Comments on assignments for Seminar on Salvation, Fall 2008
This thread is reserved for your comments and ongoing discussion regarding the assignments posted in the previous thread.
39 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Dear Arlyn – Here is Dojcin. I wanted to make a comment on your post on Romans 7/8. Here is your post: Romans 8:1 was very precious to me in high school when my academy bible teacher hammered the past tense into my achievement oriented, doubting heart. "Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Mr. Boyer said to me "If you have accepted Christ, regardless of your continuing struggles, you are no longer condemned by the law, you must be protestant, not catholic. Justification is not faith plus your works. It is faith alone, period." Morris Venden uses the analogy that once you are in the elevator with Christ, you are going up, even if you fall down in the elevator. No wonder Paul can't resist using the "adoption" paradigm to bring this point home, adoption is not undone by bad behavior. A legal paradigm does grant emotional assurance- because it is not dependent on feelings for validity.
I really appreciated the illustration with the elevator. It is good to know that Jesus lifts us up even if we fall. Nevertheless, I would like to point out some elements that are important to mention when we talk about being a protestant and believing in salvation by grace alone. I believe we often forget that we are not “classical protestants”. Both Luther and Calvin taught that we as humans don’t have choice in the process of salvation but it is God who chooses us and not other way around. Luther advocated his thesis on “Bondage of the will” claiming that man’s will is so corrupt that we cannot choose God therefore god chooses to save us against or despite our corrupt will. Calvin taught that God’s grace is irresistible and that God pre-destined some people to be saved and some people to suffer retribution. Many protestants today when they say “ by faith alone” or “by grace alone” actually refer to this idea that we are unable to choose so God saves us no matter what we want. Here comes my point, we are not saved by grace alone because Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross isn’t worth anything for us if we don’t freely choose to accept his redemption. God gives us a choice and free will to decide whether we want to love Him or not. So although we are saved primarily through what Jesus had done on the cross, there is our part to play and that is to accept his justification. IF we struggle with believing in his promise we are to ASK for faith, God is not going to give us faith against our will, we need to ask for faith and we have to RECEIVE. There is another point that separates us from many protestants – it is a belief in sanctification. Classic protestants disregard sanctification because for them it sounds too much as salvation by works. And why does it sound like that? Because for sanctification you need to exercise daily your free will to surrender to God daily and to do what God wants you to do. Offcourse it is Christ who operates good works in you but you again need to SURRENDER or to choose Christ’s Spirit to dwell in you. You see rejecting Catholic salvation triggered by your works, Protestants went another extreme and belive in complete absence on any effort whatsoever that would come from man. You wrote that “adoption is not undone by bad behavior” – this sound as once saved always saved. Whatever you might do, once you have been adopted into God’s family you can’t fall out from it. That is very wrong and we as Adventists do not believe so, we believe that we can have of our assurance that we are saved and in union with Christ but that doesn’t mean that we can’t fall out from grace. That’s why it is important to focus on daily walk with Christ.
To take your ananlogy to end. It is true that if we fall in elevator, the elevator still takes us up, however, if we decide to press stop button or down button we will no longer go up but stagnate or go down. God never works against the will of man. I know that you probably agree with me but it just seemed to me that your words were little too antinomian, anyways just wanted to share this with you.
Thank you for your fine balancing of my analogies. You are correct in trusting that we are in agreement. One can always get out of the "elevator" at any time since it is not a prison (regardless of Paul calling himself a "bond-servant" of Christ Jesus in Rom 1:1) and one can undo adoption thru legal means. That's why adoption is rather a good analogy, and biological progeny is not. So, also is another of Paul's analogies- marriage- Christ and his church made up of those willing to be "one" with Him. Marriages can be dissolved, but is not automatically invalidated by temporary disagreements- but it is affected profoundly. It is understandable that the antinomian view would bring a reaction from yourself who wrote, "However, even those who are justified struggle in this world which interferes between man and god and sometimes, actually often we fall from God's presence, detach our mind from God,lose faith, forget about God's promise, detach our mind from the Spirit of Christ. In this case we are in Sin (capital S) that often leads toward sins or acts of sin (small s). Then, after we realize that we have sinned again, we ask grace before our mediator and repenting from our sinful disease we run back under the wings of our merciful Lord who ever wants to love us and forgive us. Consequently, in life of a true Christian there are less and less of these "excursions" to sin", and the longer we spend in the presence of God our character changes, ..." I appreciate the high ideals that you are echoing from the many scriptural texts. Hepenstall's article on perfection seems to be saying that same thing. Would it be helpful to make several implications clear? For instance- when one has left the mind of Christ and temporarily fallen into temptation, but not disavowed Christ as his Lord and Savior in a willful and clear manner- what is their present state of salvation? Saved or lost? Would time be crucial in that case- to allow one to "come back and repent?" And if so, is salvation vulnerable to lack of time? Sin with a big (S) is used to refer to Sinful nature and Heppenstall does clearly claim that this will not be eradicated before the second coming. Heppenstall also points out that those called perfect in the Bible- Abraham, Job were not sinless- so small (s) still existed in their lives even as they were called perfect. Yet, both he and your comments drawn from EGW point to the theoretical possibility of being perfectly free of small (s)sin. EGW's quote "Unless they bear the same perfection of character that he bore while on earth, they would spoil heaven."(SpTBO7 44.4) So, I am curiously awaiting a precise definition from you of "perfection of character" which both Christ and we can attain verses "sinless perfection"(which is disavowed by Heppenstall). Perhaps Wesleyian perfection will show up in future papers?
Were you reacting against another paradigm when you write,"The ransom was real and not subjective. It was done not simply to show angels and fallen man how much he loved us but to live up to the standard and the principles that governs the heavenly realm". Is there a name for that other picture of salvation or is it a perspective that is merely popular among young people but seen as inadequate? EGW wrote "But the plan of redemption had yet a broader and deeper purpose than the salvation of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth; it was not merely that the inhabitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded but it was to vindicate the character of God before the universe. To this result of His great sacrifice-its influence upon the intelligences of other worlds, as well as upon man- the Savior looked forward when just before His crucifixion He said: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, wil draw all men unto Me." John 12:31, 32." PP pg. 69. She clearly doesn't diminish the literal, imperative need for the crucifixion, but establishes it even more firmly as literal and imperative for a larger audience as well. Was this the direction you were headed? Or are you more concerned about the overshadowing of "truth" when the "love" and subjective feelings about the cross is overly focused upon?
You quoted (Dr. Reid on) I Cor 15:3 ("Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures") and followed this verse with "This substitution was literal and imperative if man was to be saved ..." It sounds like the preposition "uper" (=for)was taken by yourself to mean "substitution". That is legitimate since the word can mean "over, for, on behalf of, for the sake of". Substitution would come within the possibilities in the spectrum of meanings given. However, "for our sins" can just as legitimately mean for the sake of our sins,for instance, and this also fits the context well. So, I fully agree with you that christ died for our sins. And that it was literal and imperative and predicted by scripture. But unlike yourself I would be careful about using I Cor 15:3 as a substitution text since it is not necessarily limited to that one meaning. On the other hand, if one wanted to buttress that argument for the substitution as the correct meaning of that verse one could try to narrow the following phrase"according to the scriptures" to substitutionary themes in the OT. Maybe Paul was thinking that way, who knows?
All in all, thank you for leading me to look that verse up and read it again carefully.
I appreciate your comments. I especially appreciate the analogy of marriage in which temporary ruptures might occur without necessary implying divorce. The question arises can we push this analogy to our spiritual life? I have tendency to say yes but up to a certain limit. I believe that although we might wander away from God’s presence and even commit some serious sins, this does not automatically qualify us as “out of salvation”. Our “marriage” with God might not be immediately broken. His grace understand our weakness and inability to be consistent. Actually our “marriage contract” (baptism) acknowledged our inconsistency to be perfect spouse all the time and gave us “grace period”. When Jesus saved us, no one ever mentioned anything about never sinning again. There is desire but flesh is weak, no one ever kept perfect record even after initial justification. However, it exactly this path of falling and standing up which is called sanctification. God through his grace eliminates sin in us, but it goes not without many failures. Less failures we allow ourselves, faster we will become “perfect in Christ”. Now we come to your second question. Will Wesleyan perfection come out in my thought? First, many people interpret Wesleyan perfection in different ways. I studied on Wesley certain period of time and I was able to see many different opinions on what he believed to be Christian Perfection. Here is my view, Wesley believed in temporary perfection – meaning a perfection of newly justified man. Every one who has just been born again is like a little babe – perfect in Christ. How to keep this perfection? That was Wesley’s question. He introduced several methods which would help men to remain in “justified zone”. That’s why people called his followers, because they had methods of sanctification. Earnest Prayer, early waking in the morning, Bible reading, morning worship in society of people, than work with prayer and song in the mind. Than visiting the poor, widows, sick and prisoners or preaching the gospel, if one had a gift to do so. But constantly praising the Lord in group or alone. Than evening worship service and daily eucharist or holy communion as a sign of partaking of God’s justifying and sanctyfing grace. Adventists later introduced health reform in this method. (although Wesley advocated temperance and abstinence from alcohol, tobacco and coffee) This reminds me of early Christians who gathered together every day to worship the Lord and break the bread and eat together. They encouraged each other to defeat all the sins and had everything in common. Now, compare it to contemporary Adventists, no early waking, no morning worship, no visiting of poor, rare prayer during the day, rare evening worships, eucharist once in three months. Offcourse it is hard for us to experience victory over the world when we don’t spend enough time with the Lord. In Wesley’s time many experienced what they called entire sanctification. Now what do I refer to when I say entire sanctification? I will honestly tell you that I don’t know and I am still searching for answer. Ellen White talks that those who want to be alive when Jesus appear will have perfection of character Jesus bore on earth. Now what kind of perfection of character Jesus had? Let’s remind ourselves that Jesus was born without Adam’s Sin or without natural inclination to love sin. He said “devil has nothing in me”. Devil was able to tempt Jesus only externally and not internally. The temptations were coming to Jesus only from outside not from within his own nature. He wasn’t tempted by his own desire in his brain, he didn’t have one. He was tempted from surrounding circumstances. He was the second Adam. Adam was also not tempted from his inside of his nature because his nature was unadulterated and pure, he was tempted from surrounding circumstances. Therefore, my point is simply this, why are we so afraid to even imagine that God can “finish his work in us” so as to restore us into his image and repair our sinful nature in such a way that the sinful nature can be eradicate in us. We can still commit sin, as Moses did in wilderness, but the temptation to sin does not come from within but from without. By the way, Bible never says for Abraham that he was perfect. In Genesis 17: 1 God called Abraham to be perfect before him that doesn’t say he achieved it, although he might have but we have no evidence for that. “…And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me (before my face), and be thou perfect.”
On other side Job was called taam – perfect. I think we are too harsh when we attack Job and his spiritual level. God was boasting with Job in a front of the entire universe saying that there is no one on the earth like Job. Job 1: 1
“…There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect (taam) and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.”
God said that there is no one on earth like Job. In his generation, Job was the holiest man on the entire planet. He was the thorn in the eye of Satan and a pride for God. Don’t we want to make our Heavenly Father proud?
Job 1: 8
“…And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect (taam) and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?”
Job 2: 3
“And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity (Tumah – perfectness), although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.”
The word Taam is used in the description of Lucifer in Isaiah 14: 12 – Isaiah writes Lucifer was born perfect – taam but still some mystery happened to him and he became sinner. Also in Psalm 18: 30-32, David says that God’s ways are taam and David prays that his ways might be perfect too.
“…As for God, his way is perfect (Tamim) the word of the LORD is tried: he is a shield to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? It is God that arms me with strength, and maketh my way perfect.” (Tamim)
So to simply say : In Job’s case taam means imperfect and in Jucifer and God’s case taam means absolutely perfect seems little inconsistent... More in next posts...
This is a very enjoyable way to fulfill a requirement of a class, thank you for making it so.
I appreciate, first of all, your emphasis that God's description of Job as perfect and upright is taken as accurate. I believe too many interpretations of the book of Job suffer from our external imposition of Job as sinful when God is extremely clear at the beginning and at the end in the narrative brackets what the facts from His divine diagnosis of Job is.
I also appreciate your carefulness that Abraham was not necessarily labeled perfect, but admonished to be so. And your reluctance to allow taam (you called it inconsistent) to mean both absolutely and relatively perfect depending on the being it modifies.
What I don't understand is- on the one hand you take Christ to have taken on the pre-fall sinless nature of man (actually I believe that to, at the present) and yet-without precedent (since Christ was not at the same starting point as us in this)-believe that we in our inherited Sinful post-fall nature of man can trust God to completely eradicate our sinful nature (pre-glorification?). This, then would be more of a miracle than even Christ underwent. Yes?
Perhaps, the difficulty in accepting such a miracle as a reasonable goal for all-centers around the definition of perfection. I am thinking of perfection as sinless in the Greek sense of static lack of imperfection, and you may mean sinless in another way- mature, whole, full grown, ripe, unselfish. If it is the latter- then, it is easier to believe that it can be accomplished by God in our earthly lifetime and for many believers- even Jesus said to the rich young ruler in Matt 19:21 only two or three things were keeping him from being perfect. The second definition of perfection would fit with the fact that the NT keeps admonishing the believers as if it is a very achievable state of being.
If perfection is defined as "holding nothing back"- Abraham achieved this in the akedah. If perfection is defined as "integrity"- Job held onto this throughout his trials. If perfection is defined as "mature, full grown"- Jacob's struggle that switched him from trying to control God to clinging to Him in acknowledged surrender acheived perfection. If perfection is defined as "unselfish"- then Isaac was it when he finally accepted the Lord's will and gave to his unfavorite son Abraham's blessing before sending him back to Mesopotamia. These were not static states nor states of newborn spirituality- but actually chronologically latter moments of achieving one-ness with God. Oh, sorry, got carried away on homily.
I appreciate your comments. It's crucial to understand that I don't believe perfection is required to be saved. Striving towards sanctification in other hand is required. (hebrews 12: 14)
Second remark I wanted to make is that the fact that God makes greater miracle in us than he did in Jesus is an illusionary obstacle.
You see Jesus never needed conversion in the first place. Let's assume there is no perfection on earth at all, according to what you have said, God is still doing greater miracle in us than He did in Jesus because we experience justificatiove grace which Jesus never experienced.
Could we assume that to change from sinful nature into "Christ mind" even for just a second is greater than anything Jesus experienced? Or to achieve perfection is greater than Jesus ever experienced?
No, beacause Jesus was with God constantly and therefore he experienced a perfect relatiosnhip with God. How can anything be greater than that.
You see Jesus didn't need redemption from fallen nature, He didn't need justification nor sancfication. he was born with both. His task was to maintain his relation with Father.
we are in a completely different situation, we need justification (initial victory) and we need perfection(final victory).
We need restoration to God's image. Yes it is an amazing miracle. Can we compare it with the amazing victory of Christ and say it was a greater miracle for us to change than for him to stay what he was? It's like comparing apples and pears. None is greater but they are different experiences.
We need complete restoration and that is indeed the glorious miracle in Universe after Jesus' incarnation.
Anyways, I think you got my point, one is not greater than the other just different. There is no Biblical evidence that says our experience should not be equal in grandor to Jesus'.
God bless Arlyn, I though we had class today so I went to school... too bad for me anyways see you next week.
And, by the way, it is a pleasure fulfilling our requirements. hehe
Arlyn I enjoyed the manner of your introduction in that you carefully presented Dr. Paulsen’s view of Habakkuk 2:4 and its force and appeal in the New Testament. I thought it was quite interesting how the death/resurrection/ascension of Jesus are connected to the passage above in that it is truly by the faith of Christ that we are saved. I would have loved if you explored the passage a little more to find out why we have settled on the interpretation that it is the faith of Christ mentioned and not the faith of the individual. I understand that you are commenting on the article by Paulsen but it would appear that Hab. 2:4 was simply a launching pad into a discussion on the subjectivity or objectivity of such faith based on a presupposition that we take to the passage. I appreciate how you raised a concern about his usage of the word objective in describing our faith in Christ yet I may have to side with Paulsen in that he argues for both objective and subjective faith in our relation to Christ. For one, we must know what we believe. If it can be proved without a shadow of a doubt that Christ was not risen, then the object of my faith is null and void. If I hold that my faith is not blind faith, then with all dignity I would have to retract my beliefs in Christ. This may be why Paul writes in 2 Tim. 1:12 “I know whom I have believed.” This is an objective faith spoken of by Paul and it must be the faith embraced by all. On the other hand I gather from Paulsen that if I place my trust in Christ and seek that change which comes from him, the objective aspect of faith becomes subjective. I don’t think there is a discrepancy here as I could easily pinpoint that I know I have a father named Lionel. That is speaking objectively as to what I know. Because I know I have such a father, I live up to the expectations that he holds for me. The expectations become subjective. If I did not have a father, then my expectations would be void.
Just wanted to leave a comment for David. I always appreciate it when I see others with almost the same reflections as i did. I'm curious to see how Dr Hanna is going to develop the subject about the body language that we discussed in class. Also the article you read about the In Adam/In Christ motif, really raised a lot of questions. Now how was it for you, were your question on the 1888 Study Committee or on the article highlighting the errors? I had problem with both the committee and the article. Anyway, twill be good to find out. Thanks for the good reflections.
Back on 9/23/08 Karl posted Reflection #1 that I really appreciated because he pointed out that Sola Scriptura meant not only that doctrine had to be founded on scripture, but that it had to include all of scripture. That sort of context is what is missing in the proof text method approach. As Dr. Martin pointed out today that not only are the propositional texts to be used in doctrine but narratives, poetry, prose and all the rest of scripture should weigh in. This sort of comprehensive approach is exciting to me because it does not promote Paul's letters above the narratives and words of Jesus, a tendency we have in explaining salvation. So, thanks Karl for reminding us all that Sola Scriptura is a whole Bible approach. And to Dr. Martin for proving that the Bible itself points to outside evidence as God's evidence too, but normed by the Bible.
I appreciated your conversation with Karl and the scriptural texts that were carefully examined in regard to the meaning of ""in the flesh" and "in the sinful flesh". Karl's explanation of "sinful flesh" at the end of his post was very careful to make the distinction that Jesus never became man only, but was always Himself while in human flesh. That was a careful delineation that is respectable. Docjin's point I also appreciated was his reminder that Jesus, while fully man was still fully divine and so was not the exact same as us- but when we are born again and justified, we can experience what He did by walking in the Spirit or staying within the mind of Christ.
One small point that I would appreciate more clarification on is this line "When we experience temptation, this means that by circumstances we have detached our minds from God and we are actually feeling the urge to sin, where there is no desire there is no temptation, where there is desire there is absence of Mind of Christ." Does this indicate that even our sinful impulses that wash over us now and then, even if immediately recognized and given over to the Holy Spirit, prove we are not in the mind of Christ? So, while we are in earnest prayer, when an envious feeling, or a grudge comes up and it is quickly relinquished to Christ- in that moment has the sinner hopscotched back and forth out of and back into the mind of Christ?
I had always thought the intrusion of a temptation was a given failing of our sinful human nature and propensities and that even as they diminish in intensity and frequency in our walk with the Lord, that it didn't indicate a falling out of the relationship but a shrinking distraction that is crowded out by His glorious presence and holiness. But perhaps this is a very limited view and the Bible demands and expects a state of eventual lack of temptation on this side of the second coming?
It would seem that Jesus in Gethsemane did experience temptation to shrink from the cup he was about to drink, but won it by his commitment to God's will. How do I understand this struggle from the Sinless One?
You wrote "He (paul) emphasizes the grace that God is working in our lives vs.14 and I gather that from this grace, we have the ability to choose to do right. After accepting the mission of Christ in our lives, we have no more excuse to sin vs 22 but to do well." I appreciate how grace is the foundation for sanctification in your words. And you go on to say later that grace is working through the ministry of the "Holy Spirit that worketh in us".
Ok, I placed my response to Karl's article in a wrong folder. Here it goes where it belongs.
Arlyne, you have some nice questions for me but unfortunately my time does not allow me to elaborate today. I will, however, answer you shortly. :)
here goes my small reponse to Karl in right rubrique
Response to Karl's post on “likeness of sinful flesh” and “likeness of men”. (Rom 8: 3 and Phil 2: 7)
Karl, I took great interest in your post and I was drawing some conclusions from my self before I finished your post. However, here are my views concerning this topic you addressed. You point well that there is danger of docetism in Philippians 2: 7. That’s why I believe Philippians 2: 7 can not be taken isolated and are to be compared with broader understanding of Scriptures. Therefore, Philippians 2: 7 are to be understood in the light of Romans 8: 3 and broader context of NT. When Paul and rest of NT Scriptures use words such as “flesh”, “body”, “earthly mind”, “born of man” etc… it generally refers to a sinful nature of man. The corrupt side, the weak side, the sinful side, the inconsistent side etc.. So when Paul says that Jesus “made himself in likeness of men”, by that he doesn’t mean he wasn’t really human but he made himself “like a sinner”, “like a man”. Yet Paul’s words are precise enough and never tell us that Jesus made himself sinner. (Romans 8: 3) He might actually say: “he made himself man” and he wouldn’t be wrong but he wouldn’t describe the entire complexity of Jesus’ nature. That is why he often says he was made in “likeness of man” because he by birth was different than all men. What was that difference, his divinity, his absence of sinful tendencies, this is yet another topic… Second remark: Paul nowhere calls us to repeat the victory of Christ. Scripture calls him our exemple but never says “you must do exactly what my Son did”. Why? Because we cannot, already by birth we were different. What did Jesus overcame? By dwelling in the Spirit of God, Christ overcame constant attempts of the enemy to separate him from Father. Finally when Our Sins separated Him, he said”: My father why did you abandon me”? Not for his sins, because he loved until the end but it was for our sins that he was punished for. Now How about us? What do we have to overcome? First we don’t have a same starting point, we need to be spiritually “born again” something Jesus never experienced since he never “spiritually died” as our predecessor Adam did. We need an encounter with God. A justification. After man enters union with God’s Spirit through justification a Man gets in the same position as Christ was by birth. A man is now to overcome all obstacle by abiding in the Spirit of God. Now what Christ has made possible for us we are to experience, the walk in the Spirit (Rom 8: 13). However, our problem is that we for some reason drop out of the Spirit many times per day. Why is it so? Well for beginning, we pray once in the morning and think that is enough, while Scripture plainly encourage us to “pray at all time”. We think we can overcome with our will, when Paul calls us to overcome by “dwelling in the Spirit”, we think that we have to defeat the temptations when they come even though Christ plainly told us to pray “to not [even] be led into the temptation”. The one who dwells in Christ never comes to judgment, never needs to think about the Law because it becomes natural to him and never has to bother about internal temptation because he simply doesn’t like sin while dwelling in God’s presence. If he doesn’t even like sin, how can he be tempted? When we experience temptation, this means that by circumstances we have detached our minds from God and we are actually feeling the urge to sin, where there is no desire there is no temptation, where there is desire there is absence of Mind of Christ. Therefore in my view, the presence of internal desire and therefore presence of tangible internal temptation is equivalent by “dwelling in flesh” It is the indicator that we need justifying grace and sanctifying Spirit again and the best thing to do is to get on our knees and ask for Spirit of Christ and His nature which will enable me to hate sin and love righteousness. Let us therefore mortify our sinful bodies by the Spirit of Christ that lives in us. (Rom 8: 13, Col 3: 5)
I am really excited about what you just posted on the Great Controversy! You pointed out that EGW mentions how the sacrifice of Isaac was also for the unfallen beings in heaven and on other worlds(as well as for Abraham and all the readers after him). And that the battleground does affect the dynamics of the battle. That kind of logical ontology is very exciting and accurate.
The bigger the battleground, the wider our concepts of both what sin is and what atonement then must be to counter it. Salvation broadens beyond man- to creation, unfallen and fallen beings, from the start of the Great Controversy which was before earth was created to the end which will be at the second coming- but with echoes that continue on throughout eternity. Sin is no longer limited to a debt, even though that metaphor is biblical and very useful, but sin is also a fatal choice and inherited state, and in some cases irreparably fatal because it eventually extinguishes any desire or ability to respond to love and truth. Sin so enslaves that freedom of choice is slowly extinguished. And if God limits Himself to only righteous methods of reaching us- truth, love and freedom of choice and refuses to use brainwashing, some, like Lucifer and his angels will just not respond. Theoretically, God is all powerful and can do anything, but righteously God limits his power to goodness and not evil. So, sin is that dangerous in itself in that it eventually extinguishes in the human of the ability to want God.(and in fact, will try to kill God if given a chance- as Jesus' incarnation proved)
This is why EGW's Great Controversy theory of Salvation is not the same as Moral Influence. Moral Influence minimizes sin to ignorance that leads to fear, education, moral influence, example of love is all that's needed to restore the relationship.
Great Controversy theory posits Sin as a deadly disease, both one that we have inherited as a precondition but exacerbate with our destructive choices that will eventually put us out of the scope of God's chosen methods of salvation. And so, it ends up separating us from the Lifegiver, and therefore from life, love and all that is good. The "wages of sin is death", it pays its own wages. Sin is to be feared, not God.
And the cure is more than education, more than example, more than a debt, it is all of these and an actual internal transformation of healing both in our minds, body, emotions, relationships, spiritual yearnings that only God can give and will need to keep giving moment by moment to keep us directed toward Himself. Conversion is needed. And Christ's deed on the cross- is the means to bring conversion about. He died for us.
I appreciated your careful approach to reason and faith in your most recent post on EGW. You are absolutely right and I agree a hundred percent that reason cannot understand all there is to know. I wonder if there is a difference between reason and logic. Wasn't Greek philosophy much more about rhetoric and logic than reason? The way reason is used in today in the world (except for the theological community, which tends to use reason and logic as synonymous)usually includes more than cognitive logic. It means making sense of all the sensory input-emotional, spiritual, physical and cognitive- in a rational manner. Now, I am not an expert in semantics, actually Dr. Hanna is better in that than I am, but I cringe when in a sermon reason is put down.
For what better tool do we have to comprehend God? spirituality? What is that without cognitive understanding? an emotional state. Of course, even rationality is limited in comprehending God, it is vastly inferior to the task, yet it must be done, or the Bible has no meaning.
Salvation requires the full use of all of our capacities to understand, comprehend and follow faithfully. Faith is an extrapolation from rationality. But true Faith is never disconnected from rationality- for then it would be Satan's tool- like Waco and Jonestown. What is the proper relationship between the two? an intermingling of both, where one does not dismiss the other but can venture a little ways on their own. But if one aspect went too far, it would no longer be genuine faith, it would be insanity.
You are the only one posting lately, so I end up responding to you (also because I need to do more response papers for this class). I am learning a lot by reading your posts. I am learning about the greek philosophy that influenced the early church, how ontology does move away from the wholistic physical/soul concept of the Hebrews, and how our sanctuary message then looks very archaic if one has already adopted the greek ontological framework of timelessness. Thank you for all those new insights.
My question to you is, you mentioned that the sanctuary is a structure that cannot be dissolved away into an abstract idea. Do you believe that it is a physical structure in the cosmos? (Cosmos, as defined by Dr. Hanna to be within created heaven?) It does does seem that the original sanctuary is always mentioned as if it is in heaven. And God can be in heaven but exists also outside the creation (cosmos). So, on that point, are the greek philosophers right -pertaining to the sanctuary?
And if it is the justice and righteousness of God that the little horn is attacking- it does this by attacking the physical structure of the sanctuary, thereby undermining the spiritual lessons of the sanctuary? I am trying to bridge what you mentioned in the beginning of the post with what you focused upon throughout the post afterward.
On the sanctuary, this past Sabbath School focused upon the Day of Atonement which SDA's see as the type for the Investigative Judgment. On the Day of Atonement the whole sanctuary was cleansed- the altar, the holy place, the most holy place. The holy place was considered earth- Van Bemmelen explained to me and the most holy place was considered heaven. Does heaven need to be cleansed? It does not have sinful beings in it, they are affected by sin but are not sinful themselves. So how does "cleansing" apply to sinless beings? That is does is implied by the day of Atonement as well as the NT verses that mention how heaven also is affected by the blood of His cross (Col 1:20) How does Christ's blood sprinkled upon the ark of the covenant cleanse them?
Of course, salvation in the Bible spends most of the time dealing with sinful beings and their death predicament. But why I enjoy thinking about the smaller slice of evidence that points beyond the sinful arena- is that it broadens the understanding of salvation to more than just the legal pardon aspect which Luther and Calvin focused upon, here the SDA's can bring in a universal picture of salvation applying to everyone in God's family, not just man.
Ok I haven’t been here in a while and I have promised Arlyn to answer some crucial question that I have postponed for too far. Now I would like to answer these questions. First I would like to underline that I appreciate the sharpness and clearness of Arlyn’s question and I completely understand her point of view. Now, I came to believe that a internal temptation is a sign that internal weaknesses still exists. Arlyn you asked if you fall out of fellowship with Christ even if in the midst of prayer you sense within you a temptation, grudge, envy etc. I would argue that there is a difference between “Fellowship with Christ” and what Paul calls “the Mind of Christ”. When I was referring to the Mind of Christ, I was referring to the state of mind which implies the sharing of divine nature, of Christ’s mind. Anyone who enters in the union with the Mind of Christ “does not sin and there is no sin in him.” (1 John 3: 2) If we say that we have the Mind of Christ and there was something evil in our mind, than there would be something evil within Christ’ mind. If our mind is within Christ’ mind we cannot experience any evil thought or be internally tempted to do evil thought. We do not experience temptation that comes within us because the temptation implies internal weakness. I have experienced this and even the sin that was dear to me “outside of Christ’ mind” was completely unattractive to me when I was inside of Christ’ mind. On the other side, we can experience temporal grudge and envy but this doesn’t mean you have lost “fellowship with Jesus” as you put it or you have lost your salvation momentarily as someone else might understand. When you feel a sinful mind reigning within you, it means that Christ does not have complete control and you are not within His mind, however this doesn’t mean you don’t have fellowship with Christ. Christ in his mercy works in us although we can have several sinful tracts. We have to avoid the error to be contempt of having sins and relax cherishing our sins – this in long terms becomes a problem for the “fellowship with Christ”. The blessed state of Mind of Christ deepens and strengthens the “fellowship with Christ”. What Jesus prayed in Lord’s prayer is essential. He didn’t pray to defeat the temptation but to not be led into temptation.. Even in Matthew 26: 41 Jesus advises his disciples to pray to “enter not into temptation”. He doesn’t encourage them to wait for temptation to come and then run to God to defeat it. No, he says that we should pray not to enter in the temptation. We should pray to love our neighbor as ourselves so that when a neighbor buys a great car and we have a poor one we can have right state of mind loving our neighbor and be happy for him. He doesn’t encourage us to wait to be jealous to run to God for delivering us from jealousy. The fact that there is jealousy or grudge within it is a sign that we have already sinned and separated ourselves from the Mind of Christ! Every time the temptation comes within us tempting us to break the law of God, this is already a transgression of the 10th commandment. What ever sin we may not do externally but we are tempted by it in our thoughts it’s already breaking the commandment not ti sin in our mind. That’s why Jesus calls us to enter the Mind of Christ to not be led into temptation. I mean don’t get me wrong if you feel jealousy, give it to God and ask him to clean you with his Spirit but IT IS BETTER TO PREVENT THAN TO HEAL. Now that doesn’t mean that temptation will never come. The trials and tests will come to check if you stand on the rock. Why running towards the rock when the flood comes? Why not building the house on the rock so when the hour of trials come you can safely say “I don’t live but Christ lives in me”? Why running towards God when we feel temptation if we can abide in him and stand firm before the waves come. “Abide in me” says Jesus. Now about Jesus in Gethsemane. In Gethsemane, Jesus did not experience internal temptation to abandon the plan of salvation because that would make him break the 10th commandment “not to covet” In his case he would covet nicer life and the opportunity to not save humans through the atoning death. If he even covets for a second the heaven without saving humans he immediately does not feel the perfect love for humans and has therefore sinned. Satan’s plan was to make the sacrifice so hard for Jesus so that Jesus would give up or at least covet giving up. When Jesus was resurrected Satan stood on Jesus’ grave claiming his soul but the fact that Jesus never sinned (detached himself from God) even when God the Father “sinned” and detach Himself from Jesus, was a guarantee of our redemption and justification of the law of God. Instead, in Gethsemane Jesus was feeling the horrible experience of separation from God that he never felt before in the history of universe. He was always one with God in heaven and on earth but now he felt the separation and felt cold around his heart. Ellen White wrote: “As Christ felt His unity with the Father broken up, He feared that in His human nature He would be unable to endure the coming conflict with the powers of darkness.” This is the reason that he asked God if there is another way but since he knew that there wasn’t he yielded to the plan he has made with Father in heaven. Jesus was not tempted internally by his desire for more comfortable way, coveting to abandon the human race but he was afraid that his humanity without God’s assistance will not be strong enough. He although perfect, humbly didn’t consider his humanity as perfect to stand the separation without mediator and this is exactly what the living saved will experience before Jesus’ second coming.
I fully agree that we must further explore the implications of the great controversy theme in at least two major ways: i) as the overall theme which grounds theology, and ii) the philosophical implications which regarding history and time which the GC theme assumes
The only thing I found to "criticize" in Arlyn's reflection was the reference to God being outside of time and yet also choosing to be in it. What exactly does it mean for God to be outside of time? Platonic philosophy refers to "timelessness," which the Christendom has built entire theological structures upon. Was there time before creation? What is time? Is it a "thing," or does it co-appear with life? If the Bible says that God, "was, and is, and is to come," and that Has been "from everlasting to everlasting?" would that not assume that time co-appears with life, and therefore it is not created?
Other than that, this was a great reflection which helps us to see the work of Christ in broader terms than what many are used to
This is a reaction to Doijcin’s reflection on perfection. How perfect is perfect.
First, I really appreciate all the Bible quotes and the references from the Spirit of Prophecy. You also combine this important topic with the importance of love, because without that, perfection is not possible.
Second, this is something that we should all strive for which includes every faculty of our being – 1 Thess 5:23
You mentioned some really powerful quotes about how God can help us as we strive to meet the standard, and that this help includes the assurance of complete victory. However the following comment you made needs a little clarification. COMMENT: If perfection is a simple Christian maturity or certain level of sanctification, Ellen White would not say that it is possible already in this life to achieve it, for that would be natural.
I think what you mean is that there is some effort involved in this. If that’s so then your emphasis is definitely appreciated.
This is a reaction to Arlyn’s reaction to me about reason.
Arlyn,
I totally agree concerning your comment about references to reason from the pulpit, especially when God asks us to come and reason together. My radar always goes off when I’m told not to reason something out and begin to comprehend it. It was reasoning that attracting me to the Seventh-day Adventist Church because spiritual things now began to make sense. And it’s only when you can understand that you can follow in His steps.
I also agree that at times we are too willing to suspend our mental and spiritual faculties because we haven’t taken the time to work something out, and so we say that we shouldn’t use our reason.
I also agree that true faith is not disconnected from reason.
The stimulus for my reflection came from EGW’s Faith and Works regarding how God works and how He heals. My only point for my comment is this, and I think you will agree: reason has its limits and must bow to the Great I AM, or else the results of faith can be short circuited. This was a danger for some in Christ’s day and it is also a danger today, because God will not always remove all the obstacles by giving us all the answers before He asks us to trust Him.
Angel Rodriguez presents a pretty balanced view as to the Adventist’s position regarding the “In Adam/In Christ” dilemma. He looks at the church’s position in the 1888 conference and highlights that the church held a very ambiguous position concerning the “In Adam/In Christ” motif. For one, we seem to lean towards the Augustinian stance that we were all in Adam when he sinned in the garden. This view he dispels by looking at the word ‘life’ in light of its plural usage. Basically the evidence throughout scripture does not support the premise that we were in Adam based on plural form of the abstract noun. Angel then highlighted the second argument which takes a look at Hebrews 7:9-10 in the light of Melchizedek. Again the syntax of these verses does not provide a strong argument as Paul was not making a definite statement but simply drawing an illustration. For Angel 'in Christ' is to be understood more in terms of a marriage relationship than of a legal status arising from the decision of a law court.” He pinpoints that those who are in Christ are those that have been in communion with him or have accepted Him as their Lord. He argues against the implications of a universal justification that our pioneers may have inadvertently taught based on their limited knowledge of some of these terms. Though Angle highlighted the illogical arguments that some bear upon the “In Adam/In Christ” motif, I don’t think he was balanced in presenting a solution to the “In Adam” dilemma.
This is a response to Shaun’s reflection on Why Did Jesus Die? And How God Saves Us?
Shaun,
I had to read this a couple of times in order to try to understand your point on the relationship between prayer and Christ’s sacrifice. I think your starting point was the issue of love, and that love is not merely sentimental but it also is involved with principle. I believe you then applied this idea of love involving principle to the fact of Christ’s sacrifice which was according to the Scriptures. The point is that this kind of sacrifice involved principle because that is what it took to go to the cross. You further point out that Satan’s opposition to this did not make it a walk in the park, which means that Jesus was not motivated by feelings which are unreliable but by principle.
I believe it’s at this point that you make the application to prayer. So if I’m understanding you correctly prayer is not something that should be done on the basis of circumstance or feeling. The rationale is that Jesus’ prayer life, just like His sacrifice is based on principle.
I believe that there is support for this because Ellen White stated that His humanity made prayer a necessity as well as a privilege. This would link Jesus’ prayer life with principle.
Thus if Jesus found prayer to be not just a privilege but also a necessity, then how much more should we?
This is a reaction to Shaun’s reflection on Rom 3 and 4
Shaun,
I found myself appreciating your comments on this section, so I just wanted to present an additional reflection. As I read Rom 3:24-25, I was stopped by the word “propitiation” in vs. 25. I was in a class last semester in which it was suggested that we understand the word “propitiation” on the basis of how Paul’s contemporaries understood the term.
In my mind, this raises the issue of models, which has been what our class has been about this semester. I found it strange that the OT usage of the word was never explored in that class last semester. This reason is that the Greek for “propitiation” in the LXX is almost always linked with the mercy seat (See Exod 25:17, 20, 21; Lev 16:13-15 for a few examples).
This would mean that the model of the sanctuary including the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:13-15) should be explored for understanding what the word means. For our evangelical friends, this would mean that the data in Rom 3:24-25 such as justified, grace, redemption, blood, righteousness and remission should be understood within the overall model of the sanctuary.
This is the comment of appreciation for Karl's reflection on Happenstal's article in BRI. I really appreciate your analysis of Happenstal's article. When I was reading the article I haven't agreed with many reformulations but I haven't had time to develop my thoughts. I agree that Happenstel’s definition of sin is not clear. He seems to call sins even our natural physical limitations. So, Jesus stepping on a bug on his way to Jerusalem would commit sin and Old people not remembering the birthday of their granddaughters would also commit sin. I can’t help but remember the sermon from John Wesley on Christian Perfection, where he begins his sermon with what perfection does not imply. He lists very carefully that Christian perfection doesn’t mean 1/ man will be without human physical and mental limitation 2/ doesn’t mean man will acquire perfection in knowledge and understanding of all mysteries of universe. I also agree in asking Happenstel what he means by eternal and free favor of God. It seems like Platonic world of ideas. And for the end I particularly appreciate the quote your brought from Ellen White where she says that the perfection of Christ mind must be the experience of those who will stand in the time of trouble. I think Adventists have emphasized this perfection of close of probation so much in the past until 1950s that it flirted very much with legalism. This produced a lot of “effort-orientated” Adventists who tried to make it by their effort. However, it seems to me that we have swung completely other way lately and we don’t preach close of probation, we don’t talk about standing without mediator, we don’t emphasize 144 000 and God forbid we speak about absence of sinful thoughts and desire in us in the same way Jesus was. This also brought the downplay of our sanctuary message and the idea of “final atonement”. I mean I read this week’s lesson about Jesus mediation in the sanctuary and of course there was no mention of Jesus’ blotting of sins. Satan will make everything to keep us on this earth and if we take lightly the message of sanctifying grace for the last generation we will stay here longer than we want…
I appreciated Shaun’s post “Why did Jesus die?” There is a current disagreement in understanding what is the real reasons why Jesus died. Could he have saved us some other way? Or the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for salvation of human kind.
I agree with this sentence by Shaun: “This ransom was real and not subjective. It was done not simply to show angels and fallen man how much he loved us but to live up to the standard and principles that governs the heavenly realm.”
I would add that often we tend to reduce the reason of Christ’s sacrifice to love or to justice but as Doctor Hannah justly taught us in this class: “we constantly need a bigger model”.
I feel particular sympathy for the subject Elems is trying to wrestle with.
I appreciate his efforts to find a balance between "Jesus is the only name by which we get saved" and "Those who never heard of him can be saved on different criterion".
I just wanted to add one brief quote from Ellen White about God's grace that overflows the earth and falls on all men.
"...In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live and grow up to the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus."
So basically, all people on this earth no matter what is the level of truth they can respond to, are saved by the "air of grace" that comes from Jesus' sacrifice.
Therefore, even those who never heard of Jesus and eventually get saved will be saved on the basis on Jesus' sacrifice which they never had notion of.
There are several things I really appreciated about your reflection!!! First, I also believe that the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary has been marginalized. I really don’t believe that its systematic implications have been understood by Adventists. Because of that there’s confusion about salvation, lifestyle and worship. In other words, we have not grappled with how the sanctuary as the great system is interrelated to what I’ve just mentioned and the end result is confusion and a loss of identity among us.
Second, we can never exalt the cross high enough. It will be our science and our song forever. Yet by divorcing the cross from the Day of Atonement, can we really say that we understand the cross? We should never pit the cross against Jesus heavenly ministry. To do so would be like saying which is more in important in the formula H20, the hydrogen or the oxygen?
In the Great Controversy, EGW says that unless we understand the position and work of our High Priest, it will not be possible for us to exercise the faith necessary or to occupy the position that God wants us to have. With every wind of doctrine blowing, let’s set our hearts and minds on this grand work that is being performed there on our behalf!
Reaction # 9 I strongly appreciate Arlyn’s assignment n#8 on Steps to Christ, chapters 8 and 9. It made me understand the motivation behind her research paper much better. She quotes the words of Ellen White: “…The spirit of Christ's self-sacrificing love is the spirit that pervades heaven, and is the very essence of its bliss. This is the spirit that Christ's followers will possess, the work that they will do.” In the same time it is inconceivable how can such God ask Abraham to kill his son. The tension exists and Arlyn is right to point that if we allow to honor Abraham’s determination to obey God and kill his son we should then shut our mouth before the Jihad children being sent to death by their parents. If our God teaches us to honor one’s obedience even to the point of killing someone for God then we are also to honor the radical Muslims who die in obedience to their God.
This is a powerful point I believe and it urges me to re-interpret Aqedah in the light of self-sacrifice, just the way Arlyn is trying to do. I still think that your paper, Arlyn, has to include one chapter where you will allow for other interpretations to give their shot, after which you can humbly present a need to re-formulate traditional interpretations in light of what you have just written here in this post and other arguments that you might have. After this you can start developing a new approach to Aqedah that will justify the Biblical picture of God and I believe resolve many contemporary issues in regards to religion and violence…
Arlyn, I really appreciated your analysis of Abraham’s adventure with Abimelech, the Philistine King. It is quite sparkling and provocative, giving plenty to think and to preach about. I agree with everything that you have written but I wanted to save you from scratching your head to hard in thinking why would Abraham say that Sarah is his sister.
This is what probably happened in Abraham’s mind. Abraham knew that Sarah being so pretty, he is running the risk to be killed due to desire that some Philistine might have for Sarah. So in his own judgment he considered only these two options: 1. Tell everyone he is Sarah’s husband and fall in risk to be killed if someone finds her attractive. 2. Tell everyone she is his sister and if someone really finds her attractive, he will not need to be killed.
So, yes it makes sense if you rule out faith in God's protection from your calculations.
But coming back to the crux of the matter I agree with your main point, how we “the righteous ones” often underestimate the morality of so called pagans. Abraham believed that people were so immoral that they will very likely kill him to get Sarah. However, God showed Abraham that these people are much more moral than we think they are, to the point to exceed in obedience to God even the self-professing believers.
Reaction # 11 I appreciate Shaun’s emphasis on the free will of all human beings to accept Christ’s redemption at the cross. If Jesus simply saved the world by his death what is the point of continuing to live here on earth? Why do we have to struggle here on this earth if everyone is already saved???
I appreciate your answer to this question:
‘Saved’ for some means that all of humanity is automatically saved and will be in the kingdom, but I am gathering here that saved means free access to God through Jesus Christ. If this is true it doesn’t contradict the view that Jesus has the deed of possession, and has won us through creation and redemption, but widens the span of salvation to include free-will. The price has been paid but ‘all who will’ is the cry to those who would be saved. If Satan through deception has brought blight upon mankind and through force and manipulation keeps man in sin, Jesus would be no different if through his sacrifice those unwilling to go to heaven were forced to abide by His principles. Though Christ has gained the right to redeem us, he chooses not to force us into the kingdom.
I was reading through posts to see which one will stir an interest in me to write a feedback and I found myself really appreciating Karl’s defense of Sola Scriptura in his first reflection back in September 29.
Although I agree that Historical-Critical method has benefited us with many useful tools for understanding isolated texts, I agree with Karl that the job of understanding the salvation can not done with the exegesis of one isolated chapter in the Bible. You cannot exegete Romans 3 and say: the Bible teaches we are saved by faith. You can’t even say : Paul teaches we are saved by faith. You can’t even say: “Romans teach justification by faith”! All you can say is that in Romans 3 Paul argues that man is justified by faith. So frankly speaking I don’t see how can exegesis without systematizing different passages from the Scripture be of any use?
The process of exegesis is unable to produce a final conclusion for doctrinal matters and yet so often we see exegetes bringing final conclusions out of a dissection of one or two isolated texts.
One of the reasons for such great division in Protestantism is because people cling to their favored passages and draw the entire Christianity from those. They are lazy to read the rest of the Scripture and afraid to struggle through apparent contradictions and frequent tensions and balances of the Biblical texts. Thus, on one side, we have Roman Catholics who believe what they believe because they are not founded on the Bible (only) and on the other side we have Protestants who are founded on Bible but only on these passages that make them feel comfortable and assured. To end my last post i must repeat this very original though that I am sure I came up with: When studying the doctrines of the Bible, especially the doctrine of Salvation, we always need “ a bigger model”. :)
This reaction is to Elems’ 1st reflection on Rom 1
Ugochukwu,
You are raising here the importance of knowing God, which is one reason for why Jesus came, so that we can know Him. But the question is how can we know Someone we have never seen or even heard of?
Here is where Rom 1:20 comes in. Like every artist, God has left His signature in the things He has created. Scripture claims that this evidence is powerful enough to convict us to the point where we are without excuse. 2 Pet 3:5-7 teaches us that in the last days, men are willingly ignorant of 2 great facts, the flood and creation.
Yet in spite of this evidence you correctly point out that “we must not neglect proclaiming the gospel nor be ashamed of it.”
There’s no doubt about the fact that nature is an incredible source for revelation and that correctly understood nature and revelation need each other. However, philosophical systems derived from the contemplation of nature and contradictory to revelation have been a source of great “inspiration” for many. The end result of these “revelations” is that worship has gone to the creature instead of the Creator, and when this happens idolatry and licentiousness are the results.
And when the end result is idolatry and licentiousness, then what can one expect but the just judgment of God. Thus all source of knowledge need to be checked by the Word.
This is a response to a response, but I can't resist pursuing it further for the elucidation of ethics.
Thank you for attempting to clarify my puzzlement on Abraham's reasoning of why he had to lie about Sarah to Abimelech. I appreciate you reading and explaining how Abraham thought.
But there are presuppositions in your answers. The presuppositions that I am still puzzled at are- Abraham believes: that the philistines have such moral respect for marriage that they would not "steal" another's wife while he is alive. But they have less respect for life- so they will kill a man SO they can take his wife. In short, Abraham's fears that in philistine society (and Egyptian) murder is considered less heinous than adultery.
And guess what? Adultery was considered incredibly immoral- as revealed by Abimelech's horrified accusations. But we don't have enough information to determine either Pharaoh or Abimelech would have killed Abraham to get his wife- perhaps Abraham was TOTALLY wrong in projecting his made up fears? perhaps not. We just don't know their hierarchy of sins.
What is interesting to me as a woman is this system of honor among males. A man would rather kill than to violate another man's conjugal rights? So sexual property among males is held more sacred than life itself?
And is Abraham then, actually a little more moral in saying- life is more valuable than sexual infidelity- so better to share the wife or lose rights to her, but staying alive is priority? Perhaps he is reflecting God correctly in that one sense?
Notice, Jesus also said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Yet, I love how he goes beyond the dualism- and points to the bigger paradigm- but the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Thus, marriage was made to protect life, not life to protect marriage. (so Abraham's ethical philosophy turns out to be more moral than the paradigm he fears others have.) Yet God is the lord of marriage- Genesis affirms that what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Is Abraham a man? Then Abraham is not to put asunder or entice other (people) to do the same. He is to trust God to keep them joined- and not surprisingly, God does just that. He fulfills his own role.
He saves the marriage. He saves their lives. He saves them for the life they will produce together. I just wonder, how about teling Abraham to stop thinking just one level higher than the surrounding cultures- but to lift his eyes higher- to God? But I'm asking too much, probably.
I love how Docjin posted on 9/14/08 the argument "So to simply say "In Job's case taam means imperfect and in Lucifer and God's case taam means absolutely perfect seems a little inconsistent..."
Thank you so much for making an argument that I needed! I have a problem with Biblical theologians who don't take God's diagnosis of Job seriously. God's righteous knowledge is what is the crux of this whole test- and Job is the evidence #1.
Satan sure hates Job, but Job is merely one man. And irritatingly good man but one human. Satan's true target has always been the Son of God. And it is to impugn the Son of God's diagnosis, knowledge, judgment- that Satan goes after Job. Job is a little fish. But the Son of God's reputation - that's the prize catch for Satan.
If Satan can prove that the Son of God is wrong about Job's inner motives- then His righteous judgment is called into question. And if that happens- it opens the door to the possibility that the Son of God was also wrong in judging Lucifer. Does the Bible help us see this is the real motive of Job's trials- listen to the "phantom of the night that visits Eliphaz.
"If He puts no trust in His servants, If He charges His angels with error, How much more those who dwell in houses of clay?" Job 4:18. Well, God actually does trust His angels, all of them except- Lucifer and his gang. This is the sting that the spirit which glided past Eliphaz's face and made his hair stand up on end- inadvertently reveals as the source of his core bitterness. God has no faith in him, for he has forfeited it.
So when God shows faith in Job and Job in God- this arouses his jealousy, and if he can shake this faith between God and His creature- not only is one relationship destroyed, but God's omniscience is crippled, His judgment proven wrong, and Satan has won a huge victory.
Unfortunately, many sincere readers give Satan that victory on the story of Job before the trials even start- they disbelieve God's diagnosis that Job is perfect, and dilute it down to Job is imperfect but decent. Hence, Docjin, I thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in the use of taam if one adopts this watered down version for Job. And therefore - we ought to wake up and see just who's side we are supporting when we don't accept God's diagnosis, but accept Satan's- that Job is good but not perfect, there is a core of selfishness underneath all that righteousness.
Satan just loves to project his own nature onto others.
This is a response to your reaction to Dojcin on 10/06/08. In your post you are wrestling with the question regarding our sinful impulses, which may be successfully resisted and Jesus experience in the garden. You conclude by acknowledging that the impulse to shrink from the cross in the garden was something real that was faced by Jesus, although He eventually committed Himself to God’s will.
I would just like to share some statements from the Spirit of Prophecy about Moses’ experience when he spoke in anger and failed to give God the glory. I believe these statements can shed some light on the issues you have brought up.
“If the children of God, especially those who stand in positions of responsibility, can be led to take to themselves the glory that is due to God, Satan exults. He has gained a victory. It was thus that he fell. Thus he is most successful in tempting others to ruin. It is to place us on our guard against his devices that God has given in His word so many lessons teaching the danger of self-exaltation. There is not an impulse of our nature, not a faculty of the mind or an inclination of the heart, but needs to be, moment by moment, under the control of the Spirit of God. There is not a blessing which God bestows upon man, nor a trial which He permits to befall him, but Satan both can and will seize upon it to tempt, to harass and destroy the soul, if we give him the least advantage. Therefore however great one's spiritual light, however much he may enjoy of the divine favor and blessing, he should ever walk humbly before the Lord, pleading in faith that God will direct every thought and control every impulse.
All who profess godliness are under the most sacred obligation to guard the spirit, and to exercise self-control under the greatest provocation. The burdens placed upon Moses were very great; few men will ever be so severely tried as he was; yet this was not allowed to excuse his sin. God has made ample provision for His people; and if they rely upon His strength, they will never become the sport of circumstances. The strongest temptation cannot excuse sin. However great the pressure brought to bear upon the soul, transgression is our own act. It is not in the power of earth or hell to compel anyone to do evil. Satan attacks us at our weak points, but we need not be overcome. However severe or unexpected the assault, God has provided help for us, and in His strength we may conquer.” (PP421).
1. What are the implications in this passage? a. The impulse of our nature, the faculty of the mind or the inclination of the heart is defined in this passage as a temptation. Not as transgression or as an inward state of corruption. b. Sin is defined in this passage as transgression. c. We are overcome when we allow impulses and inclinations from within to respond to pressures from without.
This is an observation to your reaction to my article. Your reaction is dated 12/10/08. There were a couple of things that got my attention. First, you mentioned that the perfection that was emphasized before the 1950’s flirted with legalism. There are others who take it even further by stating that their positions were legalistic. I was baptized in 1990, so some of those comments seem strange to me because I have never experienced the legalism that many seem to mention with that age.
My second observation is related to the first. You state that the pendulum has swung completely in the other direction so much so that we don’t even preach about the close of probation, overcoming sinful thoughts, standing without a mediator, etc…We also downplay our sanctuary message and the importance of the blotting out of sin.
I couldn’t agree more with your observation!!! I think one cause among others is this “grace” oriented gospel that has not defined grace according to an overall Biblical understanding of grace. In short, they have not followed what we have been wrestling with this semester, and that is the need for a bigger model in order to make sense of the data.
This observation is based on your 12/1208 post. Your observations about metaphors and parables layered on top of each other in so much that all of them interact and reshape each other reminded me of this statement in the book Education.
“But the most valuable teaching of the Bible is not to be gained by occasional or disconnected study. Its great system of truth is not so presented as to be discerned by the hasty or careless reader. Many of its treasures lie far beneath the surface, and can be obtained only by diligent research and continuous effort. The truths that go to make up the great whole must be searched out and gathered up, "here a little, and there a little." Isaiah 28:10.
When thus searched out and brought together, they will be found to be perfectly fitted to one another. Each Gospel is a supplement to the others, every prophecy an explanation of another, every truth a development of some other truth. The types of the Jewish economy are made plain by the gospel. Every principle in the word of God has its place, every fact its bearing. And the complete structure, in design and execution, bears testimony to its Author. Such a structure no mind but that of the Infinite could conceive or fashion.
In searching out the various parts and studying their relationship, the highest faculties of the human mind are called into intense activity. No one can engage in such study without developing mental power. (Ed 123-124)
These paragraphs have been a tremendous source of strength and encouragement to me as I have attempted to grapple with seeming contradictions in the Bible. I always try to keep them in mind when studying a passage, chapter or book of the Bible.
This is a brief observation regarding your post on 12/09/08 regarding Romans 12-13. Your very brief comment about our obligation to rulers as well as to our neighbors should raise some questions for us about our obligation to entities that require an allegiance that competes with the God of heaven.
When the call is given for us to obey our leaders, just what is the nature and extent of that obedience? We obviously need a bigger model, a cosmic model in order to answer that question or else we may just have fellow Adventists shooting at our own brothers and sisters.
It’s interesting to note that the passage which encourages us to be loyal to gov’t leaders is flanked on both sides by the admonition of love. In Rom 12:19-21 it says:
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
In Rom 13:8 it says, “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”
This context needs to be taken into consideration when dealing with the Christian’s obligation to the state which entails the nature of that obligation and the limits to which it extends. It should always be clear regarding who holds first place in our lives.
This is an observation about your comments on Rom 9:20 on 12/07/08. If there was ever a need for a bigger model of salvation, then some of the statements in Rom 9 about Pharaoh, and the potter and clay certainly apply. The potential for misunderstanding and applying these messages is enormous. Exegesis alone only serves to reveal the need for a bigger model when grappling with these subjects.
As you state, God can certainly do whatever He wants to do, yet according to some theologians, He does so because He has no other choice. Some even suggest and say that it’s impossible for God to do other than what He decides to do. And they approach the passages unders discussion with this mindset. Yet, is it really true that God is bound by what His timeless, sovereign will dictates? Unfortunately the basis for understanding these kinds of passages is the doctrine of eternal decrees which has been interpreted on the basis of Greek philosophy.
In our class this semester we found out that we cannot have a system that constricts the data of Scripture in such a way that distorts the meaning. Yet this is precisely what Greek philosophy does, and the end result is confusion and misapplication.
We must both be good exegetes and also good theologians who understand the difference between exegesis and systematic theology, and who also realize that we both need each other in order to grapple with these issues.
39 comments:
Dear Arlyn – Here is Dojcin. I wanted to make a comment on your post on Romans 7/8. Here is your post:
Romans 8:1 was very precious to me in high school when my academy bible teacher hammered the past tense into my achievement oriented, doubting heart. "Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Mr. Boyer said to me "If you have accepted Christ, regardless of your continuing struggles, you are no longer condemned by the law, you must be protestant, not catholic. Justification is not faith plus your works. It is faith alone, period." Morris Venden uses the analogy that once you are in the elevator with Christ, you are going up, even if you fall down in the elevator. No wonder Paul can't resist using the "adoption" paradigm to bring this point home, adoption is not undone by bad behavior. A legal paradigm does grant emotional assurance- because it is not dependent on feelings for validity.
I really appreciated the illustration with the elevator. It is good to know that Jesus lifts us up even if we fall. Nevertheless, I would like to point out some elements that are important to mention when we talk about being a protestant and believing in salvation by grace alone.
I believe we often forget that we are not “classical protestants”. Both Luther and Calvin taught that we as humans don’t have choice in the process of salvation but it is God who chooses us and not other way around. Luther advocated his thesis on “Bondage of the will” claiming that man’s will is so corrupt that we cannot choose God therefore god chooses to save us against or despite our corrupt will.
Calvin taught that God’s grace is irresistible and that God pre-destined some people to be saved and some people to suffer retribution. Many protestants today when they say “ by faith alone” or “by grace alone” actually refer to this idea that we are unable to choose so God saves us no matter what we want.
Here comes my point, we are not saved by grace alone because Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross isn’t worth anything for us if we don’t freely choose to accept his redemption. God gives us a choice and free will to decide whether we want to love Him or not. So although we are saved primarily through what Jesus had done on the cross, there is our part to play and that is to accept his justification. IF we struggle with believing in his promise we are to ASK for faith, God is not going to give us faith against our will, we need to ask for faith and we have to RECEIVE.
There is another point that separates us from many protestants – it is a belief in sanctification. Classic protestants disregard sanctification because for them it sounds too much as salvation by works. And why does it sound like that? Because for sanctification you need to exercise daily your free will to surrender to God daily and to do what God wants you to do. Offcourse it is Christ who operates good works in you but you again need to SURRENDER or to choose Christ’s Spirit to dwell in you.
You see rejecting Catholic salvation triggered by your works, Protestants went another extreme and belive in complete absence on any effort whatsoever that would come from man.
You wrote that “adoption is not undone by bad behavior” – this sound as once saved always saved. Whatever you might do, once you have been adopted into God’s family you can’t fall out from it. That is very wrong and we as Adventists do not believe so, we believe that we can have of our assurance that we are saved and in union with Christ but that doesn’t mean that we can’t fall out from grace. That’s why it is important to focus on daily walk with Christ.
To take your ananlogy to end. It is true that if we fall in elevator, the elevator still takes us up, however, if we decide to press stop button or down button we will no longer go up but stagnate or go down. God never works against the will of man.
I know that you probably agree with me but it just seemed to me that your words were little too antinomian, anyways just wanted to share this with you.
Dear Docjin,
Thank you for your fine balancing of my analogies. You are correct in trusting that we are in agreement. One can always get out of the "elevator" at any time since it is not a prison (regardless of Paul calling himself a "bond-servant" of Christ Jesus in Rom 1:1) and one can undo adoption thru legal means. That's why adoption is rather a good analogy, and biological progeny is not. So, also is another of Paul's analogies- marriage- Christ and his church made up of those willing to be "one" with Him. Marriages can be dissolved, but is not automatically invalidated by temporary disagreements- but it is affected profoundly.
It is understandable that the antinomian view would bring a reaction from yourself who wrote, "However, even those who are justified struggle in this world which interferes between man and god and sometimes, actually often we fall from God's presence, detach our mind from God,lose faith, forget about God's promise, detach our mind from the Spirit of Christ. In this case we are in Sin (capital S) that often leads toward sins or acts of sin (small s). Then, after we realize that we have sinned again, we ask grace before our mediator and repenting from our sinful disease we run back under the wings of our merciful Lord who ever wants to love us and forgive us. Consequently, in life of a true Christian there are less and less of these "excursions" to sin", and the longer we spend in the presence of God our character changes, ..." I appreciate the high ideals that you are echoing from the many scriptural texts. Hepenstall's article on perfection seems to be saying that same thing. Would it be helpful to make several implications clear? For instance- when one has left the mind of Christ and temporarily fallen into temptation, but not disavowed Christ as his Lord and Savior in a willful and clear manner- what is their present state of salvation? Saved or lost? Would time be crucial in that case- to allow one to "come back and repent?" And if so, is salvation vulnerable to lack of time? Sin with a big (S) is used to refer to Sinful nature and Heppenstall does clearly claim that this will not be eradicated before the second coming. Heppenstall also points out that those called perfect in the Bible- Abraham, Job were not sinless- so small (s) still existed in their lives even as they were called perfect. Yet, both he and your comments drawn from EGW point to the theoretical possibility of being perfectly free of small (s)sin. EGW's quote "Unless they bear the same perfection of character that he bore while on earth, they would spoil heaven."(SpTBO7 44.4) So, I am curiously awaiting a precise definition from you of "perfection of character" which both Christ and we can attain verses "sinless perfection"(which is disavowed by Heppenstall). Perhaps Wesleyian perfection will show up in future papers?
Dear Shaun,
Were you reacting against another paradigm when you write,"The ransom was real and not subjective. It was done not simply to show angels and fallen man how much he loved us but to live up to the standard and the principles that governs the heavenly realm". Is there a name for that other picture of salvation or is it a perspective that is merely popular among young people but seen as inadequate? EGW wrote "But the plan of redemption had yet a broader and deeper purpose than the salvation of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth; it was not merely that the inhabitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded but it was to vindicate the character of God before the universe. To this result of His great sacrifice-its influence upon the intelligences of other worlds, as well as upon man- the Savior looked forward when just before His crucifixion He said: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, wil draw all men unto Me." John 12:31, 32." PP pg. 69. She clearly doesn't diminish the literal, imperative need for the crucifixion, but establishes it even more firmly as literal and imperative for a larger audience as well. Was this the direction you were headed? Or are you more concerned about the overshadowing of "truth" when the "love" and subjective feelings about the cross is overly focused upon?
You quoted (Dr. Reid on) I Cor 15:3 ("Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures") and followed this verse with "This substitution was literal and imperative if man was to be saved ..." It sounds like the preposition "uper" (=for)was taken by yourself to mean "substitution". That is legitimate since the word can mean "over, for, on behalf of, for the sake of". Substitution would come within the possibilities in the spectrum of meanings given. However, "for our sins" can just as legitimately mean for the sake of our sins,for instance, and this also fits the context well. So, I fully agree with you that christ died for our sins. And that it was literal and imperative and predicted by scripture. But unlike yourself I would be careful about using I Cor 15:3 as a substitution text since it is not necessarily limited to that one meaning. On the other hand, if one wanted to buttress that argument for the substitution as the correct meaning of that verse one could try to narrow the following phrase"according to the scriptures" to substitutionary themes in the OT. Maybe Paul was thinking that way, who knows?
All in all, thank you for leading me to look that verse up and read it again carefully.
Dear Arlyne,
I appreciate your comments. I especially appreciate the analogy of marriage in which temporary ruptures might occur without necessary implying divorce. The question arises can we push this analogy to our spiritual life? I have tendency to say yes but up to a certain limit. I believe that although we might wander away from God’s presence and even commit some serious sins, this does not automatically qualify us as “out of salvation”. Our “marriage” with God might not be immediately broken. His grace understand our weakness and inability to be consistent. Actually our “marriage contract” (baptism) acknowledged our inconsistency to be perfect spouse all the time and gave us “grace period”. When Jesus saved us, no one ever mentioned anything about never sinning again. There is desire but flesh is weak, no one ever kept perfect record even after initial justification. However, it exactly this path of falling and standing up which is called sanctification. God through his grace eliminates sin in us, but it goes not without many failures. Less failures we allow ourselves, faster we will become “perfect in Christ”.
Now we come to your second question. Will Wesleyan perfection come out in my thought? First, many people interpret Wesleyan perfection in different ways. I studied on Wesley certain period of time and I was able to see many different opinions on what he believed to be Christian Perfection.
Here is my view, Wesley believed in temporary perfection – meaning a perfection of newly justified man. Every one who has just been born again is like a little babe – perfect in Christ. How to keep this perfection? That was Wesley’s question. He introduced several methods which would help men to remain in “justified zone”. That’s why people called his followers, because they had methods of sanctification. Earnest Prayer, early waking in the morning, Bible reading, morning worship in society of people, than work with prayer and song in the mind. Than visiting the poor, widows, sick and prisoners or preaching the gospel, if one had a gift to do so. But constantly praising the Lord in group or alone. Than evening worship service and daily eucharist or holy communion as a sign of partaking of God’s justifying and sanctyfing grace.
Adventists later introduced health reform in this method. (although Wesley advocated temperance and abstinence from alcohol, tobacco and coffee)
This reminds me of early Christians who gathered together every day to worship the Lord and break the bread and eat together. They encouraged each other to defeat all the sins and had everything in common.
Now, compare it to contemporary Adventists, no early waking, no morning worship, no visiting of poor, rare prayer during the day, rare evening worships, eucharist once in three months.
Offcourse it is hard for us to experience victory over the world when we don’t spend enough time with the Lord. In Wesley’s time many experienced what they called entire sanctification.
Now what do I refer to when I say entire sanctification? I will honestly tell you that I don’t know and I am still searching for answer. Ellen White talks that those who want to be alive when Jesus appear will have perfection of character Jesus bore on earth. Now what kind of perfection of character Jesus had?
Let’s remind ourselves that Jesus was born without Adam’s Sin or without natural inclination to love sin. He said “devil has nothing in me”. Devil was able to tempt Jesus only externally and not internally. The temptations were coming to Jesus only from outside not from within his own nature. He wasn’t tempted by his own desire in his brain, he didn’t have one. He was tempted from surrounding circumstances. He was the second Adam.
Adam was also not tempted from his inside of his nature because his nature was unadulterated and pure, he was tempted from surrounding circumstances.
Therefore, my point is simply this, why are we so afraid to even imagine that God can “finish his work in us” so as to restore us into his image and repair our sinful nature in such a way that the sinful nature can be eradicate in us.
We can still commit sin, as Moses did in wilderness, but the temptation to sin does not come from within but from without.
By the way, Bible never says for Abraham that he was perfect. In Genesis 17: 1 God called Abraham to be perfect before him that doesn’t say he achieved it, although he might have but we have no evidence for that.
“…And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me (before my face), and be thou perfect.”
On other side Job was called taam – perfect. I think we are too harsh when we attack Job and his spiritual level. God was boasting with Job in a front of the entire universe saying that there is no one on the earth like Job.
Job 1: 1
“…There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect (taam) and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.”
God said that there is no one on earth like Job. In his generation, Job was the holiest man on the entire planet. He was the thorn in the eye of Satan and a pride for God. Don’t we want to make our Heavenly Father proud?
Job 1: 8
“…And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect (taam) and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?”
Job 2: 3
“And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity (Tumah – perfectness), although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.”
The word Taam is used in the description of Lucifer in Isaiah 14: 12 – Isaiah writes Lucifer was born perfect – taam but still some mystery happened to him and he became sinner.
Also in Psalm 18: 30-32, David says that God’s ways are taam and David prays that his ways might be perfect too.
“…As for God, his way is perfect (Tamim) the word of the LORD is tried: he is a shield to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? It is God that arms me with strength, and maketh my way perfect.” (Tamim)
So to simply say : In Job’s case taam means imperfect and in Jucifer and God’s case taam means absolutely perfect seems little inconsistent...
More in next posts...
Dear Docjin,
This is a very enjoyable way to fulfill a requirement of a class, thank you for making it so.
I appreciate, first of all, your emphasis that God's description of Job as perfect and upright is taken as accurate. I believe too many interpretations of the book of Job suffer from our external imposition of Job as sinful when God is extremely clear at the beginning and at the end in the narrative brackets what the facts from His divine diagnosis of Job is.
I also appreciate your carefulness that Abraham was not necessarily labeled perfect, but admonished to be so. And your reluctance to allow taam (you called it inconsistent) to mean both absolutely and relatively perfect depending on the being it modifies.
What I don't understand is- on the one hand you take Christ to have taken on the pre-fall sinless nature of man (actually I believe that to, at the present) and yet-without precedent (since Christ was not at the same starting point as us in this)-believe that we in our inherited Sinful post-fall nature of man can trust God to completely eradicate our sinful nature (pre-glorification?). This, then would be more of a miracle than even Christ underwent. Yes?
Perhaps, the difficulty in accepting such a miracle as a reasonable goal for all-centers around the definition of perfection. I am thinking of perfection as sinless in the Greek sense of static lack of imperfection, and you may mean sinless in another way- mature, whole, full grown, ripe, unselfish. If it is the latter- then, it is easier to believe that it can be accomplished by God in our earthly lifetime and for many believers- even Jesus said to the rich young ruler in Matt 19:21 only two or three things were keeping him from being perfect. The second definition of perfection would fit with the fact that the NT keeps admonishing the believers as if it is a very achievable state of being.
If perfection is defined as "holding nothing back"- Abraham achieved this in the akedah. If perfection is defined as "integrity"- Job held onto this throughout his trials. If perfection is defined as "mature, full grown"- Jacob's struggle that switched him from trying to control God to clinging to Him in acknowledged surrender acheived perfection. If perfection is defined as "unselfish"- then Isaac was it when he finally accepted the Lord's will and gave to his unfavorite son Abraham's blessing before sending him back to Mesopotamia. These were not static states nor states of newborn spirituality- but actually chronologically latter moments of achieving one-ness with God. Oh, sorry, got carried away on homily.
Dear Arlyn,
I appreciate your comments. It's crucial to understand that I don't believe perfection is required to be saved. Striving towards sanctification in other hand is required. (hebrews 12: 14)
Second remark I wanted to make is that the fact that God makes greater miracle in us than he did in Jesus is an illusionary obstacle.
You see Jesus never needed conversion in the first place. Let's assume there is no perfection on earth at all, according to what you have said, God is still doing greater miracle in us than He did in Jesus because we experience justificatiove grace which Jesus never experienced.
Could we assume that to change from sinful nature into "Christ mind" even for just a second is greater than anything Jesus experienced? Or to achieve perfection is greater than Jesus ever experienced?
No, beacause Jesus was with God constantly and therefore he experienced a perfect relatiosnhip with God. How can anything be greater than that.
You see Jesus didn't need redemption from fallen nature, He didn't need justification nor sancfication. he was born with both. His task was to maintain his relation with Father.
we are in a completely different situation, we need justification (initial victory) and we need perfection(final victory).
We need restoration to God's image. Yes it is an amazing miracle. Can we compare it with the amazing victory of Christ and say it was a greater miracle for us to change than for him to stay what he was? It's like comparing apples and pears. None is greater but they are different experiences.
We need complete restoration and that is indeed the glorious miracle in Universe after Jesus' incarnation.
Anyways, I think you got my point, one is not greater than the other just different. There is no Biblical evidence that says our experience should not be equal in grandor to Jesus'.
God bless Arlyn, I though we had class today so I went to school... too bad for me anyways see you next week.
And, by the way, it is a pleasure fulfilling our requirements. hehe
Arlyn I enjoyed the manner of your introduction in that you carefully presented Dr. Paulsen’s view of Habakkuk 2:4 and its force and appeal in the New Testament. I thought it was quite interesting how the death/resurrection/ascension of Jesus are connected to the passage above in that it is truly by the faith of Christ that we are saved. I would have loved if you explored the passage a little more to find out why we have settled on the interpretation that it is the faith of Christ mentioned and not the faith of the individual. I understand that you are commenting on the article by Paulsen but it would appear that Hab. 2:4 was simply a launching pad into a discussion on the subjectivity or objectivity of such faith based on a presupposition that we take to the passage.
I appreciate how you raised a concern about his usage of the word objective in describing our faith in Christ yet I may have to side with Paulsen in that he argues for both objective and subjective faith in our relation to Christ. For one, we must know what we believe. If it can be proved without a shadow of a doubt that Christ was not risen, then the object of my faith is null and void. If I hold that my faith is not blind faith, then with all dignity I would have to retract my beliefs in Christ. This may be why Paul writes in 2 Tim. 1:12 “I know whom I have believed.” This is an objective faith spoken of by Paul and it must be the faith embraced by all. On the other hand I gather from Paulsen that if I place my trust in Christ and seek that change which comes from him, the objective aspect of faith becomes subjective. I don’t think there is a discrepancy here as I could easily pinpoint that I know I have a father named Lionel. That is speaking objectively as to what I know. Because I know I have such a father, I live up to the expectations that he holds for me. The expectations become subjective. If I did not have a father, then my expectations would be void.
Just wanted to leave a comment for David. I always appreciate it when I see others with almost the same reflections as i did. I'm curious to see how Dr Hanna is going to develop the subject about the body language that we discussed in class. Also the article you read about the In Adam/In Christ motif, really raised a lot of questions. Now how was it for you, were your question on the 1888 Study Committee or on the article highlighting the errors? I had problem with both the committee and the article. Anyway, twill be good to find out. Thanks for the good reflections.
Comment #4
Back on 9/23/08 Karl posted Reflection #1 that I really appreciated because he pointed out that Sola Scriptura meant not only that doctrine had to be founded on scripture, but that it had to include all of scripture. That sort of context is what is missing in the proof text method approach. As Dr. Martin pointed out today that not only are the propositional texts to be used in doctrine but narratives, poetry, prose and all the rest of scripture should weigh in. This sort of comprehensive approach is exciting to me because it does not promote Paul's letters above the narratives and words of Jesus, a tendency we have in explaining salvation. So, thanks Karl for reminding us all that Sola Scriptura is a whole Bible approach. And to Dr. Martin for proving that the Bible itself points to outside evidence as God's evidence too, but normed by the Bible.
Dear Docjin,
I appreciated your conversation with Karl and the scriptural texts that were carefully examined in regard to the meaning of ""in the flesh" and "in the sinful flesh". Karl's explanation of "sinful flesh" at the end of his post was very careful to make the distinction that Jesus never became man only, but was always Himself while in human flesh. That was a careful delineation that is respectable. Docjin's point I also appreciated was his reminder that Jesus, while fully man was still fully divine and so was not the exact same as us- but when we are born again and justified, we can experience what He did by walking in the Spirit or staying within the mind of Christ.
One small point that I would appreciate more clarification on is this line "When we experience temptation, this means that by circumstances we have detached our minds from God and we are actually feeling the urge to sin, where there is no desire there is no temptation, where there is desire there is absence of Mind of Christ." Does this indicate that even our sinful impulses that wash over us now and then, even if immediately recognized and given over to the Holy Spirit, prove we are not in the mind of Christ? So, while we are in earnest prayer, when an envious feeling, or a grudge comes up and it is quickly relinquished to Christ- in that moment has the sinner hopscotched back and forth out of and back into the mind of Christ?
I had always thought the intrusion of a temptation was a given failing of our sinful human nature and propensities and that even as they diminish in intensity and frequency in our walk with the Lord, that it didn't indicate a falling out of the relationship but a shrinking distraction that is crowded out by His glorious presence and holiness. But perhaps this is a very limited view and the Bible demands and expects a state of eventual lack of temptation on this side of the second coming?
It would seem that Jesus in Gethsemane did experience temptation to shrink from the cup he was about to drink, but won it by his commitment to God's will. How do I understand this struggle from the Sinless One?
Dear Shaun,
You wrote "He (paul) emphasizes the grace that God is working in our lives vs.14 and I gather that from this grace, we have the ability to choose to do right. After accepting the mission of Christ in our lives, we have no more excuse to sin vs 22 but to do well." I appreciate how grace is the foundation for sanctification in your words. And you go on to say later that grace is working through the ministry of the "Holy Spirit that worketh in us".
Thanks for your thoughts.
Ok, I placed my response to Karl's article in a wrong folder. Here it goes where it belongs.
Arlyne, you have some nice questions for me but unfortunately my time does not allow me to elaborate today. I will, however, answer you shortly. :)
here goes my small reponse to Karl in right rubrique
Response to Karl's post on “likeness of sinful flesh” and “likeness of men”. (Rom 8: 3 and Phil 2: 7)
Karl, I took great interest in your post and I was drawing some conclusions from my self before I finished your post. However, here are my views concerning this topic you addressed.
You point well that there is danger of docetism in Philippians 2: 7. That’s why I believe Philippians 2: 7 can not be taken isolated and are to be compared with broader understanding of Scriptures.
Therefore, Philippians 2: 7 are to be understood in the light of Romans 8: 3 and broader context of NT. When Paul and rest of NT Scriptures use words such as “flesh”, “body”, “earthly mind”, “born of man” etc… it generally refers to a sinful nature of man. The corrupt side, the weak side, the sinful side, the inconsistent side etc..
So when Paul says that Jesus “made himself in likeness of men”, by that he doesn’t mean he wasn’t really human but he made himself “like a sinner”, “like a man”. Yet Paul’s words are precise enough and never tell us that Jesus made himself sinner. (Romans 8: 3) He might actually say: “he made himself man” and he wouldn’t be wrong but he wouldn’t describe the entire complexity of Jesus’ nature. That is why he often says he was made in “likeness of man” because he by birth was different than all men.
What was that difference, his divinity, his absence of sinful tendencies, this is yet another topic…
Second remark: Paul nowhere calls us to repeat the victory of Christ. Scripture calls him our exemple but never says “you must do exactly what my Son did”. Why? Because we cannot, already by birth we were different.
What did Jesus overcame? By dwelling in the Spirit of God, Christ overcame constant attempts of the enemy to separate him from Father. Finally when Our Sins separated Him, he said”: My father why did you abandon me”? Not for his sins, because he loved until the end but it was for our sins that he was punished for.
Now How about us? What do we have to overcome? First we don’t have a same starting point, we need to be spiritually “born again” something Jesus never experienced since he never “spiritually died” as our predecessor Adam did.
We need an encounter with God. A justification. After man enters union with God’s Spirit through justification a Man gets in the same position as Christ was by birth.
A man is now to overcome all obstacle by abiding in the Spirit of God. Now what Christ has made possible for us we are to experience, the walk in the Spirit (Rom 8: 13).
However, our problem is that we for some reason drop out of the Spirit many times per day.
Why is it so? Well for beginning, we pray once in the morning and think that is enough, while Scripture plainly encourage us to “pray at all time”. We think we can overcome with our will, when Paul calls us to overcome by “dwelling in the Spirit”, we think that we have to defeat the temptations when they come even though Christ plainly told us to pray “to not [even] be led into the temptation”.
The one who dwells in Christ never comes to judgment, never needs to think about the Law because it becomes natural to him and never has to bother about internal temptation because he simply doesn’t like sin while dwelling in God’s presence. If he doesn’t even like sin, how can he be tempted?
When we experience temptation, this means that by circumstances we have detached our minds from God and we are actually feeling the urge to sin, where there is no desire there is no temptation, where there is desire there is absence of Mind of Christ.
Therefore in my view, the presence of internal desire and therefore presence of tangible internal temptation is equivalent by “dwelling in flesh”
It is the indicator that we need justifying grace and sanctifying Spirit again and the best thing to do is to get on our knees and ask for Spirit of Christ and His nature which will enable me to hate sin and love righteousness.
Let us therefore mortify our sinful bodies by the Spirit of Christ that lives in us. (Rom 8: 13, Col 3: 5)
Dear Karl,
I am really excited about what you just posted on the Great Controversy! You pointed out that EGW mentions how the sacrifice of Isaac was also for the unfallen beings in heaven and on other worlds(as well as for Abraham and all the readers after him). And that the battleground does affect the dynamics of the battle. That kind of logical ontology is very exciting and accurate.
The bigger the battleground, the wider our concepts of both what sin is and what atonement then must be to counter it. Salvation broadens beyond man- to creation, unfallen and fallen beings, from the start of the Great Controversy which was before earth was created to the end which will be at the second coming- but with echoes that continue on throughout eternity. Sin is no longer limited to a debt, even though that metaphor is biblical and very useful, but sin is also a fatal choice and inherited state, and in some cases irreparably fatal because it eventually extinguishes any desire or ability to respond to love and truth. Sin so enslaves that freedom of choice is slowly extinguished. And if God limits Himself to only righteous methods of reaching us- truth, love and freedom of choice and refuses to use brainwashing, some, like Lucifer and his angels will just not respond. Theoretically, God is all powerful and can do anything, but righteously God limits his power to goodness and not evil. So, sin is that dangerous in itself in that it eventually extinguishes in the human of the ability to want God.(and in fact, will try to kill God if given a chance- as Jesus' incarnation proved)
This is why EGW's Great Controversy theory of Salvation is not the same as Moral Influence. Moral Influence minimizes sin to ignorance that leads to fear, education, moral influence, example of love is all that's needed to restore the relationship.
Great Controversy theory posits Sin as a deadly disease, both one that we have inherited as a precondition but exacerbate with our destructive choices that will eventually put us out of the scope of God's chosen methods of salvation. And so, it ends up separating us from the Lifegiver, and therefore from life, love and all that is good. The "wages of sin is death", it pays its own wages. Sin is to be feared, not God.
And the cure is more than education, more than example, more than a debt, it is all of these and an actual internal transformation of healing both in our minds, body, emotions, relationships, spiritual yearnings that only God can give and will need to keep giving moment by moment to keep us directed toward Himself. Conversion is needed. And Christ's deed on the cross- is the means to bring conversion about. He died for us.
Dear Karl,
I appreciated your careful approach to reason and faith in your most recent post on EGW. You are absolutely right and I agree a hundred percent that reason cannot understand all there is to know. I wonder if there is a difference between reason and logic.
Wasn't Greek philosophy much more about rhetoric and logic than reason? The way reason is used in today in the world (except for the theological community, which tends to use reason and logic as synonymous)usually includes more than cognitive logic. It means making sense of all the sensory input-emotional, spiritual, physical and cognitive- in a rational manner. Now, I am not an expert in semantics, actually Dr. Hanna is better in that than I am, but I cringe when in a sermon reason is put down.
For what better tool do we have to comprehend God? spirituality? What is that without cognitive understanding? an emotional state. Of course, even rationality is limited in comprehending God, it is vastly inferior to the task, yet it must be done, or the Bible has no meaning.
Salvation requires the full use of all of our capacities to understand, comprehend and follow faithfully. Faith is an extrapolation from rationality. But true Faith is never disconnected from rationality- for then it would be Satan's tool- like Waco and Jonestown. What is the proper relationship between the two? an intermingling of both, where one does not dismiss the other but can venture a little ways on their own. But if one aspect went too far, it would no longer be genuine faith, it would be insanity.
Dear Karl,
You are the only one posting lately, so I end up responding to you (also because I need to do more response papers for this class). I am learning a lot by reading your posts. I am learning about the greek philosophy that influenced the early church, how ontology does move away from the wholistic physical/soul concept of the Hebrews, and how our sanctuary message then looks very archaic if one has already adopted the greek ontological framework of timelessness. Thank you for all those new insights.
My question to you is, you mentioned that the sanctuary is a structure that cannot be dissolved away into an abstract idea. Do you believe that it is a physical structure in the cosmos? (Cosmos, as defined by Dr. Hanna to be within created heaven?) It does does seem that the original sanctuary is always mentioned as if it is in heaven. And God can be in heaven but exists also outside the creation (cosmos). So, on that point, are the greek philosophers right -pertaining to the sanctuary?
And if it is the justice and righteousness of God that the little horn is attacking- it does this by attacking the physical structure of the sanctuary, thereby undermining the spiritual lessons of the sanctuary? I am trying to bridge what you mentioned in the beginning of the post with what you focused upon throughout the post afterward.
On the sanctuary, this past Sabbath School focused upon the Day of Atonement which SDA's see as the type for the Investigative Judgment. On the Day of Atonement the whole sanctuary was cleansed- the altar, the holy place, the most holy place. The holy place was considered earth- Van Bemmelen explained to me and the most holy place was considered heaven. Does heaven need to be cleansed? It does not have sinful beings in it, they are affected by sin but are not sinful themselves. So how does "cleansing" apply to sinless beings? That is does is implied by the day of Atonement as well as the NT verses that mention how heaven also is affected by the blood of His cross (Col 1:20) How does Christ's blood sprinkled upon the ark of the covenant cleanse them?
Of course, salvation in the Bible spends most of the time dealing with sinful beings and their death predicament. But why I enjoy thinking about the smaller slice of evidence that points beyond the sinful arena- is that it broadens the understanding of salvation to more than just the legal pardon aspect which Luther and Calvin focused upon, here the SDA's can bring in a universal picture of salvation applying to everyone in God's family, not just man.
Ok I haven’t been here in a while and I have promised Arlyn to answer some crucial question that I have postponed for too far. Now I would like to answer these questions. First I would like to underline that I appreciate the sharpness and clearness of Arlyn’s question and I completely understand her point of view.
Now, I came to believe that a internal temptation is a sign that internal weaknesses still exists. Arlyn you asked if you fall out of fellowship with Christ even if in the midst of prayer you sense within you a temptation, grudge, envy etc.
I would argue that there is a difference between “Fellowship with Christ” and what Paul calls “the Mind of Christ”.
When I was referring to the Mind of Christ, I was referring to the state of mind which implies the sharing of divine nature, of Christ’s mind. Anyone who enters in the union with the Mind of Christ “does not sin and there is no sin in him.” (1 John 3: 2) If we say that we have the Mind of Christ and there was something evil in our mind, than there would be something evil within Christ’ mind. If our mind is within Christ’ mind we cannot experience any evil thought or be internally tempted to do evil thought. We do not experience temptation that comes within us because the temptation implies internal weakness. I have experienced this and even the sin that was dear to me “outside of Christ’ mind” was completely unattractive to me when I was inside of Christ’ mind.
On the other side, we can experience temporal grudge and envy but this doesn’t mean you have lost “fellowship with Jesus” as you put it or you have lost your salvation momentarily as someone else might understand.
When you feel a sinful mind reigning within you, it means that Christ does not have complete control and you are not within His mind, however this doesn’t mean you don’t have fellowship with Christ. Christ in his mercy works in us although we can have several sinful tracts.
We have to avoid the error to be contempt of having sins and relax cherishing our sins – this in long terms becomes a problem for the “fellowship with Christ”. The blessed state of Mind of Christ deepens and strengthens the “fellowship with Christ”.
What Jesus prayed in Lord’s prayer is essential. He didn’t pray to defeat the temptation but to not be led into temptation.. Even in Matthew 26: 41 Jesus advises his disciples to pray to “enter not into temptation”. He doesn’t encourage them to wait for temptation to come and then run to God to defeat it. No, he says that we should pray not to enter in the temptation. We should pray to love our neighbor as ourselves so that when a neighbor buys a great car and we have a poor one we can have right state of mind loving our neighbor and be happy for him. He doesn’t encourage us to wait to be jealous to run to God for delivering us from jealousy.
The fact that there is jealousy or grudge within it is a sign that we have already sinned and separated ourselves from the Mind of Christ! Every time the temptation comes within us tempting us to break the law of God, this is already a transgression of the 10th commandment. What ever sin we may not do externally but we are tempted by it in our thoughts it’s already breaking the commandment not ti sin in our mind.
That’s why Jesus calls us to enter the Mind of Christ to not be led into temptation.
I mean don’t get me wrong if you feel jealousy, give it to God and ask him to clean you with his Spirit but IT IS BETTER TO PREVENT THAN TO HEAL.
Now that doesn’t mean that temptation will never come. The trials and tests will come to check if you stand on the rock. Why running towards the rock when the flood comes? Why not building the house on the rock so when the hour of trials come you can safely say “I don’t live but Christ lives in me”? Why running towards God when we feel temptation if we can abide in him and stand firm before the waves come. “Abide in me” says Jesus.
Now about Jesus in Gethsemane. In Gethsemane, Jesus did not experience internal temptation to abandon the plan of salvation because that would make him break the 10th commandment “not to covet” In his case he would covet nicer life and the opportunity to not save humans through the atoning death. If he even covets for a second the heaven without saving humans he immediately does not feel the perfect love for humans and has therefore sinned.
Satan’s plan was to make the sacrifice so hard for Jesus so that Jesus would give up or at least covet giving up. When Jesus was resurrected Satan stood on Jesus’ grave claiming his soul but the fact that Jesus never sinned (detached himself from God) even when God the Father “sinned” and detach Himself from Jesus, was a guarantee of our redemption and justification of the law of God.
Instead, in Gethsemane Jesus was feeling the horrible experience of separation from God that he never felt before in the history of universe. He was always one with God in heaven and on earth but now he felt the separation and felt cold around his heart. Ellen White wrote: “As Christ felt His unity with the Father broken up, He feared that in His human nature He would be unable to endure the coming conflict with the powers of darkness.” This is the reason that he asked God if there is another way but since he knew that there wasn’t he yielded to the plan he has made with Father in heaven.
Jesus was not tempted internally by his desire for more comfortable way, coveting to abandon the human race but he was afraid that his humanity without God’s assistance will not be strong enough. He although perfect, humbly didn’t consider his humanity as perfect to stand the separation without mediator and this is exactly what the living saved will experience before Jesus’ second coming.
Reaction #1
This is a reaction to Arlyn's reflection #10.
I fully agree that we must further explore the implications of the great controversy theme in at least two major ways: i) as the overall theme which grounds theology, and ii) the philosophical implications which regarding history and time which the GC theme assumes
The only thing I found to "criticize" in Arlyn's reflection was the reference to God being outside of time and yet also choosing to be in it. What exactly does it mean for God to be outside of time? Platonic philosophy refers to "timelessness," which the Christendom has built entire theological structures upon. Was there time before creation? What is time? Is it a "thing," or does it co-appear with life? If the Bible says that God, "was, and is, and is to come," and that Has been "from everlasting to everlasting?" would that not assume that time co-appears with life, and therefore it is not created?
Other than that, this was a great reflection which helps us to see the work of Christ in broader terms than what many are used to
Reaction #2
This is a reaction to Doijcin’s reflection on perfection. How perfect is perfect.
First, I really appreciate all the Bible quotes and the references from the Spirit of Prophecy. You also combine this important topic with the importance of love, because without that, perfection is not possible.
Second, this is something that we should all strive for which includes every faculty of our being – 1 Thess 5:23
You mentioned some really powerful quotes about how God can help us as we strive to meet the standard, and that this help includes the assurance of complete victory. However the following comment you made needs a little clarification. COMMENT: If perfection is a simple Christian maturity or certain level of sanctification, Ellen White would not say that it is possible already in this life to achieve it, for that would be natural.
I think what you mean is that there is some effort involved in this. If that’s so then your emphasis is definitely appreciated.
Reaction #3
This is a reaction to Arlyn’s reaction to me about reason.
Arlyn,
I totally agree concerning your comment about references to reason from the pulpit, especially when God asks us to come and reason together. My radar always goes off when I’m told not to reason something out and begin to comprehend it. It was reasoning that attracting me to the Seventh-day Adventist Church because spiritual things now began to make sense. And it’s only when you can understand that you can follow in His steps.
I also agree that at times we are too willing to suspend our mental and spiritual faculties because we haven’t taken the time to work something out, and so we say that we shouldn’t use our reason.
I also agree that true faith is not disconnected from reason.
The stimulus for my reflection came from EGW’s Faith and Works regarding how God works and how He heals. My only point for my comment is this, and I think you will agree: reason has its limits and must bow to the Great I AM, or else the results of faith can be short circuited. This was a danger for some in Christ’s day and it is also a danger today, because God will not always remove all the obstacles by giving us all the answers before He asks us to trust Him.
Comments on the "In Adam/In Christ" Motifs
Angel Rodriguez presents a pretty balanced view as to the Adventist’s position regarding the “In Adam/In Christ” dilemma. He looks at the church’s position in the 1888 conference and highlights that the church held a very ambiguous position concerning the “In Adam/In Christ” motif. For one, we seem to lean towards the Augustinian stance that we were all in Adam when he sinned in the garden. This view he dispels by looking at the word ‘life’ in light of its plural usage. Basically the evidence throughout scripture does not support the premise that we were in Adam based on plural form of the abstract noun.
Angel then highlighted the second argument which takes a look at Hebrews 7:9-10 in the light of Melchizedek. Again the syntax of these verses does not provide a strong argument as Paul was not making a definite statement but simply drawing an illustration. For Angel 'in Christ' is to be understood more in terms of a marriage relationship than of a legal status arising from the decision of a law court.” He pinpoints that those who are in Christ are those that have been in communion with him or have accepted Him as their Lord. He argues against the implications of a universal justification that our pioneers may have inadvertently taught based on their limited knowledge of some of these terms.
Though Angle highlighted the illogical arguments that some bear upon the “In Adam/In Christ” motif, I don’t think he was balanced in presenting a solution to the “In Adam” dilemma.
Reaction #4
This is a response to Shaun’s reflection on Why Did Jesus Die? And How God Saves Us?
Shaun,
I had to read this a couple of times in order to try to understand your point on the relationship between prayer and Christ’s sacrifice. I think your starting point was the issue of love, and that love is not merely sentimental but it also is involved with principle.
I believe you then applied this idea of love involving principle to the fact of Christ’s sacrifice which was according to the Scriptures. The point is that this kind of sacrifice involved principle because that is what it took to go to the cross. You further point out that Satan’s opposition to this did not make it a walk in the park, which means that Jesus was not motivated by feelings which are unreliable but by principle.
I believe it’s at this point that you make the application to prayer. So if I’m understanding you correctly prayer is not something that should be done on the basis of circumstance or feeling. The rationale is that Jesus’ prayer life, just like His sacrifice is based on principle.
I believe that there is support for this because Ellen White stated that His humanity made prayer a necessity as well as a privilege. This would link Jesus’ prayer life with principle.
Thus if Jesus found prayer to be not just a privilege but also a necessity, then how much more should we?
Reaction #5
This is a reaction to Shaun’s reflection on Rom 3 and 4
Shaun,
I found myself appreciating your comments on this section, so I just wanted to present an additional reflection. As I read Rom 3:24-25, I was stopped by the word “propitiation” in vs. 25. I was in a class last semester in which it was suggested that we understand the word “propitiation” on the basis of how Paul’s contemporaries understood the term.
In my mind, this raises the issue of models, which has been what our class has been about this semester. I found it strange that the OT usage of the word was never explored in that class last semester. This reason is that the Greek for “propitiation” in the LXX is almost always linked with the mercy seat (See Exod 25:17, 20, 21; Lev 16:13-15 for a few examples).
This would mean that the model of the sanctuary including the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:13-15) should be explored for understanding what the word means. For our evangelical friends, this would mean that the data in Rom 3:24-25 such as justified, grace, redemption, blood, righteousness and remission should be understood within the overall model of the sanctuary.
Comment # 6
This is the comment of appreciation for Karl's reflection on Happenstal's article in BRI. I really appreciate your analysis of Happenstal's article. When I was reading the article I haven't agreed with many reformulations but I haven't had time to develop my thoughts.
I agree that Happenstel’s definition of sin is not clear. He seems to call sins even our natural physical limitations. So, Jesus stepping on a bug on his way to Jerusalem would commit sin and Old people not remembering the birthday of their granddaughters would also commit sin.
I can’t help but remember the sermon from John Wesley on Christian Perfection, where he begins his sermon with what perfection does not imply. He lists very carefully that Christian perfection doesn’t mean 1/ man will be without human physical and mental limitation 2/ doesn’t mean man will acquire perfection in knowledge and understanding of all mysteries of universe.
I also agree in asking Happenstel what he means by eternal and free favor of God. It seems like Platonic world of ideas.
And for the end I particularly appreciate the quote your brought from Ellen White where she says that the perfection of Christ mind must be the experience of those who will stand in the time of trouble.
I think Adventists have emphasized this perfection of close of probation so much in the past until 1950s that it flirted very much with legalism. This produced a lot of “effort-orientated” Adventists who tried to make it by their effort.
However, it seems to me that we have swung completely other way lately and we don’t preach close of probation, we don’t talk about standing without mediator, we don’t emphasize 144 000 and God forbid we speak about absence of sinful thoughts and desire in us in the same way Jesus was.
This also brought the downplay of our sanctuary message and the idea of “final atonement”. I mean I read this week’s lesson about Jesus mediation in the sanctuary and of course there was no mention of Jesus’ blotting of sins. Satan will make everything to keep us on this earth and if we take lightly the message of sanctifying grace for the last generation we will stay here longer than we want…
I appreciated Shaun’s post “Why did Jesus die?” There is a current disagreement in understanding what is the real reasons why Jesus died. Could he have saved us some other way? Or the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for salvation of human kind.
I agree with this sentence by Shaun: “This ransom was real and not subjective. It was done not simply to show angels and fallen man how much he loved us but to live up to the standard and principles that governs the heavenly realm.”
I would add that often we tend to reduce the reason of Christ’s sacrifice to love or to justice but as Doctor Hannah justly taught us in this class: “we constantly need a bigger model”.
Reaction # 8
I feel particular sympathy for the subject Elems is trying to wrestle with.
I appreciate his efforts to find a balance between "Jesus is the only name by which we get saved" and "Those who never heard of him can be saved on different criterion".
I just wanted to add one brief quote from Ellen White about God's grace that overflows the earth and falls on all men.
"...In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live and grow up to the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus."
So basically, all people on this earth no matter what is the level of truth they can respond to, are saved by the "air of grace" that comes from Jesus' sacrifice.
Therefore, even those who never heard of Jesus and eventually get saved will be saved on the basis on Jesus' sacrifice which they never had notion of.
sorry the EGW quote was from Steps to Christ, p. 68
Reflection #6
This is a reaction to Dojcin’s comment #10
Dojcin,
There are several things I really appreciated about your reflection!!! First, I also believe that the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary has been marginalized. I really don’t believe that its systematic implications have been understood by Adventists. Because of that there’s confusion about salvation, lifestyle and worship. In other words, we have not grappled with how the sanctuary as the great system is interrelated to what I’ve just mentioned and the end result is confusion and a loss of identity among us.
Second, we can never exalt the cross high enough. It will be our science and our song forever. Yet by divorcing the cross from the Day of Atonement, can we really say that we understand the cross? We should never pit the cross against Jesus heavenly ministry. To do so would be like saying which is more in important in the formula H20, the hydrogen or the oxygen?
In the Great Controversy, EGW says that unless we understand the position and work of our High Priest, it will not be possible for us to exercise the faith necessary or to occupy the position that God wants us to have. With every wind of doctrine blowing, let’s set our hearts and minds on this grand work that is being performed there on our behalf!
Reaction # 9
I strongly appreciate Arlyn’s assignment n#8 on Steps to Christ, chapters 8 and 9. It made me understand the motivation behind her research paper much better. She quotes the words of Ellen White: “…The spirit of Christ's self-sacrificing love is the spirit that pervades heaven, and is the very essence of its bliss. This is the spirit that Christ's followers will possess, the work that they will do.”
In the same time it is inconceivable how can such God ask Abraham to kill his son. The tension exists and Arlyn is right to point that if we allow to honor Abraham’s determination to obey God and kill his son we should then shut our mouth before the Jihad children being sent to death by their parents. If our God teaches us to honor one’s obedience even to the point of killing someone for God then we are also to honor the radical Muslims who die in obedience to their God.
This is a powerful point I believe and it urges me to re-interpret Aqedah in the light of self-sacrifice, just the way Arlyn is trying to do. I still think that your paper, Arlyn, has to include one chapter where you will allow for other interpretations to give their shot, after which you can humbly present a need to re-formulate traditional interpretations in light of what you have just written here in this post and other arguments that you might have. After this you can start developing a new approach to Aqedah that will justify the Biblical picture of God and I believe resolve many contemporary issues in regards to religion and violence…
Reaction # 10
Arlyn, I really appreciated your analysis of Abraham’s adventure with Abimelech, the Philistine King. It is quite sparkling and provocative, giving plenty to think and to preach about.
I agree with everything that you have written but I wanted to save you from scratching your head to hard in thinking why would Abraham say that Sarah is his sister.
This is what probably happened in Abraham’s mind. Abraham knew that Sarah being so pretty, he is running the risk to be killed due to desire that some Philistine might have for Sarah. So in his own judgment he considered only these two options:
1. Tell everyone he is Sarah’s husband and fall in risk to be killed if someone finds her attractive.
2. Tell everyone she is his sister and if someone really finds her attractive, he will not need to be killed.
So, yes it makes sense if you rule out faith in God's protection from your calculations.
But coming back to the crux of the matter I agree with your main point, how we “the righteous ones” often underestimate the morality of so called pagans. Abraham believed that people were so immoral that they will very likely kill him to get Sarah. However, God showed Abraham that these people are much more moral than we think they are, to the point to exceed in obedience to God even the self-professing believers.
Reaction # 11
I appreciate Shaun’s emphasis on the free will of all human beings to accept Christ’s redemption at the cross. If Jesus simply saved the world by his death what is the point of continuing to live here on earth? Why do we have to struggle here on this earth if everyone is already saved???
I appreciate your answer to this question:
‘Saved’ for some means that all of humanity is automatically saved and will be in the kingdom, but I am gathering here that saved means free access to God through Jesus Christ. If this is true it doesn’t contradict the view that Jesus has the deed of possession, and has won us through creation and redemption, but widens the span of salvation to include free-will. The price has been paid but ‘all who will’ is the cry to those who would be saved. If Satan through deception has brought blight upon mankind and through force and manipulation keeps man in sin, Jesus would be no different if through his sacrifice those unwilling to go to heaven were forced to abide by His principles. Though Christ has gained the right to redeem us, he chooses not to force us into the kingdom.
I was reading through posts to see which one will stir an interest in me to write a feedback and I found myself really appreciating Karl’s defense of Sola Scriptura in his first reflection back in September 29.
Although I agree that Historical-Critical method has benefited us with many useful tools for understanding isolated texts, I agree with Karl that the job of understanding the salvation can not done with the exegesis of one isolated chapter in the Bible. You cannot exegete Romans 3 and say: the Bible teaches we are saved by faith. You can’t even say : Paul teaches we are saved by faith. You can’t even say: “Romans teach justification by faith”! All you can say is that in Romans 3 Paul argues that man is justified by faith. So frankly speaking I don’t see how can exegesis without systematizing different passages from the Scripture be of any use?
The process of exegesis is unable to produce a final conclusion for doctrinal matters and yet so often we see exegetes bringing final conclusions out of a dissection of one or two isolated texts.
One of the reasons for such great division in Protestantism is because people cling to their favored passages and draw the entire Christianity from those. They are lazy to read the rest of the Scripture and afraid to struggle through apparent contradictions and frequent tensions and balances of the Biblical texts.
Thus, on one side, we have Roman Catholics who believe what they believe because they are not founded on the Bible (only) and on the other side we have Protestants who are founded on Bible but only on these passages that make them feel comfortable and assured.
To end my last post i must repeat this very original though that I am sure I came up with: When studying the doctrines of the Bible, especially the doctrine of Salvation, we always need “ a bigger model”. :)
Reaction #7
This reaction is to Elems’ 1st reflection on Rom 1
Ugochukwu,
You are raising here the importance of knowing God, which is one reason for why Jesus came, so that we can know Him. But the question is how can we know Someone we have never seen or even heard of?
Here is where Rom 1:20 comes in. Like every artist, God has left His signature in the things He has created. Scripture claims that this evidence is powerful enough to convict us to the point where we are without excuse. 2 Pet 3:5-7 teaches us that in the last days, men are willingly ignorant of 2 great facts, the flood and creation.
Yet in spite of this evidence you correctly point out that “we must not neglect proclaiming the gospel nor be ashamed of it.”
There’s no doubt about the fact that nature is an incredible source for revelation and that correctly understood nature and revelation need each other. However, philosophical systems derived from the contemplation of nature and contradictory to revelation have been a source of great “inspiration” for many. The end result of these “revelations” is that worship has gone to the creature instead of the Creator, and when this happens idolatry and licentiousness are the results.
And when the end result is idolatry and licentiousness, then what can one expect but the just judgment of God. Thus all source of knowledge need to be checked by the Word.
Dear Docjin,
This is a response to a response, but I can't resist pursuing it further for the elucidation of ethics.
Thank you for attempting to clarify my puzzlement on Abraham's reasoning of why he had to lie about Sarah to Abimelech. I appreciate you reading and explaining how Abraham thought.
But there are presuppositions in your answers. The presuppositions that I am still puzzled at are- Abraham believes: that the philistines have such moral respect for marriage that they would not "steal" another's wife while he is alive. But they have less respect for life- so they will kill a man SO they can take his wife. In short, Abraham's fears that in philistine society (and Egyptian) murder is considered less heinous than adultery.
And guess what? Adultery was considered incredibly immoral- as revealed by Abimelech's horrified accusations. But we don't have enough information to determine either Pharaoh or Abimelech would have killed Abraham to get his wife- perhaps Abraham was TOTALLY wrong in projecting his made up fears? perhaps not. We just don't know their hierarchy of sins.
What is interesting to me as a woman is this system of honor among males. A man would rather kill than to violate another man's conjugal rights? So sexual property among males is held more sacred than life itself?
And is Abraham then, actually a little more moral in saying- life is more valuable than sexual infidelity- so better to share the wife or lose rights to her, but staying alive is priority? Perhaps he is reflecting God correctly in that one sense?
Notice, Jesus also said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Yet, I love how he goes beyond the dualism- and points to the bigger paradigm- but the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Thus, marriage was made to protect life, not life to protect marriage. (so Abraham's ethical philosophy turns out to be more moral than the paradigm he fears others have.) Yet God is the lord of marriage- Genesis affirms that what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Is Abraham a man? Then Abraham is not to put asunder or entice other (people) to do the same. He is to trust God to keep them joined- and not surprisingly, God does just that. He fulfills his own role.
He saves the marriage. He saves their lives. He saves them for the life they will produce together. I just wonder, how about teling Abraham to stop thinking just one level higher than the surrounding cultures- but to lift his eyes higher- to God? But I'm asking too much, probably.
Comment #12
I love how Docjin posted on 9/14/08 the argument "So to simply say "In Job's case taam means imperfect and in Lucifer and God's case taam means absolutely perfect seems a little inconsistent..."
Thank you so much for making an argument that I needed! I have a problem with Biblical theologians who don't take God's diagnosis of Job seriously. God's righteous knowledge is what is the crux of this whole test- and Job is the evidence #1.
Satan sure hates Job, but Job is merely one man. And irritatingly good man but one human. Satan's true target has always been the Son of God. And it is to impugn the Son of God's diagnosis, knowledge, judgment- that Satan goes after Job. Job is a little fish. But the Son of God's reputation - that's the prize catch for Satan.
If Satan can prove that the Son of God is wrong about Job's inner motives- then His righteous judgment is called into question. And if that happens- it opens the door to the possibility that the Son of God was also wrong in judging Lucifer. Does the Bible help us see this is the real motive of Job's trials- listen to the "phantom of the night that visits Eliphaz.
"If He puts no trust in His servants, If He charges His angels with error, How much more those who dwell in houses of clay?" Job 4:18. Well, God actually does trust His angels, all of them except- Lucifer and his gang. This is the sting that the spirit which glided past Eliphaz's face and made his hair stand up on end- inadvertently reveals as the source of his core bitterness. God has no faith in him, for he has forfeited it.
So when God shows faith in Job and Job in God- this arouses his jealousy, and if he can shake this faith between God and His creature- not only is one relationship destroyed, but God's omniscience is crippled, His judgment proven wrong, and Satan has won a huge victory.
Unfortunately, many sincere readers give Satan that victory on the story of Job before the trials even start- they disbelieve God's diagnosis that Job is perfect, and dilute it down to Job is imperfect but decent. Hence, Docjin, I thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in the use of taam if one adopts this watered down version for Job. And therefore - we ought to wake up and see just who's side we are supporting when we don't accept God's diagnosis, but accept Satan's- that Job is good but not perfect, there is a core of selfishness underneath all that righteousness.
Satan just loves to project his own nature onto others.
Reaction #8
Hi Arlyn,
This is a response to your reaction to Dojcin on 10/06/08. In your post you are wrestling with the question regarding our sinful impulses, which may be successfully resisted and Jesus experience in the garden. You conclude by acknowledging that the impulse to shrink from the cross in the garden was something real that was faced by Jesus, although He eventually committed Himself to God’s will.
I would just like to share some statements from the Spirit of Prophecy about Moses’ experience when he spoke in anger and failed to give God the glory. I believe these statements can shed some light on the issues you have brought up.
“If the children of God, especially those who stand in positions of responsibility, can be led to take to themselves the glory that is due to God, Satan exults. He has gained a victory. It was thus that he fell. Thus he is most successful in tempting others to ruin. It is to place us on our guard against his devices that God has given in His word so many lessons teaching the danger of self-exaltation. There is not an impulse of our nature, not a faculty of the mind or an inclination of the heart, but needs to be, moment by moment, under the control of the Spirit of God. There is not a blessing which God bestows upon man, nor a trial which He permits to befall him, but Satan both can and will seize upon it to tempt, to harass and destroy the soul, if we give him the least advantage. Therefore however great one's spiritual light, however much he may enjoy of the divine favor and blessing, he should ever walk humbly before the Lord, pleading in faith that God will direct every thought and control every impulse.
All who profess godliness are under the most sacred obligation to guard the spirit, and to exercise self-control under the greatest provocation. The burdens placed upon Moses were very great; few men will ever be so severely tried as he was; yet this was not allowed to excuse his sin. God has made ample provision for His people; and if they rely upon His strength, they will never become the sport of circumstances. The strongest temptation cannot excuse sin. However great the pressure brought to bear upon the soul, transgression is our own act. It is not in the power of earth or hell to compel anyone to do evil. Satan attacks us at our weak points, but we need not be overcome. However severe or unexpected the assault, God has provided help for us, and in His strength we may conquer.” (PP421).
1. What are the implications in this passage?
a. The impulse of our nature, the faculty of the mind or the inclination of the heart is defined in this passage as a temptation. Not as transgression or as an inward state of corruption.
b. Sin is defined in this passage as transgression.
c. We are overcome when we allow impulses and inclinations from within to respond to pressures from without.
Reaction #9
Hi Dojcin,
This is an observation to your reaction to my article. Your reaction is dated 12/10/08. There were a couple of things that got my attention. First, you mentioned that the perfection that was emphasized before the 1950’s flirted with legalism. There are others who take it even further by stating that their positions were legalistic. I was baptized in 1990, so some of those comments seem strange to me because I have never experienced the legalism that many seem to mention with that age.
My second observation is related to the first. You state that the pendulum has swung completely in the other direction so much so that we don’t even preach about the close of probation, overcoming sinful thoughts, standing without a mediator, etc…We also downplay our sanctuary message and the importance of the blotting out of sin.
I couldn’t agree more with your observation!!! I think one cause among others is this “grace” oriented gospel that has not defined grace according to an overall Biblical understanding of grace. In short, they have not followed what we have been wrestling with this semester, and that is the need for a bigger model in order to make sense of the data.
Reaction #10
Hi Arlyn,
This observation is based on your 12/1208 post. Your observations about metaphors and parables layered on top of each other in so much that all of them interact and reshape each other reminded me of this statement in the book Education.
“But the most valuable teaching of the Bible is not to be gained by occasional or disconnected study. Its great system of truth is not so presented as to be discerned by the hasty or careless reader. Many of its treasures lie far beneath the surface, and can be obtained only by diligent research and continuous effort. The truths that go to make up the great whole must be searched out and gathered up, "here a little, and there a little." Isaiah 28:10.
When thus searched out and brought together, they will be found to be perfectly fitted to one another. Each Gospel is a supplement to the others, every prophecy an explanation of another, every truth a development of some other truth. The types of the Jewish economy are made plain by the gospel. Every principle in the word of God has its place, every fact its bearing. And the complete structure, in design and execution, bears testimony to its Author. Such a structure no mind but that of the Infinite could conceive or fashion.
In searching out the various parts and studying their relationship, the highest faculties of the human mind are called into intense activity. No one can engage in such study without developing mental power. (Ed 123-124)
These paragraphs have been a tremendous source of strength and encouragement to me as I have attempted to grapple with seeming contradictions in the Bible. I always try to keep them in mind when studying a passage, chapter or book of the Bible.
Reaction #11
Hi Shaun,
This is a brief observation regarding your post on 12/09/08 regarding Romans 12-13. Your very brief comment about our obligation to rulers as well as to our neighbors should raise some questions for us about our obligation to entities that require an allegiance that competes with the God of heaven.
When the call is given for us to obey our leaders, just what is the nature and extent of that obedience? We obviously need a bigger model, a cosmic model in order to answer that question or else we may just have fellow Adventists shooting at our own brothers and sisters.
It’s interesting to note that the passage which encourages us to be loyal to gov’t leaders is flanked on both sides by the admonition of love. In Rom 12:19-21 it says:
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
In Rom 13:8 it says, “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”
This context needs to be taken into consideration when dealing with the Christian’s obligation to the state which entails the nature of that obligation and the limits to which it extends. It should always be clear regarding who holds first place in our lives.
Reaction #12
Hi Shaun,
This is an observation about your comments on Rom 9:20 on 12/07/08. If there was ever a need for a bigger model of salvation, then some of the statements in Rom 9 about Pharaoh, and the potter and clay certainly apply. The potential for misunderstanding and applying these messages is enormous. Exegesis alone only serves to reveal the need for a bigger model when grappling with these subjects.
As you state, God can certainly do whatever He wants to do, yet according to some theologians, He does so because He has no other choice. Some even suggest and say that it’s impossible for God to do other than what He decides to do. And they approach the passages unders discussion with this mindset. Yet, is it really true that God is bound by what His timeless, sovereign will dictates? Unfortunately the basis for understanding these kinds of passages is the doctrine of eternal decrees which has been interpreted on the basis of Greek philosophy.
In our class this semester we found out that we cannot have a system that constricts the data of Scripture in such a way that distorts the meaning. Yet this is precisely what Greek philosophy does, and the end result is confusion and misapplication.
We must both be good exegetes and also good theologians who understand the difference between exegesis and systematic theology, and who also realize that we both need each other in order to grapple with these issues.
Post a Comment