Comments on assignments for Protestant Theological Heritage, Fall 2008
This thread is reserved for your comments and ongoing discussion regarding the assignments posted in the previous thread.
94 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Clinton Moriah Protestant Theological Heritage Challenge to Apostolic Continuity In the first part of chapter six the author argues that the Apostolic continuity was a standard around which several different and opposing theological armies could rally. Even though many catholic scholars argue that apostolic continuity with the apostles has been a standard since the ancient church. Three criteria that were used to support this position prior to the reformation were the assumption that the revelation the apostles handed down through scripture were the pillar and bulwark of the Christian’s faith. In addition, the doctrinal and creedal tradition was derived from the apostles and the ecclesiastical structure represents by bishops in the church and their succession has continued through time. This view puts tradition above the scripture and gave the church authority above scripture. There is no real scriptural basis for apostolic succession and the supremacy of tradition above scripture. The reformation movement and radical reformers laid bare the claims, and manmade traditions instituted by the great catholic church under the scrutiny in the light of the written and inspired word of God... Radical reformers spiritually torn to shreds the basis for apostolic continuity and called for a restoration of primitive Christianity. This herald by the call for “sola- scriptura”. These developments led to the arousal of the great theological and historical interest in the twentieth century.
Clinton Moriah Protestant Theological Heritage Challenge to Apostolic Continuity In the first part of chapter six the author argues that the Apostolic continuity was a standard around which several different and opposing theological armies could rally. Even though many catholic scholars argue that apostolic continuity with the apostles has been a standard since the ancient church. Three criteria that were used to support this position prior to the reformation were the assumption that the revelation the apostles handed down through scripture were the pillar and bulwark of the Christian’s faith. In addition, the doctrinal and creedal tradition was derived from the apostles and the ecclesiastical structure represents by bishops in the church and their succession has continued through time. This view puts tradition above the scripture and gave the church authority above scripture. There is no real scriptural basis for apostolic succession and the supremacy of tradition above scripture. The reformation movement and radical reformers laid bare the claims, and manmade traditions instituted by the great catholic church under the scrutiny in the light of the written and inspired word of God... Radical reformers spiritually torn to shreds the basis for apostolic continuity and called for a restoration of primitive Christianity. This herald by the call for “sola- scriptura”. These developments led to the arousal of the great theological and historical interest in the twentieth century.
Thank you for a well though out post. I really like your ending thought "The text is crucial; the text is primary; it is the text which should be our constant governor." I could not agree more. That really nails the whole of the Reformation. The text is primary, like an anchor that holds a ship. I would like to say that Protestantism is not automatically against tradition, but only that tradition that sets itself as superior to scripture. It is that mindset—tradition above scripture—that lead to the theological debates in Chapter One of Pelikan. They debated not what the Bible said but what a man said about the Bible. Where you say that the modern reader “cannot escape the tradition of interpretation” I would change to it is “difficult” to escape the tradition of interpretation. If we could not escape then truth could never unfold and become clearer. I think the real challenge of Sola Scriptura principle is not to ignore the traditions, cultures, and history that surround scripture; but to see the truth come out despite those other influences. Again, great post and I really like your last paragraph.
I appreciate Marko’s conviction about the fact that “one tract of scripture can afford me more true knowledge of God than all the writings of Augustine” and may I add any of the reformer. Dr. Hanna continues to use perhaps his favorite text; Proverbs 4:18 which is one of my favorite as well; we are on a path and that which guides us is the Word of God. It is our lamp which guides our feet. I love the writings of Ellen White, and there are other writers who touch sensitive chords of my soul, but only the Bible has the true light. Perhaps they may be lesser lights leading to the greater light as Sis White says her writings are. While reformers reform and develop doctrine, the scripture need no reformation, there is a right interpretation and we must depend on the Holy Spirit to lead us to that correct understanding.
Progressive Revelation by Clinton Moriah Chapter six reminds us that from the time of the Apostles the church had gradually degenerated into a reliance on outward works of which ecclesiastical ceremonies were the ones that most blatantly manifested their idolatry. The institutional church continued its downward trend. It went down the path of progressive error and rebellion and by 538 AD it willingly entered into spiritual and political matrimony with the Antichrist. They became one. Some argued that this was the beginning of the judgment of this harlot and that 1798 was a fore taste of the final judgment of this beast. . Even though the catholic church has been used by the devil in history its consists of true worshipers.. Apostasy began with the catholic institution. The catholic institution was not always used by the devil but there were intervals in history when God used the church. It went down a path of progressive error. It plunged from mild errors to grave apostasy. Could it be that the Anti-Christ has arrested and seduced this institution with its sinister guile and spirit of deception? The seventh day Adventist institution need to be careful in not repeating or reduplicating the same error of the catholic church. Christ has given us a solid foundation. He has used our pioneers to set the pace and leave a legacy. It’s necessary that we continue in the path of the just. Proverbs 4:18, 19 tell us that- the path of the just is as a shining light. A Study of scripture shows that God is constantly revealing himself and desires to expand our understanding of the eschatological prophecies. Divine revelation is progressive. It’s dangerous to slavishly engrave in stone the light God has revealed our pioneers and refusing to walk in the light of his revelation. We need to build on the pillars or core of the doctrines God has revealed to our pioneers..It is dangerous to lock God in the box of the interpretation of our pioneers when he desires that we continue in a broader understanding of the truth he has reveal to our fathers, 1 Corinthians 13:12 says that For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.
In response to Denis's post last week: I liked your point about how even the Reformers didn't go all the way back to the Bible as their primary authority; they tended to get hung up on the church fathers and make the latter the main source of authority. This shows the weakness of the Reformers, and should challenge us to make sure we do go all the way back to the Bible (and not get hung up on, say, Ellen White).
Also, great analogy at the end about babies and chewing!
I appreciate very much your focus on the Bible as our only safe guide and leader in matters of faith and life. Further, I like your thoughts on the Bible as its own interpreter. I think Isa 8:20 would be a good addition to what was already said. Compare the new things with what has already been proven to be God's Word.
Yet, I would like to ask for some understanding of people who have been born and grown up in a community that has a totally different understanding. I grew up in an atheist and communist society. And I am so thankful that God made it possible for me to get to know Adventists first before getting to know any other Christian denomination. It is easy to tell other people that they shall study the Bible for themselves. However, even we ourselves were taught certain things, and believed them since our teachers, pastors, parents knew better. Yes, I certainly believe that our Adventist beliefs are biblical and sound. And I also believe that it is possible to get to these beliefs only through the study of the Bible. But most of us have heard these truths from others, and then investigated it for ourselves. So we too built upon the knowledge and help of others. Yet, we must be careful not to judge other people, but be understanding and helping to find the biblical way.
I appreciate what you said about our sometimes lackluster attitude toward studying the Scriptures for ourselves. I notice that tendency in myself - that I am more quick to take the easy route and simply confess as my beliefs what others have discovered before me. I don't think it is wrong to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, but my mistake is that I become unwilling to do the same things they did, namely, open the Scriptures and study them with fervor and intensity, expecting the same Spirit that guided them to open up my own understanding.
David, I think you did a nice job wrestling over having room for our interpretation of prophecy to change. I think of the seven last plagues in Revelation. They are bazaar to say the least. Some good old evangelist might try to predict when, how, and what they are, but I still don’t think we will know what, when, or how until it happens. About the part you mention about a curve ball being thrown our way with the Roman Catholic having a Revival to truth. I think many could come out of the Church and believe the truth. What if they do, and don’t want to change their name to Seventh Day Adventist. Sometimes I think we think we need everyone carrying the same name to be saved. But the truth is the name won’t save you, it’s your personal relationship with Christ that saves you.
Will the last days end differently than we have interpreted? I think we need to go to the Great Controversy and read the last ten chapters again. If Ellen White is a Prophet (I believe she is) than she spells out the end pretty well. Could it be different than what Ellen White predicted? I don’t think she wrote it out word for word how it will all come about, but she did give a nice frame work. How will the anti-Christ come? Will it be a pope of the past resurrected? Will the anti-Christ come in a UFO with a former pope from the past and usher in a new anti-kingdom. I think there is room for many deceptions to take place, so we need to be ready. I think we have safety scriptures that if we take heed we will be safe from deception. If Satan in the form of Christ comes on an UFO, we know a few things from scripture to identify his true identity. Does he touch the earth, does he try to change God’s law, did every eye see him at the same time, did all the dead rise from the grave, did Satan the anti-Christ come yet to deceive the whole world, have the seven last plagues happened…etc. I think God will never go against these safe guards that He has set up in Scripture no matter how it ends. We can be confident of that. Let us study the Scripture so that we need not be deceived on that day.
Concerning “Paradox of the Reformation by C. Moriah” It is as you say; the reformers needed reform. The Protestant also persecuted those that did not believe as they did. How tragic that such a thing should occur. It reminds me of how God told the Israelites not to oppress others because they had been oppressed. Yet look at what they did! They closed themselves in and forgot that their blessings where not for themselves only but for the whole world. So are our blessings. Our knowledge is not for ourselves but for the whole world. Not to oppress the world and make the world believe by force of arms—for that really never engenders belief—but by the force of love and free will. God is no tyrant, and any tyranny connected with truth is worst kind of evil.
Response to Richy Thomas post on righteousness by faith.
Richy you did a good job in expounding on righteousness by faith. It sounds so simple and I think it is. Jesus had no trouble explaining Salvation to crowds in the simplest way. Remember the young rich man that came to him who wanted eternal life (Luke 18). Jesus started to tell him to keep the commandments (so it seem keeping them is part of Salvation), than the young man responded I have done that since I was a child. Jesus than told him sell all you have and give it to the poor and follow me.
Here is where faith comes in, to do this would show that he (young rich man) trusted Christ to provide for him treasure in heaven. Jesus through out the gospels say, “if you love me keep my commandments.” So we are justified by faith and love (which comes in the form of obedience). Which one comes first? Faith or Love? I don’t think they can be separated. When they are it leads into legalism or liberalism. It is key to have a balance of both. You can’t have one with out the other, if we do its not genuine. If our faith doesn’t transform our life into loving obedience than are we following the Jesus who tells us to follow Him in faith? If I lack transformation or if it has come to a stand still, I must question my relationship with Jesus. Am I walking with Him or have I sat down being occupied with something of lesser importance.
Marko, I really have enjoyed your dedication to Sola Scriptura. You said that we should be careful to follow a "Thus saith the Lord" than following any Augustinian, Aquinas or Anselm way of thinking. I thought this was very true. Furthermore, you pointed out that Protestantism (well most of it) will fall because it practices Rome's way of doing theology. Oh, have you hit the nail on the head. I give you 5 stars for that alone, and that is all I will say for right now.
This is a comment to Denis Kaiser second response:
I was glad to have read your response. I resonate with your stance that we should be careful in how we treat Catholics (or btw any other believer). The system may be corrupt, but that does not mean that God still has His people in her churches. For Scripture says, "Come out of her, MY PEOPLE." (Rev. 18:4, a great scripture that you used too!) Anyway, it is true that Adventist feel a sense of pride of being in a sort of private club, which is a shame, because God is not a "respecter(sp?) of persons". He uses people in the system to reach people in the system, like He has with the Monk named Martin Luther. Afterall, wouldn't be a shock of reality to see more Catholics in Heaven than Adventists?? I say as long as we keep our eyes on Jesus as Savior and follow Him in Lord, this will be key...but we need to have more love and kindness for our brothers and sisters in every faith, but to love them by warning them in a caring way too. If we do nothing, what love is it then?!! Yet we can do so by lifting up Jesus in everything we say and do!
Gerard Vertilus 9/17/08 This week reading is very fascinating on the topic of salvation that we been explored for the pass of three weeks. As we were discussing in class that someone cannot just jumped to a conclusion and gives his or her contentions concerning salvation without wrestling with the topic or study other topic such as sanctification, justification, perfection and glorification. This entire topic can share light and help someone to delve and come up to a better understand about salvation. For example, in Roman chapter 3, we read that the Apostle Paul underscored that, all human being who are living on the surface of this planet are guilty of sin. It does not matter who you are, where you come from, you still need Christ justice so that you can be justified. In this little book we are reading every week, Ellen White declared that “we are justified only by faith in the merit of Christ, but such as faith will never excuse transgression.” Woodrow W. Whidden II, added that “salvation come through obedient of acceptance.” James Dunn goes further to say that “Christ is our model of salvation.” I think that all these answer are key answer for our topics. The question is should we accept the gift of salvation without doing anything and still hoping that we are going to be saved?
Jamie, I like the way you reason about these things, and that you let us take a part in this process. Yes, I think we need to be very careful not being judgmental about our fellow Christians. The problem they have we oftentimes have as well.
I would add some comments on the question of explicit and implicit doctrines.
(1) The doctrine that Christians can pray to Mary (or “venerate” her) like in the Ave Maria is built on other teachings not found in the Bible at all, as e.g. the immortality of the soul, the assumption of Mary, Mary as advocate, mediatrix, and co-redemptrix, Mary’s immaculate conception, etc. The prayer or worship of someone who is not God is clearly forbidden in the Bible. Although Catholic theologians would make a difference between veneration and prayer, the practice shows that there is no difference. These dear people really pray to Mary, and ask her for special things etc.
(2) Hbr, the Rev, and also several texts in the OT show that there is a sanctuary in heaven. The sanctuary on earth is a picture of reality in heaven. However, we don’t know how it looks like. Hbr further tells us that the heavenly sanctuary needs to be cleansed by a better sacrifice than the earthly sanctuary. The saving aspect (Lev 16) as well as the judicial aspect (Lev 23) of the day of atonement are clearly there, and reflected in what happens in Dan 7 and 8. Gen 22 shows the two fundamental principles of salvation: “(a) God provides the sacrifice; (b) someone else dies for me (substitution).” etc. It is right that there is no clear one sentence statement that teaches this. Yet, that is the case with many Biblical teachings. It is more complex. But a careful study of scripture clearly shows how different parts and aspects of a teaching come together.
Adventists should be complex thinking people. Unfortunately, for many church members that is not the case. They believe what they are taught. They are not mature. They are “tossed here and there by waves, and carried away by every wind of doctrine.” Here we as pastors, teachers, theologians, students, etc. have the responsibility to help and train our fellow members to study the Scriptures for themselves, and to be able to handle difficult questions as far as that is possible for them.
I appreciate that Eric has openly expressed questions many of us have about how God interacts with his creation in history. I think that there is a good case biblically for the concept that God allows human history to play its natural course and that much of what God hopes to accomplish is directly related to historical events. However, it is also clear that at certain times, God is seen in Scripture to intervene in history in ways that truly seem to redirect the natural course of human events. Eric mentioned the Exodus, for example. That event was set up naturally as a matter of sequence of human history. However, the Exodus itself would not have happened (it would seem) unless God had intervened.
I'm so very glad that you do not support the confessional :~). Seriously though, on a personal note, I am thankful that I don't have to go to priest and confess my sins and failures. I love that I can go directly to God and we can deal with things together instead of dealing with human middle man who does not know my heart or situation. I thank God that I can talk to Him through Jesus our Saviour.
Great piece of Marko! Made me think about our church and how it functions and makes changes. Your Ellen White quote, “GC in session with duly elected representatives from all parts of the church. She states that private ideas are to be put aside when the church speaks together on an issue because this is “the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth.” {3T 493} I think we can be pretty safe with following with what the GC session decides to change or uphold. But we need to honestly ask a question, and that is who are these people who go to the GC Sessions?
I am not an authority; so correct me if you know otherwise. Are not these the representatives in the GC Session, conference presidents, division presidents, treasures, pastors, theologians, and elected representatives who are in good standing? How many of these people are voted in by the common people into their office? I don’t remember voting any in... From my experience conference presidents are pastor with years of experience and some are elected into office through the connections (friends in high places) they have. It true the executive board is given the power to choose, but they are only given a few choices, which have trickled down from above. These conference presidents from my observation hire many pastors whom they are friends with, or are friends of a friend. The elected body that is sent to the G.C session, are they not selected by their popularity in their area of living? Now I am not saying that all the people who are at the GC session got there through politics or being popular or a friend to the right person, but I think in some cases they are. But even if this is true, most come from different backgrounds or perspectives, so a conspiracy is highly unlikely.
As humans, we live by relationships, so it is only natural to select friends or the most popular into a leadership position, right? It is kind of a broken system, but what is the other alternative, a dictator (Pope) who says what is right and wrong? Marko correct me if I am wrong, is the Pope a dictator, or do they work as a body of believer to make dogma? How much power does the Pope have? Is he a puppet moved by the body of Cardinals? Doesn't there leadership consists of cardinals who are selected by the top leadership in office and not the common body? Is it the cardinals who decide what is dogma. I don’t know a lot on how the Catholic church governs or elects it leaders.
Anyhow, I find it amazing we make any decisions at the GC session with so many people coming from every country with different education and life experiences. God helps us!
Eric, I greatly appreciated your thoughts that you shared concerning the church as the body of Christ. It is true that Paul's thinking (or worldview) of the Early church was very Jewish. Furthermore, great insight on bringing out the distinctives of the Christian faith and doctrines from key passages of Scripture, regarding Sabbath, diet, Christ-centeredness. It is true: The book of Revelation is Jesus' message for all churches from the early days to the time when He comes. In Revelation 12, the "faithful church" in the end, (by this time they are known as the Remnant,) are a minority of belivers "who keep the Commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus."
Obviously, the faithful few are going against the norm of the unfaithful majority!!!!
Daniel Ocampo A response to Dennis Kaiser’s Comment “A kingdom in darkness” Hi Dennis… I believe that you’re not alone to think that the Catholic Church could still be considered part of God’s church. But again as you’ve said, “the church is in Babylon” the reason why the invitation from Revelation – “come out of her my people”. As it may not sink in quickly the thought that God used the RCC for his purposes – personally, I thought, as far as I know I am not qualified to be in the ministry but I believe that it’s not us to determine who is qualified but God is the one who qualifies the unqualified for the task of his purposes. Again, the more we dig into the Scriptures I believe that we‘ll be more open in developing relationships with those with whom we have spiritual prejudice. Daniel Ocampo
Daniel Ocampo Comments to Jamie Kiley’s Dependence on Augustine and Common sense
Thank you Jamie for being so objective on your reading and for a brief summary of chapter 4 referring to the main issues discussed. Could it be that idolatry though have deeply rejected by God still plagues our church in general? As you’ve mentioned every one on each side of the issues were quoting him to prove that they are right. I think that’s the problem of scholars, “quoting a know scholar” for association and approval rather than quoting the rightful source, a striking warning to all of us. A lot of times, we hear our old folks quoting more from Ellen White than the Scriptures causing an outsider hearing them do this, calls us cult.
Amazing to know how “common sense” defeats extreme loyalty to the letter and forgetting the real purposes of the letter. I often see this happening even within our midst, among those who assume too much knowledge of everything and often forget the practical side of all things. Well done Jamie.
Daniel Ocampo Comment on Marko’s Article: Catholic Concordance Hi Marko! I have to admit I enjoyed your insightful comment on the universality of church unity. I like the way you have used the writings of EGWhite on the same matter. Bottom line, God speaks through the confessed and evident unity of the “world church in session” and does not rest only in one man.
How I wish that the unity we as a church make manifest during the GC session remains the same on a daily basis. Sad to know that on a simple scale like the local church board we barely see that happening. On a higher scale, don’t we also see that during local Conference Constituency meetings the bigger the congregation the bigger voice they have? Lifting it a little more higher, in the GC Executive Com. Isn’t it true that richer and bigger divisions have the same share of bigger voice? Don’t you think that whatever plague there is in the RCC also exist within our own denomination? This disease of being big denotes authority and demands more power has long been destroying the faith of others. Great insights from you Marko, thank you.
You noted in your last comment that “the Roman Catholic Church was the one always aggressive in trying to maintain unity in the community of believers,” and that they are now the ones “responsibly pursuing the task of possible reunification of the ‘Universal Christian Church.’”
I get the impression from your comment that you are somewhat supportive of their attempts at reunification. I guess that’s not necessarily inappropriate, since unity is important, biblically speaking. But I sure wouldn’t want to obscure the significance of the differences we have theologically with the Catholic Church. They aren’t minor; they’re severe.
At the end of your post, you ask what we as Adventists have “done in fostering scriptural unity among other Christian denominations.”
I think this is a great question. Adventists have a tendency to be a bit separatist, which is legitimate in certain times and certain places, but I totally support your implication that Adventists should be open to unity wherever it doesn’t compromise our mission.
You asked in your post whether "Christ be the head of a church even though it has corruption and false doctrine," and also noted that it appears that the true church sometimes needs correction. I liked your comments on this. I guess it's true that even a corrupted church can still be the true church, in a sense. Like you pointed out, the churches to which the seven letters were addressed in Revelation were still apparently legitimate churches, even though they were suffering some serious corruption.
Also, I liked your call for humility at the end. It's pretty easy to judge everybody else, but recognizing that we too might suffer from corruption is always harder.
A response to Daniel Ocampo’s reflection from September 26, 2008:
I like your efforts to remain balanced, not going to any extremes, and trying to have in view the whole picture. That is not always easy but possible, and I think important especially in the contact with people of other denominations. If we know where we stand we are not afraid of talking with people with different convictions.
Thinking about your question on the broader perspective of the remnant I want to remind of the characteristics of the remnant in Rev 12:17; 14:12. Actually, these characteristics match only with the Seventh-day Adventists movements. Nevertheless, I think that when the time comes where every kind of organization breaks the true believers will come together reflecting these characteristics that are today the outward signs of our institution (and other groups of our tradition).
In the effort to reach other people it is necessary for them to feel appreciated and respected. We want to lead them into a living relationship with Christ who has also revealed other truths He considered as essential for us to know. But it seems to be difficult to talk to other Christians recognizing them as such, showing appreciation, and communicate, nevertheless, the necessity of a deeper plunging into the divine truth. In certain areas of my own country Adventists more and more loose the necessity of our church’s distinctive existence, identity, and mission. Ecumenical meetings are welcome events but not real opportunities.
I appreciated these comments very much. I think they highlight the main question of church unity, namely, what unity really means. I don't have an answer, but it seems to be a major issue. How do we define unity? What did Christ have in mind when he prayed for the one-ness of the church?
Denis I have to agree with you how we judge people rather than a system. There are millions of Catholics who read their Bibles and have a very intimate walk with Christ. I think of the Franciscan Monks whom I have heard speak with very Christ centered messages and some errors. These guys devote their life to studying scripture, prayer, and meditation; they are bound to get something right spiritually. Babylon is fallen, and we are to call God’s people out of their false religions. We are failing to do this as a church and we are failing to do missions. Our educational system, which was set up to create missionaries, has lost it vision. We have fallen to the system of having hovering pastors instead of church planters. Church members are not equipped but are maintained in their lukewarm state.
What will help change that? Will an economical crisis? We are about to see what we as a church will do when we have military state and marshal law. Will we create cell ministries and each church member start a house church and multiply when it gets to a certain size? I think some church members will do this. But I have gotten an e-mail from some Adventist who are already getting ready to run to the mountains. They are in save myself mode. Is that not the state of our church now? It’s all about material wealth and self-preservation. For some they think the game is over and that there is no one left to call out. For these people it seems the three angels message was over long ago.
Isn’t it weird that we got rid of the three angels logo about 10 years or so ago and replaced it with a Bible with a flame. Our mission seems to go with the logo change. What is our mission today? God is preparing a people within their own denomination and He is nurturing them with His Spirit and Word. We read many of these non-Adventist authors and much of it we can give a hearty Amen too. Will you run for the hills before the door of probation is closed? Lets not repeat history; there is a great work to be done.
Richy, I too take the same stand that you do in terms of what we base our belief system on. It must be the Bible and the Bible alone (sola scriptura). Sometimes I wonder about some of our doctrines that we have put together in a proof texting format to satisfy our position? The Word of God says, “precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little”. While I appreciate and use this format, are we doing good exegesis in the process? One of the things that I am grateful for in this class is the challenge to spend as much time as possible mulling over the text in its context and to be a true to what it says. It may not be popular to take a non-traditional stand but stand anyhow!
Aloha Eric, great thoughts from your pondering! You raised the question, Can Christ be the head of a church even though it has corruption and false doctrine? As I have thought about this question, it comes to mind that Christ created a pure church with pure doctrines in an impure world with sinful humans. Christ is the benchmark of doctrine and right conduct, even though He did not use His Deity to aid Him in practice. It seem to be so hard for us to reach that benchmark, therefore we corrupt the ideals that has been set up for us to follow. I believe that the SDA Church constitutes the remnant church in its purest form but what is that and does it look like what it should be when we see our church today? I guess this is where the issue of the invisible and the visible church comes in, which we will leave for another time…great thoughts keep it up!
Daniel, I agree with your discussion on the understanding of the Remnant. It is true that we should express ourselves as part of "the Remnant," for the reason that many more people will come out of Babylon and be part of the "remnant," and I do not necessarily believe that all these people will be joining a denomination. Perhaps, there will be a remnant out of the remnant...God knows those that are His.
BTW - I am glad that you addressed the subject of unity motivated by the Universal Church (Roman Catholic Church). There is great evidence of their "hidden agenda," yet, we can also see their agenda openly as well.
Thank you very much for your interesting comment. I think that you have an even greater insight into the whole predestination topic since you once shared that belief system. I’m able to relate to that for I had problems with some of our beliefs for some years until I did more research on that etc. It is sometimes strange to “confess” that we have believed in a “weird” belief for some time. But that gives an even greater impact to our testimony to the truth now.
It is interesting that different people can read divers things out of one author (e.g. Augustine on predestination or free will). One problem is oftentimes that we don’t know all the statements made to the topic so that we don’t see the greater system. But sometimes people make apparently extreme statements in different directions, and they don’t seem to recognize that these are not compatible. Or sometimes we think that are not compatible but they were, at least in their minds. I still have to do research on whether Augustine really believed in the free choice of the human will as well or whether it was actually Leo the Great who moderated Augustine’s teachings on God’s grace, salvation, the free choice, God’s foreknowledge etc.
Daniel you have done a good job on your first post. I agree with you that class has been a great forum to share with liberty and that Dr. Hanna does do a great job facilitating discussion. You shared about how before there were scriptures, believers followed stories and traditions passed down orally. It seems now that it is written, we now have to interpret what was written, and here is where diversity comes about. If all were sincere in reading scripture and finding the truth, than why is there so many diverse view of doctrine? The Holy Spirit is to be our teacher, so why is there false doctrine? "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" (John 14:26). Maybe we can say there are some “sincerely” wrong people reading the Bible, who bring their baggage of theology, or eyeglasses with lenses of the past to interpret scripture.
But what if you were to take two twins, good Adventist, with the alike up bringing, identical schooling, and have them sit down and read the matching passage of Scripture, and each given the freedom to give an independent interpretation? Would they give the same answer, even after praying to the identical God for illumination of the Holy Spirit? I would have to say from experience that their identical up bringing might have a play in their interpretation making their answer close. But this is not always the case; often twins will come up with different answers. Even with their close upbringing and education, they still are not exactly alike and they will use what’s different in their lives to interpret scripture. It would be nice if we could lay aside all our bias and read scripture and let the Spirit speak instead of our cherished ideas. I believe it is possible, but it will have to be very intentional. We would have to ask our selves, is this interpretation mine or is it spirit led? What a challenge! We would have to speak less dogmatically and really ponder our answers before speaking.
Denis wrote… “However, we think that the action transports a content (meaning). If the action looses that meaning it becomes a mere senseless tradition. That is why it is so important to talk about the meaning so that it still has an impact upon our daily life.”
I do appreciate the content of your article because it resounds what I have in mind. The meaning of our practices and their intents I believe depends on the individual involved. Just as Jesus said in John 3:16 “…whosoever…” means salvation is individual and yet the church/body is composed of these individuals.
I like the way Dr. Hanna puts it that salvation is the object of all the process of salvation (salvation in justification, salvation in sanctification and salvation in glorification). I also appreciate the role of education on this matter as you’ve pointed out, very important indeed.
Thank you Jamie for your clear, open and balance view on justification by faith. To know that the reformers’ view was always linked to predestination made you quite disliked it. I believe that to the point of justification which is God’s complete job through Jesus Christ on the cross, the Reformers were right on their stand. I too don’t agree with predestination apart from the power of choice. There is a level of predestination for all the saved as Paul mentioned in Ephesians 2:10. The KJV used the word “SHOULD” in doing them, the NASB used the word “would”, NIV used the phrase “for us to do” – here is a proof that understanding the placement of works in matters of salvation even among Bible translators is based on their presuppositions.
I am leaning towards the NASB because it connotes “choice” not “force”. I believe that through the constant working of the Holy Spirit, every saint would “WANT” to walk and do the good works designed for each one. I strongly agree that the salvation story is all God’s work FOR, IN and WITH mankind.
Clinton, I appreciate your straight forward thoughts about Calvin’s view on predestination. Indeed his position doesn’t only undermine human “freedom of choice” but also the power of God. To save mankind is God’s prerogative and initiative. To be saved or not, is it mankind’s prerogative? Is that the light we get from Jesus’ death on the cross?
I really appreciated Eric Washburn's comments of 10.5.2008. I think that you made a very good point for discussion about sounding dogmatic in our own opinions and not allowing for others to grow in their own understanding. We would do well to pay attention to this and remember that God even speaks through imperfect humans who grow in their understanding of His truth.
Regarding David's post: I would have to agree that even the good works we do have no merit in and of theselves. Some will come to Jesus saying "Lord Lord..." But Jesus does not know them. It appears that were faith is active it is active in walking in the works of Christ. I feed the hungry, yet it is not I but Christ. If I resist temptation it is not I but Christ. I have free will, I am able to resist the resisting of temptaion, I am able to eat what I was to give to the hungry. Yet that does not change the fact that none of these acts are acceptable except as they are what God wants of me. "10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordainedb that we should walk in them." [Eph 2:10] The good works are works in Christ. Works done outside of Christ are not works of faith but of the fleshp; and even though they may be 'good' in the eye's of man they are polluted with self in the eye's of God.
Marko, I really enjoyed reading your comments on the problem of looking to the Church to interpret Scripture. Christ is the Head of the Church, not the Harlot! Amen, brother! I love my Catholic brothers and sisters, and I admit that there are issues in our own church, but as long as we keep Christ as the Head of our Church and the Scriptures/H.S. as our guide, we will be secure. The Great Controversy chapter, "The Scriptures As Safeguard," is one very important chapter to read, especially this generation.
C. Moriah Response to Bill Watson I agree with Bill and Richy, in terms of what we base our belief system on.It must be the Bible and the Bible alone (sola scriptura). I agree that the prove text method we used most times is a substitue for poor preparation .In addition,sometimes our interpretation and understanding of Sister white has contribute to this to some extent.some of us prefer to search her writings first and used her explaination first instead of searching the scripture and comparing line upon line.After this is done we can also read what our prophetess has to say. Her ministry is a source of authority in the church and has had a positive impact.But there afe a few negatives too.the most outstanding one is that it has made some ministers lazy.We need to search the scripture.
I like your point that Christ’s sacrifice is available for all human beings but that unfortunately not all accept it but only some. The substitutionary death of Christ is only made effective for those who accept it for themselves.
In that sense He died for the salvation of all, and His sacrifice is available for the salvation of all. However, I would disagree with your statement that “He saved all.” I’m sure you don’t mean it the way as it sounds. Further, since salvation is a whole process that is only finished until Christ comes again and the “saved” are in Heaven, we cannot yet say that we are already saved. But we can believe that God saves us because we accepted Christ as our Savior and Lord, and He promised to save everyone that does just that.
Comment #6 Response to Clinton Moriah 9/30/2008 Blog
Hi Clinton, I have to agree with your comments on your post on Calvin’s theology. I agree that God looks bad when He is seen in the light of not giving us free choice to be saved or not to be saved. You quoted John 3:16 as a proof text that salvation is for all those who believe in Christ, which makes the gospel good news! What kind of message would a preacher have if he or she would go up front and say the gospel is the good news, but your fate is already decided in heaven so your decision to either follow Christ or not has already been made by God. I feel the need to go out and witness looses it force in the Calvin’s theology. Free choice by the way explains the origin of evil quite well, and it also quite nicely justifies God’s character. It also explains why God doesn’t end our world’s suffering now, since He longs for many more to accept (Choose) His gospel call to be saved.
I agree Calvinism looks pretty bad and makes God look bad. But I also think there is an ugly side of free choice too. There is a group of Adventist who believe we can and should right now be sinless by exercising our free will to choose to not to sin. And if there be any sin left in us before probation closes than we will be lost forever. I am all for being sinless, and believe we should pursue this with God’s help. What happened to grace, Christ life lived, His death in my behalf, and the promise of the resurrection? I am also a human of experience and one who looks at reality all around me and see no one, not one who is living a perfect life. Even the saints in there 90’s who appear to be perfect, have sin in their lives. Free choice is all about exercising the will that God has gifted all of us with. And we should pursue godliness in the spirit’s strength, but when we start to think we will, will our way in to heaven on our own merit we cheapen the death of Christ. Christ is our example and let us follow, but let us not forget He is also our Savior. Statements such as, “If I don’t “will” myself to heaven by living a perfect life than I will never get there”, makes many Adventist lack assurance of their Salvation. Adventists become Sadventists who really do not want to share their faith in Christ atonement because they are not sure just yet if it work for them.
I think we need to find equilibrium because Adventist should have assurance of Salvation and be among the most joyful Christians upon this earth. The word that became flesh died, promised it with His blood. It’s not on our credit that we are saved, but on the balance on our account that Christ paid that makes us savable. I personally feel that we lack joy in our Christian experience and excitement about what we believe because there is a lack of healthy assurance. We have a hard time preaching Salvation when we have the mind set that you will never know you have salvation until Christ returns. Well, that’s what faith is, right, hoping for the unseen? I hope we can begin to put faith in God’s word, and be assured if we love Him and follow Him we have Salvation. Sure salvation will not be seen in its fullest sense, but we can start living with joy on the promises that can never be broken. Let believe what Christ says, and stop showing lack of faith by trying to do the work He has already done in our behalf, and start living by the Spirit which is present now in our lives.
I can totally identify with the fear factor in understanding salvation. I think that's why John says that perfect love casts out fear. Elsewhere the Bible can speak of fear as a positive thing, as our healthy respect and honor for an almighty God. But John balances it by saying that fear (I take him to mean "being afraid") has to do with judgment. To John, a Christian should not have that kind of fear because judgment rules in our favor who are in Christ.
I agree with you in the way that usually those texts seem to be contradictory each other. I think, it is absolutely necessary for us to get a clear understanding of salvation as the Bible says. Dr Hanna has done an excellent work in explaining the topic. Sometimes I have experienced the same confusion like many other seminarians. To me, it is a normal process of Growing in our theological thinking. So we are in a right way. But, my mayor worry is about those Christians which are in a great confusion right now. As I can see, every new Christian experiences a sort of confusion about what they have to do, and what not when thinking about the role of man in salvation. That’s the reason we see many legalistic brethrens in the church. That’s because they are not clear about that important concept. But, I see others that think they don’t have to do nothing to be saved. So, they don’t work in their relationship with God. Paradoxically, they are living the Christian life without the Christ of the life. That’s the other extreme. Then, our job is going to be huge when we leave the seminary. The church is full of Real and sincere Christian which are experiencing hard time because of their theological confusion about salvation. As you said, the only way we have to be saved is getting an d authentic experience with Jesus. We have to use our free will in order to surrender ourselves to Christ. We just have to choose to serve him. Then He will work in us to do his pleasure. Praise the Lord.
Daniel Responds to Leonardo’s 10-07-08 post I like the simplicity of your analysis how a great church as the RCC and Reformers as well, could be in one man’s influential hand, theologically speaking. I saw the light of your thought of how dangerous this could be in terms of idolatry in ideology and theology. Also you’ve pointed out that we too as SDA’s are not exempted and had been influenced by the same teachings of Augustine. Your emphasis on subjecting all teachings and ideologies to the Biblical proof is the safest way how to avoid this from happening and preserve the true Biblical message. I completely agree with you on this.
Daniel responds to Eric’s 6th blog Thank you for opening your heart to us in your latest blog, it takes a man to say what’s going on deep within you. I like the way you’ve placed value on the kind of a working relationship with God not out of fear but through partnership. I think that fear that Paul was referring to in this verse was not the fear that obeys even though internally we don’t want to. I look at it as a fear that brings meaning to salvation – knowing that as lost sinners saved by the grace of God through faith, we are not use to this reconciled relationship with God, we don’t even know how to keep it much more to maintain it, I think at first we didn’t even want it, that’s why it is a gift. Looking up to the meaning of “fo,boj” which Paul used in the word fear – the translators did it right in giving the real word for it but the other implied meaning is “reverence” and “respect.” After knowing these implied meanings the verse suddenly meant completely different to me. A sinner saved by grace like me, don’t know the meaning of reverence much less have experienced it the way God had it in mind. What I am saying is that anything we are not used to doing will either cause fear or anxiety but what Paul was trying to imply is that we treat our salvation sacred as we revere God our Saviour. With fear and trembling indeed because we don’t know God, HE does. But you’ve said the good news, He sounds like crazy for us, wanting to have an intimate relationship with us made possible through the ministry of the Holy Spirit who knows His heart and ours as well. Like you Eric, you’re not alone, because up to now I am still a searcher of His heart. I believe that Paul meant that with the willing heart this works. Daniel
Daniel Responds to David Moore (10-13-08 blog) I greatly appreciate the pastoral tone of your blog, it was full of liberty and appreciation of one who progressively journeys in salvation experience. Your practicality has touched me simply because it’s real time experience of salvation that you’re concerned about. Correct me if I am wrong, that you prefer to accept people’s understanding of salvation according to their current experience and understanding of Scriptures. I believe as our professor told us that God has used these people (Reformers/Protestants) to add to the prevailing understanding of salvation of their time and of course new light has been added since. Our salvation fully depends on God whichever phase we’re in, for me the experience of salvation is a composite of Justification, Sanctification and Glorification at the same time. It is both an active and passive faith that is involved.
In your comment on 10/5, you said, "The whole discussion about justification, sanctification, the place of works, the free choice of man, and God’s foreknowledge shows how much we are bound to our presuppositions and previous knowledge. We built upon the things we know. When we get new information or data we try to put them into a system that makes sense."
How true. This is especially true for me in relation to the ideas of predestination, foreknowledge, and free will. I only know how things work from my limited perspective, and then I wind up (unintentionally, perhaps) trying to cram God into my box. Sometimes, though, even earthly experiences bring home the realization that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than I might realize at first. Things aren't as simple as I might perceive them!
I also liked your comments about the idea of salvation as a process (completed only in heaven), not a one-time earthly event. Dr. Hanna has made a point of saying that we need to broaden our understanding of salvation to include sanctification and not just justification, and I think that's true. Salvation isn't over on the day we first believe; we are BEING saved everyday.
You mentioned (10/5) that you "found it quite funny how we humans kept on discussing on minor details about God’s mysteries and end up declaring each other heretic or anathema, it’s a sad part of Christian history but true even on the Adventist."
Amen. If there is one thing I've learned in the last year, it's that I need to stop judging people so quickly! It's easy for me to get caught up in small doctrinal quibbles and let them get blown out of proportion, but those kinds of things are NOT the type of thing that should split up the church. God forbid. We ought to be able to remain together even with divergences of opinion on some points, and allow for the fact that different people grow in their understanding at different rates.
Interesting comments also on the Catholic-Lutheran agreements on justification by faith. I find it fascinating that the two churches had such a huge rupture during the Reformation, and now they are able to establish such agreement!
In your comments on salvation (10/13), you made the point that "salvation" and the verb "to save" in Scripture have varying meanings (justification, sanctification, glorification, healing. You also noted that this indicates that "we don’t have to understand salvation by always having the holistic model in mind."
Personally, I think it's good to keep the holistic model in mind constantly (because the holistic model basically just means that you recognize that there are many aspects of salvation), but what I do wholeheartedly agree with is that we shouldn't try to tie salvation down to any one aspect presented in the Bible. As you well noted, there are many biblical themes relating to salvation, and none of them should be isolated.
I like your suggestion that sometimes it's ok to think of salvation in very simple terms (i.e. just simple forgiveness of sins--nothing more). I totally agree. While it's important to dig into what the Bible says, and while it's important not to oversimplify the doctrine of salvation, there are times when one small reality of salvation just resonates more than others. And I think that's ok. It allows us to really focus on the beauty of one part of our salvation experience, which is great.
Right - I think the idea of holistic understanding of salvation is important. I think it is clear that the fact that so many aspects of salvation are revealed in Scripture means that salvation is more than any one exclusive term can cover. I am just wrestling with the concept that often when salvation is spoken of in Scripture, it is in fact spoken of in one exclusive aspect. And why is that? That is what I want to understand. It seems like the changing factor is the understanding or experience of the audience. I guess what I was trying to say is that I think it is important that we understand salvation holistically, but that we allow for others to experience it in exclusive stages and not expect them to grasp it all in one holistic picture.
Yes, I agree with your thoughts on the connection of the laws of the Old Testament. However, Paul is sometimes not very easy. Wilson Paroschi wrote something about the law in the writings of Paul where he showed that Paul doesn’t always mean the same when he mentions the “law.” Sometimes he refers to the Pentateuch. Sometimes he refers to the ceremonial aspects, or even merely to the Ten Commandments. Sometimes he even refers to the whole OT. The context has to decide what he really meant. It is interesting as well that Jesus sometimes when he referred to the law and cited from it, he only quoted from Exod 20.
I agree with you as well that we should better use the term “fulfilled” when speaking about the different “phases” of the OT laws. Roberto Badenas wrote an interesting dissertation on Christ as the “end of the law” in Rom 10:4. There he talks much about the use of “telos” in the NT etc. It is never used in a sense of abrogation. I think that one aspect that becomes clear in the NT is that certain cultic instructions have come to their fulfillment in that the object to which they pointed all the time has become reality. Paul states that a further observation of these rituals would indicate a denial of the reality that has already come to pass. It is true that there are still other regulations that can only be applied to our daily life since we don’t live in a theocratic state anymore where sin against God is punished in a legal way. Yet, these regulations still help to understand the will of God for our lives. However, it would be good to look through all these regulations and instructions to get a better understanding on that matter. Maybe that is a topic for a dissertation or two or three … If someone needs a topic. :-)
Eric Washburn 10-20-08 Comment # 7 on Leonardo Ledezma 1st post
You did a great job on your first post. You mention about how theologians were debating on what color Virgin Mary’s hair was and what order would a monk belong to after his resurrection. This is called speculative theology, when one makes up unidentifiable facts about a person, place, thing in the Bible, which is not identified. Some might call it holy imagination, but some of these theologians’ imaginative ideas became dogma of the church. Do Adventists use speculative theology? I think we do sometimes. Such as, will there be marriage in Heaven? Jesus says no, but we don’t like the answers so we speculate that there will be marriage on the new earth. Many have speculated on what nature did Christ take in human form. There is no scripture evidence that give definite answers, but many create theology as if it was the clearest doctrine taught in scripture. Some liberal Adventists speculate that Jesus made intoxicating wine at the wedding feast in Cana, while conservatives say it was pure grape juice. The Bible doesn’t give any evidence for either side except that it was the best wine ever tasted by mankind. Some Adventist theologians have also speculated on the nature of man, and what really has been passed down in their nature since the fall. I have heard some conservatives say that all baby’s are born sinless with a sinful nature, and its only when they are old enough to know what is right and wrong before they become sinful. Our speculative theology becomes even broader when we take Ellen White and try to use her writings to prove a point, when she’s not alive to say, “that was or was not what I was trying to say…”
Leonardo also mentions that Augustine was the primary source for most of Catholic theology and for some protestant theology. I think there is great danger in putting so much trust in one mans or woman’s thoughts and ideas. We ought not to believe everything we hear from the pulpit or from our class lectures, unless we see it clearly ourselves in scripture. Scripture is our only source of protection from all kinds of heresies. If someone came to me and said Ellen White said this to be true, but scripture plainly taught otherwise, I would have to go with scripture. One friend came to me once a few years back and told me that he found an obscure quote that Ellen White said she would be alive at the end of the time of trouble, a special resurrection you could say. I told him that he could follow the demon dressed up as Ellen White, and I will follow scripture, because scripture says that the dead know not a thing, but are asleep until Jesus comes. If I am wrong, at least I will be wrong following the conviction that scripture places upon me. It is better to be on the safe side of scripture. We have seen that people make counterfeit money, what if someone with an ill mind wrote a counterfeit Ellen White quote. It may sound just like her style, but we really have nothing to prove that she wrote it. Scripture is the only thing we can test anything that is set before us as coming from God.
Responding to Jamie Kiley's blog on Luther's view of Atonement and 'Alien' Righteousness.
I really appreciated reading your thoughts and balanced ideas on these subjects. I, too, believe that there is more to the understanding of the Atonement that we are overlooking or not looking at all. Yes, we Adventists, and other Christians as well, just look at the penal aspect of justice achieved at the Cross, but do not see more. There is so much more to bring to light in reference to atonement at the Cross and thereafter too (with regard to the Sanctuary). Yet, there is more revelation and dimensions of atonement to be understood in just Justification at the cross alone that, also needs to be preached/shared with everyone. Therefore, thanks for writing on this!
Again, I fully agree with your position that our church needs to "revisit" the Biblical study of predestination. There are elements in Luther and Calvin's writings that are supremely Biblical truth, that we can agree with, yet in which area do we place (or separate) ourselves in (or from)? There are interesting and controversial issues in this theology that I would like to study more on to familiarize myself with, just to be real with the people and Biblical truthful to the text(s).
I appreciate your searchful eye and analytical mind in the reading of the book. On the other hand, I believe that writers neede to write more on themes they wanted to give more emphasis yet maintaing balance on their views. For me the more formation I get the better I understand, but as you said the author failed to give the same credit to the protestants as he gave the RCC. At the end of your blog you mentioned about the importance for clergy to avoid getting entangled with church money issues. As humans we see this as the devil's trap to many fallen ministers of high caliber - the love of money is the root of all evil. you've mentioned your disagreement about the use of manipulation to raise funds - I am with you completely. SDA givers according to statistics are most generous givers among Christians per capita, I believe commitment is the key. Dan
Richie, I love the humor of Luther's comparative study on Christ and the Pope. To a person who is bias to the pope/papcy, like me, finds it cute and amusing but to a devotee and committed Catholic it's quite shocking and would be judged heretical.
Your emphasis on anyone who counters Christ and his truth is an anti-Christ is quite straight forward but true. I enjoyed the light feeling of reading you post.
Jamie, I was reminded by your reaction about finding your self off-guarded about the doctrine of predestination for the same happened to me in thw past.
Your question whether our SDA view of justification will be affected should we develop an SDA version of predestination, I believe it will completely and radically change the understanding of the old SDA's in our churches but not our current understanding of it.
I'd rather see it being tailored or intertwined within the fibers of our current stand on justification which I believe is already existent but none dominant.
Question: should we develop predestination doctrine to be at par with our Protestant counterparts? Hmmmn... I wonder what our scholars at the Biblical Research Institute say about your question.
Thanks for being such a think tank, I appreciate that.
Denis on this blog you have strung a well sounding string within our Adventist theology. You have equated Adventism to thinking and that "to be an Adventist means you're a thinker." I like that. On the other hand we shouldn't forget that most of our converts were former RCC and a number of Protestants, people who were mostly expectators if not followers of the "given way."
Your challenge is indeed important that we needed more pastor who are not only pastors but theologians who are well versed with the Scripture.
Clinton, you have presented a balanced view of previnient faith even on the sde of Luther. It seems to me that on my reading your post you're suggesting that previnient faith is A GIFT AND NOT SLAVATION ITSELF. That led me to think that previnient faith is like an stimulus for the receiver to start deciding to believe or not. I like the line of thought.
Daniel responds to Leonardo Ledesma's 10-19-08 blog
Leonardo, I like the decisiveness of your thoughts about God's grace as "resistible".
You wrote: "The fact that we have to response to the grace of God is clearly supported by bible. God created us with the capacity of making decisions even when those decisions were wrong. There is no irresistible grace. To accept the idea of an irresistible grace is deny the capacity, given by God Himself, to decide our destiny. God will never force our will to save us."
Let's think about it this way, if grace, faith, the desire to choose the option for God are all gifts and provisions of God, and if even the Holy Spirit who inspires us to decide for God is from God, do you think these will lead us to resist the grace of God for salvation?
I believe in the exercise of the free will, but when this is in full surrender to the will of God will it resist the grace?
I believe that grace is irresistible among those who are completely under God's power and care. Will this ever happen in real time?
Thank you for the stimuli- you've led me to think again.
Responding to Daniel's 10.22 comments on predestination:
Part of your summary was that you believe salvation is "assured" to those who believe, but not "guaranteed". I would be interested to hear you clarify that further. I'm not sure I see the difference.
Hi Clinton Moriah, You did a great job explaining prevenient grace as Adventists see it. You also spoke about Luther’s view of grace too. I think Adventist taking the Armenian view of Salvation by choice was one of the best things going for our church. It paints such a better picture of God as being one who gives liberty to choose one’s destiny. Its funny, God is freer than even our parents are. I can remember my mom telling me that as long as I live in her house I would have force church attendance. I guess I did have a choice to “try” not going to church, but I never tested it to see what the consequences would be. God on the other hand says you can do what ever you like, but there are consequences of not choosing a living relationship with Him. Parents have our best interest in mind, and they have learned that nothing happens without a little force. God offers Salvation freely to all, under some conditions. Can it be free even when there are conditions tied to it? That’s where Luther had problems agreeing, because He believed God saved, and it was His entire work. God does save, but He does demand living faith that produces fruit. The fruit doesn’t grow in the believers own strength, but as the believer abides in Christ. With connection with all the needed elements such as studying the Word, prayer, praise, worship, witness, obedience, and hearing the Holy Spirit, the believer cannot but produce fruit. God never forces us to produce fruit, and at anytime we are free to disconnect. God doesn’t accept works that are not done through a faith base relationship. We see this is in Matthew 7:21-23, “Not every one 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. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Anything done without the motive of love becomes an empty sounding brass. How many would like to receive a gift from a family member not given out of love, but by obligation? We in our sinfulness might accept the gift because we liked was given to us. But the gift has lost any real meaning if it not given in love. But what if the gift was a cheap or terrible gift, but it was given in love? The motive behind the gift will touch the receiver’s heart. I can remember my mother giving me a teddy bear for Christmas in love. I rejected her teddy bear and threw it because I didn’t want a silly teddy bear. She cried, and took my teddy bear back to Macys. God has offered the gift of Salvation to all, but only those who receive it with love will truly get. Those who reject it like I did with the teddy bear will have it taken away, and regret in the end. And how much more will it break the heart of God because this is not a mere-teddy bear He is offering, but the gift of eternal life. I still today regret throwing my moms teddy bear and still feel the pain I caused my mom to feel that day. I don’t want to reject God’s gift of His son (eternal life) for death. If we would look to the cross and into the Savior’s eyes and see our own reflection staring back at us. If we could hear His thoughts on the cross and how they were centered on our eternal Salvation, we would have a hard time rejecting the gift. It almost irresistible grace, but some reject it because they fail to look long enough upon Christ being lifted up in their behalf. If we could get the world to look at the gift and its cost, and the giver they would see it LOVE. Its really hard to reject love, but not impossible because it happens all the time.
Response to Eric Washburn’s comment from 10/26/2008:
I appreciate your comments on Gal 3, 2Cor 3, and Rom 8 very much. You explained the function of the law (in its moral sense) very well.
You said at one point that Abraham did not know the law. I would like to disagree with that statement. It is right that Abraham lived quite a while prior to the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai. However, God states in Gen 26:5 that “Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” So although he lived before the giving of the law, he already knew God’s laws and commandments. We don’t know what these were. Actually, a close look at the book of Genesis and the chapter prior to the giving of the law in Exodus show that all the laws we find in the Decalogue were known by the believers before. Although it doesn’t say that e.g. murder is a transgression of God’s law, it is clear that God it wasn’t according to God’s will and purpose (Abel & Kain, Moses & the Egyptian).
So the believers apparently had a knowledge of God’s will and purpose for them but that knowledge seemed to cease more and more. On Mt. Sinai these positive principles of God’s love and character were formulated in a way that ignorant people could understand them, and see what doesn’t belong to these positive principles. The law helps us to understand what love is not. But it doesn’t help us to see what love actually is. Love is not only the prevention of the negative but the practical implementation of the positive.
Oftentimes we ask what is still allowed to do without transgressing the law. Would it not be better to look for what we can do to love God and our neighbor within the borders of the law? The focus would be more on how we could really fill a life within these boundaries, and not always looking at the restrictions.
From Ch.4 of "Uderstanding Scripture An Adventist Approach"..pg 60 (sec. 5)
I very much appreciate the honest evaluation of the three current types of hermeneutics and what vaule they are to Christianity and Seventh-day Adventism specifically. His call for a "new" understanding or hermeneutic I sympathize with. There are limitations and weakness for each model. I wonder if Cannali is approaching the idea of a new model from a "dialectic mind set"....I will admit to it. Question...is it wrong for us to use this "post-modern" approach in formulating our churchs hermeneutics? (botom of pg. 61 and 1st par. of pg. 62) I agree that there is a need for a new model or at least a new understanding of models and how better to use them. The proposed "biblical model" is something that I'm trying to unpack, the deffinitions of page 66-67 seem a bit sparse.
Mark Ewen Revelation Inspiration and Hermeneutics Understanding Scripture Chapter 3
Frank Hassell wrote about the hermeneutical challenge of presupposition when he said: “we all hold a number of beliefs that we presuppose or accept when we come to the task of interpreting scripture. They directly affect our theology and authority that scripture has for our life and for doctrine. Interpreters of the Bible cannot divest themselves from their own past, their experiences, resident ideas and preconceived notions and opinions”. He points out that it was no so before sin but because of sin, pride and doubt became negative effects of interpreting God’s will. I believe that when we read the bible (Frank also supports this), we should do so with a humble mind and a willingness to learn from the sacred scriptures. Many Christians today hold on to doctrines that came from improper interpretation of the Bible and would not seek to search and study with an open mind the word for themselves. It takes faith to fully appreciate the inspiration of the bible and to fully comprehend the messages that it teaches. It takes a humble person to submit to the authority of the scripture and apply those sacred writings to his life. It takes a humble person to admit that he does not have all truth and when more light is revealed he will embrace it with joy. The bible is not like any book; therefore our approach to it cannot be that of any book. There are indeed difficult scriptures and a person does not have to be discouraged in not finding the answer because there are enough revealed for one’s personal salvation in Jesus Christ.
Leonardo, I appreciate your comment very much. You pointed out really good the difference between the biblical position on the freedom of the human will and the Augustinian view of the free will on the one hand or the Pelagian view of the topic on the other hand. I cannot really add anything to it. :-)
Sure, we need to beware of the danger of referring to heretics when showing true and biblical aspects since we can easily be misunderstood.
[PS: I had to reassure me that I am really in the right section of the blog because there were some comments of the Revelation, Inspiration and Hermeneutics class in this section of the blog.]
What you said is true. In my case, it is the first time that I hear that explanation about predestination. I think is totally biblical. The word “in Christ” clearly presents a condition to apply whatever the text is telling us. Now the fulfillment of the condition in terms of acceptation is responsibility of the individual. In that point I disagree whit Agustin who said that even the acceptation is, in some sense, performed by God. Of course, we enter in the group of elected just by grace which is performed by God. I’d add that even God has predestined or set boundaries to every human being in Christ, there is still a place to freedom in Christ. But I’m still working on that.
Jamie thanks for your piece on David’s presentation. I too look at the issues and say what’s the big deal, split a Church over one issue, semantics of all things. The issue of who and how the Spirit was sent doesn’t really matter, as long as the Holy Spirit is sent to help us. Theologians getting dogmatic about defining the Trinity with such definiteness are quite prideful or arrogant in thinking they can explain the glorious complexity of God in a few words. The Bible is not that clear about the relationship between the Father and Son and Spirit. There is always a danger of making dogma from one or two verses. We should take all that scripture says on the subject and come up with a holistic view. They argue over who sent the Spirit, and forget what the Spirit is sent for, “Its to bring unity of the body.” I don’t think the Orthodox Church split on this issue alone, it probably one of many issues.
I agree with you that debates are useful for laying out both sides and seeing what is being said. I think there are great dangers in debating when Bibles are not opened and being used, but rather philosophy and theorizing being used as substantial evidence. If we let scripture speak for itself we might see that there is evidence for both views. What do we do when the Bible proves both points? We must conclude that God mysteriously bigger and greater than we imagine. A pastor once told me that when we get to heaven Jesus will pull two debating sides that could not agree on theology on earth pertaining to God and His kingdom and say to them, “You are both wrong” or “You are both right, plus there is this side you never thought off”, or “You wasted so much time debating on this while soul perished in darkness.” I think we ought to spend time focusing on what is plain in scripture, and get about doing what God commissioned us to do, to spread the good news. Some will say that my argument is so important and it pertains to making the gospel true and right, so I must correct the heresy of others.
Many Adventist fall in this trap of correcting the brethren in theology, that if we would look at their record, not one soul has come into the Kingdom because of their work. So many white rabbits the devil creates to get us running after, while the gospel sits collecting dust of the soul who perished for not hearing its good news. What will we say when Jesus comes, “I have won so many debates Lord in your name!” I don’t want people to think that I see not having correct theology to be important to spreading the gospel, because I do see the importance of correct theology. I just feel that when its handicaps us from doing mission than we better stop and ask ourselves what are we doing. Our mission and purpose of existing as God Church should always take priority over semantics. Let make God proud by spreading the simple but profound gospel of Christ, that He came to die in our place, take our sins, give us His righteousness, and give us His Spirit to guide and transform us. The importance is that the Holy Spirit is here and it working to finish the mission of God. Will we cooperate in it work?
Response to Dennis response Eric Washburn’s comment from 10/26/2008
I do think Abraham had commands such as being told to leave and go create a great nation. Your scripture made a very valid point that I overlooked. I sorry I made sound so dogmatic in my words. I was trying to make a point about justification not so much about Abraham having some form of God’s law. I don’t see in scripture of Abraham having the Ten Commandments as we see it in Exodus. He may very well have kept the Ten Commandments, but its not found in scripture. I have not found anywhere that Abraham kept the Sabbath. Something that important should have been mention at least once don’t you think. But since its not there we neither can be dogmatic about Him having the whole law. My statement was wrong and I should have elaborated more on what I meant.
My main point wasn’t that Abraham didn’t have the Law, but that He wasn’t justified by keeping it, but that he was justified by the promised one that would come through his seed; who would live out God’s law/Character perfectly in his behalf and die for his trespasses. We do know that Abraham had to have the law in some form or elements, because without the law there is no sin or knowledge of sin. We cant be sinners without knowing the whole law. For what we do know, is enough to condemn us. James says if we break one we have broken them all. So I stand corrected, Abraham had some form of the Law, but he still wasn’t justified before God for keeping it perfectly. Abraham was a sinner in need of a Savior to come in his seed. Thanks for your comment…
In response to Leonardo (11/5), I appreciate your expansion on the filioque issue and your pointers to some of the relevant biblical evidence.
I admit that the filioque debate seems to me to be a lot of haggling over a minor point that is not clear in Scripture. However, if this debate first arose during the Arian controversy, as you say, then it helps me understand a little more why it was so important. The Christians who dealt with this issue were trying to protect trinitarian doctrine. That makes sense.
However, as you also said, it doesn't seem like the Bible is very clear on this, and I'm not sure either side has the final word.
You said (11/6), "I continue to be surprised at how much we really hold in common with Catholic and other Protestant theology."
I couldn't help smiling when I read this, because I had just posted my own reflections right after yours, ending with my conclusion that Adventists have a lot LESS in common with Catholics and Protestants than I thought. :)
Without denying my own point, I definitely see yours. In a way, there are more differences between us than I thought, but in a way, there are more similarities. You are right that on certain issues, like how we handle the issue of unity, we are more like our fellow Christians than maybe we'd like to admit!
Yeah, you're right about different perspectives on our similarities/differences. For me, I came to the issue with the idea in my head that we were basically not like Catholics at all, and that our theology was not really influenced positively by them in any way. In that sense, it has been enlightening for me. At the same time, I think you are right in that Adventist theology and practice is definitely unique in a lot of significant ways.
Leonardo, your comments on the Filioque are also helping to sharpen my understanding of the situation. It is for the very reason that the phrase was added only to deal with a local problem that the Orthodox church disagrees with its insertion. Arianism was defeated and pronounced heretical by an earlier official council. It became a problem again in Spain on a local level, which is why they saw it necessary there to make the additional statement about the procession of the Spirit from Christ as well. But in the Orthodox view, this is not necessary to show the error of Arianism, and it does not adhere to the plain statement of John 15:26. On top of that, they feel that an official statement of the church should not be altered without the full representation of the church. Filioque was added on a local level to deal with a local problem. This is the challenge the Orthodox church brings to the table.
Richy Thomas Commenting on Clinton Moriah's blog of Remnant:
Clinton, I completely agree with you that the SDA church is a "unique" remnant with the identity of the "seven "S's". Furthermore, your point that God had a remnant in each generation was well stated. I agree with you, for it is Biblical. I would just say that these are all "movements of truth" in their times...such as Esther account of "For such a time as this". Good thoughts...
Richy Thomas Commenting on Clinton Moriah's blog on Nature of Christ.
I appplaud you for choosing such a controversial topic. I do agree with you that this is a subject that fits into the realm of the heritage of Protestantism. In fact, I did not know how controversial this topic was until I was placed in the ministry in one particular church, my first church. It is very good to be informed theologically and know the issues historically too. Yet, my advice is to try to stay away from debates on this as much as you can!
Leonardo, I appreciated your blog. It had a good informational balance to the issue, and you carefully explained why the SDA church is involved as a "conscientious cooperato."
This reminds me of how important it is to be involved with other church pastors in the community for the betterment of reaching people with the Gospel. This itself has a unity mentality to it, yet it is different that the ecumenical movement that is carefully designed to unite churches under the banner of Rome. I choose to be dialogue and meet with other pastors, but my intention/motive is not to abandon my doctrine or the church's position.
Richy, your presentation and quotes regarding the Catholic ecumenical stance and the Jesuit order were certainly interesting. I have been thinking about it since your presentation on Wednesday and trying to figure out why I had a hard time following. As I'm reflecting, I think it was that it seemed as though your focus was to expose the secret purposes of the Jesuit order. It seemed too "conspiracy theory" -esque to me. I don't think you are off base with your material, I'm just trying to bring it to where I can understand it. Is your purpose to try and warn Adventists against too readily accepting ecumenical outreach from the Catholic Church? Do you think we have gone too far in that area recently? It seemed as though you were arguing for this (that we have gone too far), though I couldn't see how it was supported very clearly from your material. Maybe you could clarify further.
In response to your comment on my blog and presentation:
My presentation on the Counter-Reformation effect on the Adventist Church does confront the Jesuit Order and yes, it is definitely a Conspiracy. I know this is a difficult and controversial issue, but I am attempting it nonetheless. This material is hard to swallow, because yes, I do believe that the SDA church, in general, has "sometimes" gone too far. If I were to clarify some more details, I would might as well be writing the whole paper on here. If you are interested at all in seeing more clarification, contact me later! Thanks for your coments. Richy
Response to Marko Kolic’s comment from 11/16/2008:
I really like your statements on a more comprehensive view of atonement. It is true that there are a lot of discussions where people throw away a whole theory because they have a problem with one aspect. I have realized that people sometimes discuss more the theories at hand and the apparent logics behind them without really looking at the biblical witness.
You suggest some names for an atonement theology, as e.g. Great Controversy Theory or Sanctuary Theory of Atonement. I would caution that attempt because I have often seen people using the exact same terms but filling them with a different content than you would. Some people used the term “Great Controversy Theory” to signify what is actually a slightly different kind of the moral influence theory. Terms are oftentimes like bottles that each one fill with a different contained. Sometimes people have debates because the use different terms although they hold the same ideas. :-)
Response to Richy Thomas’ comment from 11/11/2008 2:10 PM:
There is not very much I can add to your statements regarding righteousness by faith, Richy.
I really like your points: (a) a balanced view; (b) a radical commitment; (c) the whole range of views on salvation; (d) the basic two sides in the righteousness question.
You pointed out very clearly that it is important to have a balanced view, and at the same time being radically committed to Christ as my Savior and Lord. Further, there is a whole range of views regarding salvation where diverse aspects are emphasized. However, there are basically only two sides—a righteousness that is totally based on what Christ has done, or a righteousness where human beings still have a meritorious part in the salvation. But when we come to that point the whole question is not that easy when we look at the fact that human actions play a part in the life of a Christian although they are not the basis for his salvation. But if they are important do they not have a part in his salvation? I think it is necessary to define that more clearly for our church members. On the other hand, is that not Greek thinking again? Should we not think more in concepts, not defining every small and little detail? We, people in the Western World, are somehow very intellectual and theoretical. We don’t want to act until we understand perfectly the whole procedure.
I thought your comments about Peter in Matthew 16 were very balanced. Usually we avoid giving any credence to the idea that Jesus might have actually been hinting at Peter's leadership/foundational role in the early church. I thought your comments took an honest look at the text and reminded us all to seek to be unbiased in our interpretations of the Bible.
answer to by David Moore at 11/25/2008 12:51 PM Good comment about catholicism. I just wanna add that we don't know how easy is for The Roman Catholic Church leaders to accomodate to any situation . we can expect any change of his doctrinal position if this change help them to fullfil his purpouses. They are masters in politcs rather than orthodox visionaries. the pluraty in Catholicism today is more complex thean we think. They have a broader espectrum in this way. We just have to be aware to prophetic signs in order to understand the masterpiece of the babylonian system. this is a real challenge because it is not easy to recognize between the real prophetic true and the complex mix of doctrines that we have around the world. By the way, Catholcism has found in cultural relativism his most important tool in our days. they are using it as far as they can.
I agree with you on this topic. Usually leaders of the church, it may included some Adventist leaders, are willing to make some concesions in doctrinal or other importan aspects for the sake of unity. That is a huge mistake. by the way thanks for this Ellen G White's quotation. we must be aware of these kind of changes. We live in a world which is constantly changing. So this tendency is normaly followed for every one who live in tis wolrd. Christians are not free of this influence . We just have to say as Luther said, even when he didnt' it, unless you can convince wiht the word of God i cannot renounce to my own convictions. it is dangeros to go against our conscience. On the other hand, we must be aware of the radical dogmatism as well. many theologians are moved by traditions and dogmas invented by men. They call them the "Word of God" while they are only Human arguments. this tendency is equally harmful for the Christian world. This dangerous dogmatism doesn't allow us to grow in the knowledge of God.
Response to the Comment of David Moore from 11/25/2008 12:51 PM
David, you mentioned an interesting point. Yes, Catholics are in fact more open to incorporate and allow practices and cultural views of their members. This openess is greater in Catholicism than in Protestantism. Maybe you could give an evaluation of that. I thought about syncretism on the one hand, or adapting to reach people on the other hand.
Another point that comes to my mind when I think about it, is that in recent years especially through the writing of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) there happened an apparent narrowing down or hardening of Catholic doctrinal positions (Dominus Iesus, etc.). Maybe nothing changed at all, and he only sharpened the language and formulated certain positions more precisely. However, there was an uproar among traditional Protestant Churches (Evangelical Church, etc.) since these statement sounded like a coming back of "the dark Middle Ages." That is another point where doctrinal plurality is not so much allowed.
Maybe it is not so much "unity over doctrinal purity" that drives the RCC, as you stated, but rather "doctrinal purity accompanied by diversity in cultural practices."
Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciated it very much.
Response to Denis Kaiser to Cosmic Christ Connections: Martin Hanna's blog at 11/17/2008 8:11 PM
Thanks Denis for this comment . it has been very helpful to me. and it will be more useful when leave to field. it is remarkable that the normal position on this topic in our church doesn't have biblical basement. When brethren are giving biblical studies they used the argument you already mentioned . they say that Jesus was referring to him instead of peter because he is the rock. But they don't give further explanation on this topic. so that, they are preaching something that is not clear for them . Now, roman Catholic Church doesn't have arguments to support the idea that Jesus was referring to peter as principal foundation of the Church. The Roman catholic's assertion doesn't have neither semantical nor syntactical support in this text to argue that The Apostolic succession is based on this text. Even though Jesus was referring to peter as a part of the foundation of his church, this reference doesn't support that the successors of peter will continue keeping this authority. I think we must give a clear explanation to our church's member in order to help them to balance this important practical issue.
A response to a comment made by Jamie Kiley on 12/03/2008 8:44 AM
Jamie, I really liked the way you put your thoughts on the issue of Sola Scriptura and tradition in Protestant thinking. That is really a good survey through the different camps and the developments in their views.
I just want to give a little note on Martin Luther’s comment on the James as an “epistle of straw.” That statement is quoted over and over again. However, there are two reasons why I want to object slightly to taking that short statement as representative of his whole thinking on James.
(1) Luther was very choleric, making oftentimes strong statements. It seems so as if he couldn’t find better or more appropriate words. If someone disagreed with him, he apparently viewed the other one as being totally off the road. So Luther was somehow extreme in his statements.
(2) From his own writings it becomes apparent that his relationship to James was split. He said, e.g. in 1543 about Jam 5:16, “That is one of the best sayings in the epistle.” He quoted oftentimes from James, keeping up in the intensity of its use almost with the use of the Gospels.
But – and here you are right :) – on the other hand he made statements like, “We want to kick out Jeckel (James) from the Bible here at Wittenberg.” His arguments are, (1) “James gives justice to works against Paul and all the other Scriptures.” (2) He is silent on the suffering, the resurrection, and the Spirit of Christ. (3) He drives people “to the law and its works” and not to Christ. Since Luther was so touched by the love and faithfulness of God, through which we can stand righteous before him, that he inserted the word “alone” in Rom 3:28. By doing this he puts Rom 3:28 in an apparent contrast to Jam 2:24. The problem was Luther’s hermeneutical principle “Was Christum treibet” (what is driven by Christ) since it lessened the significance of statements and books that in Luther’s estimation did not really point to Christ and justification by faith “alone.”
Great piece David. I know you spoke about Ellen White and her authority, and I would bypass that and dwell on something else that had to do with what you first said about Church authority and the slippery slope. I would like to ponder a little bit about the Adventist Church in it view of it authority compared to the Catholic Church. Like you said the Catholic Church believed that if you reject the Church authority you would eventually reject God. I see this in the Adventist Church. The majority of the Adventist Church believes that if you leave the Church for another, especially a Sunday keeping Church, you reject the truth, God, and lose eternal life. Is this true? This is the case even if he or she continues to love God and worship Him, but now it is in a Sunday Church. We don’t believe in judging people eternal destiny, but I see s doing it. I believe for those who were once rooted in Adventism and to leave the Church is one of the hardest things to do. There is a lot of psychological counseling that needs to happen to feel okay about one self. There are a lot of ex-Adventist web sites out there that claim to be support group for those who need encouragement after leaving the Adventist Church. I wouldn’t suggest going there unless you are firm in what you believe because they can say some pretty mean things about us.
I don’t think if you leave the Adventist Church denomination one will be lost forever. I do believe that if one doesn’t follow the Bible, and the Spirit’s leading than the result will be a loss of salvation. So if one were to leave the denomination because of hurt feelings, they ought to still keep God’s commandments. The thing is, there is such a need for fellowship with other believers, so how will they get it. They often join a Sunday Church even though their heart knows the truth. I would like to say the Bible is the authority, and if one to leave the Bible, than the slope gets slippery. The Adventist Church has been given a message by God to call people out of Babylon (Sun worship). There will come a time that God’s people, will be called out by the Word of God, (truth) through the power of the Holy Spirit. It might not be into the Adventist Church, but into keeping the truth. There may be hundred of groups sprouting up, proclaiming the same truth, but under another name. We need not covet their membership. When we get to heaven all our membership will be transferred into God’s Kingdom. Denomination titles mean nothing to God, but hearts the keep the Word of God with Love do.
Bravo Marko! It is very interesting that on this very subject of the many faces of atonement theology was discussed at a Sabbath school at Kettering Hospital Church. The teacher was a Hospital Chaplain that looked like Morris Venden, but was not. He got his MDiv here at the seminary a long time ago. Anyhow he gave the class a sheet of paper with all the atonement views and their founders next to it. He gave a little history and even talked about how the theology was developed over time. He asked the Church which one they believed in. I don’t think anyone knew which stance was the official position of the Church.
What was amazing was that the majority of the class agreed that it a little bit of both. I thought wow! As you said there is a little scriptural evidence for each one. Obviously one of them has more support than the others, but why not give a more holistic view of Salvation. I was really proud to here these bright doctors and nurses think so theologically. Hey we can teach a lot to our Churches this way. By teaching them all the views, scriptural support, than ask them question of which one they think is best. I am sure we will be surprised by their answers.
Eric, I agree with you 100% that we need to be Christian in our treatment with Catholics, but we also need to be faithful to the pure message of Scripture. It really comes down to how we treat them, what are our motives. If I were to be faithful to the message of Scripture, I would, in love, call them "out" of a system that is not Biblical. Sometimes we forget how off the RCC is, and it is not just this religious system that is off. There are other dangerous movements that are "anti" in their treatment of Christ, as you pointed out, by replacing Christ or opposing Him. May we never do this in our own faith, is my prayer.
Eric, it was good to see you write about the Jesuit society and their mission. I liked that you wrote a good balance to their existence, as in their mission of Christian service and contrasting this to their intention for world domination. However, about infiltration, this is a VERY controversial subject (even in the SDA church). I have personally heard first hand and researched some actual cases of Jesuit insiders, therefore, I may disagree with you a bit. Yet, my point and mission is not to go point out who might be a Jesuit "spy" and pluck them out. No, but I do want people to wake up to Bible Truth and start trusting in God more than relying on people's opinions or persuasions. Although, there may not be real or any Jesuit infiltration, there seems to be hints of Catholic philosophy (i.e. ecumenical spirit; and even prophetic alteration) that is present in our own Church.
Yet, thanks for writing and presenting this with your view.
I agree with Richard here, that we are not called to puck out the Jesuits or any other group per se. Better that we educate ourselves, and test ourselves if we be in the faith, and teach and preach the truth that others might saved also. Who knows if there are any Jesuits that may even be converted to the truth. If Saul could become Paul, certainly it could happen to them.
Hey, You’ve done a fantastic job. I should absolutely reddit it and I’ll recommend to my friends. I am sure they are going to be benefited from this website.
94 comments:
Clinton Moriah
Protestant Theological Heritage
Challenge to Apostolic Continuity
In the first part of chapter six the author argues that the Apostolic continuity was a standard around which several different and opposing theological armies could rally. Even though many catholic scholars argue that apostolic continuity with the apostles has been a standard since the ancient church. Three criteria that were used to support this position prior to the reformation were the assumption that the revelation the apostles handed down through scripture were the pillar and bulwark of the Christian’s faith.
In addition, the doctrinal and creedal tradition was derived from the apostles and the ecclesiastical structure represents by bishops in the church and their succession has continued through time. This view puts tradition above the scripture and gave the church authority above scripture. There is no real scriptural basis for apostolic succession and the supremacy of tradition above scripture. The reformation movement and radical reformers laid bare the claims, and manmade traditions instituted by the great catholic church under the scrutiny in the light of the written and inspired word of God... Radical reformers spiritually torn to shreds the basis for apostolic continuity and called for a restoration of primitive Christianity. This herald by the call for “sola- scriptura”. These developments led to the arousal of the great theological and historical interest in the twentieth century.
Clinton Moriah
Protestant Theological Heritage
Challenge to Apostolic Continuity
In the first part of chapter six the author argues that the Apostolic continuity was a standard around which several different and opposing theological armies could rally. Even though many catholic scholars argue that apostolic continuity with the apostles has been a standard since the ancient church. Three criteria that were used to support this position prior to the reformation were the assumption that the revelation the apostles handed down through scripture were the pillar and bulwark of the Christian’s faith.
In addition, the doctrinal and creedal tradition was derived from the apostles and the ecclesiastical structure represents by bishops in the church and their succession has continued through time. This view puts tradition above the scripture and gave the church authority above scripture. There is no real scriptural basis for apostolic succession and the supremacy of tradition above scripture. The reformation movement and radical reformers laid bare the claims, and manmade traditions instituted by the great catholic church under the scrutiny in the light of the written and inspired word of God... Radical reformers spiritually torn to shreds the basis for apostolic continuity and called for a restoration of primitive Christianity. This herald by the call for “sola- scriptura”. These developments led to the arousal of the great theological and historical interest in the twentieth century.
Concerning Jamie's Post
Thank you for a well though out post. I really like your ending thought "The text is crucial; the text is primary; it is the text which should be our constant governor." I could not agree more. That really nails the whole of the Reformation. The text is primary, like an anchor that holds a ship.
I would like to say that Protestantism is not automatically against tradition, but only that tradition that sets itself as superior to scripture. It is that mindset—tradition above scripture—that lead to the theological debates in Chapter One of Pelikan. They debated not what the Bible said but what a man said about the Bible.
Where you say that the modern reader “cannot escape the tradition of interpretation” I would change to it is “difficult” to escape the tradition of interpretation. If we could not escape then truth could never unfold and become clearer. I think the real challenge of Sola Scriptura principle is not to ignore the traditions, cultures, and history that surround scripture; but to see the truth come out despite those other influences. Again, great post and I really like your last paragraph.
I appreciate Marko’s conviction about the fact that “one tract of scripture can afford me more true knowledge of God than all the writings of Augustine” and may I add any of the reformer. Dr. Hanna continues to use perhaps his favorite text; Proverbs 4:18 which is one of my favorite as well; we are on a path and that which guides us is the Word of God. It is our lamp which guides our feet. I love the writings of Ellen White, and there are other writers who touch sensitive chords of my soul, but only the Bible has the true light. Perhaps they may be lesser lights leading to the greater light as Sis White says her writings are. While reformers reform and develop doctrine, the scripture need no reformation, there is a right interpretation and we must depend on the Holy Spirit to lead us to that correct understanding.
Progressive Revelation by Clinton Moriah
Chapter six reminds us that from the time of the Apostles the church had gradually degenerated into a reliance on outward works of which ecclesiastical ceremonies were the ones that most blatantly manifested their idolatry. The institutional church continued its downward trend. It went down the path of progressive error and rebellion and by 538 AD it willingly entered into spiritual and political matrimony with the Antichrist. They became one. Some argued that this was the beginning of the judgment of this harlot and that 1798 was a fore taste of the final judgment of this beast. . Even though the catholic church has been used by the devil in history its consists of true worshipers.. Apostasy began with the catholic institution. The catholic institution was not always used by the devil but there were intervals in history when God used the church. It went down a path of progressive error. It plunged from mild errors to grave apostasy.
Could it be that the Anti-Christ has arrested and seduced this institution with its sinister guile and spirit of deception? The seventh day Adventist institution need to be careful in not repeating or reduplicating the same error of the catholic church. Christ has given us a solid foundation. He has used our pioneers to set the pace and leave a legacy. It’s necessary that we continue in the path of the just. Proverbs 4:18, 19 tell us that- the path of the just is as a shining light. A Study of scripture shows that God is constantly revealing himself and desires to expand our understanding of the eschatological prophecies. Divine revelation is progressive.
It’s dangerous to slavishly engrave in stone the light God has revealed our pioneers and refusing to walk in the light of his revelation. We need to build on the pillars or core of the doctrines God has revealed to our pioneers..It is dangerous to lock God in the box of the interpretation of our pioneers when he desires that we continue in a broader understanding of the truth he has reveal to our fathers, 1 Corinthians 13:12 says that For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.
In response to Denis's post last week: I liked your point about how even the Reformers didn't go all the way back to the Bible as their primary authority; they tended to get hung up on the church fathers and make the latter the main source of authority. This shows the weakness of the Reformers, and should challenge us to make sure we do go all the way back to the Bible (and not get hung up on, say, Ellen White).
Also, great analogy at the end about babies and chewing!
I want to respond to Richy's first post:
I appreciate very much your focus on the Bible as our only safe guide and leader in matters of faith and life. Further, I like your thoughts on the Bible as its own interpreter. I think Isa 8:20 would be a good addition to what was already said. Compare the new things with what has already been proven to be God's Word.
Yet, I would like to ask for some understanding of people who have been born and grown up in a community that has a totally different understanding. I grew up in an atheist and communist society. And I am so thankful that God made it possible for me to get to know Adventists first before getting to know any other Christian denomination. It is easy to tell other people that they shall study the Bible for themselves. However, even we ourselves were taught certain things, and believed them since our teachers, pastors, parents knew better. Yes, I certainly believe that our Adventist beliefs are biblical and sound. And I also believe that it is possible to get to these beliefs only through the study of the Bible. But most of us have heard these truths from others, and then investigated it for ourselves. So we too built upon the knowledge and help of others. Yet, we must be careful not to judge other people, but be understanding and helping to find the biblical way.
Shabbat Shalom! Shalom Shabbat!
Greetings, Denis
In response to Denis Kaiser's comments on 9/9/08:
I appreciate what you said about our sometimes lackluster attitude toward studying the Scriptures for ourselves. I notice that tendency in myself - that I am more quick to take the easy route and simply confess as my beliefs what others have discovered before me. I don't think it is wrong to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, but my mistake is that I become unwilling to do the same things they did, namely, open the Scriptures and study them with fervor and intensity, expecting the same Spirit that guided them to open up my own understanding.
#1 Comment
Eric Washburn
Comment to David Moore Blog
David, I think you did a nice job wrestling over having room for our interpretation of prophecy to change. I think of the seven last plagues in Revelation. They are bazaar to say the least. Some good old evangelist might try to predict when, how, and what they are, but I still don’t think we will know what, when, or how until it happens. About the part you mention about a curve ball being thrown our way with the Roman Catholic having a Revival to truth. I think many could come out of the Church and believe the truth. What if they do, and don’t want to change their name to Seventh Day Adventist. Sometimes I think we think we need everyone carrying the same name to be saved. But the truth is the name won’t save you, it’s your personal relationship with Christ that saves you.
Will the last days end differently than we have interpreted? I think we need to go to the Great Controversy and read the last ten chapters again. If Ellen White is a Prophet (I believe she is) than she spells out the end pretty well. Could it be different than what Ellen White predicted? I don’t think she wrote it out word for word how it will all come about, but she did give a nice frame work. How will the anti-Christ come? Will it be a pope of the past resurrected? Will the anti-Christ come in a UFO with a former pope from the past and usher in a new anti-kingdom. I think there is room for many deceptions to take place, so we need to be ready. I think we have safety scriptures that if we take heed we will be safe from deception. If Satan in the form of Christ comes on an UFO, we know a few things from scripture to identify his true identity. Does he touch the earth, does he try to change God’s law, did every eye see him at the same time, did all the dead rise from the grave, did Satan the anti-Christ come yet to deceive the whole world, have the seven last plagues happened…etc. I think God will never go against these safe guards that He has set up in Scripture no matter how it ends. We can be confident of that. Let us study the Scripture so that we need not be deceived on that day.
Concerning “Paradox of the Reformation by C. Moriah”
It is as you say; the reformers needed reform. The Protestant also persecuted those that did not believe as they did. How tragic that such a thing should occur. It reminds me of how God told the Israelites not to oppress others because they had been oppressed. Yet look at what they did! They closed themselves in and forgot that their blessings where not for themselves only but for the whole world. So are our blessings. Our knowledge is not for ourselves but for the whole world. Not to oppress the world and make the world believe by force of arms—for that really never engenders belief—but by the force of love and free will. God is no tyrant, and any tyranny connected with truth is worst kind of evil.
Comment #2
Eric Washburn
Response to Richy Thomas post on righteousness by faith.
Richy you did a good job in expounding on righteousness by faith. It sounds so simple and I think it is. Jesus had no trouble explaining Salvation to crowds in the simplest way. Remember the young rich man that came to him who wanted eternal life (Luke 18). Jesus started to tell him to keep the commandments (so it seem keeping them is part of Salvation), than the young man responded I have done that since I was a child. Jesus than told him sell all you have and give it to the poor and follow me.
Here is where faith comes in, to do this would show that he (young rich man) trusted Christ to provide for him treasure in heaven. Jesus through out the gospels say, “if you love me keep my commandments.” So we are justified by faith and love (which comes in the form of obedience). Which one comes first? Faith or Love? I don’t think they can be separated. When they are it leads into legalism or liberalism. It is key to have a balance of both. You can’t have one with out the other, if we do its not genuine. If our faith doesn’t transform our life into loving obedience than are we following the Jesus who tells us to follow Him in faith? If I lack transformation or if it has come to a stand still, I must question my relationship with Jesus. Am I walking with Him or have I sat down being occupied with something of lesser importance.
Richy Thomas
#1 Comment
Theis is a comment to Marko Kolic #3 response.
Marko, I really have enjoyed your dedication to Sola Scriptura. You said that we should be careful to follow a "Thus saith the Lord" than following any Augustinian, Aquinas or Anselm way of thinking. I thought this was very true. Furthermore, you pointed out that Protestantism (well most of it) will fall because it practices Rome's way of doing theology. Oh, have you hit the nail on the head. I give you 5 stars for that alone, and that is all I will say for right now.
Richy Thomas
#2 Comment
This is a comment to Denis Kaiser second response:
I was glad to have read your response. I resonate with your stance that we should be careful in how we treat Catholics (or btw any other believer). The system may be corrupt, but that does not mean that God still has His people in her churches. For Scripture says, "Come out of her, MY PEOPLE." (Rev. 18:4, a great scripture that you used too!) Anyway, it is true that Adventist feel a sense of pride of being in a sort of private club, which is a shame, because God is not a "respecter(sp?) of persons". He uses people in the system to reach people in the system, like He has with the Monk named Martin Luther. Afterall, wouldn't be a shock of reality to see more Catholics in Heaven than Adventists?? I say as long as we keep our eyes on Jesus as Savior and follow Him in Lord, this will be key...but we need to have more love and kindness for our brothers and sisters in every faith, but to love them by warning them in a caring way too. If we do nothing, what love is it then?!! Yet we can do so by lifting up Jesus in everything we say and do!
Gerard Vertilus
9/17/08
This week reading is very fascinating on the topic of salvation that we been explored for the pass of three weeks. As we were discussing in class that someone cannot just jumped to a conclusion and gives his or her contentions concerning salvation without wrestling with the topic or study other topic such as sanctification, justification, perfection and glorification. This entire topic can share light and help someone to delve and come up to a better understand about salvation. For example, in Roman chapter 3, we read that the Apostle Paul underscored that, all human being who are living on the surface of this planet are guilty of sin. It does not matter who you are, where you come from, you still need Christ justice so that you can be justified. In this little book we are reading every week, Ellen White declared that “we are justified only by faith in the merit of Christ, but such as faith will never excuse transgression.” Woodrow W. Whidden II, added that “salvation come through obedient of acceptance.” James Dunn goes further to say that “Christ is our model of salvation.” I think that all these answer are key answer for our topics. The question is should we accept the gift of salvation without doing anything and still hoping that we are going to be saved?
In response to Jamie's comments on 9/12/08:
Jamie, I like the way you reason about these things, and that you let us take a part in this process. Yes, I think we need to be very careful not being judgmental about our fellow Christians. The problem they have we oftentimes have as well.
I would add some comments on the question of explicit and implicit doctrines.
(1) The doctrine that Christians can pray to Mary (or “venerate” her) like in the Ave Maria is built on other teachings not found in the Bible at all, as e.g. the immortality of the soul, the assumption of Mary, Mary as advocate, mediatrix, and co-redemptrix, Mary’s immaculate conception, etc. The prayer or worship of someone who is not God is clearly forbidden in the Bible. Although Catholic theologians would make a difference between veneration and prayer, the practice shows that there is no difference. These dear people really pray to Mary, and ask her for special things etc.
(2) Hbr, the Rev, and also several texts in the OT show that there is a sanctuary in heaven. The sanctuary on earth is a picture of reality in heaven. However, we don’t know how it looks like. Hbr further tells us that the heavenly sanctuary needs to be cleansed by a better sacrifice than the earthly sanctuary. The saving aspect (Lev 16) as well as the judicial aspect (Lev 23) of the day of atonement are clearly there, and reflected in what happens in Dan 7 and 8. Gen 22 shows the two fundamental principles of salvation: “(a) God provides the sacrifice; (b) someone else dies for me (substitution).” etc. It is right that there is no clear one sentence statement that teaches this. Yet, that is the case with many Biblical teachings. It is more complex. But a careful study of scripture clearly shows how different parts and aspects of a teaching come together.
Adventists should be complex thinking people. Unfortunately, for many church members that is not the case. They believe what they are taught. They are not mature. They are “tossed here and there by waves, and carried away by every wind of doctrine.” Here we as pastors, teachers, theologians, students, etc. have the responsibility to help and train our fellow members to study the Scriptures for themselves, and to be able to handle difficult questions as far as that is possible for them.
In response to Eric's comments of 9.14.08:
I appreciate that Eric has openly expressed questions many of us have about how God interacts with his creation in history. I think that there is a good case biblically for the concept that God allows human history to play its natural course and that much of what God hopes to accomplish is directly related to historical events. However, it is also clear that at certain times, God is seen in Scripture to intervene in history in ways that truly seem to redirect the natural course of human events. Eric mentioned the Exodus, for example. That event was set up naturally as a matter of sequence of human history. However, the Exodus itself would not have happened (it would seem) unless God had intervened.
Response to Richy Thomas
I'm so very glad that you do not support the confessional :~). Seriously though, on a personal note, I am thankful that I don't have to go to priest and confess my sins and failures. I love that I can go directly to God and we can deal with things together instead of dealing with human middle man who does not know my heart or situation. I thank God that I can talk to Him through Jesus our Saviour.
Eric Washburn
Comment #3 on Marko Kolic 3rd Post
Great piece of Marko! Made me think about our church and how it functions and makes changes. Your Ellen White quote, “GC in session with duly elected representatives from all parts of the church. She states that private ideas are to be put aside when the church speaks together on an issue because this is “the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth.” {3T 493} I think we can be pretty safe with following with what the GC session decides to change or uphold. But we need to honestly ask a question, and that is who are these people who go to the GC Sessions?
I am not an authority; so correct me if you know otherwise. Are not these the representatives in the GC Session, conference presidents, division presidents, treasures, pastors, theologians, and elected representatives who are in good standing? How many of these people are voted in by the common people into their office? I don’t remember voting any in... From my experience conference presidents are pastor with years of experience and some are elected into office through the connections (friends in high places) they have. It true the executive board is given the power to choose, but they are only given a few choices, which have trickled down from above. These conference presidents from my observation hire many pastors whom they are friends with, or are friends of a friend. The elected body that is sent to the G.C session, are they not selected by their popularity in their area of living? Now I am not saying that all the people who are at the GC session got there through politics or being popular or a friend to the right person, but I think in some cases they are. But even if this is true, most come from different backgrounds or perspectives, so a conspiracy is highly unlikely.
As humans, we live by relationships, so it is only natural to select friends or the most popular into a leadership position, right? It is kind of a broken system, but what is the other alternative, a dictator (Pope) who says what is right and wrong? Marko correct me if I am wrong, is the Pope a dictator, or do they work as a body of believer to make dogma? How much power does the Pope have? Is he a puppet moved by the body of Cardinals? Doesn't there leadership consists of cardinals who are selected by the top leadership in office and not the common body? Is it the cardinals who decide what is dogma. I don’t know a lot on how the Catholic church governs or elects it leaders.
Anyhow, I find it amazing we make any decisions at the GC session with so many people coming from every country with different education and life experiences. God helps us!
Richy Thomas
Comments on Eric Washburn's #3 Blog:
Eric, I greatly appreciated your thoughts that you shared concerning the church as the body of Christ. It is true that Paul's thinking (or worldview) of the Early church was very Jewish. Furthermore, great insight on bringing out the distinctives of the Christian faith and doctrines from key passages of Scripture, regarding Sabbath, diet, Christ-centeredness.
It is true: The book of Revelation is Jesus' message for all churches from the early days to the time when He comes. In Revelation 12, the "faithful church" in the end, (by this time they are known as the Remnant,) are a minority of belivers "who keep the Commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus."
Obviously, the faithful few are going against the norm of the unfaithful majority!!!!
Therefore, brother Eric, good post!
Daniel Ocampo
A response to Dennis Kaiser’s Comment
“A kingdom in darkness”
Hi Dennis… I believe that you’re not alone to think that the Catholic Church could still be considered part of God’s church. But again as you’ve said, “the church is in Babylon” the reason why the invitation from Revelation – “come out of her my people”. As it may not sink in quickly the thought that God used the RCC for his purposes – personally, I thought, as far as I know I am not qualified to be in the ministry but I believe that it’s not us to determine who is qualified but God is the one who qualifies the unqualified for the task of his purposes.
Again, the more we dig into the Scriptures I believe that we‘ll be more open in developing relationships with those with whom we have spiritual prejudice.
Daniel Ocampo
Daniel Ocampo
Comments to Jamie Kiley’s
Dependence on Augustine and Common sense
Thank you Jamie for being so objective on your reading and for a brief summary of chapter 4 referring to the main issues discussed. Could it be that idolatry though have deeply rejected by God still plagues our church in general? As you’ve mentioned every one on each side of the issues were quoting him to prove that they are right. I think that’s the problem of scholars, “quoting a know scholar” for association and approval rather than quoting the rightful source, a striking warning to all of us. A lot of times, we hear our old folks quoting more from Ellen White than the Scriptures causing an outsider hearing them do this, calls us cult.
Amazing to know how “common sense” defeats extreme loyalty to the letter and forgetting the real purposes of the letter. I often see this happening even within our midst, among those who assume too much knowledge of everything and often forget the practical side of all things. Well done Jamie.
Daniel Ocampo
Daniel Ocampo
Comment on Marko’s Article: Catholic Concordance
Hi Marko! I have to admit I enjoyed your insightful comment on the universality of church unity. I like the way you have used the writings of EGWhite on the same matter. Bottom line, God speaks through the confessed and evident unity of the “world church in session” and does not rest only in one man.
How I wish that the unity we as a church make manifest during the GC session remains the same on a daily basis. Sad to know that on a simple scale like the local church board we barely see that happening. On a higher scale, don’t we also see that during local Conference Constituency meetings the bigger the congregation the bigger voice they have? Lifting it a little more higher, in the GC Executive Com. Isn’t it true that richer and bigger divisions have the same share of bigger voice? Don’t you think that whatever plague there is in the RCC also exist within our own denomination? This disease of being big denotes authority and demands more power has long been destroying the faith of others. Great insights from you Marko, thank you.
Daniel Ocampo
Daniel,
You noted in your last comment that “the Roman Catholic Church was the one always aggressive in trying to maintain unity in the community of believers,” and that they are now the ones “responsibly pursuing the task of possible reunification of the ‘Universal Christian Church.’”
I get the impression from your comment that you are somewhat supportive of their attempts at reunification. I guess that’s not necessarily inappropriate, since unity is important, biblically speaking. But I sure wouldn’t want to obscure the significance of the differences we have theologically with the Catholic Church. They aren’t minor; they’re severe.
At the end of your post, you ask what we as Adventists have “done in fostering scriptural unity among other Christian denominations.”
I think this is a great question. Adventists have a tendency to be a bit separatist, which is legitimate in certain times and certain places, but I totally support your implication that Adventists should be open to unity wherever it doesn’t compromise our mission.
Eric,
You asked in your post whether "Christ be the head of a church even though it has corruption and false doctrine," and also noted that it appears that the true church sometimes needs correction. I liked your comments on this. I guess it's true that even a corrupted church can still be the true church, in a sense. Like you pointed out, the churches to which the seven letters were addressed in Revelation were still apparently legitimate churches, even though they were suffering some serious corruption.
Also, I liked your call for humility at the end. It's pretty easy to judge everybody else, but recognizing that we too might suffer from corruption is always harder.
A response to Daniel Ocampo’s reflection from September 26, 2008:
I like your efforts to remain balanced, not going to any extremes, and trying to have in view the whole picture. That is not always easy but possible, and I think important especially in the contact with people of other denominations. If we know where we stand we are not afraid of talking with people with different convictions.
Thinking about your question on the broader perspective of the remnant I want to remind of the characteristics of the remnant in Rev 12:17; 14:12. Actually, these characteristics match only with the Seventh-day Adventists movements. Nevertheless, I think that when the time comes where every kind of organization breaks the true believers will come together reflecting these characteristics that are today the outward signs of our institution (and other groups of our tradition).
In the effort to reach other people it is necessary for them to feel appreciated and respected. We want to lead them into a living relationship with Christ who has also revealed other truths He considered as essential for us to know. But it seems to be difficult to talk to other Christians recognizing them as such, showing appreciation, and communicate, nevertheless, the necessity of a deeper plunging into the divine truth. In certain areas of my own country Adventists more and more loose the necessity of our church’s distinctive existence, identity, and mission. Ecumenical meetings are welcome events but not real opportunities.
In response to Jamie's comments of 9.26.08:
I appreciated these comments very much. I think they highlight the main question of church unity, namely, what unity really means. I don't have an answer, but it seems to be a major issue. How do we define unity? What did Christ have in mind when he prayed for the one-ness of the church?
Eric Washburn
Comment #4
Response to Denis Kaiser 2 Blog
Denis I have to agree with you how we judge people rather than a system. There are millions of Catholics who read their Bibles and have a very intimate walk with Christ. I think of the Franciscan Monks whom I have heard speak with very Christ centered messages and some errors. These guys devote their life to studying scripture, prayer, and meditation; they are bound to get something right spiritually. Babylon is fallen, and we are to call God’s people out of their false religions. We are failing to do this as a church and we are failing to do missions. Our educational system, which was set up to create missionaries, has lost it vision. We have fallen to the system of having hovering pastors instead of church planters. Church members are not equipped but are maintained in their lukewarm state.
What will help change that? Will an economical crisis? We are about to see what we as a church will do when we have military state and marshal law. Will we create cell ministries and each church member start a house church and multiply when it gets to a certain size? I think some church members will do this. But I have gotten an e-mail from some Adventist who are already getting ready to run to the mountains. They are in save myself mode. Is that not the state of our church now? It’s all about material wealth and self-preservation. For some they think the game is over and that there is no one left to call out. For these people it seems the three angels message was over long ago.
Isn’t it weird that we got rid of the three angels logo about 10 years or so ago and replaced it with a Bible with a flame. Our mission seems to go with the logo change. What is our mission today? God is preparing a people within their own denomination and He is nurturing them with His Spirit and Word. We read many of these non-Adventist authors and much of it we can give a hearty Amen too. Will you run for the hills before the door of probation is closed? Lets not repeat history; there is a great work to be done.
Richy, I too take the same stand that you do in terms of what we base our belief system on. It must be the Bible and the Bible alone (sola scriptura). Sometimes I wonder about some of our doctrines that we have put together in a proof texting format to satisfy our position? The Word of God says, “precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little”. While I appreciate and use this format, are we doing good exegesis in the process? One of the things that I am grateful for in this class is the challenge to spend as much time as possible mulling over the text in its context and to be a true to what it says. It may not be popular to take a non-traditional stand but stand anyhow!
Aloha Eric, great thoughts from your pondering! You raised the question, Can Christ be the head of a church even though it has corruption and false doctrine? As I have thought about this question, it comes to mind that Christ created a pure church with pure doctrines in an impure world with sinful humans. Christ is the benchmark of doctrine and right conduct, even though He did not use His Deity to aid Him in practice. It seem to be so hard for us to reach that benchmark, therefore we corrupt the ideals that has been set up for us to follow. I believe that the SDA Church constitutes the remnant church in its purest form but what is that and does it look like what it should be when we see our church today? I guess this is where the issue of the invisible and the visible church comes in, which we will leave for another time…great thoughts keep it up!
Richy Thomas
Comment #4
Comments on Daniel Ocampo's last blog:
Daniel, I agree with your discussion on the understanding of the Remnant. It is true that we should express ourselves as part of "the Remnant," for the reason that many more people will come out of Babylon and be part of the "remnant," and I do not necessarily believe that all these people will be joining a denomination. Perhaps, there will be a remnant out of the remnant...God knows those that are His.
BTW - I am glad that you addressed the subject of unity motivated by the Universal Church (Roman Catholic Church). There is great evidence of their "hidden agenda," yet, we can also see their agenda openly as well.
A Response to Moriah’s comment from 9/30/2008:
Thank you very much for your interesting comment. I think that you have an even greater insight into the whole predestination topic since you once shared that belief system. I’m able to relate to that for I had problems with some of our beliefs for some years until I did more research on that etc. It is sometimes strange to “confess” that we have believed in a “weird” belief for some time. But that gives an even greater impact to our testimony to the truth now.
It is interesting that different people can read divers things out of one author (e.g. Augustine on predestination or free will). One problem is oftentimes that we don’t know all the statements made to the topic so that we don’t see the greater system. But sometimes people make apparently extreme statements in different directions, and they don’t seem to recognize that these are not compatible. Or sometimes we think that are not compatible but they were, at least in their minds. I still have to do research on whether Augustine really believed in the free choice of the human will as well or whether it was actually Leo the Great who moderated Augustine’s teachings on God’s grace, salvation, the free choice, God’s foreknowledge etc.
Eric Washburn
10-05-08
Comment #5 ON Daniel Ocampo First Blog
Daniel you have done a good job on your first post. I agree with you that class has been a great forum to share with liberty and that Dr. Hanna does do a great job facilitating discussion. You shared about how before there were scriptures, believers followed stories and traditions passed down orally. It seems now that it is written, we now have to interpret what was written, and here is where diversity comes about. If all were sincere in reading scripture and finding the truth, than why is there so many diverse view of doctrine? The Holy Spirit is to be our teacher, so why is there false doctrine? "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" (John 14:26). Maybe we can say there are some “sincerely” wrong people reading the Bible, who bring their baggage of theology, or eyeglasses with lenses of the past to interpret scripture.
But what if you were to take two twins, good Adventist, with the alike up bringing, identical schooling, and have them sit down and read the matching passage of Scripture, and each given the freedom to give an independent interpretation? Would they give the same answer, even after praying to the identical God for illumination of the Holy Spirit? I would have to say from experience that their identical up bringing might have a play in their interpretation making their answer close. But this is not always the case; often twins will come up with different answers. Even with their close upbringing and education, they still are not exactly alike and they will use what’s different in their lives to interpret scripture. It would be nice if we could lay aside all our bias and read scripture and let the Spirit speak instead of our cherished ideas. I believe it is possible, but it will have to be very intentional. We would have to ask our selves, is this interpretation mine or is it spirit led? What a challenge! We would have to speak less dogmatically and really ponder our answers before speaking.
Daniel responds to Denis…
Denis wrote… “However, we think that the action transports a content (meaning). If the action looses that meaning it becomes a mere senseless tradition. That is why it is so important to talk about the meaning so that it still has an impact upon our daily life.”
I do appreciate the content of your article because it resounds what I have in mind. The meaning of our practices and their intents I believe depends on the individual involved. Just as Jesus said in John 3:16 “…whosoever…” means salvation is individual and yet the church/body is composed of these individuals.
I like the way Dr. Hanna puts it that salvation is the object of all the process of salvation (salvation in justification, salvation in sanctification and salvation in glorification). I also appreciate the role of education on this matter as you’ve pointed out, very important indeed.
Daniel
Daniel responds to Jamie…
Thank you Jamie for your clear, open and balance view on justification by faith. To know that the reformers’ view was always linked to predestination made you quite disliked it. I believe that to the point of justification which is God’s complete job through Jesus Christ on the cross, the Reformers were right on their stand. I too don’t agree with predestination apart from the power of choice. There is a level of predestination for all the saved as Paul mentioned in Ephesians 2:10. The KJV used the word “SHOULD” in doing them, the NASB used the word “would”, NIV used the phrase “for us to do” – here is a proof that understanding the placement of works in matters of salvation even among Bible translators is based on their presuppositions.
I am leaning towards the NASB because it connotes “choice” not “force”. I believe that through the constant working of the Holy Spirit, every saint would “WANT” to walk and do the good works designed for each one. I strongly agree that the salvation story is all God’s work FOR, IN and WITH mankind.
Daniel
Daniel responds to Clinton Moriah…
Clinton, I appreciate your straight forward thoughts about Calvin’s view on predestination. Indeed his position doesn’t only undermine human “freedom of choice” but also the power of God. To save mankind is God’s prerogative and initiative. To be saved or not, is it mankind’s prerogative? Is that the light we get from Jesus’ death on the cross?
Daniel
I really appreciated Eric Washburn's comments of 10.5.2008. I think that you made a very good point for discussion about sounding dogmatic in our own opinions and not allowing for others to grow in their own understanding. We would do well to pay attention to this and remember that God even speaks through imperfect humans who grow in their understanding of His truth.
Regarding David's post:
I would have to agree that even the good works we do have no merit in and of theselves. Some will come to Jesus saying "Lord Lord..." But Jesus does not know them. It appears that were faith is active it is active in walking in the works of Christ. I feed the hungry, yet it is not I but Christ. If I resist temptation it is not I but Christ. I have free will, I am able to resist the resisting of temptaion, I am able to eat what I was to give to the hungry. Yet that does not change the fact that none of these acts are acceptable except as they are what God wants of me. "10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordainedb that we should walk in them." [Eph 2:10] The good works are works in Christ. Works done outside of Christ are not works of faith but of the fleshp; and even though they may be 'good' in the eye's of man they are polluted with self in the eye's of God.
Richy
Responding to Marko's 10/6 post.
Marko, I really enjoyed reading your comments on the problem of looking to the Church to interpret Scripture. Christ is the Head of the Church, not the Harlot! Amen, brother! I love my Catholic brothers and sisters, and I admit that there are issues in our own church, but as long as we keep Christ as the Head of our Church and the Scriptures/H.S. as our guide, we will be secure. The Great Controversy chapter, "The Scriptures As Safeguard," is one very important chapter to read, especially this generation.
C. Moriah Response to Bill Watson
I agree with Bill and Richy, in terms of what we base our belief system on.It must be the Bible and the Bible alone (sola scriptura). I agree that the prove text method we used most times is a substitue for poor preparation .In addition,sometimes our interpretation and understanding of Sister white has contribute to this to some extent.some of us prefer to search her writings first and used her explaination first instead of searching the scripture and comparing line upon line.After this is done we can also read what our prophetess has to say. Her ministry is a source of authority in the church and has had a positive impact.But there afe a few negatives too.the most outstanding one is that it has made some ministers lazy.We need to search the scripture.
Response to Marko from 10/06/2008:
I like your point that Christ’s sacrifice is available for all human beings but that unfortunately not all accept it but only some. The substitutionary death of Christ is only made effective for those who accept it for themselves.
In that sense He died for the salvation of all, and His sacrifice is available for the salvation of all. However, I would disagree with your statement that “He saved all.” I’m sure you don’t mean it the way as it sounds. Further, since salvation is a whole process that is only finished until Christ comes again and the “saved” are in Heaven, we cannot yet say that we are already saved. But we can believe that God saves us because we accepted Christ as our Savior and Lord, and He promised to save everyone that does just that.
Eric Washburn
10-12-08
Comment #6 Response to Clinton Moriah 9/30/2008 Blog
Hi Clinton, I have to agree with your comments on your post on Calvin’s theology. I agree that God looks bad when He is seen in the light of not giving us free choice to be saved or not to be saved. You quoted John 3:16 as a proof text that salvation is for all those who believe in Christ, which makes the gospel good news! What kind of message would a preacher have if he or she would go up front and say the gospel is the good news, but your fate is already decided in heaven so your decision to either follow Christ or not has already been made by God. I feel the need to go out and witness looses it force in the Calvin’s theology. Free choice by the way explains the origin of evil quite well, and it also quite nicely justifies God’s character. It also explains why God doesn’t end our world’s suffering now, since He longs for many more to accept (Choose) His gospel call to be saved.
I agree Calvinism looks pretty bad and makes God look bad. But I also think there is an ugly side of free choice too. There is a group of Adventist who believe we can and should right now be sinless by exercising our free will to choose to not to sin. And if there be any sin left in us before probation closes than we will be lost forever. I am all for being sinless, and believe we should pursue this with God’s help. What happened to grace, Christ life lived, His death in my behalf, and the promise of the resurrection? I am also a human of experience and one who looks at reality all around me and see no one, not one who is living a perfect life. Even the saints in there 90’s who appear to be perfect, have sin in their lives. Free choice is all about exercising the will that God has gifted all of us with. And we should pursue godliness in the spirit’s strength, but when we start to think we will, will our way in to heaven on our own merit we cheapen the death of Christ. Christ is our example and let us follow, but let us not forget He is also our Savior. Statements such as, “If I don’t “will” myself to heaven by living a perfect life than I will never get there”, makes many Adventist lack assurance of their Salvation. Adventists become Sadventists who really do not want to share their faith in Christ atonement because they are not sure just yet if it work for them.
I think we need to find equilibrium because Adventist should have assurance of Salvation and be among the most joyful Christians upon this earth. The word that became flesh died, promised it with His blood. It’s not on our credit that we are saved, but on the balance on our account that Christ paid that makes us savable. I personally feel that we lack joy in our Christian experience and excitement about what we believe because there is a lack of healthy assurance. We have a hard time preaching Salvation when we have the mind set that you will never know you have salvation until Christ returns. Well, that’s what faith is, right, hoping for the unseen? I hope we can begin to put faith in God’s word, and be assured if we love Him and follow Him we have Salvation. Sure salvation will not be seen in its fullest sense, but we can start living with joy on the promises that can never be broken. Let believe what Christ says, and stop showing lack of faith by trying to do the work He has already done in our behalf, and start living by the Spirit which is present now in our lives.
Responding to Eric's comments on salvation:
I can totally identify with the fear factor in understanding salvation. I think that's why John says that perfect love casts out fear. Elsewhere the Bible can speak of fear as a positive thing, as our healthy respect and honor for an almighty God. But John balances it by saying that fear (I take him to mean "being afraid") has to do with judgment. To John, a Christian should not have that kind of fear because judgment rules in our favor who are in Christ.
Respondint to Blog # 6 Eric Washburn. 10-12-08
I agree with you in the way that usually those texts seem to be contradictory each other. I think, it is absolutely necessary for us to get a clear understanding of salvation as the Bible says. Dr Hanna has done an excellent work in explaining the topic. Sometimes I have experienced the same confusion like many other seminarians. To me, it is a normal process of Growing in our theological thinking. So we are in a right way. But, my mayor worry is about those Christians which are in a great confusion right now. As I can see, every new Christian experiences a sort of confusion about what they have to do, and what not when thinking about the role of man in salvation. That’s the reason we see many legalistic brethrens in the church. That’s because they are not clear about that important concept. But, I see others that think they don’t have to do nothing to be saved. So, they don’t work in their relationship with God. Paradoxically, they are living the Christian life without the Christ of the life. That’s the other extreme.
Then, our job is going to be huge when we leave the seminary. The church is full of Real and sincere Christian which are experiencing hard time because of their theological confusion about salvation.
As you said, the only way we have to be saved is getting an d authentic experience with Jesus. We have to use our free will in order to surrender ourselves to Christ. We just have to choose to serve him. Then He will work in us to do his pleasure. Praise the Lord.
Daniel Responds to Leonardo’s 10-07-08 post
I like the simplicity of your analysis how a great church as the RCC and Reformers as well, could be in one man’s influential hand, theologically speaking. I saw the light of your thought of how dangerous this could be in terms of idolatry in ideology and theology. Also you’ve pointed out that we too as SDA’s are not exempted and had been influenced by the same teachings of Augustine.
Your emphasis on subjecting all teachings and ideologies to the Biblical proof is the safest way how to avoid this from happening and preserve the true Biblical message. I completely agree with you on this.
Daniel
Daniel responds to Eric’s 6th blog
Thank you for opening your heart to us in your latest blog, it takes a man to say what’s going on deep within you. I like the way you’ve placed value on the kind of a working relationship with God not out of fear but through partnership.
I think that fear that Paul was referring to in this verse was not the fear that obeys even though internally we don’t want to. I look at it as a fear that brings meaning to salvation – knowing that as lost sinners saved by the grace of God through faith, we are not use to this reconciled relationship with God, we don’t even know how to keep it much more to maintain it, I think at first we didn’t even want it, that’s why it is a gift.
Looking up to the meaning of “fo,boj” which Paul used in the word fear – the translators did it right in giving the real word for it but the other implied meaning is “reverence” and “respect.” After knowing these implied meanings the verse suddenly meant completely different to me. A sinner saved by grace like me, don’t know the meaning of reverence much less have experienced it the way God had it in mind. What I am saying is that anything we are not used to doing will either cause fear or anxiety but what Paul was trying to imply is that we treat our salvation sacred as we revere God our Saviour.
With fear and trembling indeed because we don’t know God, HE does. But you’ve said the good news, He sounds like crazy for us, wanting to have an intimate relationship with us made possible through the ministry of the Holy Spirit who knows His heart and ours as well. Like you Eric, you’re not alone, because up to now I am still a searcher of His heart. I believe that Paul meant that with the willing heart this works.
Daniel
Daniel Responds to David Moore (10-13-08 blog)
I greatly appreciate the pastoral tone of your blog, it was full of liberty and appreciation of one who progressively journeys in salvation experience. Your practicality has touched me simply because it’s real time experience of salvation that you’re concerned about. Correct me if I am wrong, that you prefer to accept people’s understanding of salvation according to their current experience and understanding of Scriptures. I believe as our professor told us that God has used these people (Reformers/Protestants) to add to the prevailing understanding of salvation of their time and of course new light has been added since.
Our salvation fully depends on God whichever phase we’re in, for me the experience of salvation is a composite of Justification, Sanctification and Glorification at the same time. It is both an active and passive faith that is involved.
Daniel
Denis,
In your comment on 10/5, you said, "The whole discussion about justification, sanctification, the place of works, the free choice of man, and God’s foreknowledge shows how much we are bound to our presuppositions and previous knowledge. We built upon the things we know. When we get new information or data we try to put them into a system that makes sense."
How true. This is especially true for me in relation to the ideas of predestination, foreknowledge, and free will. I only know how things work from my limited perspective, and then I wind up (unintentionally, perhaps) trying to cram God into my box. Sometimes, though, even earthly experiences bring home the realization that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than I might realize at first. Things aren't as simple as I might perceive them!
I also liked your comments about the idea of salvation as a process (completed only in heaven), not a one-time earthly event. Dr. Hanna has made a point of saying that we need to broaden our understanding of salvation to include sanctification and not just justification, and I think that's true. Salvation isn't over on the day we first believe; we are BEING saved everyday.
Daniel,
You mentioned (10/5) that you "found it quite funny how we humans kept on discussing on minor details about God’s mysteries and end up declaring each other heretic or anathema, it’s a sad part of Christian history but true even on the Adventist."
Amen. If there is one thing I've learned in the last year, it's that I need to stop judging people so quickly! It's easy for me to get caught up in small doctrinal quibbles and let them get blown out of proportion, but those kinds of things are NOT the type of thing that should split up the church. God forbid. We ought to be able to remain together even with divergences of opinion on some points, and allow for the fact that different people grow in their understanding at different rates.
Interesting comments also on the Catholic-Lutheran agreements on justification by faith. I find it fascinating that the two churches had such a huge rupture during the Reformation, and now they are able to establish such agreement!
David,
In your comments on salvation (10/13), you made the point that "salvation" and the verb "to save" in Scripture have varying meanings (justification, sanctification, glorification, healing. You also noted that this indicates that "we don’t have to understand salvation by always having the holistic model in mind."
Personally, I think it's good to keep the holistic model in mind constantly (because the holistic model basically just means that you recognize that there are many aspects of salvation), but what I do wholeheartedly agree with is that we shouldn't try to tie salvation down to any one aspect presented in the Bible. As you well noted, there are many biblical themes relating to salvation, and none of them should be isolated.
I like your suggestion that sometimes it's ok to think of salvation in very simple terms (i.e. just simple forgiveness of sins--nothing more). I totally agree. While it's important to dig into what the Bible says, and while it's important not to oversimplify the doctrine of salvation, there are times when one small reality of salvation just resonates more than others. And I think that's ok. It allows us to really focus on the beauty of one part of our salvation experience, which is great.
To those who responded to my 10.13 comment:
Right - I think the idea of holistic understanding of salvation is important. I think it is clear that the fact that so many aspects of salvation are revealed in Scripture means that salvation is more than any one exclusive term can cover. I am just wrestling with the concept that often when salvation is spoken of in Scripture, it is in fact spoken of in one exclusive aspect. And why is that? That is what I want to understand. It seems like the changing factor is the understanding or experience of the audience. I guess what I was trying to say is that I think it is important that we understand salvation holistically, but that we allow for others to experience it in exclusive stages and not expect them to grasp it all in one holistic picture.
Response to David’s reflection from 10/19/2008:
Yes, I agree with your thoughts on the connection of the laws of the Old Testament. However, Paul is sometimes not very easy. Wilson Paroschi wrote something about the law in the writings of Paul where he showed that Paul doesn’t always mean the same when he mentions the “law.” Sometimes he refers to the Pentateuch. Sometimes he refers to the ceremonial aspects, or even merely to the Ten Commandments. Sometimes he even refers to the whole OT. The context has to decide what he really meant. It is interesting as well that Jesus sometimes when he referred to the law and cited from it, he only quoted from Exod 20.
I agree with you as well that we should better use the term “fulfilled” when speaking about the different “phases” of the OT laws. Roberto Badenas wrote an interesting dissertation on Christ as the “end of the law” in Rom 10:4. There he talks much about the use of “telos” in the NT etc. It is never used in a sense of abrogation. I think that one aspect that becomes clear in the NT is that certain cultic instructions have come to their fulfillment in that the object to which they pointed all the time has become reality. Paul states that a further observation of these rituals would indicate a denial of the reality that has already come to pass. It is true that there are still other regulations that can only be applied to our daily life since we don’t live in a theocratic state anymore where sin against God is punished in a legal way. Yet, these regulations still help to understand the will of God for our lives. However, it would be good to look through all these regulations and instructions to get a better understanding on that matter. Maybe that is a topic for a dissertation or two or three … If someone needs a topic. :-)
Eric Washburn
10-20-08
Comment # 7 on Leonardo Ledezma 1st post
You did a great job on your first post. You mention about how theologians were debating on what color Virgin Mary’s hair was and what order would a monk belong to after his resurrection. This is called speculative theology, when one makes up unidentifiable facts about a person, place, thing in the Bible, which is not identified. Some might call it holy imagination, but some of these theologians’ imaginative ideas became dogma of the church. Do Adventists use speculative theology? I think we do sometimes. Such as, will there be marriage in Heaven? Jesus says no, but we don’t like the answers so we speculate that there will be marriage on the new earth. Many have speculated on what nature did Christ take in human form. There is no scripture evidence that give definite answers, but many create theology as if it was the clearest doctrine taught in scripture. Some liberal Adventists speculate that Jesus made intoxicating wine at the wedding feast in Cana, while conservatives say it was pure grape juice. The Bible doesn’t give any evidence for either side except that it was the best wine ever tasted by mankind. Some Adventist theologians have also speculated on the nature of man, and what really has been passed down in their nature since the fall. I have heard some conservatives say that all baby’s are born sinless with a sinful nature, and its only when they are old enough to know what is right and wrong before they become sinful. Our speculative theology becomes even broader when we take Ellen White and try to use her writings to prove a point, when she’s not alive to say, “that was or was not what I was trying to say…”
Leonardo also mentions that Augustine was the primary source for most of Catholic theology and for some protestant theology. I think there is great danger in putting so much trust in one mans or woman’s thoughts and ideas. We ought not to believe everything we hear from the pulpit or from our class lectures, unless we see it clearly ourselves in scripture. Scripture is our only source of protection from all kinds of heresies. If someone came to me and said Ellen White said this to be true, but scripture plainly taught otherwise, I would have to go with scripture. One friend came to me once a few years back and told me that he found an obscure quote that Ellen White said she would be alive at the end of the time of trouble, a special resurrection you could say. I told him that he could follow the demon dressed up as Ellen White, and I will follow scripture, because scripture says that the dead know not a thing, but are asleep until Jesus comes. If I am wrong, at least I will be wrong following the conviction that scripture places upon me. It is better to be on the safe side of scripture. We have seen that people make counterfeit money, what if someone with an ill mind wrote a counterfeit Ellen White quote. It may sound just like her style, but we really have nothing to prove that she wrote it. Scripture is the only thing we can test anything that is set before us as coming from God.
Richy Thomas
Responding to Jamie Kiley's blog on Luther's view of Atonement and 'Alien' Righteousness.
I really appreciated reading your thoughts and balanced ideas on these subjects. I, too, believe that there is more to the understanding of the Atonement that we are overlooking or not looking at all. Yes, we Adventists, and other Christians as well, just look at the penal aspect of justice achieved at the Cross, but do not see more. There is so much more to bring to light in reference to atonement at the Cross and thereafter too (with regard to the Sanctuary). Yet, there is more revelation and dimensions of atonement to be understood in just Justification at the cross alone that, also needs to be preached/shared with everyone. Therefore, thanks for writing on this!
Richy Thomas
Responding to Jamie Kiley's 10/21 blog.
Again, I fully agree with your position that our church needs to "revisit" the Biblical study of predestination. There are elements in Luther and Calvin's writings that are supremely Biblical truth, that we can agree with, yet in which area do we place (or separate) ourselves in (or from)?
There are interesting and controversial issues in this theology that I would like to study more on to familiarize myself with, just to be real with the people and Biblical truthful to the text(s).
Daniel responds to Eric's blog #7
I appreciate your searchful eye and analytical mind in the reading of the book. On the other hand, I believe that writers neede to write more on themes they wanted to give more emphasis yet maintaing balance on their views. For me the more formation I get the better I understand, but as you said the author failed to give the same credit to the protestants as he gave the RCC.
At the end of your blog you mentioned about the importance for clergy to avoid getting entangled with church money issues. As humans we see this as the devil's trap to many fallen ministers of high caliber - the love of money is the root of all evil. you've mentioned your disagreement about the use of manipulation to raise funds - I am with you completely. SDA givers according to statistics are most generous givers among Christians per capita, I believe commitment is the key.
Dan
Daniel comments on Richie's bog #5
Richie, I love the humor of Luther's comparative study on Christ and the Pope. To a person who is bias to the pope/papcy, like me, finds it cute and amusing but to a devotee and committed Catholic it's quite shocking and would be judged heretical.
Your emphasis on anyone who counters Christ and his truth is an anti-Christ is quite straight forward but true. I enjoyed the light feeling of reading you post.
Dan
Daniel comments to Jamie
Jamie, I was reminded by your reaction about finding your self off-guarded about the doctrine of predestination for the same happened to me in thw past.
Your question whether our SDA view of justification will be affected should we develop an SDA version of predestination, I believe it will completely and radically change the understanding of the old SDA's in our churches but not our current understanding of it.
I'd rather see it being tailored or intertwined within the fibers of our current stand on justification which I believe is already existent but none dominant.
Question: should we develop predestination doctrine to be at par with our Protestant counterparts? Hmmmn... I wonder what our scholars at the Biblical Research Institute say about your question.
Thanks for being such a think tank, I appreciate that.
Dan
daniel comments on Denis blog on 10-12-08
Denis on this blog you have strung a well sounding string within our Adventist theology. You have equated Adventism to thinking and that "to be an Adventist means you're a thinker." I like that. On the other hand we shouldn't forget that most of our converts were former RCC and a number of Protestants, people who were mostly expectators if not followers of the "given way."
Your challenge is indeed important that we needed more pastor who are not only pastors but theologians who are well versed with the Scripture.
Daniel
Daniel comments on Clinton's 10-19-08 blog
Clinton, you have presented a balanced view of previnient faith even on the sde of Luther. It seems to me that on my reading your post you're suggesting that previnient faith is A GIFT AND NOT SLAVATION ITSELF. That led me to think that previnient faith is like an stimulus for the receiver to start deciding to believe or not.
I like the line of thought.
Daniel
Daniel responds to Leonardo Ledesma's 10-19-08 blog
Leonardo, I like the decisiveness of your thoughts about God's grace as "resistible".
You wrote: "The fact that we have to response to the grace of God is clearly supported by bible. God created us with the capacity of making decisions even when those decisions were wrong. There is no irresistible grace. To accept the idea of an irresistible grace is deny the capacity, given by God Himself, to decide our destiny. God will never force our will to save us."
Let's think about it this way, if grace, faith, the desire to choose the option for God are all gifts and provisions of God, and if even the Holy Spirit who inspires us to decide for God is from God, do you think these will lead us to resist the grace of God for salvation?
I believe in the exercise of the free will, but when this is in full surrender to the will of God will it resist the grace?
I believe that grace is irresistible among those who are completely under God's power and care. Will this ever happen in real time?
Thank you for the stimuli- you've led me to think again.
Daniel
Responding to Daniel's 10.22 comments on predestination:
Part of your summary was that you believe salvation is "assured" to those who believe, but not "guaranteed". I would be interested to hear you clarify that further. I'm not sure I see the difference.
Eric Washburn
10-26-08
Comment #8
Hi Clinton Moriah, You did a great job explaining prevenient grace as Adventists see it. You also spoke about Luther’s view of grace too. I think Adventist taking the Armenian view of Salvation by choice was one of the best things going for our church. It paints such a better picture of God as being one who gives liberty to choose one’s destiny. Its funny, God is freer than even our parents are. I can remember my mom telling me that as long as I live in her house I would have force church attendance. I guess I did have a choice to “try” not going to church, but I never tested it to see what the consequences would be. God on the other hand says you can do what ever you like, but there are consequences of not choosing a living relationship with Him. Parents have our best interest in mind, and they have learned that nothing happens without a little force. God offers Salvation freely to all, under some conditions. Can it be free even when there are conditions tied to it? That’s where Luther had problems agreeing, because He believed God saved, and it was His entire work. God does save, but He does demand living faith that produces fruit. The fruit doesn’t grow in the believers own strength, but as the believer abides in Christ. With connection with all the needed elements such as studying the Word, prayer, praise, worship, witness, obedience, and hearing the Holy Spirit, the believer cannot but produce fruit. God never forces us to produce fruit, and at anytime we are free to disconnect. God doesn’t accept works that are not done through a faith base relationship. We see this is in Matthew 7:21-23, “Not every one 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. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Anything done without the motive of love becomes an empty sounding brass. How many would like to receive a gift from a family member not given out of love, but by obligation? We in our sinfulness might accept the gift because we liked was given to us. But the gift has lost any real meaning if it not given in love. But what if the gift was a cheap or terrible gift, but it was given in love? The motive behind the gift will touch the receiver’s heart. I can remember my mother giving me a teddy bear for Christmas in love. I rejected her teddy bear and threw it because I didn’t want a silly teddy bear. She cried, and took my teddy bear back to Macys. God has offered the gift of Salvation to all, but only those who receive it with love will truly get. Those who reject it like I did with the teddy bear will have it taken away, and regret in the end. And how much more will it break the heart of God because this is not a mere-teddy bear He is offering, but the gift of eternal life. I still today regret throwing my moms teddy bear and still feel the pain I caused my mom to feel that day. I don’t want to reject God’s gift of His son (eternal life) for death. If we would look to the cross and into the Savior’s eyes and see our own reflection staring back at us. If we could hear His thoughts on the cross and how they were centered on our eternal Salvation, we would have a hard time rejecting the gift. It almost irresistible grace, but some reject it because they fail to look long enough upon Christ being lifted up in their behalf. If we could get the world to look at the gift and its cost, and the giver they would see it LOVE. Its really hard to reject love, but not impossible because it happens all the time.
Response to Eric Washburn’s comment from 10/26/2008:
I appreciate your comments on Gal 3, 2Cor 3, and Rom 8 very much. You explained the function of the law (in its moral sense) very well.
You said at one point that Abraham did not know the law. I would like to disagree with that statement. It is right that Abraham lived quite a while prior to the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai. However, God states in Gen 26:5 that “Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” So although he lived before the giving of the law, he already knew God’s laws and commandments. We don’t know what these were. Actually, a close look at the book of Genesis and the chapter prior to the giving of the law in Exodus show that all the laws we find in the Decalogue were known by the believers before. Although it doesn’t say that e.g. murder is a transgression of God’s law, it is clear that God it wasn’t according to God’s will and purpose (Abel & Kain, Moses & the Egyptian).
So the believers apparently had a knowledge of God’s will and purpose for them but that knowledge seemed to cease more and more. On Mt. Sinai these positive principles of God’s love and character were formulated in a way that ignorant people could understand them, and see what doesn’t belong to these positive principles. The law helps us to understand what love is not. But it doesn’t help us to see what love actually is. Love is not only the prevention of the negative but the practical implementation of the positive.
Oftentimes we ask what is still allowed to do without transgressing the law. Would it not be better to look for what we can do to love God and our neighbor within the borders of the law? The focus would be more on how we could really fill a life within these boundaries, and not always looking at the restrictions.
From Ch.4 of "Uderstanding Scripture An Adventist Approach"..pg 60 (sec. 5)
I very much appreciate the honest evaluation of the three current types of hermeneutics and what vaule they are to Christianity and Seventh-day Adventism specifically. His call for a "new" understanding or hermeneutic I sympathize with. There are limitations and weakness for each model. I wonder if Cannali is approaching the idea of a new model from a "dialectic mind set"....I will admit to it. Question...is it wrong for us to use this "post-modern" approach in formulating our churchs hermeneutics? (botom of pg. 61 and 1st par. of pg. 62) I agree that there is a need for a new model or at least a new understanding of models and how better to use them. The proposed "biblical model" is something that I'm trying to unpack, the deffinitions of page 66-67 seem a bit sparse.
William Sellers
Mark Ewen
Revelation Inspiration and Hermeneutics
Understanding Scripture
Chapter 3
Frank Hassell wrote about the hermeneutical challenge of presupposition when he said: “we all hold a number of beliefs that we presuppose or accept when we come to the task of interpreting scripture. They directly affect our theology and authority that scripture has for our life and for doctrine. Interpreters of the Bible cannot divest themselves from their own past, their experiences, resident ideas and preconceived notions and opinions”.
He points out that it was no so before sin but because of sin, pride and doubt became negative effects of interpreting God’s will.
I believe that when we read the bible (Frank also supports this), we should do so with a humble mind and a willingness to learn from the sacred scriptures. Many Christians today hold on to doctrines that came from improper interpretation of the Bible and would not seek to search and study with an open mind the word for themselves. It takes faith to fully appreciate the inspiration of the bible and to fully comprehend the messages that it teaches. It takes a humble person to submit to the authority of the scripture and apply those sacred writings to his life. It takes a humble person to admit that he does not have all truth and when more light is revealed he will embrace it with joy. The bible is not like any book; therefore our approach to it cannot be that of any book. There are indeed difficult scriptures and a person does not have to be discouraged in not finding the answer because there are enough revealed for one’s personal salvation in Jesus Christ.
Response to Leonardo Ledezma from 10/21/2008:
Leonardo, I appreciate your comment very much. You pointed out really good the difference between the biblical position on the freedom of the human will and the Augustinian view of the free will on the one hand or the Pelagian view of the topic on the other hand. I cannot really add anything to it. :-)
Sure, we need to beware of the danger of referring to heretics when showing true and biblical aspects since we can easily be misunderstood.
[PS: I had to reassure me that I am really in the right section of the blog because there were some comments of the Revelation, Inspiration and Hermeneutics class in this section of the blog.]
Leonardo respons to David Moore comment at 10/26
What you said is true. In my case, it is the first time that I hear that explanation about predestination. I think is totally biblical. The word “in Christ” clearly presents a condition to apply whatever the text is telling us. Now the fulfillment of the condition in terms of acceptation is responsibility of the individual. In that point I disagree whit Agustin who said that even the acceptation is, in some sense, performed by God. Of course, we enter in the group of elected just by grace which is performed by God.
I’d add that even God has predestined or set boundaries to every human being in Christ, there is still a place to freedom in Christ. But I’m still working on that.
Eric Washburn
11-06-08
Comment # 9
Comments on jamie kiley Blog on 11/05/2008
Jamie thanks for your piece on David’s presentation. I too look at the issues and say what’s the big deal, split a Church over one issue, semantics of all things. The issue of who and how the Spirit was sent doesn’t really matter, as long as the Holy Spirit is sent to help us. Theologians getting dogmatic about defining the Trinity with such definiteness are quite prideful or arrogant in thinking they can explain the glorious complexity of God in a few words. The Bible is not that clear about the relationship between the Father and Son and Spirit. There is always a danger of making dogma from one or two verses. We should take all that scripture says on the subject and come up with a holistic view. They argue over who sent the Spirit, and forget what the Spirit is sent for, “Its to bring unity of the body.” I don’t think the Orthodox Church split on this issue alone, it probably one of many issues.
I agree with you that debates are useful for laying out both sides and seeing what is being said. I think there are great dangers in debating when Bibles are not opened and being used, but rather philosophy and theorizing being used as substantial evidence. If we let scripture speak for itself we might see that there is evidence for both views. What do we do when the Bible proves both points? We must conclude that God mysteriously bigger and greater than we imagine. A pastor once told me that when we get to heaven Jesus will pull two debating sides that could not agree on theology on earth pertaining to God and His kingdom and say to them, “You are both wrong” or “You are both right, plus there is this side you never thought off”, or “You wasted so much time debating on this while soul perished in darkness.” I think we ought to spend time focusing on what is plain in scripture, and get about doing what God commissioned us to do, to spread the good news. Some will say that my argument is so important and it pertains to making the gospel true and right, so I must correct the heresy of others.
Many Adventist fall in this trap of correcting the brethren in theology, that if we would look at their record, not one soul has come into the Kingdom because of their work. So many white rabbits the devil creates to get us running after, while the gospel sits collecting dust of the soul who perished for not hearing its good news. What will we say when Jesus comes, “I have won so many debates Lord in your name!” I don’t want people to think that I see not having correct theology to be important to spreading the gospel, because I do see the importance of correct theology. I just feel that when its handicaps us from doing mission than we better stop and ask ourselves what are we doing. Our mission and purpose of existing as God Church should always take priority over semantics. Let make God proud by spreading the simple but profound gospel of Christ, that He came to die in our place, take our sins, give us His righteousness, and give us His Spirit to guide and transform us. The importance is that the Holy Spirit is here and it working to finish the mission of God. Will we cooperate in it work?
Eric Washburn
Comment 10
Response to Dennis response Eric Washburn’s comment from 10/26/2008
I do think Abraham had commands such as being told to leave and go create a great nation. Your scripture made a very valid point that I overlooked. I sorry I made sound so dogmatic in my words. I was trying to make a point about justification not so much about Abraham having some form of God’s law. I don’t see in scripture of Abraham having the Ten Commandments as we see it in Exodus. He may very well have kept the Ten Commandments, but its not found in scripture. I have not found anywhere that Abraham kept the Sabbath. Something that important should have been mention at least once don’t you think. But since its not there we neither can be dogmatic about Him having the whole law. My statement was wrong and I should have elaborated more on what I meant.
My main point wasn’t that Abraham didn’t have the Law, but that He wasn’t justified by keeping it, but that he was justified by the promised one that would come through his seed; who would live out God’s law/Character perfectly in his behalf and die for his trespasses. We do know that Abraham had to have the law in some form or elements, because without the law there is no sin or knowledge of sin. We cant be sinners without knowing the whole law. For what we do know, is enough to condemn us. James says if we break one we have broken them all. So I stand corrected, Abraham had some form of the Law, but he still wasn’t justified before God for keeping it perfectly. Abraham was a sinner in need of a Savior to come in his seed. Thanks for your comment…
Eric
In response to Leonardo (11/5), I appreciate your expansion on the filioque issue and your pointers to some of the relevant biblical evidence.
I admit that the filioque debate seems to me to be a lot of haggling over a minor point that is not clear in Scripture. However, if this debate first arose during the Arian controversy, as you say, then it helps me understand a little more why it was so important. The Christians who dealt with this issue were trying to protect trinitarian doctrine. That makes sense.
However, as you also said, it doesn't seem like the Bible is very clear on this, and I'm not sure either side has the final word.
David,
You said (11/6), "I continue to be surprised at how much we really hold in common with Catholic and other Protestant theology."
I couldn't help smiling when I read this, because I had just posted my own reflections right after yours, ending with my conclusion that Adventists have a lot LESS in common with Catholics and Protestants than I thought. :)
Without denying my own point, I definitely see yours. In a way, there are more differences between us than I thought, but in a way, there are more similarities. You are right that on certain issues, like how we handle the issue of unity, we are more like our fellow Christians than maybe we'd like to admit!
Jamie,
Yeah, you're right about different perspectives on our similarities/differences. For me, I came to the issue with the idea in my head that we were basically not like Catholics at all, and that our theology was not really influenced positively by them in any way. In that sense, it has been enlightening for me. At the same time, I think you are right in that Adventist theology and practice is definitely unique in a lot of significant ways.
Leonardo, your comments on the Filioque are also helping to sharpen my understanding of the situation. It is for the very reason that the phrase was added only to deal with a local problem that the Orthodox church disagrees with its insertion. Arianism was defeated and pronounced heretical by an earlier official council. It became a problem again in Spain on a local level, which is why they saw it necessary there to make the additional statement about the procession of the Spirit from Christ as well. But in the Orthodox view, this is not necessary to show the error of Arianism, and it does not adhere to the plain statement of John 15:26. On top of that, they feel that an official statement of the church should not be altered without the full representation of the church. Filioque was added on a local level to deal with a local problem. This is the challenge the Orthodox church brings to the table.
Richy Thomas
Commenting on Clinton Moriah's blog of Remnant:
Clinton, I completely agree with you that the SDA church is a "unique" remnant with the identity of the "seven "S's". Furthermore, your point that God had a remnant in each generation was well stated. I agree with you, for it is Biblical. I would just say that these are all "movements of truth" in their times...such as Esther account of "For such a time as this".
Good thoughts...
Richy Thomas
Commenting on Clinton Moriah's blog on Nature of Christ.
I appplaud you for choosing such a controversial topic. I do agree with you that this is a subject that fits into the realm of the heritage of Protestantism. In fact, I did not know how controversial this topic was until I was placed in the ministry in one particular church, my first church. It is very good to be informed theologically and know the issues historically too. Yet, my advice is to try to stay away from debates on this as much as you can!
Richy Thomas
Commenting on Leonardo Ledezma's ecumenical blog:
Leonardo,
I appreciated your blog. It had a good informational balance to the issue, and you carefully explained why the SDA church is involved as a "conscientious cooperato."
This reminds me of how important it is to be involved with other church pastors in the community for the betterment of reaching people with the Gospel. This itself has a unity mentality to it, yet it is different that the ecumenical movement that is carefully designed to unite churches under the banner of Rome. I choose to be dialogue and meet with other pastors, but my intention/motive is not to abandon my doctrine or the church's position.
Good thoughts!
Richy, your presentation and quotes regarding the Catholic ecumenical stance and the Jesuit order were certainly interesting. I have been thinking about it since your presentation on Wednesday and trying to figure out why I had a hard time following. As I'm reflecting, I think it was that it seemed as though your focus was to expose the secret purposes of the Jesuit order. It seemed too "conspiracy theory" -esque to me. I don't think you are off base with your material, I'm just trying to bring it to where I can understand it. Is your purpose to try and warn Adventists against too readily accepting ecumenical outreach from the Catholic Church? Do you think we have gone too far in that area recently? It seemed as though you were arguing for this (that we have gone too far), though I couldn't see how it was supported very clearly from your material. Maybe you could clarify further.
David
In response to your comment on my blog and presentation:
My presentation on the Counter-Reformation effect on the Adventist Church does confront the Jesuit Order and yes, it is definitely a Conspiracy. I know this is a difficult and controversial issue, but I am attempting it nonetheless. This material is hard to swallow, because yes, I do believe that the SDA church, in general, has "sometimes" gone too far. If I were to clarify some more details, I would might as well be writing the whole paper on here. If you are interested at all in seeing more clarification, contact me later! Thanks for your coments.
Richy
Response to Marko Kolic’s comment from 11/16/2008:
I really like your statements on a more comprehensive view of atonement. It is true that there are a lot of discussions where people throw away a whole theory because they have a problem with one aspect. I have realized that people sometimes discuss more the theories at hand and the apparent logics behind them without really looking at the biblical witness.
You suggest some names for an atonement theology, as e.g. Great Controversy Theory or Sanctuary Theory of Atonement. I would caution that attempt because I have often seen people using the exact same terms but filling them with a different content than you would. Some people used the term “Great Controversy Theory” to signify what is actually a slightly different kind of the moral influence theory. Terms are oftentimes like bottles that each one fill with a different contained. Sometimes people have debates because the use different terms although they hold the same ideas. :-)
Response to Richy Thomas’ comment from 11/11/2008 2:10 PM:
There is not very much I can add to your statements regarding righteousness by faith, Richy.
I really like your points: (a) a balanced view; (b) a radical commitment; (c) the whole range of views on salvation; (d) the basic two sides in the righteousness question.
You pointed out very clearly that it is important to have a balanced view, and at the same time being radically committed to Christ as my Savior and Lord. Further, there is a whole range of views regarding salvation where diverse aspects are emphasized. However, there are basically only two sides—a righteousness that is totally based on what Christ has done, or a righteousness where human beings still have a meritorious part in the salvation. But when we come to that point the whole question is not that easy when we look at the fact that human actions play a part in the life of a Christian although they are not the basis for his salvation. But if they are important do they not have a part in his salvation? I think it is necessary to define that more clearly for our church members. On the other hand, is that not Greek thinking again? Should we not think more in concepts, not defining every small and little detail? We, people in the Western World, are somehow very intellectual and theoretical. We don’t want to act until we understand perfectly the whole procedure.
Denis,
I thought your comments about Peter in Matthew 16 were very balanced. Usually we avoid giving any credence to the idea that Jesus might have actually been hinting at Peter's leadership/foundational role in the early church. I thought your comments took an honest look at the text and reminded us all to seek to be unbiased in our interpretations of the Bible.
answer to by David Moore
at 11/25/2008 12:51 PM
Good comment about catholicism. I just wanna add that we don't know how easy is for The Roman Catholic Church leaders to accomodate to any situation . we can expect any change of his doctrinal position if this change help them to fullfil his purpouses. They are masters in politcs rather than orthodox visionaries. the pluraty in Catholicism today is more complex thean we think. They have a broader espectrum in this way. We just have to be aware to prophetic signs in order to understand the masterpiece of the babylonian system. this is a real challenge because it is not easy to recognize between the real prophetic true and the complex mix of doctrines that we have around the world.
By the way, Catholcism has found in cultural relativism his most important tool in our days. they are using it as far as they can.
answer to Marko posting
11/12/2008 1:46 PM
I agree with you on this topic. Usually leaders of the church, it may included some Adventist leaders, are willing to make some concesions in doctrinal or other importan aspects for the sake of unity. That is a huge mistake. by the way thanks for this Ellen G White's quotation. we must be aware of these kind of changes. We live in a world which is constantly changing. So this tendency is normaly followed for every one who live in tis wolrd. Christians are not free of this influence . We just have to say as Luther said, even when he didnt' it, unless you can convince wiht the word of God i cannot renounce to my own convictions. it is dangeros to go against our conscience.
On the other hand, we must be aware of the radical dogmatism as well. many theologians are moved by traditions and dogmas invented by men. They call them the "Word of God" while they are only Human arguments. this tendency is equally harmful for the Christian world.
This dangerous dogmatism doesn't allow us to grow in the knowledge of God.
Response to the Comment of David Moore from 11/25/2008 12:51 PM
David, you mentioned an interesting point. Yes, Catholics are in fact more open to incorporate and allow practices and cultural views of their members. This openess is greater in Catholicism than in Protestantism. Maybe you could give an evaluation of that. I thought about syncretism on the one hand, or adapting to reach people on the other hand.
Another point that comes to my mind when I think about it, is that in recent years especially through the writing of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) there happened an apparent narrowing down or hardening of Catholic doctrinal positions (Dominus Iesus, etc.). Maybe nothing changed at all, and he only sharpened the language and formulated certain positions more precisely. However, there was an uproar among traditional Protestant Churches (Evangelical Church, etc.) since these statement sounded like a coming back of "the dark Middle Ages." That is another point where doctrinal plurality is not so much allowed.
Maybe it is not so much "unity over doctrinal purity" that drives the RCC, as you stated, but rather "doctrinal purity accompanied by diversity in cultural practices."
Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciated it very much.
Response to Denis Kaiser to Cosmic Christ Connections: Martin Hanna's
blog at 11/17/2008 8:11 PM
Thanks Denis for this comment . it has been very helpful to me. and it will be more useful when leave to field. it is remarkable that the normal position on this topic in our church doesn't have biblical basement. When brethren are giving biblical studies they used the argument you already mentioned . they say that Jesus was referring to him instead of peter because he is the rock. But they don't give further explanation on this topic. so that, they are preaching something that is not clear for them .
Now, roman Catholic Church doesn't have arguments to support the idea that Jesus was referring to peter as principal foundation of the Church. The Roman catholic's assertion doesn't have neither semantical nor syntactical support in this text to argue that The Apostolic succession is based on this text. Even though Jesus was referring to peter as a part of the foundation of his church, this reference doesn't support that the successors of peter will continue keeping this authority.
I think we must give a clear explanation to our church's member in order to help them to balance this important practical issue.
A response to a comment made by Jamie Kiley on 12/03/2008 8:44 AM
Jamie, I really liked the way you put your thoughts on the issue of Sola Scriptura and tradition in Protestant thinking. That is really a good survey through the different camps and the developments in their views.
I just want to give a little note on Martin Luther’s comment on the James as an “epistle of straw.” That statement is quoted over and over again. However, there are two reasons why I want to object slightly to taking that short statement as representative of his whole thinking on James.
(1) Luther was very choleric, making oftentimes strong statements. It seems so as if he couldn’t find better or more appropriate words. If someone disagreed with him, he apparently viewed the other one as being totally off the road. So Luther was somehow extreme in his statements.
(2) From his own writings it becomes apparent that his relationship to James was split. He said, e.g. in 1543 about Jam 5:16, “That is one of the best sayings in the epistle.” He quoted oftentimes from James, keeping up in the intensity of its use almost with the use of the Gospels.
But – and here you are right :) – on the other hand he made statements like, “We want to kick out Jeckel (James) from the Bible here at Wittenberg.” His arguments are, (1) “James gives justice to works against Paul and all the other Scriptures.” (2) He is silent on the suffering, the resurrection, and the Spirit of Christ. (3) He drives people “to the law and its works” and not to Christ. Since Luther was so touched by the love and faithfulness of God, through which we can stand righteous before him, that he inserted the word “alone” in Rom 3:28. By doing this he puts Rom 3:28 in an apparent contrast to Jam 2:24. The problem was Luther’s hermeneutical principle “Was Christum treibet” (what is driven by Christ) since it lessened the significance of statements and books that in Luther’s estimation did not really point to Christ and justification by faith “alone.”
Eric Washburn
12-04-08
Comment # 11
Commenting on David Moore’s 11/14/2008 Blog
Great piece David. I know you spoke about Ellen White and her authority, and I would bypass that and dwell on something else that had to do with what you first said about Church authority and the slippery slope. I would like to ponder a little bit about the Adventist Church in it view of it authority compared to the Catholic Church. Like you said the Catholic Church believed that if you reject the Church authority you would eventually reject God. I see this in the Adventist Church. The majority of the Adventist Church believes that if you leave the Church for another, especially a Sunday keeping Church, you reject the truth, God, and lose eternal life. Is this true? This is the case even if he or she continues to love God and worship Him, but now it is in a Sunday Church. We don’t believe in judging people eternal destiny, but I see s doing it. I believe for those who were once rooted in Adventism and to leave the Church is one of the hardest things to do. There is a lot of psychological counseling that needs to happen to feel okay about one self. There are a lot of ex-Adventist web sites out there that claim to be support group for those who need encouragement after leaving the Adventist Church. I wouldn’t suggest going there unless you are firm in what you believe because they can say some pretty mean things about us.
I don’t think if you leave the Adventist Church denomination one will be lost forever. I do believe that if one doesn’t follow the Bible, and the Spirit’s leading than the result will be a loss of salvation. So if one were to leave the denomination because of hurt feelings, they ought to still keep God’s commandments. The thing is, there is such a need for fellowship with other believers, so how will they get it. They often join a Sunday Church even though their heart knows the truth. I would like to say the Bible is the authority, and if one to leave the Bible, than the slope gets slippery. The Adventist Church has been given a message by God to call people out of Babylon (Sun worship). There will come a time that God’s people, will be called out by the Word of God, (truth) through the power of the Holy Spirit. It might not be into the Adventist Church, but into keeping the truth. There may be hundred of groups sprouting up, proclaiming the same truth, but under another name. We need not covet their membership. When we get to heaven all our membership will be transferred into God’s Kingdom. Denomination titles mean nothing to God, but hearts the keep the Word of God with Love do.
Eric Washburn
12-04-08
Comment # 12
Commenting on Marko Kolic 11/16/2008 8:51
Bravo Marko! It is very interesting that on this very subject of the many faces of atonement theology was discussed at a Sabbath school at Kettering Hospital Church. The teacher was a Hospital Chaplain that looked like Morris Venden, but was not. He got his MDiv here at the seminary a long time ago. Anyhow he gave the class a sheet of paper with all the atonement views and their founders next to it. He gave a little history and even talked about how the theology was developed over time. He asked the Church which one they believed in. I don’t think anyone knew which stance was the official position of the Church.
What was amazing was that the majority of the class agreed that it a little bit of both. I thought wow! As you said there is a little scriptural evidence for each one. Obviously one of them has more support than the others, but why not give a more holistic view of Salvation. I was really proud to here these bright doctors and nurses think so theologically. Hey we can teach a lot to our Churches this way. By teaching them all the views, scriptural support, than ask them question of which one they think is best. I am sure we will be surprised by their answers.
Richard Thomas
Comments on Eric's #11 Blog
Eric, I agree with you 100% that we need to be Christian in our treatment with Catholics, but we also need to be faithful to the pure message of Scripture. It really comes down to how we treat them, what are our motives.
If I were to be faithful to the message of Scripture, I would, in love, call them "out" of a system that is not Biblical. Sometimes we forget how off the RCC is, and it is not just this religious system that is off. There are other dangerous movements that are "anti" in their treatment of Christ, as you pointed out, by replacing Christ or opposing Him.
May we never do this in our own faith, is my prayer.
Richard Thomas
# 12th and final Blog Comment
Responding to Eric's 12th and final blog:
Eric, it was good to see you write about the Jesuit society and their mission. I liked that you wrote a good balance to their existence, as in their mission of Christian service and contrasting this to their intention for world domination.
However, about infiltration, this is a VERY controversial subject (even in the SDA church). I have personally heard first hand and researched some actual cases of Jesuit insiders, therefore, I may disagree with you a bit. Yet, my point and mission is not to go point out who might be a Jesuit "spy" and pluck them out. No, but I do want people to wake up to Bible Truth and start trusting in God more than relying on people's opinions or persuasions. Although, there may not be real or any Jesuit infiltration, there seems to be hints of Catholic philosophy (i.e. ecumenical spirit; and even prophetic alteration) that is present in our own Church.
Yet, thanks for writing and presenting this with your view.
I agree with Richard here, that we are not called to puck out the Jesuits or any other group per se. Better that we educate ourselves, and test ourselves if we be in the faith, and teach and preach the truth that others might saved also. Who knows if there are any Jesuits that may even be converted to the truth. If Saul could become Paul, certainly it could happen to them.
Hey, You’ve done a fantastic job. I should absolutely reddit it and I’ll recommend to my friends. I am sure they are going to be benefited from this website.
School of prophets
Post a Comment