But every action of God in the narrower realms does affect and positively bless all the others. And every hint of light that shines down upon man from the wider or higher realms enlightens our grasp of God, Sin, Satan and the mystery of reconciliation. The cross is not limited to level No. 5. Even though that is the aspect which we are most interested in- h Colossians 1:19,20 applies the atonement ( I am using this word in the original english definition- "at-one-ment" {listed as reconciliation for 1st,2nd and 3rd definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary as the original meaning in theological tracts dating in 1500's} , not in the narrower sense of propitiation for sin {listed as definition #4 in theological tracts in 1600's} which it has come to mean today) hints at this bigger scope, "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
The Great Controversy theory of salvation does not exclude the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement. It can't! It affirms the substitutionary blood of His cross as necessary for mankind to be saved and also necessary to reconcile the things in heaven. How does the blood of Christ on the cross affect the unfallen beings? That is an area that needs theological work. It holds promise to help us see the wider implications of God's Salvation, the wider damage of sin, and how Christ's crowning act on the cross resoundingly brings lasting peace to all realms.
In the previous reflection I examined some key statements in the Spirit of Prophecy which linked the plan of salvation with the great controversy theme. In this reflection I will examine some key Biblical statements in order to see if the great controversy theme is there.
Let’s first look at John 12:31, 32 which says this: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Jesus statement about being lifted up from the earth is a clear reference to His crucifixion which is an incredibly vital aspect of the plan of salvation. The background to this statement in verse 31 provides the theological framework for His selfless sacrifice which was still future at this point. Jesus said that the prince of this world would be cast out, and that the world would be judged by His death on the cross. There is something that happened at the cross that would give Jesus the right to cast out the prince of this world. Namely all of the Devil’s accusations against the government of God would be silenced. Christ’s death on the cross now places the enemy in checkmate with no place else to go and no further rationalizations.
It’s also interesting to note that the word ‘men’ in verse 32 is italicized which of course means that it is not in the original. When translating it’s impossible to proceed on a one to one word basis, because it simply doesn’t work that way which means at times it’s necessary to supply words in order to smooth out the translation. Sometimes those words may make grammatical and syntactical sense but at the same time they may alter the theological meaning. Unfortunately this is one of those times when the theological meaning has been altered. The insertion of the word ‘men’ takes away the cosmic scope of the sacrifice of Christ by focusing attention toward humanity.
If you ask this question, ‘why did Jesus have to die?’ Many of the answers are limited to a demonstration of His love for us, or to save sinners. However, how many have been able to discern the wider issues that are at stake? Take for instance Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion.” If that was the only exposure you had to the crucifixion of Christ, you are still left wondering what the significance of His sacrifice was all about. Why did this Man go through all of this? Why can He forgive and why should I believe in Him? These and many other questions are left totally unanswered.
Rev 12:10 is perhaps another important text for this discussion on the plan of salvation and the great controversy theme. It states, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” This text tells us that the Devil who is the accuser of our brethren is cast down. According to John 12:32 this took place at the cross. Here again we see that the theological background for the supreme sacrifice is the great controversy. Furthermore it’s the cross of Christ that silences the accuser of the brethren.
Rev 12 is one of the most fascinating chapters in the Bible for me because it provides a succinct history of the great controversy from the beginning to almost the end in just 17 short verses. One cannot fail to see the controversy as the framework for the whole chapter and probably for the whole book of Revelation. Some consider Rev 12:10 as the heart of the book of Revelation. IF that is so, then the great controversy theme is the foundation and framework of the entire plan of salvation.
If this is indeed so, and I believe it is, then we should examine every part of the plan of salvation from within this framework. This would included but not be limited to: the doctrine of sin, incarnation (human nature of Jesus), justification, sanctification, election, calling, etc… In the next reflection I would like to respond to Gerhard Pfandl’s article on original sin from within this context.
In my last reflection I briefly examined two texts (John 12:31, 32; Rev 12:10) in order to demonstrate that the plan of salvation is placed within the greater framework of the great controversy theme. As I noted in the previous reflection, there are many implications for the plan of salvation. However in this reflection we will look at the implications concerning the doctrine of sin by examining Gerhard Pfandl’s article on original sin.
Instead of agreeing or disagreeing with Dr. Pfandl’s conclusions about the definition of original sin, I would like to begin by first looking at his methodology. I believe we waste a lot of time in responding to the different conclusions we hear instead of trying to realize the framework that made these conclusions possible. I would like to continue the line of thought I used in the previous reflections by evaluating Dr. Pfandl’s article within the greater theological framework. Second, I would like to examine some key Spirit of Prophecy statements that Dr. Pfandl did not refer to in this article.
Dr. Pfandl’s article is very clearly written and easy to follow. Let me also say that it’s not possible in 22 pages to be exhaustive in any sense of the word which means that it’s only understandable that certain Biblical texts and historical figures are absent. In this article Dr. Pfandl mainly takes a historical and exegetical approach to the issue of original sin, not a theological approach. The correct understanding of this subject is inextricably linked with the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man, which in turn need to be studied from the viewpoint of a correct interpretation of ontology (being – the study of reality). In dealing with the history of the doctrine of original sin, it would have been much more helpful to demonstrate how Greek metaphysics shaped both the doctrine of God and man, and how that in turn affects the interpretation of original sin. Without this kind of analysis confusion abounds and the Biblical texts as well as the historical reflections can be easily misinterpreted and set within an unbiblical framework. This is the weakest aspect of his article.
Since the plan of salvation, which would include the doctrine of sin, is placed within a greater great controversy framework, then one cannot properly handle this subject without at least asking what the greater theological context is. Failure to do this can result in uncritically accepting Greek metaphysical concepts as the basis for understanding this subject. Additionally, it can be easy to come to the conclusion that exegetical and historical analysis is free from metaphysical presuppositions. No attempt was made to intentionally and systematically understand this subject within a greater framework.
Second, throughout the article Dr. Pfandl referred to Ellen White and seemed to quote her in such a way that she agreed with his conclusions. Again I’m fully aware that it’s not possible to be exhaustive about this subject in over 20 pages. However, I found it strange that one of Ellen White’s key definitions of sin in her magnum opus, “The Great Controversy” was not even referred to in an article that deals exclusively with this subject. Here’s the quote, “Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is "the transgression of the law;" it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government” (GC 493).
All throughout this great book, she rejects Greek metaphysics. Therefore this statement on sin should be viewed from within the great controversy theme that is woven throughout the entire book. This makes Ellen White’s approach theological and not just exegetical or historical. Since i) Pfandl’s work is not theological in nature, and ii) since he does not deliberately move from the greater framework of the great controversy theme to the subject matter of original sin, then it’s possible to conclude that he is still assuming a Greek metaphysical system for his interpretations of sin. This is one reason for why sin is referred to as a state for which one is condemned. Ellen White on the other hand does not view sin as a state, but rather as “the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love.”
Unless Adventists begin to deal with the ontological issues in a deliberate and systematic manner, then any discussion on these issues will only create more fog instead of clarity.
This reflection is based upon certain statements made by Ellen White in her book “Faith and Works.” The specific chapter title is, “The Quality of Our Faith.” In this chapter she makes certain statements about the role of reason and its relationship to faith and salvation. Regarding how one is born again she says that we cannot explain the things of God upon the human heart. “You cannot explain this faith that lays right hold upon the merits of the blood of a crucified and risen Saviour to bring Christ’s righteousness into your life” (65,66). Also regarding the impotent man, Christ simply told him to take up his bed and walk and he did exactly as he was told. She then makes this comment. “This is the faith that we need. But if you stop to explain everything and reason out every point, you will die in your sins, because you will never be satisfied” (68). She also makes a similar statement about the role of reason regarding the brazen serpent (69).
What exactly is she saying here? Is she saying that we should not employ our reasoning powers when it comes to salvation or is she saying that reason has its limits when it comes to explaining how God works? I believe the second option is much more plausible. Our unaided reason can never explain the mysteries in the natural world, let alone the things of God. Furthermore God has never explained how He does what He does, yet He has given us plenty of evidence that will help us to realize that although we may not understand how He does things we may have complete confidence in His ability. This was clearly the experience of the impotent man in John 5.
Thus when Ellen White tells us not to try to reason out every point she is saying that the principle of how human reason works cannot reconcile the command of God with our present condition. Human reason says, “it makes no sense to ask me to walk when I’ve been in this miserable condition for 38 years, after all I need to be able to walk in order to obey the command and that is clearly impossible.”
As I see it, this does not place a restriction on human reason, rather it enables reason to spread its wings and go places it has not gone before. In our “scientific” world the proper understanding of reason is based upon philosophical naturalism which a priori claims that there is no transcendent God who can interact with our world so there is no use in grounding reason in something that “doesn’t exist in reality.” However, there is no way reason itself can verify the truthfulness about this claim because reason is not reality but only a tool which presupposes reality, or at least an interpretation of reality.
If philosophical naturalism is all there is then reason is limited to it, but if there is a transcendent reality which can also appeal to our reason, then reason has found a new ground in which to operate. Therefore when Jesus comes along and gives evidence that He is indeed “the way, the Truth and the life,” then the will of man can obey based upon evidence that has already appealed to our reason, even if reason itself is not able to understand how Jesus command can be reconciled with our experience. As a matter of fact, the only way in which we can succeed in the Christian life is to allow reason to function within the parameters of what Scripture says is possible for us to achieve.
The remarkable thing about the impotent man is that he had never met Jesus before, yet he still decided to obey.
This reflection will examine the role of the sanctuary as it relates to the doctrine of salvation. Specifically, how does the sanctuary help in defining a doctrine of salvation. On a fundamental level, the sanctuary gives the proper interpretation of God’s reality and in doing so it also defines for us man’s reality. In the book of Daniel, the chief object of the little horn’s attack is the sanctuary. The book begins with Babylon attacking the earthly sanctuary and the people of God in Daniel’s day and ends in Dan 11:40-12:1 with the same power attacking God’s people. In Dan 8:11 the Bible informs us that the little horn would cast down the place of His sanctuary, which is a reference to the heavenly sanctuary. The question is how would the little horn do this in a literal sense since it cannot go to heaven itself and literally cast the sanctuary down? Obviously this is not to be interpreted in a literal sense but rather in the sense that the sanctuary’s foundational, systematic role would be discarded. De Souza comes to the same conclusion in his dissertation, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible,” when he states, “the little horn does not attack a physical structure, but the theological foundation of the heavenly sanctuary, that is, YHWH’s righteousness and justice” (459).
Just how did the little horn do this? He did it by introducing Greek philosophical concepts which in effect eliminated the foundational role of the sanctuary. Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle constructed an interpretation of reality that was completely devoid of time and space which then explained everything within the cosmos.
This interpretation of reality became the systematic foundation to everything existing within the cosmos which is then understood in relation to this timeless reality. How then does this affect the foundational role of the heavenly sanctuary? Since the sanctuary is a spatio-temporal structure, by definition it cannot function as the foundational role because it exists in space and time and thus it presupposes and points back to timeless, eternal realities. It is this timeless, eternal reality that functions as the foundational system. The early church fathers, many of who were philosophers themselves, functioned within this kind of worldview. This formed the template in which the reality of God and humanity were understood, namely on the basis of timelessness. This gave a dualistic interpretation to humanity via the immortality of the soul which was understood in a timeless sense.
This has had a tremendous impact on the understanding of the doctrine of salvation. For many, salvation only involves the soul and not the body. Since there is a dichotomy between soul and body and since salvation only embraces the soul, then how one treats the body is of little significance and has nothing to do with salvation. So out goes the health message!
Furthermore, the correct interpretation of the doctrine of sin and salvation assumes a foundational framework. Now that the foundational, systematic role of the sanctuary has been discarded, the interpretations of sin and salvation will be built upon the philosophical system that the little horn has set up.
This implies a major change in our understanding of salvation. Thus in order to bring clarity to the issue of salvation, we must learn to trace our interpretation of sin, righteousness, justification, etc…to either one of two foundations, either the one built on Greek philosophy or on the sanctuary.
This reflection will examine some thoughts about Dr. Heppenstall’s article on perfection found in the BRI website under the salvation section. He seems to define perfection as stability, maturity, loving one’s enemies and faithfulness under trials and afflictions. Also there is no finality to Christian perfection, no place where we can say that we have arrived. At the same time he states that the Bible never refers to sinless perfection on the part of God’s people since the very best of God’s saints have always confessed the sinfulness of their natures. The main point of the article is concerned with how perfection is understood in light of the experience of God’s people before and after the close of probation.
The Achilles heel and thus the weakness of Heppenstall’s argument is that he is not very specific in stating what sin is. The reader is left to read between the lines. What is sinless perfection? I suppose the bottom line is what is sin? The answer to this question leads to the answer of the original question. Regarding sin Heppenstall states, “Sin does not reign, but it does remain in terms of the limitations of human nature as we know it on this earth. It takes into consideration, even after the close of probation, that as people grow old the arteries harden, the mental and physical systems slow down and therefore the responses are not what they were in the full strength of youth.”
While no one would deny that the sinful condition includes the limitations of human nature, it seems that by including this ‘definition’ of sin, he is assuming that sinless perfection would also mean somehow eradicating this part of our nature. This really confuses the issue thereby making it pointless to even talk about sinless perfection if the definition of sin includes the limitations of our sinful nature. It’s true that even after the close of probation further grace and power are needed precisely on account of the fact that we still have a sinful nature, however he seems to imply at times that this grace includes forgiving grace. This is also confusing because it seems to imply that forgiveness of sin is still needed after the close of probation yet how can that be if Christ’s work as an intercessor is now completed?
Furthermore, he defines grace as the “eternal and free favor of God, manifested toward the guilty and the unworthy.” This definition of grace is based upon whatever is meant by the “eternal and free favor of God.” Are the words eternal and free to be understood in a timeless philosophical sense? Just what does Heppenstall mean? Grace must be interpreted in light of various philosophical and theological systems. The definition that Heppenstall supplies here hardly matches up with the rest of the Biblical data, especially Titus 2:11-14.
The following statement is also confusing, “The fact that they have chosen without qualification, the righteousness of Christ, leaves only the actual conferring of that sinless nature and entrance into their eternal inheritance at the second coming of Christ, when this mortal shall put on immortality and this corruption shall have put on incorruption (1 Cor 15:52 54). This statement is made about the saints after the close of probation, however the question is just what is the conferring of that sinless nature? Does the conferral of the sinless nature represent the time which this mortal shall put on immortality or does it mean that we have been made sinless by that conferral?
His muddy definitions of what constitutes sin, the sinful nature, and why we’re condemned are at the root of the problem. The following quote in “The Great Controversy” regarding the saints in the time of trouble helps to bring clarity to the issue.
“Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." John 14:30. Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Father's commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble” (GC p. 623 emphasis mine).
Some interpreters erroneously interpret Jesus words in John 14:30 as a proof regarding the sinlessness of His nature in contrast to ours. The above quotation demonstrates that this interpretation is based on erroneous Christological interpretations.
I would like to touch briefly upon what I mentioned in class today about Rev 4 and 5 as it relates to the establishing of a bigger model, salvation and worship. I briefly raised the issue of the Lamb that was slain in Rev 5:6 and 12 in order to begin the discussion. The question is how should we interpret the slaying of the Lamb? Should the reference of the slain Lamb be restricted to the events that surround Calvary or can the Scriptural data extend to other events that would not be restricted to the cross? This is precisely where the issue of models comes in to play. I believe that models are always assumed whether the interpreter is aware of them or not. Since that is the case, then why not move from model to data (meaning the Biblical text)?
Perhaps an illustration may help us to capture the significance of this. Let’s look at the following illustration in order to understand how data involves models and thus cannot be understood without them. Suppose we had the sheet music of Beethoven’s 5th symphony in front of us. If we say, “Aha this is Beethoven’s 5th symphony,” we are really not expressing the reality of the piece because it’s just a bunch of notes: it has no meaning. However if we come to the realization that we need a model or a system in order to interpret the data, then we must come to the conclusion that we must choose the correct model or system which would then accommodate all the data.
If we say that any model or system will do then how will this affect i) the data, and ii) the interpretation of the data? Let’s begin by choosing a ukulele. If we choose a ukulele how will this affect the data and the interpretation of the data? First, much of the data will be discarded because the melodic and harmonic capabilities of a ukulele are too narrow to handle the data. Second the notes that are played will be reinterpreted because the data calls for strings, brass, percussion, etc… but the ukulele has only one timbre.
What if we move to a piano as the next model or system? This is a step in the right direction but if the piano is played by only person (who only has 10 fingers) then some parts of the data which may call for 12 or 15 notes played at the same time, will also be discarded. Also the piano has only one timbre so it would not be able to reproduce strings, brass, etc…which is implicit in the data.
Obviously the correct model or system for interpreting the data is a 120 piece orchestra. This guarantees that none of the data will be discarded and it also guarantees that the data will be rightly interpreted because now you will have string, brass and percussion sounds.
How then does this relate to Rev 4 and 5, and more specifically to Rev 5:6, 12 which contains the reference to the Lamb slain? It’s the data that assumes a model or a system. In this case it assumes either one of two salvation models, either the Biblical model of the sanctuary or the Roman Catholic, Evangelical model in which blood is restricted to what happened on the cross. The interpreter must choose.
In this case we have only focused on the data of the slain Lamb however you also have the sending out of the Spirit. How should this be interpreted? Obviously the model or system one chooses answers that question. Also, the living creatures, the elders and the Lamb are mentioned as being i) in the midst of the throne and ii) round about the throne (see Rev 4:6; 5:6,11). This data must also assume a model, but which one? According to Greek concepts ultimate reality is timeless, therefore to talk about spatial features as in the heavenly sanctuary should not be a part of the theological materials. In fact these descriptions are culturally conditioned. However if we accept the sanctuary/great controversy theme as the model or system then we must ask one pertinent question. Which article of furniture was placed in the middle? The only answer is the Ark of the Covenant which contained the 10 Commandments. If that’s the case then the best interpretation of the Biblical data is that Rev 4 and 5 is a Most Holy Place scene because it not only allows for the cross but also for the Most Holy Place application of the blood as well.
How then does this affect worship? That will be the subject of the next reflection.
The Biblical data of Rev 4 and 5 assumes a model or system which then helps us to best interpret the data and without the correct model the data can be either discarded or reinterpreted. The choice of the right model has a direct impact on our understanding of all the data in these chapters, which includes salvation and worship. If the sanctuary is the best model/system which integrates and interprets the Biblical data of Rev 4 and 5, then based on my last reflection it becomes increasingly clear that Rev 4 and 5 takes place in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. This has a direct impact not only on the doctrine of salvation but also on worship.
First, if this is taking place in the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary then salvation must include elements from the Day of Atonement. Second, if worship is based not only on who God is but also on what He does, then the same model which affects our understanding of salvation also has a direct impact on the doctrine of worship.
In Dan 8:11 the Bible stated that the place or foundational role of God’s sanctuary would be cast down. At the same time while the place of God’s sanctuary was cast down, the abomination of desolation was set up. All throughout the dark ages, the heavenly sanctuary was eclipsed from view. In Dan 7 there are two main systems: on the one hand you have the little horn and on the other hand the judgment which takes place in heaven. Interestingly enough, the reign of the little horn was followed by the judgment 3 times in that chapter.
During the dark ages much was lost, i) the foundational/systematic role of the heavenly sanctuary was replaced by Greek philosophy, ii) the mediatorial work of Christ was also eclipsed by an earthly priestly system. Since worship is based on who God is and what He does, this had a profound effect on worship forms. For many centuries, Gregorian chant in Latin was the only correct form of music, and the celebration of the mass was the center of the liturgy. Greek philosophical systems were at the very foundation of the mass and the liturgy.
In Dan 7 it’s the judgment in heaven that would bring down this system and in Dan 8:14 the cleansing of the sanctuary would do the same. The little horn represents a model or system which has direct implications for salvation and worship. In contradistinction to this, the judgment/cleansing of the sanctuary represents another model or system which also has direct implications for the doctrine of salvation and worship.
Thus one cannot simply make shifts or changes in the doctrine of salvation or worship and pretend that the issues have been solved. Rather than focus on the many theories of salvation and worship models, another alternative is to analyze salvation and worship models in light of the foundational models or systems that we have been talking about. The choice in Dan 7 and 8 is between two diametrically opposed models or systems. Once the model is chosen then it more or less “determines” what the doctrine of salvation “looks” like and what worship forms “look” like.
If Rev 4 and 5 is viewed under the sanctuary model, then the events described therein are taking place in the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary beginning from 1844. This MHP ministry of Jesus has a direct impact on worship forms. The emphasis of worship is on the holiness of God (Rev 4:8) as the transcendent One of the universe. The Day of Atonement brings a certain solemnity to the worship service yet there is praise (Rev 5:8-14). The harp is chosen as the only accompanying instrument (Rev 5:8) which emphasizes melody and harmony.
Finally worship always assumes a doctrine of salvation and a doctrine of God. However according to Dan 7,8; Rev 4 and 5 a doctrine of salvation and a doctrine of God assumes either the Greek philosophical model/system or the Biblical/Sanctuary model/system. These two foundational models are not in agreement with one another, so then we must choose one or the other when building a doctrine of salvation and a doctrine of worship.
I fully agree that we must further explore the implications of the great controversy theme in at least two major ways: i) as the overall theme which grounds theology, and ii) the philosophical implications which regarding history and time which the GC theme assumes
The only thing I found to "criticize" in Arlyn's reflection was the reference to God being outside of time and yet also choosing to be in it. What exactly does it mean for God to be outside of time? Platonic philosophy refers to "timelessness," which the Christendom has built entire theological structures upon. Was there time before creation? What is time? Is it a "thing," or does it co-appear with life? If the Bible says that God, "was, and is, and is to come," and that Has been "from everlasting to everlasting?" would that not assume that time co-appears with life, and therefore it is not created?
Other than that, this was a great reflection which helps us to see the work of Christ in broader terms than what many are used to
Ok, I worked on my papers so i haven't been here for a while.Forgive me for this slack.
I wanted to reflect on Jesus' words to Nicodemus "you have to be born again" in John 3. In John chapter 3 Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night for the fear of the Jews and starts the conversation with Jesus. Jesus knows exactly why Nicodemus is here for and cuts stright to the soteriological/eschatological issue: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again".
In other words, Nicodemus as other Jews was concerned about whether Jesus will establish a kingdom of God but Jesus answers him that to enter the kingdom of God one must be "born again". Obviously this is not a literal rebirth because Jesus says: " I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit therefore in order to get saved and be in this glorious kingdom we must be "born again".
Jesus used the concept of birth to describe the process of becoming a Christian. Since he gave us this metaphor he probably thought it would be appropriate to develop on it.
See, when man first meets God and accepts His mercy, the new born baby is here. This baby needs an extra care and very special treatment, when it cries we try to calm t down, we need to feed it with special food etc... parallelly, in the spiritual "birth", when someone freshly accepts Jesus, he needs help more than ever to overcome the temptations and get stronger, but most of all the new baby needs to eat in order to grow. What we as Christians usually do however is unfortunate, after we baptize one person we turn our attention to other babies who are about to be born and neglect the new born baby that awaits for feeding.
While it is good to seek the birth of other babies, we should not forget that the already born spiritual babies need "follow up". They need to be nurtured until they start being able to feed themselves.
All this might seem little childish for you all and you might be wondering how does this fits in the class on systematic theology on salvation. I will come to my point but I will first remind you that both Apostles Peter and Paul , speaking of soteriological issues use the metaphor of the new born christian eating "spiritual milk". (1 Peter 2: 2 and 1 Cor 3: 2, Hebrews 5: 12-14 )
Here is my point that will bounce on what we have disscussed during the last class.
My point is that if a baby doesn't eat spiritual food it will soon die and it will loose the life that had previously acquired!
Thus, if we as Christians are not fed, we will not grow but die or become spiritual dwarfs.
In contrary, if we are fed well by our spiritual brothers and sisters we will be able to feed ourselves and become strong men. However, the problem is that many Christians live on the point of spiritual starvation, not eating for days until they finally reach Church in Sabbath and have a long waited meal.
The word of God is called "bread" in the Scripture. Jesus said that he is the bread of life, his word is spiritual food we need to eat every day. The prayer is water. we can maybe survive without bread for couple days but we are dead without water after three days. Similarly no praying makes man spiritually dead.
Fortunately, God mercifully extends his powerful hand and seeks us even in the valley of the shadows and death, when we are spiritual dead, he still work on our re-animation and feeds us like sick on our sickbeds.
How does a doctrine of perfection fits into this picture? First we have initial justification - new birth, then we have sanctification - eating and getting stronger in the Spirit. We don't have any account of Jesus physical development but we sure do several synoptic mentioning Jesus' growth in the Grace and the Spirit.
Finally, my view on perfection in this moment is that Christian perfection represents a perfect development in every phase of spiritual growth. Therefore we can be "a perfect baby", "perfect child", "perfect teenager", "perfect adult" and "perfect grown man". When our growth is "on schedule" with Jesus' chart of growth rate regarding our circumstances, then we can be called "perfect", independent of our stage of spiritual maturity.
Perfection is perfect response to Jesus plan for our spiritual growth. Going where he leads us. 144 000 are thus perfect because they have followed Lamb wherever he goes.
However if we grow with many unnecessary starvations, we will not be perfect. we will barely be alive, let alone perfect. the starvation I refer to can be a.) not studying Bible enough or b.) simply refusing certain biblical truth because it's inconvenient, c.)refusing to give up some cherished sin and others "obstacles" in God's plan of growth for us.
these famines in our spiritual life obstruct our perfect growth... we still might grow but this grow is slow, regressive and lacks timing, we can not feed others with the gospel if we are not developed and mature enough. Jesus can not use us if we constantly starve ourselves.
However, if we follow God's prescription "pray without ceasing" and "my words are bread to this world" and apply these two in the same way we apply the water and bread in our physical lives, we will certainly grow unto perfection.
while I was reading through Ellen White comments about the heavenly sanctuary I came across an interesting topic which according to Ellen white represents the cornerstone of Adventist theology. Surprisingly, this theme is marginalized by the large majority of Adventists. I will even go as far as to say that we have severely apostatized on this issue and this apostasy is prolonging our stay on this earth.
Harsh words? Consider this passage from Patriarch and Prophets, pp. 357, 358: "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement."
I was taught to believe that sin is canceled at the moment of forgiveness, and that when God forgives us and justifies us he also blots our sin and forgets our sin instantly and forever. This is simple consequence of uniquely cross-centered Soteriology we have adopted from our protestant friends.
Both Ellen White and the Biblical account on sanctuary teach us that while the sinner is freed from guilt and condemnation immediately at his repentance, the record of sin is only transferred to the sanctuary, where it remains until something called the "final atonement." This is clearly shown in the sanctuary service where we have “daily sacrifices” or "daily atonement" and the final “day of atonement”. While upon his repentance the sinner stands free and clear, the sin itself cannot be disposed of so quickly. In essence, Jesus has taken the responsibility for our sin. There has been a transgression of God's holy law, and even though Jesus died for the breaking of that law, that didn't finish dealing with the problem of sin.
Ellen White continues "Then [at Yom Kippur] by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. This great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement--the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted."
The prophecy of Daniel 8: 14 points to the moment when the sanctuary shall start being cleansed. We can assume that for now, it is the dead who are being and have been judged and cleansed but it is also the lives of presently living that are to be examined and delivered from sin.
The sacrificial atonement took place 2,000 years ago. Without that, there would be no possibility of forgiveness or salvation or eternal life. But the sacrificial atonement was not the end of the atonement process. There was something yet to be done which the Old Testament calls the Day of Atonement and Ellen White calls the final atonement. If we do not understand these concepts clearly, we can have no understanding of why the Seventh-day Adventist Church should exist. Denis Priebe writes: “the sacrificial atonement was in place and taught throughout the world for 1800 years before there ever was a Seventh-day Adventist. Adventism was called into existence because the final atonement was beginning, and this needed to be understood and taught throughout the world just as the sacrificial atonement had been. It is very tempting to join with the Christian world in focusing exclusively on the sacrificial atonement, while we lose sight of the final atonement. But without the final atonement, the sacrificial atonement cannot be brought to completion in dealing with sin and sinners. These two phases of the atonement of Christ are equally vital to the final removal of sin from the universe.”
The final atonement is about the blotting out of all sins from the records of heaven. This is when sin and sins go out of existence. They must stay on record until something very important takes place during the final atonement.
Once each year, during the Day of Atonement, Israel looked forward to the closing events of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, when the universe would be eternally purified from sin and sinners. We are now at that point 'in earth's history--the time for the final eradication of sin. But unfortunately we are losing this sacred mission from our mind and we continue to justify our small bad habits and sins thinking that when Jesus comes he will take care of our remained sins.
Ellen White writes elsewhere: "Now Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary. And what is He doing? Making atonement for us, cleansing the sanctuary from the sins of the people. Then we must enter by faith into the sanctuary with Him, we must commence the work in the sanctuary of our souls." (Manuscript 8, 1888) Christ's final intercessory work is called "making atonement," and it involves the final purification of the sanctuary from all sin. Note that our relation to this final atonement involves a cleansing work in our own souls. "All need to become more intelligent in regard to the work of the atonement, which is going on in the sanctuary above. When this grand truth is seen and understood, those who hold it will work in harmony with Christ to prepare a people to stand in the great day of God, and their efforts will be successful." (5T 575)
Up to this date our best efforts have not been successful, so it might be well for us to take a good look at the "grand truth" of the final atonement, since that is the only way to success in finishing the great controversy.
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, what art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Paul here argues for the right of God to act in whom he chooses to. On face value the passage may allow God to seem arbitrary in his dealings but the difficulty lies in weighing the moral context of judging God. Under what rules can we evaluate God but by the rules that he has given us? Did God go contrary in his dealings with Pharoah and Esau? The plausible answer would be no, based on the free choice that each possessed and the actions they later took. That God had foreknowledge of their actions does not mean that his righteousness or justice was compromised. In class Dr. Hanna highlighted the point that God is interested in the freedom of mankind. He highlighted that in God’s salvific plan for mankind, it is and was His desire for us to have perfect freedom. Freedom from sin, freedom to choose, freedom to live. Interestingly God’s predestination is also our freedom. Paul balances up the argument by reminding us in Romans 2:5 that it is after the hardness of our hearts why we are heading for the wrath. Apparently God’s foreknowledge and the manner of His predestined status of our lives must be seen in the greater tension of understanding how his fairness and justice in all his dealings is manifest. It is possible that God’s desire is for all to have freedom from sin, but he will not force the heart. I clearly don’t have the answer for some of these questions but it does give me room to think.
Romans 11:21 “For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.” If we looked at this passage in light of vs. 26 which states “All Israel shall be saved.” What do we make of it? Was Israel justified by faith because they were Abraham’s seed and did they lose out on their covenantal relationship because of their rejection of Christ? If they were in Christ it is then assumed that they were justified in him and thus began the journey of sanctification. That they lost out on it, gives implications for those who adhere to the ‘once saved always saved’ cliché. That God states that ‘All Israel shall be saved’ can be taken to mean believers as a whole who are still in him, or a future prophecy indicating that his people who once departed shall return. Mingled with this warning in vs. 21 is the cry for restoration with those who have fallen away. God cuts away but His heart still yearns for his own.
After highlighting in chapter 12 the attributes of love in action we find in chapter 13, Paul’s emphasis on our duties to our rulers as well as that to our neighbors. It is quite interesting how Paul speaks of our obligation to the law. He highlights that the perfect obedience of the law is seen in the manner of love we convey towards one another. I sense in these passages that several theologians who take a mere forensic approach to justification would shiver for Paul then states in vs. 11 that “you must do this…for the moment when we will be saved is closer now that it was when we first believed.” This is remarkable as this passage implies that keeping the law is not what justifies us, but breaking them can deter the salvation process. So much for the notion of ‘once saved, always saved.’ Paul is here stressing the moral laws and makes it clear that our love for God and our fellow human beings is paramount to salvation. I think this passage may provide guidelines as to how read Paul’s understanding of law in the previous passages.
Romans 14:10 0 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
I thought this verse to be quite interesting as Paul speaks of an eschatological judgement scene before Christ that now adds the dimension of a future and final justification of the believers. Paul speaks to believers in the context of chapter 14 and he makes mention the serious nature of the judgment before Him in who we live and have our being because of his redeeming sacrifice and resurrection. This verse can easily showcase the tension that exists as it pertains to the process of justification. Paul does not speak of a trifling judgment but shows the importance of this encounter with Christ. Our actions and our works are important, but in the presence of God we know they are worthless. That Paul reminds us that “every knee shall bow”, tells us that it will not be our deeds that will vindicate us but the pronouncement of Christ. Only his sacrifice and his deeds can secure our salvation, yet because we live for him and in him, our deeds display the fruits of that relationship.
Romans 15 & 16 Romans 16:19 9 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
Here Paul is offering his closing remarks to the Romans and he marks and commends their obedience to the doctrines already laid out and their avoidance of evil speakers and doers. Paul does not here negate them from perfect obedience to God but rather enjoins them to continue so and avoid evil. To avoid evil one must obey the laws of God and by His grace turn from sin. Those who conclude that Paul promoted antinomianism throughout his writings have lost track that he is fighting against those who believe in a pharisaic application of works. Paul commends the Romans because of their obedience to God based on what they know. Their obedience is motivated by their love for Him and is not based on their works. In this light it makes sense that Paul commends them for their obedience for it is that obedience which works through love.
Comment # 11 This is the comment on Happenstal's article on perfection in BRI. When I was reading the article I haven't agreed with many reformulations. I agree with Karl that Happenstel’s definition of sin is not clear. He seems to call sins even our natural physical limitations. So, Jesus stepping on a bug on his way to Jerusalem would commit sin and Old people not remembering the birthday of their granddaughters would also commit sin. I can’t help but remember the sermon from John Wesley on Christian Perfection, where he begins his sermon with what perfection does not imply. He lists very carefully that Christian perfection doesn’t mean 1/ man will be without human physical and mental limitation 2/ doesn’t mean man will acquire perfection in knowledge and understanding of all mysteries of universe. Thus, it is clear that if we talk about Christian perfection we are not talking about perfecting our human and physical limitations, this will be done at the second coming and we will still grow in perfection of our human potential in heaven. (Leaves of tree of life for healing) It also doesn’t imply perfecting our intelligence and acquiring perfect understanding of everything about us and about universe. This will start at the second coming but we will grow in perfection of understanding for the entire eternity. However, there is one thing we will not grow for the entire eternity and that is our freedom from sin, or our spiritual union with Christ. We will deepen our spiritual experience with Christ every time we meet him but our sinlessness will remain the same at the second coming and after millions of years of eternity. It is true that we are called to sanctify “perfectly” or “entirely” our body, intellect and spirit but it seems that perfection of body and intellect will be growing for the eternity. However our sinless state of Spiritual nature will remain the same for eternity. We will have the Mind of Christ which will make us perfectly free from sin for the entire eternity; there is no growth in reducing sinful nature in heaven. While there appears to be physical and intellectual growth, there will be no growth in Righteousness; we will be in the perfect state of righteousness from the start until eternity, perfectly free from sin because we will be in union with Christ forever. Therefore, using this logic exercised within the borders of Biblical perimeters, I would argue that Christ gave us provision on this earth to get delivered from all sinful thoughts and actions. He invites us to “dwell in him” and be perfect. (1 John 2: 5; John 17: 22, 23) Ellen White clearly says: “…This message I am given to bear, as the Lord's messenger. The unity for which Christ prayed is a sacred pledge of discipleship. Those who enter heaven must be one with Christ. Unless they should bear the same perfection of character that He bore while on this earth, they would spoil heaven. The trial and test is to come here in this world. Here we are to be stamped with the image and superscription of God.” (January 16, 1906. Pamphlet in Spalding collection TB07 - Testimonies for the Church Containing Messages of Warning and Instruction to Seventh-day Adventists (1906)/Chap. 10 - Unity in Christ)
Here is one more quote: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Man is to be perfect in his sphere, even as God is perfect in His sphere. How can such a lofty standard be reached? The required perfection is based on the perfection of Christ, "who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." He gave the command requiring perfection, He who was by birth a human being, though allied to divinity. He has passed over the road we are to tread, and He says, "Without Me ye can do nothing." But with Him we can do everything. Thus a perfect character can be obtained. God never issues a command without furnishing the grace sufficient for its fulfillment. Ample provision has been made that man shall be a partaker of the divine nature. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." This is the standard God holds before His children. It is a standard of Christlikeness. Christianity means entire surrender to the will of God. Then it can be said of us, "Ye are complete in Him." When such possibilities are presented to us; when we see that it is our privilege to attain Christian perfection, should we not strive to reach the standard? ...Perfection can be attained only through the grace given by God. He will be the efficiency of every soul who strives for clear, far-seeing moral faculties. But He requires the co-operation of the human agent. Temperance must be practiced in all things, in eating, in drinking, in all the habits of life…{Signs of Times, July 26, 1899 par. 1-4}
Sparked by Elems topic of how do those who are not formally evangelized (i.e. hear about the name of Christ and the Bible)get saved? I wanted to look at Salvation through the detailed dialogue between Abimelech the philistine king and Yahweh God.
This relationship obviously existed before the name of Jesus Christ was ever known as such and it also existed before the Bible was written into existence. Hence Genesis 20 is a very promising piece of literature on the topic seen through the eyes of a writer of the bible- on how the heathens relate to God. And even more shockingly, how they relate to God even after the "true believer" has deceived them and put them in spiritual and physical danger.
"He(Abraham) sojourned in Gerar." Abraham is the alien resident here, without legal or political status. In this situation, as missionaries well know, it behooves the one trying to witness to the "natives" to learn about the culture that they have voluntarily chosen to associate and live among. Abraham should adjust with spiritual sensitivity. But he remains ignorant and bigoted. We would not expect Abimelech, the ruling king to understand Abraham's religion- but he has a direct line to the same God. What seems to be a perfect missionary story is the opposite.
"Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister." He tells only half of the truth, but the half that he reveals sets her up as "single". It actually encourages any man who finds her attractive to pursue her, this statement eradicates the moral barrier to having her. Why does Abraham diminish moral impediments to actual adultery? He explains later his fear which is ironically, unfounded. (and actually paradoxical in thinking that these people are so immoral that they would kill a husband to prevent themselves from committing adultery? I'm scratching my head on this one.)
"So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah." There is nothing immoral from Abimelech's point of view from pursuing an available attractive (90yr old!)female when both of them attest that she is not married. How else is he to know the truth? Later, he (or his descendant) is reticent to trust this lying family- and doesn't take Rebecca into his harem.
"But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night.." This is fascinating because EGW in PP states that Abraham's Akedah command came the same way-"In a vision of the night he was directed..." PP147. And the "but" that starts this new action shows opposition to Abraham's set up of Sarah that led to Abimelech's presumption. God Himself counters the mistakes of his most faithful servants- to save the vulnerable. God rescues the heathen from the believer's lie. Does God rescue the believer from his own misunderstanding in the Akedah?
"And said to him, Behold you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken for she is married." God is holding Abimelech to an incredibly high standard- the standard later expressed in the 10 commandments of capital punishment for adultery. Is God righteous for imposing such a high expectation on a heathen so early in the theological history of the Bible? Am I WRONG in calling Abimelech a heathen? Yes. God's speech presupposes prior interactions and prior moral training. Abimelech life, and his upright relationship to God is important enough for God to manifest Himself as directly to Abimelech as to Abraham. And God does not mince words- he threatens death and he tells exactly why- Sarah is married. Abraham has failed God in dealing with Abimelech. God rescues his own reputation. (and doesn't blame Abraham! Just like the Akedah!)
"Now Abimelech had not come near her and he said, Lord will You slay a nation ene though blameless? Did he not himself say to me, She is my sister? and she herself said, He is my brother. In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." Abimelech had not violated her because as we find out later God had prevented him from doing so. But he intercedes for himself and his own nation on the moral ground of justice (the same basis as Abraham's mediation over Sodom and Gomorrah). He had tried to get to the truth of the matter. But they both deceived him (and persisted even after she was taken). And so he pleads the integrity of his heart (Job held on to his integrity when God seemed to treat him as an enemy too)and the innocence of his hands (motives count even if a law is broken by the hand).
"Then God said to him in the dream, Yes I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her. Now, therefore, restore the man's wife, for his is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours." God takes the credit instead of Abimelech for preventing sin, but affirms Abimelech's integrity and gives him the next steps. And by following the next steps- in which Abraham the liar prophet intercesses for his "victim"- Abimelech and his household is restored both spiritually and physically.
I see God as the dean of missionaries. God as the saving agent. God is the one that rescues his other vulnerable children from ethnocentric, sinful, fearful, bigoted servants, and yet maintains them in a respectable role, despite themselves to minister again. After publically called out by Abimelech on moral grounds, it would seem that Abraham's credibility is demolished in front of Abimelech's whole court. How can he sojourn there and continue to be respected as a channel for God? God rescues Abraham pre-emptively by setting him up as the prophet and intercessor- thereby rescuing Abraham's reputation from his own mistakes. Abimelech may not trust Abraham much, but Abimelech knows he can trust God with his soul.
1. The label of "heathen" is a construct of ignorance and fear in the mind of the believer. It reveals more about the speaker than the labeled group. "Abraham said, Because I thought surely there is no fear of God in this place and they will kill me because of my wife."
2. Lack of formal evangelism (as far as we know) is no limitation for righteousness and moral integrity in anyone. Abimelech is far more moral than Abraham here. The Ninevites were far more repentant than Jonah. God uses man as his agents, but they are not crucial.
3. God saves all- sometimes indirectly "there I did not let you touch her", sometimes directly, "But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night".
4. Prophet may be a label God blesses Abraham with, but Abimelech acted like one. He shared with his whole court, he was moral, he sought the truth, he obeyed God.
5. That Abimelech submitted to Abraham's designated role as his representative before God for healing- shows the obedience of Abimelech to God's voice. Whether Abraham merited such a role or not, Abimelech was obedient. Abimelech prefigures the obedience of Abraham in the Akedah to God's voice.
6. Does Abimelech fear God? definately. Abraham was wrong about him. Does Abraham fear God? No, here in this story with Abimelech, he does not. But later he rises to the level of Abimelech in fearing God. How's that for a reversal of modeling?
7. God saves all. Abimelech from sinning because of Abraham and Sarah, Abraham from himself (his fear and lies), Sarah from herself (her lies and acquiescence). All is set right again. And most importantly God rescues God's own reputation among the philistines from both of his unfaithful scheming hebrew servants, Abraham and Sarah. (who knew better! Isaac had been already promised through Abraham's loins and Sarah directly! This action showed serious disregard for that!)
Abimelech's example of a philistine believer trumps the hebrew founder of the faith. It was magnanimous of Moses (as directed by God)to include this picture so early in the biblical record before the Isrealites prejudices became fossilized against the uncircumcised philistines and others. God is the hero that saves all- and redeems each one of his children from their sin.
I would like to leave a comment on Ellen White’s quote in Steps to Christ, p. 68. “…In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live and grow up to the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus.”
This opened my eyes to the reality that God in his mercy pours blessings and love on all men, whether they are Christians or not. However, since Christians know who their blessings are coming from, they have a responsibility to ask for their blessings while gentiles receive them without asking. They live under the grace until they find out about Jesus who is the real reasons why the grace was being given to them all along.
Let’s take an example in love. We can sadly observe that the rate of divorce in Adventism is growing. We are almost reaching the frequency of divorces that exist in the world. Why is it so, you might say, it seems as if God doesn’t give us special protection once we met the truth and became converted?
I will restate what I wrote in the second paragraph. Once we met the real source of our blessings (in this case we discuss love), we have a responsibility to ask for those from our Father and thus enter in connection with him that will be beneficial for us spiritually and emotionally.
God grants people who don’t know about Him with love for one another without being directly asked, however once we know the truth we have sacred responsibility to ask for the blessings we want to receive and not only to expect they will come by themselves because they must to do so. With this attitude we take God and his gifts for granted.
You might say: well this is unjust, it is better to remain unchristian then?! Yes, you are actually right! If you want to become a Christian but are not willing to surrender yourselves entirely to God so he can always provide you with His power and love, then it is indeed better for your life to remain ignorant of God.
Many Christians, especially in our Laodicean age, are fully aware of the truth and responsibilities they have but they carelessly choose to have prayerless, Scriptureless, and missionarless lives. They are never happy in their life and are always fighting with the sense of guilt. They are never able to understand why their emotional life is so gloom. many of them leave the Church but many decide to stay withing because they are convinced in its truth.However, they are not happy. They are the saddest people on earth. It is indeed better to be a gentile than half-christian, as the Revelations says: “Oh if you were cold or worm, but since you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth”. Oh, I wish you were cold says the Lord, I wish you don’t know anything about me, I would provide you with happiness on the basis of the sacrifice of my son and there are chances you will even get saved, but since you are lukewarm, since you do know everything about me, and still don’t ask me for anything and live your life as if you didn’t know me, I can not help you. Greater light you have greater responsibility... more talents you received, more it is expected from you...
What is sin/What then is salvation? This is the Biblically chronologically linear way to approach salvation. But one can also say- from looking at the cross what is salvation? This is the perspective of the disciples and ourselves after the cross. And that may illuminate what sin is even better. The solution illuminates the problem.
For Satan and sin doesn't know all the implications it brings on, it is blind to the outside and to itself. And it lies to itself as much as it lies to others."He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature,for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44. The lie can deceive itself.
But since God is the actor of Salvation, Salvation is as vast and wide and deep as God, and it knows itself, it knows what it is accomplishing, it is full of insight and truth."If you continue in my word then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free." John 8:31. The truth can flush out the hidden parts of the lie.
But being sinful beings, not only are our ears deaf and our eyes blind but much of Jesus' sayings don't make sense to our worldview. So Jesus used metaphors, parables and role modeling to accompany his words of salvation. Hence, the most important and possibly the most accurate method of understanding salvation is to read comprehensively- so that all the biblical metaphors speak to each other and balance each other, so that each parable is layered on top of another and the consistent themes of truth are perceived without petty distraction, it is to keep in mind the wider context, making it larger and larger until the Word is enfolded into the mind as a whole.
Only then is Salvation not restricted to a linear formula trapped in a single biblical metaphor. Only then are battles not over which priority we give to one biblical paradigm over another, but that all interact, reshape each other and separate more whole for the mingling.
And I envision eternity being a conversational study of God and salvation from all the angles of sinful mankind, sinless angels, all created beings. Without competition or distrust. May that spirit pervade us now.
This observation is based on your 12/1208 post. Your observations about metaphors and parables layered on top of each other in so much that all of them interact and reshape each other reminded me of this statement in the book Education.
“But the most valuable teaching of the Bible is not to be gained by occasional or disconnected study. Its great system of truth is not so presented as to be discerned by the hasty or careless reader. Many of its treasures lie far beneath the surface, and can be obtained only by diligent research and continuous effort. The truths that go to make up the great whole must be searched out and gathered up, "here a little, and there a little." Isaiah 28:10.
When thus searched out and brought together, they will be found to be perfectly fitted to one another. Each Gospel is a supplement to the others, every prophecy an explanation of another, every truth a development of some other truth. The types of the Jewish economy are made plain by the gospel. Every principle in the word of God has its place, every fact its bearing. And the complete structure, in design and execution, bears testimony to its Author. Such a structure no mind but that of the Infinite could conceive or fashion.
In searching out the various parts and studying their relationship, the highest faculties of the human mind are called into intense activity. No one can engage in such study without developing mental power. (Ed 123-124)
These paragraphs have been a tremendous source of strength and encouragement to me as I have attempted to grapple with seeming contradictions in the Bible. I always try to keep them in mind when studying a passage, chapter or book of the Bible.
55 comments:
After all, salvation is to know God and Jesus Christ whom He sent to this world (John 17:3). Interestingly, God has revealed Himself in all created things (visible and invisible), so that no one is justified to claim ignorance of Him. In fact, to claim ignorance is an rebellion against God and God by His nature (which is love) allows such rebellious ones to have their way and suffer the consequences of their choices (Romans 1:18-32).
But in spite of the revelation of creation, we must not neglect proclaiming the gospel nor be ashamed of it, “because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…” Romans 1:18-32.
I think that the plan of salvation as good as it sounds and is, necessitates judgment and such divine judgment is justified in the light of Romans 1.
Romans 2
“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law” Romans 2:12. The judgment of God is just – on those who “all who sin apart from the law” (Gentiles) and “all who sin under the law (Jews), because to the Gentiles, creation reveals God (Romans 1) and to the Jews both creation and torah reveals God – none is excused. Interestingly, even Gentiles do the things contained in the law (Romans 2:14-15).
Paul declares in Romans 2:28-29 that a true Jew is one in the spirit and not in the flesh. Thus, Paul implies that our relationship with God is not based on the flesh (race, color, gender etc.) but on the spirit which is manifested in our works/character. Therefore, everyone has the privilege of knowing God and experiencing His saving grace.
Reflection 3
Romans 3
In Romans 3 Paul declares in the light of his argument so far (from Romans 1) that there is NO advantage of one over the other (between the Jews and Gentiles) in terms of access to God and our justification. In fact, in Romans 3:23, he asserts that “all have sinned” (Jews and Gentiles alike) “and fall short of the glory of God.” Interestingly, both the Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith (Romans 3:30) and not by their works, yet, the law of God still binds on all (Romans 3:31).
Romans 1&2
Paul does a detailed job of describing what the wrath of God is in chapter one. He describes a letting go or abandonment as the mechanism. Since Paul is using the past tense, he is not predicting the future mechanism of God's wrath at the judgment, just the past. However, it is interesting that even though he is writing to a roman audience, one that uses law in a very active manner- Paul does not balance out this "passive" picture of God's wrath with an "active" infliction of suffering. This differs from the OT where every bad event was seen as an active form of God's wrath upon the Isrealites (except for those rare cases- like Job which prefigure Jesus' own comments about the causality of disasters.) I wonder if Paul will clarify the mechanism of God's wrath at the cross. God's methods are models for His people- in education, medicine, parenting and government. So it does matter when and how to utilize active or passive means of punishment/rewards.
I also enjoyed Paul's reversal of the Jewish mentality of most favored nation. Even though he is clear that ignorance is not bliss- those without the law perish without the law- he states that the very gift from God to the Jews, namely, their law serves to condemn them even worse. Because it is the doers of the law that are right, not the hearers. And we well know that no one can do the law perfectly. Hence, Paul has effectively reduced both camps (the whole world) to the same pitiful condition of sin and condemnation- awaiting God's good news.
"Justification in Romans 3:21-24" by A. Rodriguez
This was a good paper and brought up the same issues as Romans, though it went further and explained how generously God justifies all who believe. But in point 6 where Rodriguez takes such pains to make sure that universal justification is not possible- I believe he goes beyond the text and doesn't admit it. The linguistic argument he uses (not from the Greek, but from rhetorical logic)is the "all" implied in "and are justified freely by his grace" is the same "all" in the previous verse of "all who believe." He doesn't mention that there is another "all" between these two spots- that says "all have sinned". This option is not acceptable to Rodriguez, so he doesn't mention it. But both in proximity and natural flow, the antecedent is usually the closest one, not the one farther away. As a bible scholar, Rodriguez should have pointed out both options, explained the implications of both readings and used Paul's OTHER verses to explain which one is more consistent with Paul's understanding. This would restore Rodriguez's credibility a little in my eyes. As it stands, this points out how apologetics can be imposed upon the text before it has a chance to stand freely on its own- a danger Dr. Hanna pointed out this morning.
Sorry, that was me, Arlyn above. I actually typed three responses before one got posted correctly. And I still messed up.
Assignment #2
Salvation by Faith by Jan Paulsen
From the beginning I was intrigued in how Paul uses that famous phrase from Habakkuk, "The righteous will live by his faith." Hab 2:4. The Hebrew reads "the righteous will live by his faithfulness (to God-implied)." Paul nuances it just a little and allows it to say the "But the righteous man shall live by faith." J. Paulsen takes this point and drives home- "It is in the New Testament that we meet the full force of that which is called faith, and it is invariably rooted in one particular event in history: the death/resurrection/ascension of Jesus Christ." We see again, how faith and salvation is reduced to one part of Jesus ministry- but at least he includes the ascension and resurrection on top of the death. Most protestant denominations would be stretched by these two additions.
I enjoy Paulsen's enthusiasm- but his logic is funny. He establishes that "Faith is, first of all, something objective." I think he meant faith is based upon something objective- because he goes on to say "We believe because we know! This knowledge, then, is essential for salvation." But in actuality- we don't know anything about Christ's death firsthand, it is secondhand information from inspired witnesses. So to even accept their centuries old account in the Bible as historical fact-requires faith! More accurately, we first believe- then we incorporate it as fact- and it grows our faith even more as it becomes verified by our existential experience with Him.
Now, I still am struggling with this transfer of merits. The Bible does use models and this is an easily visualized one, but raises a lot of questions too. The biggest being- it keeps salvation in a legal paradigm, is that the best paradigm we have? Jesus' righteousness is in essence- just another, more effective commodity. As Paulsen says,"We abandon our achievement scorecards and confess at the end of the day only Christ's achievement matters." He goes on:"The fallacy of Judaism, however(and legalism in general), was that it used the law to establish its own righteousness." But isn't it still using the law to establish our own righteousness- if the only new part of the salvation formula in the NT is substituting Jesus' merits instead of our own and since it measures up,the law can now declare us righteous. The law has been used to establish Christianity's own righteousness. Only the transactional commodity has changed. Hence, some believe that when the Bible states Abraham believed in God and it was credited to him as righteousness, it really meant Abraham believed in Christ's merits and Christ's merits were transferred to Abraham so he was now declared righteous by law. Was this what Paul had in mind when he quoted that verse?
Romans 3&4
So much in these two chapters!- propitiation, righteousness apart from the law but witnessed to by the law, blood, forbearance over previous sins, justly justifying the sinner, the establishment of the law in face of Faith. Each one deserves a thesis.
But for space, and relevance, I jump to Abraham's mention. The description of Abraham's faith is given in 4:18-24. It seems to stay within the Abraham narrative- Abraham trusted God to do what God had promised even against the odds. There is no mention of Jesus and the cross and merits. Of course, we know that God in the story was the Son of God and so Abraham trusted the same Jesus we trust. However, Paul doesn't use a transactional commodity of the blood of Jesus in this setting, or of Jesus' merits here. Faith is a wholehearted trust and living in that assurance. And living in that assurance means for Abraham- that faith was modeled every time he "contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in the faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore it was creditied to Him as righteousness." For Abraham, faith was having sex with a postmenopausal woman with confidence.
Assignment #3
Romans 3&4
Paul makes a distinction between the sinners who are not imputed with sin and those who are. And also the nature of two deaths. In verse 14 Paul asserts that sin is not taken into account when there is no law. I will assume from the preceding description of the law that Paul is still talking about the Mosaic law here. Verse 15 states "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam who was a pattern of the one to come." What I am impressed with is that Paul is fairly sophisticated in realizing that the first physical death is a given condition of mortality arising from Adam's sin and even though it affects all because all sinned (v.12), it is not the death required by the Law of sinners. This distinction between the first and second final sinner's death was first elucidated by Jesus, now in Paul and more fully in Revelation by John. Only within that distinction can we understand Jesus words of eternal life as literally true from the moment we accept Him and believe without reservation Paul's following words that assert- "how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." The first death is an interruption nap of mortality, related to sin but the final sentence on it. So eternal life begins now, may have a short unconscious interruption, but will continue into eternity and never taste real death- something no man has tasted except Jesus.
In the same way, 5:19 Creation also suffers the effects of sin. Again, without imputation since it cannot understand law, but nevertheless it groans with the pains of childbirth, as does our mortal bodies for the glorification that awaits it when the sons of God are truly freed to be revealed and adopted by God into immortality again. This message is pertinent for Christians are sometimes accused of being negligent of creation's distress since we see it as a temporary dwelling. But Paul here asserts that both our bodies and this earth will not be replaced but glorified- transformed and not substituted. Hence, it makes sense to care for and develop an attachment for this present body and earth for it is our eternal abode- only glorified and redeemed. This idea of a physical resurrection and glorification was considered rather repulsive by the Greeks, but remains a christian valuation of material reality. We and all creation, our bodies and this earth all yearn for salvation too.
Corrections to above:
1. Romans 5 & 6 (not 3 &4)
2. "The first death is an interruption nap of mortality, related to sin but NOT the final sentence on it."
Thanks.
Assignment #4
(Last paragraph of Assignment #3 above states 5:19, when I meant 8:19.)
Romans 7 & 8
Steps to Christ chapters 1-5
Chapter 7 in Romans has this famous struggle between the evil that is "present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner." This is one of the best descriptions of present human nature- both evil and good- or innately corrupted good which is helpless to free itself from evil, the image of God held prisoner to fallen nature. EGW in Steps to Christ concurs in chapter 5 "You desire to give yourself to Him, but you are weak in moral power, in slavery to doubt, and controlled by the habits of your life of sin. Your promises and resolutions are like ropes of sand. You cannot control your thoughts, your impulses, your affections." Then Paul addresses this predicament- "Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord"(7:25) EGW echoes, "By yielding up your will to Christ, you ally yourself with the power that is above all principalities and powers. You will have strength from above to hold you steadfast, and thus through constant surrender to God you will be enabled to live the new life, even the life of faith." Both speakers describe the conversion experience in terms of connecting with Christ, the divine solution that frees us from this inner conflict.
Romans 8:1 was very precious to me in high school when my academy bible teacher hammered the past tense into my achievement oriented, doubting heart. "Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Mr. Boyer said to me "If you have accepted Christ, regardless of your continuing struggles, you are no longer condemned by the law, you must be protestant, not catholic. Justification is not faith plus your works. It is faith alone, period." Morris Venden uses the analogy that once you are in the elevator with Christ, you are going up, even if you fall down in the elevator. No wonder Paul can't resist using the "adoption" paradigm to bring this point home, adoption is not undone by bad behavior. A legal paradigm does grant emotional assurance- because it is not dependent on feelings for validity.
Back to the life of faith that springs from the choice to align with God. Abraham was justified(considered right with God) because he willed to serve God regardless of his feelings. Genesis is totally silent on his feelings during the sacrifice of Isaac test- the Hasidim think Abraham was fully resolute without misgivings=their definition of pure faith; Christian philosophers tend to magnify his imagined sufferings and rational confusion. What the text reports is what Abraham did.
Interpreted through this salvific paradigm of choice- he chose to align himself with God's will. And in that imparted divine strength, he got up early in morning, saddled up two servants, saddled his donkey, chopped wood, got his son and set out once more to an unknown destination.
Nobody said salvation was easy. Just simple.
Comments on BRI document entitled
“How Perfect is Perfect and Is Christian Perfection possible ?”
By Dojcin Zivadinovic
As known, I am interested in the subject of Christian perfection and I have been studying in depth this subject for past two years. Therefore, after reading the document on Christian perfection by Edward Hepenstall posted on the website of BRI I have decided to share some thoughts on this.
I believe we all agree that Bible writers often mention and encourage faithful to strive towards perfection. In 2 Corinthians 13: 9 Paul expressly affirms that the goal of the Christian life is our perfection. “…For we are glad that ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.”
In Hebrews 6: 1 Paul states again: “…Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection.”
1 Thessalonians 5: 23 talks about the sanctification of a man is for the body, mind and soul. “…May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you wholly and may your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This surely confirms Adventist emphasis on Health and ‘wholistic’ approach to man being.
The disagreement comes as to what the word “perfection” or “entire [whole] sanctification” actually means for Bible writers.
Galatians 5: 16-18 say:
“This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”
As long as Man is walking with the Spirit, He is the Son of God (Romans 8: 13) and in his fellowship with God he experiences the perfection of justification. Justified person becomes pure and blameless before God and as long he dwells in the Spirit of the Savior, he is in light and eternal life becomes his heritage.
However, even those who are justified struggle in this world which interferes between man and God and sometimes, actually often we fall from God’s presence, detach our mind from God, loose faith, forget about God’s promise detach our mind from Spirit of Christ. In this case we are in Sin [capital S] that often lead towards sins or acts of sin [small s].
Then, after we realize that we have sinned again, we ask grace before our mediator and repenting from our sinful disease we run back under the wings of our merciful Lord who ever wants to love us and forgive us.
Consequently, in life of true Christian there are less and less of these “excursions to sin”, and longer we spend in the presence of God our character changes, our intellect becomes sharper and our thoughts become purer, we still fall every once in a while but not so often any more and through faith in God’s mercy we grow daily in grace. This is called sanctification, our mind is getting more and more in God’s image as we daily experience the miracle of justification and new birth of our mind in the Spirit of the Lord.
However, Apostle invites us to be “sanctified wholly”. In Ephesians 5: 25-27, Apostle writes:
“…Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
“…May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you wholly and may your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess 5: 23)
Paul in 2 Corinthians 7: 1 invites Christians to allow God to make the work of sanctification perfect in us: “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
Is it possible to have the experience with the Lord of entire sanctification? Where a man dwells so firmly in the Lord as to not be attracted with Sin any more in all of its aspects. Man whose character becomes so similar to Christ that Bible calls him taam – perfect as it called Job.
This man can still commit sin but his character becomes reflection of Love of God. As John says in 1 John 4: 12, we can become “perfect in love” and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1: 4) and be pure and blameless and without guile, following the Lamb wherever it goes (Revelation 14: 5)
Here is what Ellen White says about the Entire Sanctification
“…It is our life-work to be reaching forward to the perfection of Christian character, striving constantly for conformity to God's will. Day by day we are to press upward, ever upward, until of us it can be said, "Ye are complete in Him." {ST, September 3, 1902 par. 13}
“…None need fail of attaining, in his sphere, to perfection of Christian character. By the sacrifice of Christ, provision has been made for the believer to receive all things that pertain to life and godliness. God calls upon us to reach the standard of perfection and places before us the example of Christ's character. In His humanity, perfected by a life of constant resistance of evil, the Saviour showed that through co-operation with Divinity, human beings may in this life attain to perfection of character. This is God's assurance to us that we, too, may obtain complete victory.” {AA 531.2}
COMMENT: If perfection is a simple Christian maturity or certain level of sanctification, Ellen White would not say that it is possible already in this life to achieve it, for that would be natural.
“…This message I am given to bear, as the Lord's messenger. The unity for which Christ prayed is a sacred pledge of discipleship. Those who enter heaven must be one with Christ. Unless they should bear the same perfection of character that He bore while on this earth, they would spoil heaven. The trial and test is to come here in this world. Here we are to be stamped with the image and superscription of God.” {SpTB07 44.4}
“…Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Man is to be perfect in his sphere, even as God is perfect in His sphere. How can such a lofty standard be reached? The required perfection is based on the perfection of Christ, "who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." He gave the command requiring perfection, He who was by birth a human being, though allied to divinity. He has passed over the road we are to tread, and He says, "Without Me ye can do nothing." But with Him we can do everything. Thus a perfect character can be obtained. God never issues a command without furnishing the grace sufficient for its fulfilment. Ample provision has been made that man shall be a partaker of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1: 4) {ST, July 26, 1899 par. 1}
“…If you make God your strength, you may, under the most discouraging circumstances, attain a height and breadth of Christian perfection which you hardly think it possible to reach. Your thoughts may be elevated, you may have noble aspirations, clear perceptions of truth, and purposes of action which shall raise you above all sordid motives. Both thought and action will be necessary if you would attain to perfection of character.” {4T 568.1}
Please forgive me for using anonymus name. it was the only one without password equirement. ir so it seemed. Now I know I can use "name" entry.
Why Did Jesus Die?
How God Saves Us
By George W. Reid
I found this article primarily helpful in defining the definition of love. When we read in 1 John 4:8 that “God is Love” we find that it is quite easy to become sidetracked in the sentimental emotions of the sacrifice of Christ without conjuring up the grit of what love in sacrifice is all about. The author highlights that the love displayed in salvation plan is “aggressive” and “an unshakable commitment, inviolable, a predisposition in our favor that cannot be discouraged.” Did he die because he simply missed us or wanted to show subjectively what love is all about? Based on our definition of love, I would have to say no. Christ’s sacrifice was motivated by principle, and a determined resolve to pay the ransom for humanity.
This ransom was real and not subjective. It was done not simply to show angels and fallen man how much he loved us but to live up to the standard and principles that governs the heavenly realm. Dr. Reid highlighted a powerful and telling passage of scripture "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). This substitution was literal and imperative if man was to be saved and it is portrayed as no mystery to man, for it is outlined in the Word. I beg to point out that it was no mystery to Lucifer for he played according to the notion that Jesus was the sin-bearer for man and thus did all in his carnal effort to prevent the perfect sacrifice.
As I explored this article I was able to come to some conclusions that will strengthen my position with my view on prayer. I believe that prayer is a necessity in the plan of salvation. I am not where I would like to be presently in my research but I believe that Christ prayed not only subjectively to portray our example but of principle that yielded effect. If Christ died according to Scripture then should we pray according to Scripture as well? I am growing closer to formulating my thoughts.
(This is a revision to the article as certain phrases can distort the message I would like to convey)
Why Did Jesus Die?
How God Saves Us
By George W. Reid
I found this article primarily helpful in defining the definition of love. When we read in 1 John 4:8 that “God is Love” we find that it is quite easy to become sidetracked in the sentimental emotions of the sacrifice of Christ without conjuring up the grit of what love in sacrifice is all about. The author highlights that the love displayed in salvation plan is “aggressive” and “an unshakable commitment, inviolable, a predisposition in our favor that cannot be discouraged.” Did he die because he simply missed us or wanted to show subjectively what love is all about? Based on our definition of love, I would have to say no. Christ’s sacrifice was motivated by principle and a determined resolve to pay the ransom for humanity.
This ransom was real and not only subjective. It was done not only to show angels and fallen man how much he loved us but to live up to the standard and principles that governs the heavenly realm. Dr. Reid highlighted a powerful and telling passage of scripture "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). This substitution was literal and imperative if man was to be saved and it is no mystery to man, for it is outlined in the Word. I beg to point out also that it was no mystery to Lucifer for he played according to the belief that Jesus was the Ransom and thus did all in his carnal effort to prevent the perfect sacrifice.
As I explored this article I was able to come to some conclusions that will strengthen my position with my view on prayer. I believe that prayer is a necessity in the plan of salvation. I believe that Christ prayed not only subjectively to portray our example but of principle that yielded effect. If Christ died according to Scripture then we should also pray according to Scripture in light of the plan of salvation.
Christ Saved the Human Race
Ángel Manuel Rodríguez
Angel did an excellent work in highlighting the dilemma that faces Adventists when confronting passages of EGW which seems to advocate that Christ died and saved the world. Many evangelicals believe that the cross has ensured the salvation of all mankind and some are quick to use statements as “He redeemed Adam's disgraceful fall, and saved the world” as proof that Ellen adhered to that view. Angel simply recommended the reader to explore the full passages and take her words in context. Fittingly Ellen explains herself throughout as she consistently maintain that Christ’s death was a ransom that redeemed sinful man thus bridging the gulf between heaven and earth.
It is important however to point out our differences with some evangelicals here. ‘Saved’ for some means that all of humanity is automatically saved and will be in the kingdom, but I am gathering here that saved means free access to God through Jesus Christ. If this is true it doesn’t contradict the view that Jesus has the deed of possession, and has won us through creation and redemption, but widens the span of salvation to include free-will. The price has been paid but ‘all who will’ is the cry to those who would be saved. If Satan through deception has brought blight upon mankind and through force and manipulation keeps man in sin, Jesus would be no different if through his sacrifice those unwilling to go to heaven were forced to abide by His principles. Though Christ has gained the right to redeem us, he chooses not to force us into the kingdom.
This leads me to conclude that much of Jesus’ life was spent in being an example to mankind in living and modeling the principles of the kingdom. He taught us by example the mode and reason of baptism, of prayer, of empowerment through the Spirit, and then declares, “Follow me.” This call is given to all those who would be saved, for his actions are leading to the habits and thoughts of men and women being trained heavenly. Jesus in fact is teaching us how to choose heaven. His gift he knew was perfect but the praxis of Christian living needed to be taught. As a child needs to be taught how to feed itself, Jesus painstakingly taught mankind how to choose right.
In this post I would like to make a comment on the argument that Paul hadn’t achieved perfection and therefore it is impossible for man to achieve it while on this earth.
Let us read carefully what Paul writes in Philippians 3: 9-15:
“And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.
If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”
Paul wanting not to boast with his spiritual achievements, humbly admits: “not as if were already perfect… and I count not myself to have apprehended it [this perfection].”
When I read these words from Paul, I am reminded of one other passage in the Old Testament that speaks of a person who although called most upright man on earth was unable to claim for himself that he was indeed perfect. According to that person, to claim perfectness is an evidence against it.
Let us read the text in Job 9: 20, 21. Job was attacked from his friends who were convinced that he had sinnned and Job replied following:
“…If I justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect (taam), it shall also prove me perverse. Though I were perfect (taam), yet my soul would not know it”
Job 9: 20-22 teaches us that a perfect man cannot claim that he is entirely perfected because that would be presumptuous. Job says that though he was perfect he would never be aware of it because a perfect person always thinks humbly of his capacities.
Therefore, when Paul says “not though I were already perfect” this does not need to be taken as proof for impossibility of Christian perfection in the Bible. No, this shows simply that a perfect person will never boast with it because that would automatically prove his imperfectness and presumptiveness.
A truly perfect Christian never deems himself to be better than other and on a higher spiritual level than other. Closer we are to Jesus, less we think of our own greatness.
Assignment #5
Steps to Christ 6-8
Romans 9&10
How Perfect is "Perfect" or Is Christian Perfection Possible? by E. Heppenstall
Crosscurrents by C. Webster chapter 4 "The Christology of Edward Heppenstall" section 5:"His contrast between the nature of Christ's perfection and man's perfection.
Interest sparked by Dojcin, I ranged over to perfection articles just to wade through a few issues. Knowing this is my first foray into Adventist perfection (historically, a constant open ulcer) I suspect this reflection paper will reveal more the state of my ignorance and first impressions than a mature seasoned view. (Big S= original sin with it's effects on intrinsic nature, Small s=active choices of sinful nature)
I learned that one of the foundational issues underlying perfection is the question of the nature of Christ. If one chooses to believe that Christ's nature is one of fallen man and sinful and yet He was able to live a (small s) sinless life- then (s) sinlessness is considered possible, nay, a necessary goal for the committed christian too, by the help of the Holy Spirit. Ethics, example, faith and man's response to salvation is emphasized. Sanctification by faith leans toward co=operation, alignment, working with God.
If one chooses to believe that Christ's nature is (S)Sinless (optionally: may be physically weakened by Sin, just never spiritually weakened or inclined toward sin)then Christ is a unique Adam-like being and it would be almost impossible to reproduce His sinlessness in our lives. Heppenstall is in this camp. Relational perfection by transference, grace and man's helplessness is emphasized over ethics. "Christ was inherently righteous whereas sinful man is only righteous in relationship with Christ. The moment the relationship is broken man loses his righteousness and perfection totally." (Webster)
No wonder, then that Heppenstall says "Salvation by grace alone means that absolute perfection and sinlessness cannot be realized here and now." He is referring to sin in both the nature of man and in man's actions.
Romans 9&10 talks about the sovereignity of God. Paul really does a nice sidestepping of the issue when he answers the logical question-if God is sovereign and unopposable, then how can He assign fault to man who cannot resist His will?
Paul's equating man's rights to a lump of clay is a weak argument because he overlooks the main god- given attribute man has- freedom and choice. A attribute which Paul himself had used earlier in Romans to prove how awfully sinful and deserving of death all mankind is-they chose to ignore and reject God- Romans 1. But since Paul next veers off into arguments of God's sovereign Grace (not punishment) being irrational-God's patience, vessels of mercy, calling outsiders "his", saving for Himself a remnant- he redeems himself for being sloppy initially.
Romans 1 and 2
I recognize in Paul’s writings of the first two chapters a deliberate attempt at creating the platform whereby all are judged. Paul desires to make it known that it is the power of God that brings salvation and the deed of none. In chapter 1 verse 20, he destroys the notion that Gentiles have an excuse for not obeying God for he points to Creation and highlights that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” Paul portrays in chapter 1 the shadow of judgment that looms upon the Gentile world creating as it were a foreboding prospect for them. If the wrath of God is to be revealed, chapter 1 implicitly asks the question, “what can the Gentiles do?”
The Jews who read chapter 1 would agree in chorus that the judgments must fall upon the Gentiles but in chapter 2 Paul destroys their level of comfort by suggesting that God is no respecter of persons. He pinpoints that the Jews will ultimately be judged by the law which they hold so dear. He directs his attention to circumcision in vs. 25-29 and pinpoints that many of the Jews are circumcised outwardly but not of the heart. Paul is desirous of the Jews looking deep within to see if they are in the faith, instead of external forms. If the topic is dealing with salvation, he is building the base that circumcision or keeping the law, means nothing without the heart substance. Salvation as chapter one highlights is from God. The Jews are at the periphery admiring the things of God, but have lacked not only the deep knowledge of God but the knowledge of Christ.
Romans 3 & 4
Paul declares that he is a sinner in 3:7 and for good reasons for he pinpoints that no matter how righteous his deeds may be, they do nothing in adding to the righteousness of God. Chapter 3 forcibly shows to all Jews and Gentiles that there is none that doeth righteousness, no not one. Knowing that his Jewish hearers would stand aghast at such a bold statement he uses arguments found in vs. 11-18 to echo that which their fathers did against Christ. Though they thought they were acting righteously they persecuted Christ maliciously and of the cruelest kind. He shows the hypocrisy of the heart of man and makes it known that there is nothing that commends us to God, for inwardly we are all corrupt. Now that this is made known he brings in the topic of justification and explains in vs. 24 that we are justified freely by Christ’s grace. It cannot be by law, or by works, but by faith in Christ. To be saved mankind must have absolute dependence upon Jesus Christ.
In chapter 4 Paul responds to individuals who would then ask the obvious, what of Abraham? Was he not justified by works? Ultimately Paul declares in vs. 13 that Abraham’s testimony was that of righteousness by faith. He argues that God blessed Abraham before he was circumcised so it was not of the ceremonial laws. We also know that Abraham and his father Terah were idol-worshippers in Ur so based on that not even his obedient to the moral laws after were the basis of his salvation. Obviously Abraham was called by grace and justified according to his faith in God. That Abraham believed God and obeyed him shows that he was placing his faith in what Christ would do on his behalf. Of Abraham God imputed his righteousness as an example of the countless others whose hope is wrapped up in what Christ Jesus would do on their behalf. Thus Paul sates, “but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”
Assignment #7 Romans 11, 12
The reading of Romans 11 was left by the Holy Spirit for me to read this week because He knew that I would need it. Paul is not being stingy with the gospel, or withholding it from Jews, but he earnestly desires that they would understand and accept and be saved. If he can spur them to be jealous and take a second look at Christ by vigorously preaching it to the gentiles and bringing them in, he will do so. Some verses at the end of Chapter 12 were just for me- ""Do not be wise in your own estimation..Respect what is right in the sight of all men."
I have stumbled across a new approach to plumbing the depths of the Bible- new to me, of course- that I recently find hard evidence for in the NT regarding how to understand the akedah. And it was so precious to me because it was new, fresh, unique and not utilized to its fullest potential in all the commentaries I had read.(they incorporate the NT insight, but do not take the method and utilize it themselves in new ways) Because it was "my baby" of an idea and there was initial interest by a Jewish scholar when shared, I was worried that it would be "adopted" by someone just as interested in the topic but far more qualified and able to study and publish on it, thereby robbing me of the opportunity to use it as my own dissertation. Paul shames me. He did not hoard his "new" insight that Christ is the fulfillment of the whole Jewish system. In fact, he yearns and believes the Jews should and would make even better "branches"to the olive tree. And he is eager to share it if given any opportunity.
This is the mind of Christ. Recognizing that there are always human politics in every field, including theology, yet, the Holy Spirit is fully able to help each theologian plumb more treasures. And there is no dearth of truth to find. And Dr. Hanna's lecture shows that there is much real work to be done, with much energy wasted on the superficial issues. So, best case scenario, God directed me to these two professors precisely because they could be blessed and be a blessing to me too- being experts in narrative critical analysis, professors in the akedah for years, and fully Jews with their background of cultural understanding. It would be helpful to know such scholars to do a good dissertation if this topic remains my choice for it, since the seminary does not have an expert in this approach. And, worst case scenario, if by seeing the self-sacrificing love option as the preferred and ideal solution to the akedah (as supported by the OT alone) they take the idea and publish it as their own, so there is less need for my dissertation, still, it could mean they may be one step closer to seeing the correlation in Christ as the fulfillment of such a principle and a reflection of the God they love already. And bringing them one step closer to Christ would be the best thing that could happen.
In essence, my understanding is this, and I welcome all help on it. The Akedah is a fascinating test of Abraham in Genesis 22. Morally, it was murder. Religiously, it was sacrifice. Contractually, it was fulfilling God's will to destroy the embodiment of God's will. The New Testament does something very creative- it inserts the idea (Hebrews 11:19) of resurrection into Abraham's mind (which is an unknown event in Genesis)to reconcile how a man of faith can perform an act that would seem to cancel the covenant of faith and go against all that God seemed to stand for. So Hebrews asserts the opposite of Kierkegaard. It claims that Abraham was enabled to go through with his act of faith because he "reasoned" and came up with a mental solution of faith first.
Romans 4 points out how Abraham's faith in God allowed him to experience the paradoxical miracle of two "dead" (reproductively)bodies empowered by God to produce "life". So faith leads to experience, then builds rationally on this experience further extrapolation of faith into unknown realms. Here, the NT is actually utilizing Abraham's past experience with God as the rational basis for the extrapolating leap of faith- into a physical resurrection, a new concept to Abraham and the known world at that time. This is not the same as a leap into the blind, or "absurd" as Kierkegaard would define it- for Kierkegaard believes it was an act of faith into a irrational nothingness only because one believes in the Person who demands it, without any understanding of the meaning. (actually, this is not an invalid idea of faith itself- but if we take both the OT and NT interpretations of the akedah, it is probably not the method Abraham chose. And even then, our faith in the person of God is based upon our past experiences with Him- so it is still rememberance and reflection oriented- hence the need for Sabbath time to do such review.)
But Hebrews 11 and Romans 4 together present a method they believe Abraham used- faith based upon prior evidence that is God given- synthesized into a NEW creative rational understanding which does reconcile the tension of how God will fulfill the covenant through Isaac even while demanding his death.
Now, using this method given by the NT and the narrative analysis tools- I believe that there may have been other solutions to the akedah that were not realized. And that (in the narrative analysis approach- where a writer/narrator consciously chooses stories for their relevance, unity and religious purpose)upon looking back over the selected stories of Abraham as given in Genesis (since we aren't told everything about his life)the narrator and perhaps by implication God may have been preparing Abraham for this final test all along.
And if so, what other possibilities of solutions exist? Do they tie in more of Abraham's experiential knowledge with God? Do they resolve better the ethical tension in this test of murder vs sacrifice and the allusions to religious child sacrifice inherent in the command? Were there more ways than one to fulfill God's will based upon what God had taught him in the previous chapters? The test begins with "After these things God tested Abraham..." clearly inviting the audience to reflect upon what preceded the test in order to understand the test. And this is what most interpreters miss- how does all that precedes bear significantly upon this test?
(Not that he could choose to do all of them, and accepting that he did choose one that was excellent and affirmed by the angel as a correct solution.)
I suggest one possible solution to the akedah that is "out of the box" but based upon a more comprehensive synthesis of of his experiences with God beyond the reproductive miracle. There is more than two options (not just yes or no) to the command to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering. I would like to tentatively suggest that Abraham could have offered himself to God as a substitutionary offering in place of Isaac to fulfill the command in Genesis 22:1 and God would have been pleased. Because, with this proposal- Abraham is fulfilling God's command based on divine ethics(an adjustment which God seemed to be open to before when Abraham challenged God at Sodom and Gomorrah- based on divine ethics(human ethics had no problem with communal justice in Abraham's time)- that the Judge of all the earth would be injust to destroy righteous individuals along with sinners. Besides, God went even further than Abraham on this principle. Abraham stopped too soon at 10, God acted and saved the last three, who turned out to be barely righteous even then!). Such a solution would prove loyalty and fear of God above all else, remain true to the covenant, remain true to the filial bond of fatherly love toward Isaac, remain true to the marital love to Sarah whose life was wrapped up in Isaac, reverse his long habit of sacrificing family members (sarah) for his own survival, and still fulfill the angel's affirmation as stated- "Now I know that you fear God in that you have not witheld your son from me...Because you have done this and not witheld your son from me." Relinquishing Isaac can be accomplished by killing Isaac, killing oneself, or cutting off all ties with Isaac (as Abraham had to do to Ishmael in the previous chapter at God's command).
Other biblical support for self-sacrificing love being a favored option and principle of the God of Genesis will be given in my paper- this theme comes out clearer and clearer as the Genesis narratives culminate in the Joseph and Judah story.
It resonates with the cross and the whole theme of the Bible. Its method of derivation is found in the NT. The salvific example would have been incredible, without the ethical dilemna of killing a righteous lad (which was affirmed as injust by both God and Abraham when they negotiated used it as the foundation to "negotiate" acceptable "collateral damage" in Genesis 18). The sacrifice of Isaac could have been just as powerful if it has been transformed into the sacrifice of Abraham; the binding of Isaac into the binding of Abraham. The Christ figure being Abraham.
But I am in no way minimizing or ignoring the salvific example of an innocent victim (Isaac) being sacrificed by his father to God. Just pointing out that as a result, most scholars feel Abraham's chosen deed- though righteous- had a costly negative consequence in the family life of Isaac and Sarah toward Abraham (and possibly in their view of his God, for a while). (That's another sacrifice in itself.)
I am exploring biblical possibilities that the Bible itself allows and demonstrates. And instead of assuming that what happens in the Bible is always the pinnacle of faith and the perfect choice (for it is clear God is very gracious even toward his faulty favorites) perhaps, it is also valid to derive from the biblical evidence other possibilities and evaluate them in light of how God handled it.
By the way, the various interpretations given to the akedah as to what was happening is the most voluminous bunch of literature I have ever seen. So much work for this paper!
Correction:
I went further than I meant to say in the passion of writing above. Let me take a step back, I don't believe that suicide is the ideal answer.
The command literally says "offer up Isaac for an ascent offering". So even if Abraham offered himself up-I was envisioning him waiting (alive) on the altar for God to take him. Because the stuck ram (which was prepared in advance by God) would have caught his eye eventually too.
But how powerful a witness that would have been if Abraham did this with his whole family and possibly entire encampment! For the command in Genesis 12:1 has a middle imperative form of a verb- "go you- for you" which is used only one other time in Genesis 22:1 and since Abraham took his whole family (including Lot) in response to the first command- and Sarah turned out to be vital to the fulfillment of that command's blessing; I argue that this second command to "go you-for you" could have been also extended to the faith community of Abraham, at least his immediate family. (who especially needs to re-align her priorities for God over Isaac? Sarah.)
...as it was, I would bet Sarah never let Isaac alone on a trip with Abraham again. :)
My first reflection is on the gospel to the Romans and concerns the use of the sola scriptura principle in developing the theological understanding of the issue of justification by faith in Romans 3. The book of Romans has always been hailed as the benchmark because it sets forth the principles of salvation. My concern for Seventh-day Adventists is that the proper understanding of justification by faith within Romans 3 has been built upon a canon within a canon approach rather than on the sola scriptura approach. In other words, the exegete comes to Romans 3:21-26, exegetes the passage and concludes by saying we’re saved by grace alone through faith alone period, works have absolutely nothing to do with it because if they did then we would be saved through faith and works. At this point the issue is “resolved.”
There are several concerns I see with this approach. The first is that the issue of the proper theological understanding of justification by faith can simply be solved by this kind of exegetical approach. The exegete must assume two things that the passage does not spell out: i) what is the proper understanding of the One who justifies and ii) the proper understanding of the one who is justified. Second, why does the exegete begin and end in Romans 3? Didn’t Jesus tell the two who walked on the road to Emmaus to look at all the scriptures that pertain to the subject matter (Luke 24:27)? By sticking to Romans 3 and going no further, some are not using the sola scriptura principle and the analogy of Scripture in order to understand what it means to be justified by faith. In other words they exegete the passage as if the rest of the Bible didn’t exist and therefore could not add to the understanding of the subject matter. Third, why not take the same approach with Rom 2:13 that is taken with Rom 3:21-26? Rom 2:13 says “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified?” The words “justification” in Rom 3:21-26 and “justified” in Rom 2:13 are the same. One says by faith, the other says it’s the doer who is justified. The two are obviously not in contradiction with one another. We must develop an approach to the issue that is true to the analogy of Scripture while at the same time handling what seem to be contradictions.
Reflection #2
In Rom 1:16, 17 it tells us that the righteousness of God is revealed through the gospel, thus equating righteousness with the gospel. Furthermore the principles of the gospel which are understood and experienced on the basis of the Scriptures (Rom 1:1, 2) should produce righteousness in the life of the believer through faith. In order for the gospel to do that, it must possess power (Rom 1:16). However in Rom 1:29-32 the people are filled with all kinds of unrighteousness and sin. In 2 Tim 3:1-7 Paul presents a similar list of sins and says that these people have a form of godliness but are denying its power suggesting that they are believers who are going through the motions of Christianity, saying they are saved and that they believe in the gospel, yet at the same time are in a dreadful condition.
There are several clues in Rom 1:19-32 which can help us to understand how the power of the gospel can be neutralized. In Rom 1:21 it tells us that these people knew God, professed wisdom and even glorified Him, albeit not as God. The point is, these people claimed i) to know Him, ii) to be wise, and iii) to glorify Him. In Rom 1:21-23 the Bible tells us that a doctrine of God based upon natural theology ultimately leads to creating a false god. The 2nd Commandment which is alluded to in Rom 1:21-23 teaches that we should not make any graven image in heaven above, the earth beneath or the water under the earth, we should also not bow down and serve them. Natural theology seeks to develop an interpretation of God based solely upon nature or reason apart from Revelation which consequently violates the 2nd Commandment. This commandment also informs us of the cause and effect relationship that exists between “making” and “bowing down.”
In Rom 1:21 it says that they became futile or vain in their thought processes which resulted in changing the glory of God into an “image made like unto corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Imagination and creativity is the root of “making” since you must think in order to “make.” This represents an attempt to create a doctrine of God based upon human reason “corruptible man.” The result of this is expressed in Rom 1:24, “wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonor their bodies among themselves.”
In Rom 1:25 another result of this is that they “worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” As in the 2nd Commandment, worship always assumes a doctrine of God, whether it’s based upon Revelation or reason (apart from Revelation). The end result of all this is stated in Rom 1:29-32.
Thus the power of the Gospel can be neutralized by a doctrine of God that is based upon reason developed from the creation and apart from Revelation. This leads to service and worship and finally results in the degrading sins found in Rom 1:29-32. This is of vital interest to me because the subject worship should not be divorced from the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of God and ethics: they are all integrated therefore one should ask how any doctrine of worship is going to affect the rest of the structure.
assignment #8
Steps to Christ chapters 8 &9
Romans 13&14
It is a real challenge to read these passages while keeping the akedah foremost in mind. "The spirit of Christ's self-sacrificing love is the spirit that pervades heaven, and is the very essence of its bliss. This is the spirit that Christ's followers will possess, the work that they will do."(EGW)So loving, so happy.
This same Christ said to Abraham, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him up there as a burnt offering..." And Romans 13:9 says "For this, You shall not commit adultery (does it count when you purposely set up your neighbor to commit adultery with your wife as Abraham did and didn't try to stop him?), You shall not murder (what if God says to kill your son who is a lad? Is what God says- righteous by definition?), You shall not steal (or aggrandize yourself by accepting ill-gotten guilt presents from rulers you have betrayed as Abraham did)You shall not covet (and use and abuse those dependent upon you to get what you want then kick them out of the family when you get your goal another way) and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself,Love does no wrong to a neighbor; (but its okay to do so to one's own son? or wife?) therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (God's law was his command to Abraham, since the Sinaic law wasn't in written form yet).
So, this is an example of faith that merits credit as righteousness.
Or shall we more accurately say that in spite of all the above, Abraham was willing to keep learning, to say "yes" to God (which was, in his time, "Behold, here I am")and for his unshakable commitment- God considered him righteous who certainly was not.
Next monday-wednesday is Rosh Hosanah and in that liturgy the akedah is read, the ram's horn is blown and there is a tradition within Judaism of transferred merits from the Abraham's deed that is used for one's account to earn forgiveness of sins. This is a salvific deed that allows for merit tranfer too. "There was...a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived...According to this haggadah, Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for all Israel in all generations." (The Torah: A Modern Commentary pg.151)I think I'll look for a reformed synagogue and try to experience it.
But I still rail against Kierkegaard's interpretation which though sounding eloquent, is not different from the stance of any other religious child sacrifice. His last sentence in Fear and Trembling is "So either there is a paradox, that the single individual as the particular stands in an absolute sense to the absolute, or Abraham is done for."
And is the stance of radical moslems who strap bombs on their children, kiss and send them to paradise to fulfill the will of Allah as they feel their duty leads. Who are we to judge such faith? or to call one wrong and the other right just because of the deity's different names? If one argues that our Yahweh stopped the sacrifice- it is still clear that the intent to kill the child was honored. And the intent was deemed righteous and holy. So the problem remains...
Comment on The Article “The Dynamics of Salvation” at BRI web site.
By Dojcin Zivadinovic
First of All I appreciate the effort of the article to remind us that Salvation is a mystery which has been revealed to us but the depts of this subject will be the center of our study for the entire eternity. Our minds will ever continue to be stretched by contemplation of "the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints" (Col. 1:26), and we will discern ever richer treasures of divine love and wisdom.
I believe many Christians are struggling to understand God and accept faith and at last to be saved simply because of the erroneous teaching about salvation.
This post about salvation will be long so I will split it into two sections. First one will be justification and another sanctification
As I said there are many wrong views on salvation.
Many Protestants teach sola gracia and irresistible grace kind of justification that eliminates personal choice.
Others do believe in our personal choice to choose Jesus the Savior but completely forget about the daily surrender to God and the sanctification of the soul, body and mind.
On the other hand millions of other Christians believe that Jesus has to be appeased with certain rites, sacrifices and mediation of departed saints.
All of these views of salvation are rather helping in detaching Man from God than making him closer.
That’s why it is important to establish a proper and logical Biblical view of Salvation or How does the Man gets saved. It is the most important issues of all. Here are the most important steps in the process of salvation as I see them. I will be little simplistic for the purposes of better understanding, so you correct me if I am wrong.
1. RECOGNIZING OUR SITUATION
We first have to recognize that we are lost. We stand condemned before God (Rom. 3:19, 20)
In order that we might conscientiously get saved, we must recognize our lostness and imperfection.
Since Adam’s Sin we live in condemnation and we don’t know how to come back to perfect world of peace and love. We don’t know how to get back to God who created us. We are doomed...
2. HEARING the GOOD NEWS
However, there is a solution ! The Salvation comes by hearing the Good News of Jesus who has paid our debt. God Loved mankind so much that he decided to take our penalty on Him so that we can live. The consequence of our sin is death and even if we never sinned we are born under the shadow of death because we are in separation from God. Our life is given to us as a time to hear and accept the salvation. Every man has multiple opportunities throughout his life to hear the Good News of Salvation. Will he accept this news though, that is the question?
3. ACCEPTING the GOOD NEWS
The Good News is that we don’t have to die because God loves us and he decided to sacrifice His Son for our sake. We only need to accept this free gift with our mind and heart. It’s something like marriage proposal. God asks us if we will marry him and enjoy eternal happiness, power and love but he doesn’t force us to accept his proposal. We need to say: ‘I do’ and mean it. God didn’t prive us from our free choice, in contrary the free choice is the reason why we got lost in the first place – because God gave us the freedom to choose whether we will trust and love Him or not. Now, through His sacrifice He made it possible for us to exercise our free will to take Him back. Article says: “Without the drawing of God, no person will come to Him (John 6:44; ibid., p. 390). Our faces are turned away from Him and we lack even the desire to return. Our will is so weakened that we continually choose only evil (Jer. 13:23). But the Holy Spirit empowers our wills, awakening within us a longing for God. He leads us to repent…” Basically he does everything necessary to prove you that his intentions are pure. However He can not give a response in our place, we are the ones who will or accept it or harden our hearts and reject the offer and choose death and darkness.
Comment on The Article “The Dynamics of Salvation” at BRI web site. Part 2
By Dojcin Zivadinovic
here is the second part of my comment on How to get saved. I do get little simplistic sometimes so forgive me and comment if you don't agree with my wording.
4. THE NEW STATUS IN CHRIST - JUSTIFICATION
IF we accept God’s gift for us, we are under his care now and we are called “justified”. We are no longer to be in fear of death and punishment because we have been adopted in the large family of God’s children. We now enjoy the blessings of our father –
a.) The Holy Spirit who testifies in our bodies that we are loved, forgiven and accepted by father. This is called Assurance. Many Christians have been saved and justified but haven’t experienced the assurance of this truth. Many Children of this world are loved by their parents but they have never felt this love. God wants us to feel his love and He gives us Assurance of Holy Spirit (Rom 8).
b.) The Changed Mind. In the moment we have been forgiven and justified, The Spirit of God starts working on restoring our sinful and corrupt mind. Romans 12: 2 Says: “don’t conform yourselves to this sinful world but be transformed by the renewal of our mind”. This renewal is a supernatural action of Holy Spirit. The sinful and low things we liked before we now abhor, and we can see this difference in us. More we long to stay in contact with father in prayer and studying His word, more the desires of this world will become strangers to us. This process of renewing ourselves to his image is called Sanctification. This process however, starts already with conversion or justification.
All this sounds real nice, however, there is a small clause on the bottom of page that says something like this:
Even after justification, and after we have been pardoned and forgiven we can still choose to turn God down. We are not led into a trap to be “bound forever” or “once saved- forever saved”. We still have right to break our marriage contract. Although we have made initial steps to accepting God, we can in any moment decide to turn back to life without God and ultimately eternal death. In every moment of our spiritual walk with God we are free to drop our salvation. However, if we decide to remain with God we will advance in our new life empowered with the Spirit of Christ/
5. THE NEW LIFE IN CHRIST – Sanctification or “Holy Walk”
After we have accepted God in our heart, we start growing in grace. God wants us to become more and more similar to his image so that His other children can desire to be saved just by looking at your character. Here again. You have another choice to make. Are you going to allow Christ to deepen His connections with you, are you going to set up meetings with him, are you going to spend time with Him in prayer and grow in Spirit and in Grace.
God wants to restore you mentally, spiritually and even physically. All you need is to allow Him on a daily basis to dwell in you and surrender you will to his in the time of temptations.
Oh, yes and bytheway, the temptations will come. The evil one wants you to return back to his realm of darkness and death. He will portray the sin and evil very beautiful to your eyes. However, don’t allow him to trick you. All you need to do when you see the temptation is to get on your knees and pray that Jesus can crucify your sinful mind and give you the mind which hates sin. When ever you can during the day surrender your mind to Christ through prayer.
This is called “mortification of your sinful nature” which still exist in you.(Gal 5: 24) However, if you don’t feed your sinful nature it will eventually starve and die.
- Well actually no one knows if it ever dies completely but in any case it can get pretty dead and Jesus will master your mind and make His love perfect in you.
6. GLORIFICATION
Jesus 2nd coming we are changed and saved forever we go to heaven… more about it next time...
Reflection #3 on Rom 8
What is the understanding of phrase, “in the likeness of sinful flesh” in Rom 8:3? Does it mean that Christ’s flesh is unlike ours, thus expressing dissimilarity between Christ’s flesh and ours or does it express similarity? And if it expresses similarity with our flesh, then why use the word “likeness,” after all isn’t it possible for likeness to assume unlikeness? Furthermore why does Paul say that Christ “was made according to the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3) but then switch to the “likeness of sinful flesh” in Rom 8:3?
First, let’s look at the word “likeness” in Rom 8:3 and compare it with Phil 2:7. Rom 8:3 says that God sent His son “in the likeness [o`moiw,mati] of sinful flesh.” Phil 2:7 states He “was made in the likeness [o`moiw,mati] of men.” If we conclude that in Rom 8:3 Christ was essentially different from us at the level of the flesh, then have we not set ourselves up for a docetic conclusion regarding Phil 2:7? Would we be willing to make the same conclusion regarding Phil 2:7 by stating that Jesus was not really a man but only had the appearance of a man based on the word “likeness?”
Second, let’s look at the word “flesh” in the context of Rom 8:3. The law could not be kept on account of the weakness or inability of the flesh, yet the passage also states that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. V.4 states that what Christ accomplished in the flesh, which is the righteous requirement of the law, is to be repeated and fulfilled in us who obey not the flesh but the Spirit. If Christ’s flesh is essentially different from ours, then how is this to be accomplished in us? Would it only be legally but not experientially?
Third, let’s look at the word “flesh” in the context of the chapter. The Greek word for flesh is mentioned about ten times in this chapter. In most of these verses in Rom 8, to be in the flesh means to mind the things of the flesh (8:5), which means that the carnally minded person is not subject to God’s law but is in fact in enmity with it (8:6,7). Based on this, to be “in the flesh,” (8:8) should not be interpreted in an ontological sense but rather in a relational sense based on the previous verses. Furthermore Rom 8:1,12,13 talk about living after the flesh or obeying the dictates of the flesh. Thus the controversy in this chapter seems to be revolving around whether sinful flesh can indeed keep the law. There are several things in this chapter which indicate that apart from Christ, it’s simply impossible to keep the law. Rom 8:1,2 says that condemnation represents the lot of those who do not have the law of the Spirit of life found in Christ. Rom 8:13 says that it’s only by the Spirit that we can indeed put to death the deeds of the body or the flesh so that we can live.
Some mistakenly conclude that the phrase “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” refers to His sinless human nature which seems very problematic in light of what flesh means in the rest of the chapter. However Rom 8:3 does address His sinless character when Paul says that He “condemned sin in the flesh.” If sin is the transgression of the law as John states, then the condemnation of sin in the flesh refers to His sinless character that was wrought in the arena of the flesh, so that through the Holy Spirit’s power we might be able to do the same.
So then why the word “likeness?” “that the intention behind the use of ὁμοίωμα here (cf. its use in Phil 2:7, where there is no specific mention of sin) was to take account of the fact that the Son of God was not, in being sent by His Father, changed into a man, but rather assumed human nature while still remaining Himself. On this view, the word ὁμοίωμα does have its sense of ‘likeness’; but the intention is not in any way to call in question or to water down the reality of Christ’s σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, but to draw attention to the fact that, while the Son of God truly assumed σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, He never became σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας and nothing more, nor even σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας indwelt by the Holy Spirit and nothing more (as a Christian might be described as being), but always remained Himself.”
Response to Karl's post on “likeness of sinful flesh” and “likeness of men”. (Rom 8: 3 and Phil 2: 7)
Karl, I took great interest in your post and I was drawing some conclusions from my self before I finished your post. However, here are my views concerning this topic you addressed.
You point well that there is danger of docetism in Philippians 2: 7. That’s why I believe Philippians 2: 7 can not be taken isolated and are to be compared with broader understanding of Scriptures.
Therefore, Philippians 2: 7 are to be understood in the light of Romans 8: 3 and broader context of NT. When Paul and rest of NT Scriptures use words such as “flesh”, “body”, “earthly mind”, “born of man” etc… it generally refers to a sinful nature of man. The corrupt side, the weak side, the sinful side, the inconsistent side etc..
So when Paul says that Jesus “made himself in likeness of men”, by that he doesn’t mean he wasn’t really human but he made himself “like a sinner”, “like a man”. Yet Paul’s words are precise enough and never tell us that Jesus made himself sinner. (Romans 8: 3) He might actually say: “he made himself man” and he wouldn’t be wrong but he wouldn’t describe the entire complexity of Jesus’ nature. That is why he often says he was made in “likeness of man” because he by birth was different than all men.
What was that difference, his divinity, his absence of sinful tendencies, this is yet another topic…
Second remark: Paul nowhere calls us to repeat the victory of Christ. Scripture calls him our exemple but never says “you must do exactly what my Son did”. Why? Because we cannot, already by birth we were different.
What did Jesus overcame? By dwelling in the Spirit of God, Christ overcame constant attempts of the enemy to separate him from Father. Finally when Our Sins separated Him, he said”: My father why did you abandon me”? Not for his sins, because he loved until the end but it was for our sins that he was punished for.
Now How about us? What do we have to overcome? First we don’t have a same starting point, we need to be spiritually “born again” something Jesus never experienced since he never “spiritually died” as our predecessor Adam did.
We need an encounter with God. A justification. After man enters union with God’s Spirit through justification a Man gets in the same position as Christ was by birth.
A man is now to overcome all obstacle by abiding in the Spirit of God. Now what Christ has made possible for us we are to experience, the walk in the Spirit (Rom 8: 13).
However, our problem is that we for some reason drop out of the Spirit many times per day.
Why is it so? Well for beginning, we pray once in the morning and think that is enough, while Scripture plainly encourage us to “pray at all time”. We think we can overcome with our will, when Paul calls us to overcome by “dwelling in the Spirit”, we think that we have to defeat the temptations when they come even though Christ plainly told us to pray “to not [even] be led into the temptation”.
The one who dwells in Christ never comes to judgment, never needs to think about the Law because it becomes natural to him and never has to bother about internal temptation because he simply doesn’t like sin while dwelling in God’s presence. If he doesn’t even like sin, how can he be tempted?
When we experience temptation, this means that by circumstances we have detached our minds from God and we are actually feeling the urge to sin, where there is no desire there is no temptation, where there is desire there is absence of Mind of Christ.
Therefore in my view, the presence of internal desire and therefore presence of tangible internal temptation is equivalent by “dwelling in flesh”
It is the indicator that we need justifying grace and sanctifying Spirit again and the best thing to do is to get on our knees and ask for Spirit of Christ and His nature which will enable me to hate sin and love righteousness.
Let us therefore mortify our sinful bodies by the Spirit of Christ that lives in us. (Rom 8: 13, Col 3: 5)
in reference to Betty's reflection #6
I appreciated your comment on the fact that growth in christ is not automatic. I think that is something that is hard for many to understand, but it is a good point. And in answer to your question, I think he is talking to believers because he has been talking about thier baptism. But the idea of being under the law is meaning that they use the law to save them, true believer keep the law, but are not under the law. Jesus saves them. I hope that thought helps.
ROMANS 5-7
Reflection on Romans 5
It is my view presently that a working model of justification must take into consideration what was conceived for us in the courts of heaven. If Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of this world, it means that his pardoning of our sins was and is available according to that plan. I believe the Holy Spirit has always been pleading with mankind to look unto the things of God and such has been described as striving with mankind. When we respond to the spirit’s pleading we are lead to accept the righteousness of Christ, which is often spoken of as imputed righteousness. The Spirit not only works to strive with us but produces hope, joy as well as assurance. The Spirit plead with us before we accepted Christ, but after doing so the Spirit worketh in us, hope, as is seen in 5:5. In this model, the Spirit’s role cannot be to point us to the law alone, nor to our works, for one would lead to condemnation, the other to futility, but He points us to the “righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Vs. 21.
Romans 6
Here in Romans 6 Paul highlights the believer’s union with Christ in both his life and his death. The ability to conceive of this, to appreciate the magnitude of these words, is nothing but the Spirit of God working in us. That we can respond to this message is nothing short of a miracle. Paul tells us that “knowing that Christ being raised” vs. 9. It is important to recognize that knowing and then doing is a theme that Paul strikes in this chapter. He emphasizes the grace that God is working in our lives vs. 14 and I gather that from this grace, we have the ability to choose to do right. After accepting the mission of Christ in our lives, we have no more excuse to sin vs. 22 but to do well. Apparently we are no longer subject to sin but through Christ, and the spirit working in us, we can choose, we can will, to follow Christ.
Romans 7
In my mind chapter 7 can best be understood in light of the beatitudes of Christ. Who after reading Matthew chapter 5-7 can say they can fulfill it perfectly. This is an impossibility, well an impossibility if not for the Spirit that worketh in us. The words of Christ in those passages will forever condemn us for we cannot in our own works manifest the deeds. Thus Paul can assuredly say of all of God’s holy requirements, “For I know that in me dewelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” Whether Paul is speaking of the believer before Christ or the one in Christ I know not, but I do know that the only cause for boast is summarized in vs. 25 “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Assignment #9
Romans 15, 16
Steps to Christ 10,11
"Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves...For even Christ did not please Himself; as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on Me." Romans 15:1,2 This principle of the strong serving not just the weak but the bearing the weaknesses of those who are weak is a principle of self-sacrificing love. We are called to take on their burdens, their shame, their limitations as if it were ours and be of "the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 15:5.
Salvation is this, redemption through our Lord who was willing to take on our problem of sin and become one of us so that He could heal and help us out of our predicament. God condescending to be one with us. On the other hand, Paul strikes another triumphant note when he assures us that "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." Romans 16:20. (peace requires violence? yes.)
I am not sure if Paul is referring to the second coming here, or to a particular opponent of the gospel that is in Rome, or to the problem Judaizers just preceding this phrase. It is strong language and refers back to the imagery of the crushing of the serpent promised in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:15. I had always believed that prophecy to refer to Christ's life on earth and his death on the cross in particular. However, Paul is using this imagery in the future tense. Is this another sequential repetitive typology?
Salvation comes to us not through concepts, but events. Events of encountering the divine. Concepts are reflections upon those events and are malleable and influenced by one another. But that the event happened and that perception of the meaning preceded understanding is the way man thinks. The steps are pre-conception, divine encounter, perception of that encounter, symbolization, concept, word(verbal or written),evaluative record, transmittance to another.
Salvation is that same way, man had little understanding of sin, and even littler understanding of salvation. In the Garden, God sought out man. God clothed man. God explained the changes about to happen, God utilized the snake's head crushing and emnity as two symbols of His response to their predicament. Paul read and understood these symbols to represent the struggle between good and evil and he believed it would end soon. Amen.
In response to whay Wendy posted, i gree with her the fact that we are saved only by blood of Jesus. We by ourselves have no power to save ourselves, but Jesus will give us the power to overcome sin.
On the other side, i would like her to comment more on the reading of Ellen white confession, regarding salvation. What new insight did she get as she read?
Comment on Gerard Pfandl, “Original Sin”
I appreciated the full and quote exhaustive study on Sin and Sinful nature in the Bible by Gherard Pfandl. While, i tend to agree with his views and conclusions, it came to my attention that one verse he quote in support of idea that Sin is an act is actually in my view not a valid text for suppor this concept.
When quoting, 1 John 3: 4, Gerhard wrote that "The Bible generally defines sin as an act". 1 John 3:4says: “sin is the transgression of the law”, or “sin is lawlessness” (NASB).
I believe that before drawing such conclusions, we have to determine what the word Law intents in this text and in general. Is the Law in question 10 commandments? ?
Or rather apostle talks about the Divine Law of Love which is reformulated in the 10 commandments?
Jesus’ definition of Law was that it consists of two main commandments. Love for God and Love for the Neighbor.
So if the Law equals LOVE, than the phrase “sin is the transgression of the Law” sounds much different. It is not an act anymore but a STATE. To sin is to be out of Love of God, to sin is not to have mind of God, not to be inlove with God.
"transgression of the law" then is not something we do but something we are in.
Paul repeats this idea in Romans 13:8, 10
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."
"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
And again in Galatians 5: 14
"or all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
So if the Law is Love (everyone) than "transgression of the Law" is not to Love everyone. To love or not to love is not an act but a state of mind. Mind separated from the source of Love - God.
Therefore, when verse says "sin is the transgression of the Law", it actually means "sin is separation from Love".
A lot of people quote 1 John 3: 4 with the intent to prove that sin is essentially act of transgression, something we do, our actions and deeds that counter God’s will.
This is certainly true in a sense that separation from God produces the acts of sin. However, once we learn what “Law” really means, it becomes clear that we could keep 10 commandments and yet still "sin".
I actually know people who respected the 10 commandments their entire life without any spot (that I know). They are looked as great saints in our community. However, if Jesus would come to them and ask them to give all they have to the poor (as he asked the young ruler) they would not be able to do it. They would claim that Ten Commandments do not urge them to do this.
There are certain things that “written law” didn’t intend to reformulate but are within the Spirit of the Law.
Finally, to resume “not to transgress the Law” in 1 John 3: 4has to be seen in broader sense of not separating ourselves from the Law/Love of God.
Reflection #4
In Rom 9 the apostle stresses the fact that those who are the children of the promise are counted for the seed (Rom 9:8). These are placed in contrast to those who are merely Israelites according to the flesh. In order to clinch the argument regarding the importance of the promise, in v.11 he says “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” He gives further supporting evidence by appealing to several historical incidents: i) “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Rom 9:13), ii) at the golden calf where the Lord told Moses “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” (Rom 9:15) iii) the role of the Pharaoh (Rom 9:17-18), and iv) the potter and the clay.
Some read Paul’s reasoning as an arbitrary election of some to salvation and others to damnation. Furthermore, who are you to question God’s justice and sovereignty? To do so would be no different than the clay asking the potter, “why did you form me this way?” However is this the way that we are to understand the doctrine of election? The word itself is mentioned 7 times in the NT: 4 of the references are in the book of Romans, 1 in Acts, 1 in Thess and the other in 2 Peter. Unfortunately the prerequisite for understanding the doctrine of election has been the doctrine of eternal decrees which are then interpreted upon the basis of Greek metaphysics. Basically the creation of the universe represents the outworking of God’s irresistible decrees, best understood on the basis of Plato’s two worlds theory where the earthly is merely the reduplication of the heavenly timeless decrees. It’s within this framework the doctrine of election is usually understood. The question is, does interpretation measure up with the Scripture evidence?
First, the word is first mentioned in Acts 9:15 where the Lord says to Ananias that Saul “is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” The word “chosen” is the same as the word “elected.” God chose Saul, He also chose Moses, David, Samson and the prophets in order to accomplish specific tasks which in no way implied that they were elected to salvation while the rest were lost. He gives to some 5 talents while to others He gives 1 which is the best way for understanding the potter and the clay references in Rom 9. It’s also the best way for understanding what God said to Moses when He said that He will have mercy on whosoever He will which was said in response to Moses request to see God’s glory. This is something that not everyone is granted because God is too wise to err and yet He will not withhold any good thing from those who walk uprightly.
Second, in Rom 9:11 the promise of God is given through election, which is not of works. This implies that it is of grace which is confirmed by Rom 11:5 where Paul refers to “a remnant according to the election of grace.” In the next verse, Rom 11:6, he emphatically states that this election is not of works but of grace and in Rom 11:7 some who sought election obtained it while the rest were hardened. The only way they could have obtained it was through grace and not by works. In other words, those who were willing to fall on the rock and be broken received the grace of God through faith while others rejected the means that God had ordained for their election and the result was that their hearts were hardened. That this grace was received through faith is clear in Rom 9:30-10:4. These verses connect the stumblingstone and rock of offense as the means whereby righteousness is attained. All who did not comply with these conditions were hardened (Rom 11:7) which best explains the process of how Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. The same sun melts butter but hardens clay.
Third, Rom 11:28 says, “as far as election is concerned, they [children of Israel] are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” The verses previous to Rom 11:28 indicate that it’s only believing Jews that are grafted into the tree. Thus the elect are those who believe God.
Fourth, in the introduction to Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians the apostle reminds them that God has chosen them (1 Thess 1:4). In 1 Thess 1:5-8, he outlines the process of that choice which included the reception of the gospel “in much affliction,” which led to them being examples and which finally led them to preach the word. God’s choice was accomplished when they cooperated with the Holy Spirit.
Fifth, 2 Pet 1:10 is a very interesting text for those who believe that election is based on God’s irresistible decrees in timeless eternity past. The reason is that it directs us to be diligent in order “to make your calling and election sure.” In light of this very brief analysis, Ellen White offers a very interesting interpretation of election in Rom 9:13 where the Lord states, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
"Esau and Jacob had alike been instructed in the knowledge of God, and both were free to walk in His commandments and to receive His favor; but they had not both chosen to do this. The two brothers had walked in different ways, and their paths would continue to diverge more and more widely. {PP 207.3}
There was no arbitrary choice on the part of God by which Esau was shut out from the blessings of salvation. The gifts of His grace through Christ are free to all. There is no election but one’s own by which any may perish. God has set forth in His word the conditions upon which every soul will be elected to eternal life--obedience to His commandments, through faith in Christ. God has elected a character in harmony with His law, and anyone who shall reach the standard of His requirement will have an entrance into the kingdom of glory. Christ Himself said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life." John 3:36. "Not everyone that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21. And in the Revelation He declares, [BEGIN P.208] "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Revelation 22:14. As regards man’s final salvation, this is the only election brought to view in the word of God. {PP 207.4}
Every soul is elected who will work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. He is elected who will put on the armor and fight the good fight of faith. He is elected who will watch unto prayer, who will search the Scriptures, and flee from temptation. He is elected who will have faith continually, and who will be obedient to every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The provisions of redemption are free to all; the results of redemption will be enjoyed by those who have complied with the conditions." {PP 208.1}
Reflection #5
I just finished reading Dr. Rodriguez article titled, “Christ Saved the Human Race.” This reflection is not about that article but about some of the Spirit of Prophecy statements in that article that confirmed a study I did about the setting or context of the Plan of Salvation. Here’s an example of one of the statements.
“On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to rescue the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who by a lie framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and who thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's kingdom. Satan refused to let his captives go. He held them as his subjects because of their belief of his lie. He had thus become their jailor. But he had no right to demand that a price be paid for them; because he had not obtained possession of them by lawful conquest, but under false pretense. God, being the creditor, had a right to make any provision for the redemption of human beings. Justice demanded that a certain price be paid. The Son of God was the only One who could pay this price. He volunteered to come to this earth and pass over the ground where Adam fell. He came as the redeemer of the lost race, to conquer the wily foe, and by His steadfast allegiance to right, to save all who should accept Him as their Saviour.” (Letter 20, 1903)
In this statement, the redemption price of the race is placed within the greater framework of the great controversy theme. Actually nearly half of the statements that Rodriguez quoted about some aspects of the plan of redemption are placed within this great controversy framework. As I was studying through the Conflict of the Ages series, this is something that I picked up on a few years ago and it led me back to the Scriptures to see if there were certain models of salvation that were placed within the greater framework of the great controversy theme.
Yet before going to some of the Scripture support, I was amazed at one statement which was a commentary about the sacrifice of Isaac. This is how it reads.
“The sacrifice required of Abraham was not alone for his own good, nor solely for the benefit of succeeding generations; but it was also for the instruction of the sinless intelligences of heaven and of other worlds. The field of the controversy between Christ and Satan--the field on which the plan of redemption is wrought out--is the lesson book of the universe” (PP 154).
This statement says that the plan of redemption is wrought out on a field, yet it doesn’t stop there, it also identifies the field as “the field of the controversy between Christ and Satan.” One of the things that has been stressed in our salvation seminar is the need to think higher, deeper and broader about the subject of salvation. In the statement above, the field is broader than the plan of salvation, which itself is wrought out on a field. This to me is an incredible theological statement.
We can unpack the theological implications of this statement by looking at the analogy of battles and fields. Wars and battles are fought on fields; they are always together and inseparable. In many instances the field determines how the battle is fought. According to the passage above the field is the great controversy between Christ and Satan and the battle is the plan of redemption. Since the field to a great extent determines the battle, this has great theological implications.
First, the doctrine of Christ/God must be viewed from the great controversy theme.
Second, the plan of redemption, which includes: incarnation, salvation, justification, sanctification, judgment, glorification, etc…must be placed in a broader framework. The truth of the matter is that whether the interpreter realizes it or not he/she is always assuming a broader framework when talking about the plan of redemption. The question is this: the framework or field is either the historical great controversy theme or the timelessness of Greek philosophy. Why these two fields?
The answer is that they provide the broadest possible philosophical and theological presuppositions which form the necessary preconditions for our understanding of the plan of salvation. Without these preconditions, which are always assumed, it would not be possible to discuss the subject of salvation in a meaningful way because metaphysics and ontology creates the framework for meaning. If we switch back to the analogy of battles and fields, the field is the necessary precondition that makes a battle possible. In the material and earthly realm, battles always assume one of the following fields: land, sea, air and space. In the spiritual world, philosophy and theology have only uncovered two fields, time and timelessness.
When Ellen White placed the plan of salvation within the great controversy theme, she was interpreting ontology (the study and interpretation of reality) as compatible with time and space. Although the Bible has always assumed this, theology has never ditched the timeless interpretation of reality. Even those who have dismissed the whole idea of transcendence as understood by the classical and modern models, still assume the timeless interpretation of transcendence but now within immanence. Although she may not have used the technical language of metaphysics and ontology, nevertheless the Holy Spirit qualified her to understand the true interpretation of ontology via the great controversy theme. The statement in PP 154 is only one of many statements in the Conflict of the Ages Series in which she clearly and deliberately discusses the varying aspects of the plan of salvation within the great controversy theme. Only someone who is “systematically trained” can grasp these issues. This is one reason why I believe she is a theologian and that her writings are not just devotional and “inspirational” ditties.
In light of this the task of the theologian is twofold: i) to help people realize that the plan of redemption does not occur in a vacuum, a playing field is always assumed and ii) to interpret the plan of redemption (the battle) within the right context (the field) and to show how they relate together.
In my next reflection I will discuss the Biblical models of salvation in order to see if they are placed within a broader great controversy framework.
Assignment #10
How I wish I was more philosophical and systematic! But anyway, here is a paradigm I was working on a few days ago sparked by Dr. Hanna's lecture in which he diagrammed how God is bigger than what we know and that even the cosmos is smaller than Him.
1. With that in mind, since God can and does exist outside of time as well as in time, outside of the created cosmos as well as inside it, God is the largest sphere of reality that can possibly be. He can be in or out of His creation.
2. And within the created cosmos (including all fallen and unfallen beings) there must have been history both before Lucifer started the Great Controversy and theoretically will exist after the resolution of the Great Controversy. This Great Controvesy is only one event in the midst of many others.
3. Within that Great Controversy is the Plan of Redemption that is the divine response to the problem of Sin. God responds to more than sin and sin-filled beings, but "Redemption" is that part which specifically addresses sin and it's effects on the cosmos, on both the fallen and unfallen beings and creation.
4. Within that Plan of Redemption or Salvation is the part of God's actions that affect fallen beings and fallen creation predominantly.
5. Within that Salvation which affects fallen entities is the narrower aspect that addresses human sin only. This is the realm that the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement applies.
But every action of God in the narrower realms does affect and positively bless all the others. And every hint of light that shines down upon man from the wider or higher realms enlightens our grasp of God, Sin, Satan and the mystery of reconciliation. The cross is not limited to level No. 5. Even though that is the aspect which we are most interested in- h Colossians 1:19,20 applies the atonement ( I am using this word in the original english definition- "at-one-ment" {listed as reconciliation for 1st,2nd and 3rd definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary as the original meaning in theological tracts dating in 1500's} , not in the narrower sense of propitiation for sin {listed as definition #4 in theological tracts in 1600's} which it has come to mean today) hints at this bigger scope, "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
The Great Controversy theory of salvation does not exclude the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement. It can't! It affirms the substitutionary blood of His cross as necessary for mankind to be saved and also necessary to reconcile the things in heaven. How does the blood of Christ on the cross affect the unfallen beings? That is an area that needs theological work. It holds promise to help us see the wider implications of God's Salvation, the wider damage of sin, and how Christ's crowning act on the cross resoundingly brings lasting peace to all realms.
Reflection #6
In the previous reflection I examined some key statements in the Spirit of Prophecy which linked the plan of salvation with the great controversy theme. In this reflection I will examine some key Biblical statements in order to see if the great controversy theme is there.
Let’s first look at John 12:31, 32 which says this: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Jesus statement about being lifted up from the earth is a clear reference to His crucifixion which is an incredibly vital aspect of the plan of salvation. The background to this statement in verse 31 provides the theological framework for His selfless sacrifice which was still future at this point. Jesus said that the prince of this world would be cast out, and that the world would be judged by His death on the cross. There is something that happened at the cross that would give Jesus the right to cast out the prince of this world. Namely all of the Devil’s accusations against the government of God would be silenced. Christ’s death on the cross now places the enemy in checkmate with no place else to go and no further rationalizations.
It’s also interesting to note that the word ‘men’ in verse 32 is italicized which of course means that it is not in the original. When translating it’s impossible to proceed on a one to one word basis, because it simply doesn’t work that way which means at times it’s necessary to supply words in order to smooth out the translation. Sometimes those words may make grammatical and syntactical sense but at the same time they may alter the theological meaning. Unfortunately this is one of those times when the theological meaning has been altered. The insertion of the word ‘men’ takes away the cosmic scope of the sacrifice of Christ by focusing attention toward humanity.
If you ask this question, ‘why did Jesus have to die?’ Many of the answers are limited to a demonstration of His love for us, or to save sinners. However, how many have been able to discern the wider issues that are at stake? Take for instance Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion.” If that was the only exposure you had to the crucifixion of Christ, you are still left wondering what the significance of His sacrifice was all about. Why did this Man go through all of this? Why can He forgive and why should I believe in Him? These and many other questions are left totally unanswered.
Rev 12:10 is perhaps another important text for this discussion on the plan of salvation and the great controversy theme. It states, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” This text tells us that the Devil who is the accuser of our brethren is cast down. According to John 12:32 this took place at the cross. Here again we see that the theological background for the supreme sacrifice is the great controversy. Furthermore it’s the cross of Christ that silences the accuser of the brethren.
Rev 12 is one of the most fascinating chapters in the Bible for me because it provides a succinct history of the great controversy from the beginning to almost the end in just 17 short verses. One cannot fail to see the controversy as the framework for the whole chapter and probably for the whole book of Revelation. Some consider Rev 12:10 as the heart of the book of Revelation. IF that is so, then the great controversy theme is the foundation and framework of the entire plan of salvation.
If this is indeed so, and I believe it is, then we should examine every part of the plan of salvation from within this framework. This would included but not be limited to: the doctrine of sin, incarnation (human nature of Jesus), justification, sanctification, election, calling, etc… In the next reflection I would like to respond to Gerhard Pfandl’s article on original sin from within this context.
Reflection #7
In my last reflection I briefly examined two texts (John 12:31, 32; Rev 12:10) in order to demonstrate that the plan of salvation is placed within the greater framework of the great controversy theme. As I noted in the previous reflection, there are many implications for the plan of salvation. However in this reflection we will look at the implications concerning the doctrine of sin by examining Gerhard Pfandl’s article on original sin.
Instead of agreeing or disagreeing with Dr. Pfandl’s conclusions about the definition of original sin, I would like to begin by first looking at his methodology. I believe we waste a lot of time in responding to the different conclusions we hear instead of trying to realize the framework that made these conclusions possible. I would like to continue the line of thought I used in the previous reflections by evaluating Dr. Pfandl’s article within the greater theological framework. Second, I would like to examine some key Spirit of Prophecy statements that Dr. Pfandl did not refer to in this article.
Dr. Pfandl’s article is very clearly written and easy to follow. Let me also say that it’s not possible in 22 pages to be exhaustive in any sense of the word which means that it’s only understandable that certain Biblical texts and historical figures are absent. In this article Dr. Pfandl mainly takes a historical and exegetical approach to the issue of original sin, not a theological approach. The correct understanding of this subject is inextricably linked with the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man, which in turn need to be studied from the viewpoint of a correct interpretation of ontology (being – the study of reality). In dealing with the history of the doctrine of original sin, it would have been much more helpful to demonstrate how Greek metaphysics shaped both the doctrine of God and man, and how that in turn affects the interpretation of original sin. Without this kind of analysis confusion abounds and the Biblical texts as well as the historical reflections can be easily misinterpreted and set within an unbiblical framework. This is the weakest aspect of his article.
Since the plan of salvation, which would include the doctrine of sin, is placed within a greater great controversy framework, then one cannot properly handle this subject without at least asking what the greater theological context is. Failure to do this can result in uncritically accepting Greek metaphysical concepts as the basis for understanding this subject. Additionally, it can be easy to come to the conclusion that exegetical and historical analysis is free from metaphysical presuppositions. No attempt was made to intentionally and systematically understand this subject within a greater framework.
Second, throughout the article Dr. Pfandl referred to Ellen White and seemed to quote her in such a way that she agreed with his conclusions. Again I’m fully aware that it’s not possible to be exhaustive about this subject in over 20 pages. However, I found it strange that one of Ellen White’s key definitions of sin in her magnum opus, “The Great Controversy” was not even referred to in an article that deals exclusively with this subject. Here’s the quote, “Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is "the transgression of the law;" it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government” (GC 493).
All throughout this great book, she rejects Greek metaphysics. Therefore this statement on sin should be viewed from within the great controversy theme that is woven throughout the entire book. This makes Ellen White’s approach theological and not just exegetical or historical. Since i) Pfandl’s work is not theological in nature, and ii) since he does not deliberately move from the greater framework of the great controversy theme to the subject matter of original sin, then it’s possible to conclude that he is still assuming a Greek metaphysical system for his interpretations of sin. This is one reason for why sin is referred to as a state for which one is condemned. Ellen White on the other hand does not view sin as a state, but rather as “the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love.”
Unless Adventists begin to deal with the ontological issues in a deliberate and systematic manner, then any discussion on these issues will only create more fog instead of clarity.
This reflection is based upon certain statements made by Ellen White in her book “Faith and Works.” The specific chapter title is, “The Quality of Our Faith.” In this chapter she makes certain statements about the role of reason and its relationship to faith and salvation. Regarding how one is born again she says that we cannot explain the things of God upon the human heart. “You cannot explain this faith that lays right hold upon the merits of the blood of a crucified and risen Saviour to bring Christ’s righteousness into your life” (65,66). Also regarding the impotent man, Christ simply told him to take up his bed and walk and he did exactly as he was told. She then makes this comment. “This is the faith that we need. But if you stop to explain everything and reason out every point, you will die in your sins, because you will never be satisfied” (68). She also makes a similar statement about the role of reason regarding the brazen serpent (69).
What exactly is she saying here? Is she saying that we should not employ our reasoning powers when it comes to salvation or is she saying that reason has its limits when it comes to explaining how God works? I believe the second option is much more plausible. Our unaided reason can never explain the mysteries in the natural world, let alone the things of God. Furthermore God has never explained how He does what He does, yet He has given us plenty of evidence that will help us to realize that although we may not understand how He does things we may have complete confidence in His ability. This was clearly the experience of the impotent man in John 5.
Thus when Ellen White tells us not to try to reason out every point she is saying that the principle of how human reason works cannot reconcile the command of God with our present condition. Human reason says, “it makes no sense to ask me to walk when I’ve been in this miserable condition for 38 years, after all I need to be able to walk in order to obey the command and that is clearly impossible.”
As I see it, this does not place a restriction on human reason, rather it enables reason to spread its wings and go places it has not gone before. In our “scientific” world the proper understanding of reason is based upon philosophical naturalism which a priori claims that there is no transcendent God who can interact with our world so there is no use in grounding reason in something that “doesn’t exist in reality.” However, there is no way reason itself can verify the truthfulness about this claim because reason is not reality but only a tool which presupposes reality, or at least an interpretation of reality.
If philosophical naturalism is all there is then reason is limited to it, but if there is a transcendent reality which can also appeal to our reason, then reason has found a new ground in which to operate. Therefore when Jesus comes along and gives evidence that He is indeed “the way, the Truth and the life,” then the will of man can obey based upon evidence that has already appealed to our reason, even if reason itself is not able to understand how Jesus command can be reconciled with our experience. As a matter of fact, the only way in which we can succeed in the Christian life is to allow reason to function within the parameters of what Scripture says is possible for us to achieve.
The remarkable thing about the impotent man is that he had never met Jesus before, yet he still decided to obey.
Reflection #9
This reflection will examine the role of the sanctuary as it relates to the doctrine of salvation. Specifically, how does the sanctuary help in defining a doctrine of salvation. On a fundamental level, the sanctuary gives the proper interpretation of God’s reality and in doing so it also defines for us man’s reality. In the book of Daniel, the chief object of the little horn’s attack is the sanctuary. The book begins with Babylon attacking the earthly sanctuary and the people of God in Daniel’s day and ends in Dan 11:40-12:1 with the same power attacking God’s people. In Dan 8:11 the Bible informs us that the little horn would cast down the place of His sanctuary, which is a reference to the heavenly sanctuary. The question is how would the little horn do this in a literal sense since it cannot go to heaven itself and literally cast the sanctuary down? Obviously this is not to be interpreted in a literal sense but rather in the sense that the sanctuary’s foundational, systematic role would be discarded. De Souza comes to the same conclusion in his dissertation, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible,” when he states, “the little horn does not attack a physical structure, but the theological foundation of the heavenly sanctuary, that is, YHWH’s righteousness and justice” (459).
Just how did the little horn do this? He did it by introducing Greek philosophical concepts which in effect eliminated the foundational role of the sanctuary. Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle constructed an interpretation of reality that was completely devoid of time and space which then explained everything within the cosmos.
This interpretation of reality became the systematic foundation to everything existing within the cosmos which is then understood in relation to this timeless reality.
How then does this affect the foundational role of the heavenly sanctuary? Since the sanctuary is a spatio-temporal structure, by definition it cannot function as the foundational role because it exists in space and time and thus it presupposes and points back to timeless, eternal realities. It is this timeless, eternal reality that functions as the foundational system. The early church fathers, many of who were philosophers themselves, functioned within this kind of worldview. This formed the template in which the reality of God and humanity were understood, namely on the basis of timelessness. This gave a dualistic interpretation to humanity via the immortality of the soul which was understood in a timeless sense.
This has had a tremendous impact on the understanding of the doctrine of salvation. For many, salvation only involves the soul and not the body. Since there is a dichotomy between soul and body and since salvation only embraces the soul, then how one treats the body is of little significance and has nothing to do with salvation. So out goes the health message!
Furthermore, the correct interpretation of the doctrine of sin and salvation assumes a foundational framework. Now that the foundational, systematic role of the sanctuary has been discarded, the interpretations of sin and salvation will be built upon the philosophical system that the little horn has set up.
This implies a major change in our understanding of salvation. Thus in order to bring clarity to the issue of salvation, we must learn to trace our interpretation of sin, righteousness, justification, etc…to either one of two foundations, either the one built on Greek philosophy or on the sanctuary.
Reflection #10
This reflection will examine some thoughts about Dr. Heppenstall’s article on perfection found in the BRI website under the salvation section. He seems to define perfection as stability, maturity, loving one’s enemies and faithfulness under trials and afflictions. Also there is no finality to Christian perfection, no place where we can say that we have arrived. At the same time he states that the Bible never refers to sinless perfection on the part of God’s people since the very best of God’s saints have always confessed the sinfulness of their natures. The main point of the article is concerned with how perfection is understood in light of the experience of God’s people before and after the close of probation.
The Achilles heel and thus the weakness of Heppenstall’s argument is that he is not very specific in stating what sin is. The reader is left to read between the lines. What is sinless perfection? I suppose the bottom line is what is sin? The answer to this question leads to the answer of the original question. Regarding sin Heppenstall states, “Sin does not reign, but it does remain in terms of the limitations of human nature as we know it on this earth. It takes into consideration, even after the close of probation, that as people grow old the arteries harden, the mental and physical systems slow down and therefore the responses are not what they were in the full strength of youth.”
While no one would deny that the sinful condition includes the limitations of human nature, it seems that by including this ‘definition’ of sin, he is assuming that sinless perfection would also mean somehow eradicating this part of our nature. This really confuses the issue thereby making it pointless to even talk about sinless perfection if the definition of sin includes the limitations of our sinful nature. It’s true that even after the close of probation further grace and power are needed precisely on account of the fact that we still have a sinful nature, however he seems to imply at times that this grace includes forgiving grace. This is also confusing because it seems to imply that forgiveness of sin is still needed after the close of probation yet how can that be if Christ’s work as an intercessor is now completed?
Furthermore, he defines grace as the “eternal and free favor of God, manifested toward the guilty and the unworthy.” This definition of grace is based upon whatever is meant by the “eternal and free favor of God.” Are the words eternal and free to be understood in a timeless philosophical sense? Just what does Heppenstall mean? Grace must be interpreted in light of various philosophical and theological systems. The definition that Heppenstall supplies here hardly matches up with the rest of the Biblical data, especially Titus 2:11-14.
The following statement is also confusing, “The fact that they have chosen without qualification, the righteousness of Christ, leaves only the actual conferring of that sinless nature and entrance into their eternal inheritance at the second coming of Christ, when this mortal shall put on immortality and this corruption shall have put on incorruption (1 Cor 15:52 54). This statement is made about the saints after the close of probation, however the question is just what is the conferring of that sinless nature? Does the conferral of the sinless nature represent the time which this mortal shall put on immortality or does it mean that we have been made sinless by that conferral?
His muddy definitions of what constitutes sin, the sinful nature, and why we’re condemned are at the root of the problem. The following quote in “The Great Controversy” regarding the saints in the time of trouble helps to bring clarity to the issue.
“Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." John 14:30. Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Father's commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble” (GC p. 623 emphasis mine).
Some interpreters erroneously interpret Jesus words in John 14:30 as a proof regarding the sinlessness of His nature in contrast to ours. The above quotation demonstrates that this interpretation is based on erroneous Christological interpretations.
Reflection #11
I would like to touch briefly upon what I mentioned in class today about Rev 4 and 5 as it relates to the establishing of a bigger model, salvation and worship. I briefly raised the issue of the Lamb that was slain in Rev 5:6 and 12 in order to begin the discussion. The question is how should we interpret the slaying of the Lamb? Should the reference of the slain Lamb be restricted to the events that surround Calvary or can the Scriptural data extend to other events that would not be restricted to the cross? This is precisely where the issue of models comes in to play. I believe that models are always assumed whether the interpreter is aware of them or not. Since that is the case, then why not move from model to data (meaning the Biblical text)?
Perhaps an illustration may help us to capture the significance of this. Let’s look at the following illustration in order to understand how data involves models and thus cannot be understood without them. Suppose we had the sheet music of Beethoven’s 5th symphony in front of us. If we say, “Aha this is Beethoven’s 5th symphony,” we are really not expressing the reality of the piece because it’s just a bunch of notes: it has no meaning. However if we come to the realization that we need a model or a system in order to interpret the data, then we must come to the conclusion that we must choose the correct model or system which would then accommodate all the data.
If we say that any model or system will do then how will this affect i) the data, and ii) the interpretation of the data? Let’s begin by choosing a ukulele. If we choose a ukulele how will this affect the data and the interpretation of the data? First, much of the data will be discarded because the melodic and harmonic capabilities of a ukulele are too narrow to handle the data. Second the notes that are played will be reinterpreted because the data calls for strings, brass, percussion, etc… but the ukulele has only one timbre.
What if we move to a piano as the next model or system? This is a step in the right direction but if the piano is played by only person (who only has 10 fingers) then some parts of the data which may call for 12 or 15 notes played at the same time, will also be discarded. Also the piano has only one timbre so it would not be able to reproduce strings, brass, etc…which is implicit in the data.
Obviously the correct model or system for interpreting the data is a 120 piece orchestra. This guarantees that none of the data will be discarded and it also guarantees that the data will be rightly interpreted because now you will have string, brass and percussion sounds.
How then does this relate to Rev 4 and 5, and more specifically to Rev 5:6, 12 which contains the reference to the Lamb slain? It’s the data that assumes a model or a system. In this case it assumes either one of two salvation models, either the Biblical model of the sanctuary or the Roman Catholic, Evangelical model in which blood is restricted to what happened on the cross. The interpreter must choose.
In this case we have only focused on the data of the slain Lamb however you also have the sending out of the Spirit. How should this be interpreted? Obviously the model or system one chooses answers that question. Also, the living creatures, the elders and the Lamb are mentioned as being i) in the midst of the throne and ii) round about the throne (see Rev 4:6; 5:6,11). This data must also assume a model, but which one? According to Greek concepts ultimate reality is timeless, therefore to talk about spatial features as in the heavenly sanctuary should not be a part of the theological materials. In fact these descriptions are culturally conditioned. However if we accept the sanctuary/great controversy theme as the model or system then we must ask one pertinent question. Which article of furniture was placed in the middle? The only answer is the Ark of the Covenant which contained the 10 Commandments. If that’s the case then the best interpretation of the Biblical data is that Rev 4 and 5 is a Most Holy Place scene because it not only allows for the cross but also for the Most Holy Place application of the blood as well.
How then does this affect worship? That will be the subject of the next reflection.
Reflection #12
The Biblical data of Rev 4 and 5 assumes a model or system which then helps us to best interpret the data and without the correct model the data can be either discarded or reinterpreted. The choice of the right model has a direct impact on our understanding of all the data in these chapters, which includes salvation and worship. If the sanctuary is the best model/system which integrates and interprets the Biblical data of Rev 4 and 5, then based on my last reflection it becomes increasingly clear that Rev 4 and 5 takes place in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. This has a direct impact not only on the doctrine of salvation but also on worship.
First, if this is taking place in the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary then salvation must include elements from the Day of Atonement. Second, if worship is based not only on who God is but also on what He does, then the same model which affects our understanding of salvation also has a direct impact on the doctrine of worship.
In Dan 8:11 the Bible stated that the place or foundational role of God’s sanctuary would be cast down. At the same time while the place of God’s sanctuary was cast down, the abomination of desolation was set up. All throughout the dark ages, the heavenly sanctuary was eclipsed from view. In Dan 7 there are two main systems: on the one hand you have the little horn and on the other hand the judgment which takes place in heaven. Interestingly enough, the reign of the little horn was followed by the judgment 3 times in that chapter.
During the dark ages much was lost, i) the foundational/systematic role of the heavenly sanctuary was replaced by Greek philosophy, ii) the mediatorial work of Christ was also eclipsed by an earthly priestly system. Since worship is based on who God is and what He does, this had a profound effect on worship forms. For many centuries, Gregorian chant in Latin was the only correct form of music, and the celebration of the mass was the center of the liturgy. Greek philosophical systems were at the very foundation of the mass and the liturgy.
In Dan 7 it’s the judgment in heaven that would bring down this system and in Dan 8:14 the cleansing of the sanctuary would do the same. The little horn represents a model or system which has direct implications for salvation and worship. In contradistinction to this, the judgment/cleansing of the sanctuary represents another model or system which also has direct implications for the doctrine of salvation and worship.
Thus one cannot simply make shifts or changes in the doctrine of salvation or worship and pretend that the issues have been solved. Rather than focus on the many theories of salvation and worship models, another alternative is to analyze salvation and worship models in light of the foundational models or systems that we have been talking about. The choice in Dan 7 and 8 is between two diametrically opposed models or systems. Once the model is chosen then it more or less “determines” what the doctrine of salvation “looks” like and what worship forms “look” like.
If Rev 4 and 5 is viewed under the sanctuary model, then the events described therein are taking place in the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary beginning from 1844. This MHP ministry of Jesus has a direct impact on worship forms. The emphasis of worship is on the holiness of God (Rev 4:8) as the transcendent One of the universe. The Day of Atonement brings a certain solemnity to the worship service yet there is praise (Rev 5:8-14). The harp is chosen as the only accompanying instrument (Rev 5:8) which emphasizes melody and harmony.
Finally worship always assumes a doctrine of salvation and a doctrine of God. However according to Dan 7,8; Rev 4 and 5 a doctrine of salvation and a doctrine of God assumes either the Greek philosophical model/system or the Biblical/Sanctuary model/system. These two foundational models are not in agreement with one another, so then we must choose one or the other when building a doctrine of salvation and a doctrine of worship.
Reaction #1
This is a reaction to Arlyn's reflection #10.
I fully agree that we must further explore the implications of the great controversy theme in at least two major ways: i) as the overall theme which grounds theology, and ii) the philosophical implications which regarding history and time which the GC theme assumes
The only thing I found to "criticize" in Arlyn's reflection was the reference to God being outside of time and yet also choosing to be in it. What exactly does it mean for God to be outside of time? Platonic philosophy refers to "timelessness," which the Christendom has built entire theological structures upon. Was there time before creation? What is time? Is it a "thing," or does it co-appear with life? If the Bible says that God, "was, and is, and is to come," and that Has been "from everlasting to everlasting?" would that not assume that time co-appears with life, and therefore it is not created?
Other than that, this was a great reflection which helps us to see the work of Christ in broader terms than what many are used to
Comment #9
by Dojcin Zivadinovic
Ok, I worked on my papers so i haven't been here for a while.Forgive me for this slack.
I wanted to reflect on Jesus' words to Nicodemus "you have to be born again" in John 3.
In John chapter 3 Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night for the fear of the Jews and starts the conversation with Jesus. Jesus knows exactly why Nicodemus is here for and cuts stright to the soteriological/eschatological issue: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again".
In other words, Nicodemus as other Jews was concerned about whether Jesus will establish a kingdom of God but Jesus answers him that to enter the kingdom of God one must be "born again". Obviously this is not a literal rebirth because Jesus says: " I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit
therefore in order to get saved and be in this glorious kingdom we must be "born again".
Jesus used the concept of birth to describe the process of becoming a Christian. Since he gave us this metaphor he probably thought it would be appropriate to develop on it.
See, when man first meets God and accepts His mercy, the new born baby is here. This baby needs an extra care and very special treatment, when it cries we try to calm t down, we need to feed it with special food etc... parallelly, in the spiritual "birth", when someone freshly accepts Jesus, he needs help more than ever to overcome the temptations and get stronger, but most of all the new baby needs to eat in order to grow. What we as Christians usually do however is unfortunate, after we baptize one person we turn our attention to other babies who are about to be born and neglect the new born baby that awaits for feeding.
While it is good to seek the birth of other babies, we should not forget that the already born spiritual babies need "follow up". They need to be nurtured until they start being able to feed themselves.
All this might seem little childish for you all and you might be wondering how does this fits in the class on systematic theology on salvation. I will come to my point but I will first remind you that both Apostles Peter and Paul , speaking of soteriological issues use the metaphor of the new born christian eating "spiritual milk". (1 Peter 2: 2 and 1 Cor 3: 2, Hebrews 5: 12-14 )
Here is my point that will bounce on what we have disscussed during the last class.
My point is that if a baby doesn't eat spiritual food it will soon die and it will loose the life that had previously acquired!
Thus, if we as Christians are not fed, we will not grow but die or become spiritual dwarfs.
In contrary, if we are fed well by our spiritual brothers and sisters we will be able to feed ourselves and become strong men. However, the problem is that many Christians live on the point of spiritual starvation, not eating for days until they finally reach Church in Sabbath and have a long waited meal.
The word of God is called "bread" in the Scripture. Jesus said that he is the bread of life, his word is spiritual food we need to eat every day. The prayer is water. we can maybe survive without bread for couple days but we are dead without water after three days. Similarly no praying makes man spiritually dead.
Fortunately, God mercifully extends his powerful hand and seeks us even in the valley of the shadows and death, when we are spiritual dead, he still work on our re-animation and feeds us like sick on our sickbeds.
How does a doctrine of perfection fits into this picture? First we have initial justification - new birth, then we have sanctification - eating and getting stronger in the Spirit. We don't have any account of Jesus physical development but we sure do several synoptic mentioning Jesus' growth in the Grace and the Spirit.
Finally, my view on perfection in this moment is that Christian perfection represents a perfect development in every phase of spiritual growth. Therefore we can be "a perfect baby", "perfect child", "perfect teenager", "perfect adult" and "perfect grown man". When our growth is "on schedule" with Jesus' chart of growth rate regarding our circumstances, then we can be called "perfect", independent of our stage of spiritual maturity.
Perfection is perfect response to Jesus plan for our spiritual growth. Going where he leads us. 144 000 are thus perfect because they have followed Lamb wherever he goes.
However if we grow with many unnecessary starvations, we will not be perfect. we will barely be alive, let alone perfect.
the starvation I refer to can be a.) not studying Bible enough or b.) simply refusing certain biblical truth because it's inconvenient,
c.)refusing to give up some cherished sin
and others "obstacles" in God's plan of growth for us.
these famines in our spiritual life obstruct our perfect growth... we still might grow but this grow is slow, regressive and lacks timing, we can not feed others with the gospel if we are not developed and mature enough. Jesus can not use us if we constantly starve ourselves.
However, if we follow God's prescription "pray without ceasing" and "my words are bread to this world" and apply these two in the same way we apply the water and bread in our physical lives, we will certainly grow unto perfection.
Comment # 10
while I was reading through Ellen White comments about the heavenly sanctuary I came across an interesting topic which according to Ellen white represents the cornerstone of Adventist theology. Surprisingly, this theme is marginalized by the large majority of Adventists. I will even go as far as to say that we have severely apostatized on this issue and this apostasy is prolonging our stay on this earth.
Harsh words? Consider this passage from Patriarch and Prophets, pp. 357, 358: "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement."
I was taught to believe that sin is canceled at the moment of forgiveness, and that when God forgives us and justifies us he also blots our sin and forgets our sin instantly and forever. This is simple consequence of uniquely cross-centered Soteriology we have adopted from our protestant friends.
Both Ellen White and the Biblical account on sanctuary teach us that while the sinner is freed from guilt and condemnation immediately at his repentance, the record of sin is only transferred to the sanctuary, where it remains until something called the "final atonement." This is clearly shown in the sanctuary service where we have “daily sacrifices” or "daily atonement" and the final “day of atonement”.
While upon his repentance the sinner stands free and clear, the sin itself cannot be disposed of so quickly. In essence, Jesus has taken the responsibility for our sin. There has been a transgression of God's holy law, and even though Jesus died for the breaking of that law, that didn't finish dealing with the problem of sin.
Ellen White continues "Then [at Yom Kippur] by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. This great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement--the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted."
The prophecy of Daniel 8: 14 points to the moment when the sanctuary shall start being cleansed. We can assume that for now, it is the dead who are being and have been judged and cleansed but it is also the lives of presently living that are to be examined and delivered from sin.
The sacrificial atonement took place 2,000 years ago. Without that, there would be no possibility of forgiveness or salvation or eternal life. But the sacrificial atonement was not the end of the atonement process. There was something yet to be done which the Old Testament calls the Day of Atonement and Ellen White calls the final atonement. If we do not understand these concepts clearly, we can have no understanding of why the Seventh-day Adventist Church should exist. Denis Priebe writes: “the sacrificial atonement was in place and taught throughout the world for 1800 years before there ever was a Seventh-day Adventist. Adventism was called into existence because the final atonement was beginning, and this needed to be understood and taught throughout the world just as the sacrificial atonement had been. It is very tempting to join with the Christian world in focusing exclusively on the sacrificial atonement, while we lose sight of the final atonement. But without the final atonement, the sacrificial atonement cannot be brought to completion in dealing with sin and sinners. These two phases of the atonement of Christ are equally vital to the final removal of sin from the universe.”
The final atonement is about the blotting out of all sins from the records of heaven. This is when sin and sins go out of existence. They must stay on record until something very important takes place during the final atonement.
Once each year, during the Day of Atonement, Israel looked forward to the closing events of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, when the universe would be eternally purified from sin and sinners. We are now at that point 'in earth's history--the time for the final eradication of sin. But unfortunately we are losing this sacred mission from our mind and we continue to justify our small bad habits and sins thinking that when Jesus comes he will take care of our remained sins.
Ellen White writes elsewhere: "Now Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary. And what is He doing? Making atonement for us, cleansing the sanctuary from the sins of the people. Then we must enter by faith into the sanctuary with Him, we must commence the work in the sanctuary of our souls." (Manuscript 8, 1888) Christ's final intercessory work is called "making atonement," and it involves the final purification of the sanctuary from all sin. Note that our relation to this final atonement involves a cleansing work in our own souls.
"All need to become more intelligent in regard to the work of the atonement, which is going on in the sanctuary above. When this grand truth is seen and understood, those who hold it will work in harmony with Christ to prepare a people to stand in the great day of God, and their efforts will be successful." (5T
575)
Up to this date our best efforts have not been successful, so it might be well for us to take a good look at the "grand truth" of the final atonement, since that is the only way to success in finishing the great controversy.
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, what art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Paul here argues for the right of God to act in whom he chooses to. On face value the passage may allow God to seem arbitrary in his dealings but the difficulty lies in weighing the moral context of judging God. Under what rules can we evaluate God but by the rules that he has given us? Did God go contrary in his dealings with Pharoah and Esau? The plausible answer would be no, based on the free choice that each possessed and the actions they later took. That God had foreknowledge of their actions does not mean that his righteousness or justice was compromised. In class Dr. Hanna highlighted the point that God is interested in the freedom of mankind. He highlighted that in God’s salvific plan for mankind, it is and was His desire for us to have perfect freedom. Freedom from sin, freedom to choose, freedom to live. Interestingly God’s predestination is also our freedom. Paul balances up the argument by reminding us in Romans 2:5 that it is after the hardness of our hearts why we are heading for the wrath. Apparently God’s foreknowledge and the manner of His predestined status of our lives must be seen in the greater tension of understanding how his fairness and justice in all his dealings is manifest. It is possible that God’s desire is for all to have freedom from sin, but he will not force the heart. I clearly don’t have the answer for some of these questions but it does give me room to think.
Romans 11:21
“For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.”
If we looked at this passage in light of vs. 26 which states “All Israel shall be saved.” What do we make of it? Was Israel justified by faith because they were Abraham’s seed and did they lose out on their covenantal relationship because of their rejection of Christ? If they were in Christ it is then assumed that they were justified in him and thus began the journey of sanctification. That they lost out on it, gives implications for those who adhere to the ‘once saved always saved’ cliché. That God states that ‘All Israel shall be saved’ can be taken to mean believers as a whole who are still in him, or a future prophecy indicating that his people who once departed shall return. Mingled with this warning in vs. 21 is the cry for restoration with those who have fallen away. God cuts away but His heart still yearns for his own.
Reflection
Chapters 12-13
After highlighting in chapter 12 the attributes of love in action we find in chapter 13, Paul’s emphasis on our duties to our rulers as well as that to our neighbors. It is quite interesting how Paul speaks of our obligation to the law. He highlights that the perfect obedience of the law is seen in the manner of love we convey towards one another. I sense in these passages that several theologians who take a mere forensic approach to justification would shiver for Paul then states in vs. 11 that “you must do this…for the moment when we will be saved is closer now that it was when we first believed.” This is remarkable as this passage implies that keeping the law is not what justifies us, but breaking them can deter the salvation process. So much for the notion of ‘once saved, always saved.’ Paul is here stressing the moral laws and makes it clear that our love for God and our fellow human beings is paramount to salvation. I think this passage may provide guidelines as to how read Paul’s understanding of law in the previous passages.
Romans 14:10 0 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
I thought this verse to be quite interesting as Paul speaks of an eschatological judgement scene before Christ that now adds the dimension of a future and final justification of the believers. Paul speaks to believers in the context of chapter 14 and he makes mention the serious nature of the judgment before Him in who we live and have our being because of his redeeming sacrifice and resurrection. This verse can easily showcase the tension that exists as it pertains to the process of justification. Paul does not speak of a trifling judgment but shows the importance of this encounter with Christ. Our actions and our works are important, but in the presence of God we know they are worthless. That Paul reminds us that “every knee shall bow”, tells us that it will not be our deeds that will vindicate us but the pronouncement of Christ. Only his sacrifice and his deeds can secure our salvation, yet because we live for him and in him, our deeds display the fruits of that relationship.
Romans 15 & 16
Romans 16:19 9 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
Here Paul is offering his closing remarks to the Romans and he marks and commends their obedience to the doctrines already laid out and their avoidance of evil speakers and doers. Paul does not here negate them from perfect obedience to God but rather enjoins them to continue so and avoid evil. To avoid evil one must obey the laws of God and by His grace turn from sin. Those who conclude that Paul promoted antinomianism throughout his writings have lost track that he is fighting against those who believe in a pharisaic application of works. Paul commends the Romans because of their obedience to God based on what they know. Their obedience is motivated by their love for Him and is not based on their works. In this light it makes sense that Paul commends them for their obedience for it is that obedience which works through love.
Comment # 11
This is the comment on Happenstal's article on perfection in BRI. When I was reading the article I haven't agreed with many reformulations.
I agree with Karl that Happenstel’s definition of sin is not clear. He seems to call sins even our natural physical limitations. So, Jesus stepping on a bug on his way to Jerusalem would commit sin and Old people not remembering the birthday of their granddaughters would also commit sin.
I can’t help but remember the sermon from John Wesley on Christian Perfection, where he begins his sermon with what perfection does not imply. He lists very carefully that Christian perfection doesn’t mean 1/ man will be without human physical and mental limitation 2/ doesn’t mean man will acquire perfection in knowledge and understanding of all mysteries of universe.
Thus, it is clear that if we talk about Christian perfection we are not talking about perfecting our human and physical limitations, this will be done at the second coming and we will still grow in perfection of our human potential in heaven. (Leaves of tree of life for healing)
It also doesn’t imply perfecting our intelligence and acquiring perfect understanding of everything about us and about universe. This will start at the second coming but we will grow in perfection of understanding for the entire eternity.
However, there is one thing we will not grow for the entire eternity and that is our freedom from sin, or our spiritual union with Christ. We will deepen our spiritual experience with Christ every time we meet him but our sinlessness will remain the same at the second coming and after millions of years of eternity.
It is true that we are called to sanctify “perfectly” or “entirely” our body, intellect and spirit but it seems that perfection of body and intellect will be growing for the eternity. However our sinless state of Spiritual nature will remain the same for eternity. We will have the Mind of Christ which will make us perfectly free from sin for the entire eternity; there is no growth in reducing sinful nature in heaven. While there appears to be physical and intellectual growth, there will be no growth in Righteousness; we will be in the perfect state of righteousness from the start until eternity, perfectly free from sin because we will be in union with Christ forever.
Therefore, using this logic exercised within the borders of Biblical perimeters, I would argue that Christ gave us provision on this earth to get delivered from all sinful thoughts and actions. He invites us to “dwell in him” and be perfect. (1 John 2: 5; John 17: 22, 23)
Ellen White clearly says: “…This message I am given to bear, as the Lord's messenger. The unity for which Christ prayed is a sacred pledge of discipleship. Those who enter heaven must be one with Christ. Unless they should bear the same perfection of character that He bore while on this earth, they would spoil heaven. The trial and test is to come here in this world. Here we are to be stamped with the image and superscription of God.” (January 16, 1906. Pamphlet in Spalding collection TB07 - Testimonies for the Church Containing Messages of Warning and Instruction to Seventh-day Adventists (1906)/Chap. 10 - Unity in Christ)
Here is one more quote:
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Man is to be perfect in his sphere, even as God is perfect in His sphere. How can such a lofty standard be reached? The required perfection is based on the perfection of Christ, "who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." He gave the command requiring perfection, He who was by birth a human being, though allied to divinity. He has passed over the road we are to tread, and He says, "Without Me ye can do nothing." But with Him we can do everything. Thus a perfect character can be obtained. God never issues a command without furnishing the grace sufficient for its fulfillment. Ample provision has been made that man shall be a partaker of the divine nature.
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." This is the standard God holds before His children. It is a standard of Christlikeness. Christianity means entire surrender to the will of God. Then it can be said of us, "Ye are complete in Him." When such possibilities are presented to us; when we see that it is our privilege to attain Christian perfection, should we not strive to reach the standard? ...Perfection can be attained only through the grace given by God. He will be the efficiency of every soul who strives for clear, far-seeing moral faculties. But He requires the co-operation of the human agent. Temperance must be practiced in all things, in eating, in drinking, in all the habits of life…{Signs of Times, July 26, 1899 par. 1-4}
Sparked by Elems topic of how do those who are not formally evangelized (i.e. hear about the name of Christ and the Bible)get saved? I wanted to look at Salvation through the detailed dialogue between Abimelech the philistine king and Yahweh God.
This relationship obviously existed before the name of Jesus Christ was ever known as such and it also existed before the Bible was written into existence. Hence Genesis 20 is a very promising piece of literature on the topic seen through the eyes of a writer of the bible- on how the heathens relate to God. And even more shockingly, how they relate to God even after the "true believer" has deceived them and put them in spiritual and physical danger.
"He(Abraham) sojourned in Gerar." Abraham is the alien resident here, without legal or political status. In this situation, as missionaries well know, it behooves the one trying to witness to the "natives" to learn about the culture that they have voluntarily chosen to associate and live among. Abraham should adjust with spiritual sensitivity. But he remains ignorant and bigoted. We would not expect Abimelech, the ruling king to understand Abraham's religion- but he has a direct line to the same God. What seems to be a perfect missionary story is the opposite.
"Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister." He tells only half of the truth, but the half that he reveals sets her up as "single". It actually encourages any man who finds her attractive to pursue her, this statement eradicates the moral barrier to having her. Why does Abraham diminish moral impediments to actual adultery? He explains later his fear which is ironically, unfounded. (and actually paradoxical in thinking that these people are so immoral that they would kill a husband to prevent themselves from committing adultery? I'm scratching my head on this one.)
"So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah." There is nothing immoral from Abimelech's point of view from pursuing an available attractive (90yr old!)female when both of them attest that she is not married. How else is he to know the truth? Later, he (or his descendant) is reticent to trust this lying family- and doesn't take Rebecca into his harem.
"But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night.." This is fascinating because EGW in PP states that Abraham's Akedah command came the same way-"In a vision of the night he was directed..." PP147. And the "but" that starts this new action shows opposition to Abraham's set up of Sarah that led to Abimelech's presumption. God Himself counters the mistakes of his most faithful servants- to save the vulnerable. God rescues the heathen from the believer's lie. Does God rescue the believer from his own misunderstanding in the Akedah?
"And said to him, Behold you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken for she is married." God is holding Abimelech to an incredibly high standard- the standard later expressed in the 10 commandments of capital punishment for adultery. Is God righteous for imposing such a high expectation on a heathen so early in the theological history of the Bible? Am I WRONG in calling Abimelech a heathen?
Yes. God's speech presupposes prior interactions and prior moral training. Abimelech life, and his upright relationship to God is important enough for God to manifest Himself as directly to Abimelech as to Abraham. And God does not mince words- he threatens death and he tells exactly why- Sarah is married. Abraham has failed God in dealing with Abimelech. God rescues his own reputation. (and doesn't blame Abraham! Just like the Akedah!)
"Now Abimelech had not come near her and he said, Lord will You slay a nation ene though blameless? Did he not himself say to me, She is my sister? and she herself said, He is my brother. In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." Abimelech had not violated her because as we find out later God had prevented him from doing so. But he intercedes for himself and his own nation on the moral ground of justice (the same basis as Abraham's mediation over Sodom and Gomorrah). He had tried to get to the truth of the matter. But they both deceived him (and persisted even after she was taken). And so he pleads the integrity of his heart (Job held on to his integrity when God seemed to treat him as an enemy too)and the innocence of his hands (motives count even if a law is broken by the hand).
"Then God said to him in the dream, Yes I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her. Now, therefore, restore the man's wife, for his is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours." God takes the credit instead of Abimelech for preventing sin, but affirms Abimelech's integrity and gives him the next steps. And by following the next steps- in which Abraham the liar prophet intercesses for his "victim"- Abimelech and his household is restored both spiritually and physically.
I see God as the dean of missionaries. God as the saving agent. God is the one that rescues his other vulnerable children from ethnocentric, sinful, fearful, bigoted servants, and yet maintains them in a respectable role, despite themselves to minister again. After publically called out by Abimelech on moral grounds, it would seem that Abraham's credibility is demolished in front of Abimelech's whole court. How can he sojourn there and continue to be respected as a channel for God? God rescues Abraham pre-emptively by setting him up as the prophet and intercessor- thereby rescuing Abraham's reputation from his own mistakes. Abimelech may not trust Abraham much, but Abimelech knows he can trust God with his soul.
1. The label of "heathen" is a construct of ignorance and fear in the mind of the believer. It reveals more about the speaker than the labeled group. "Abraham said, Because I thought surely there is no fear of God in this place and they will kill me because of my wife."
2. Lack of formal evangelism (as far as we know) is no limitation for righteousness and moral integrity in anyone. Abimelech is far more moral than Abraham here. The Ninevites were far more repentant than Jonah. God uses man as his agents, but they are not crucial.
3. God saves all- sometimes indirectly "there I did not let you touch her", sometimes directly, "But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night".
4. Prophet may be a label God blesses Abraham with, but Abimelech acted like one. He shared with his whole court, he was moral, he sought the truth, he obeyed God.
5. That Abimelech submitted to Abraham's designated role as his representative before God for healing- shows the obedience of Abimelech to God's voice. Whether Abraham merited such a role or not, Abimelech was obedient. Abimelech prefigures the obedience of Abraham in the Akedah to God's voice.
6. Does Abimelech fear God? definately. Abraham was wrong about him. Does Abraham fear God? No, here in this story with Abimelech, he does not. But later he rises to the level of Abimelech in fearing God. How's that for a reversal of modeling?
7. God saves all. Abimelech from sinning because of Abraham and Sarah, Abraham from himself (his fear and lies), Sarah from herself (her lies and acquiescence). All is set right again. And most importantly God rescues God's own reputation among the philistines from both of his unfaithful scheming hebrew servants, Abraham and Sarah. (who knew better! Isaac had been already promised through Abraham's loins and Sarah directly! This action showed serious disregard for that!)
Abimelech's example of a philistine believer trumps the hebrew founder of the faith. It was magnanimous of Moses (as directed by God)to include this picture so early in the biblical record before the Isrealites prejudices became fossilized against the uncircumcised philistines and others. God is the hero that saves all- and redeems each one of his children from their sin.
Comment # 12
I would like to leave a comment on Ellen White’s quote in Steps to Christ, p. 68.
“…In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live and grow up to the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus.”
This opened my eyes to the reality that God in his mercy pours blessings and love on all men, whether they are Christians or not. However, since Christians know who their blessings are coming from, they have a responsibility to ask for their blessings while gentiles receive them without asking. They live under the grace until they find out about Jesus who is the real reasons why the grace was being given to them all along.
Let’s take an example in love. We can sadly observe that the rate of divorce in Adventism is growing. We are almost reaching the frequency of divorces that exist in the world. Why is it so, you might say, it seems as if God doesn’t give us special protection once we met the truth and became converted?
I will restate what I wrote in the second paragraph. Once we met the real source of our blessings (in this case we discuss love), we have a responsibility to ask for those from our Father and thus enter in connection with him that will be beneficial for us spiritually and emotionally.
God grants people who don’t know about Him with love for one another without being directly asked, however once we know the truth we have sacred responsibility to ask for the blessings we want to receive and not only to expect they will come by themselves because they must to do so. With this attitude we take God and his gifts for granted.
You might say: well this is unjust, it is better to remain unchristian then?! Yes, you are actually right! If you want to become a Christian but are not willing to surrender yourselves entirely to God so he can always provide you with His power and love, then it is indeed better for your life to remain ignorant of God.
Many Christians, especially in our Laodicean age, are fully aware of the truth and responsibilities they have but they carelessly choose to have prayerless, Scriptureless, and missionarless lives. They are never happy in their life and are always fighting with the sense of guilt. They are never able to understand why their emotional life is so gloom. many of them leave the Church but many decide to stay withing because they are convinced in its truth.However, they are not happy. They are the saddest people on earth. It is indeed better to be a gentile than half-christian, as the Revelations says: “Oh if you were cold or worm, but since you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth”.
Oh, I wish you were cold says the Lord, I wish you don’t know anything about me, I would provide you with happiness on the basis of the sacrifice of my son and there are chances you will even get saved, but since you are lukewarm, since you do know everything about me, and still don’t ask me for anything and live your life as if you didn’t know me, I can not help you. Greater light you have greater responsibility... more talents you received, more it is expected from you...
Assignment #12
What is sin/What then is salvation? This is the Biblically chronologically linear way to approach salvation. But one can also say- from looking at the cross what is salvation? This is the perspective of the disciples and ourselves after the cross. And that may illuminate what sin is even better. The solution illuminates the problem.
For Satan and sin doesn't know all the implications it brings on, it is blind to the outside and to itself. And it lies to itself as much as it lies to others."He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature,for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44. The lie can deceive itself.
But since God is the actor of Salvation, Salvation is as vast and wide and deep as God, and it knows itself, it knows what it is accomplishing, it is full of insight and truth."If you continue in my word then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free." John 8:31. The truth can flush out the hidden parts of the lie.
But being sinful beings, not only are our ears deaf and our eyes blind but much of Jesus' sayings don't make sense to our worldview. So Jesus used metaphors, parables and role modeling to accompany his words of salvation. Hence, the most important and possibly the most accurate method of understanding salvation is to read comprehensively- so that all the biblical metaphors speak to each other and balance each other, so that each parable is layered on top of another and the consistent themes of truth are perceived without petty distraction, it is to keep in mind the wider context, making it larger and larger until the Word is enfolded into the mind as a whole.
Only then is Salvation not restricted to a linear formula trapped in a single biblical metaphor. Only then are battles not over which priority we give to one biblical paradigm over another, but that all interact, reshape each other and separate more whole for the mingling.
And I envision eternity being a conversational study of God and salvation from all the angles of sinful mankind, sinless angels, all created beings. Without competition or distrust. May that spirit pervade us now.
Reaction #10
Hi Arlyn,
This observation is based on your 12/1208 post. Your observations about metaphors and parables layered on top of each other in so much that all of them interact and reshape each other reminded me of this statement in the book Education.
“But the most valuable teaching of the Bible is not to be gained by occasional or disconnected study. Its great system of truth is not so presented as to be discerned by the hasty or careless reader. Many of its treasures lie far beneath the surface, and can be obtained only by diligent research and continuous effort. The truths that go to make up the great whole must be searched out and gathered up, "here a little, and there a little." Isaiah 28:10.
When thus searched out and brought together, they will be found to be perfectly fitted to one another. Each Gospel is a supplement to the others, every prophecy an explanation of another, every truth a development of some other truth. The types of the Jewish economy are made plain by the gospel. Every principle in the word of God has its place, every fact its bearing. And the complete structure, in design and execution, bears testimony to its Author. Such a structure no mind but that of the Infinite could conceive or fashion.
In searching out the various parts and studying their relationship, the highest faculties of the human mind are called into intense activity. No one can engage in such study without developing mental power. (Ed 123-124)
These paragraphs have been a tremendous source of strength and encouragement to me as I have attempted to grapple with seeming contradictions in the Bible. I always try to keep them in mind when studying a passage, chapter or book of the Bible.
oops,
wrong place
Post a Comment