Assignments for Protestant Theological Heritage, Summer 2009.
Post your assignments below. All further comments and discussions should be posted under the thread entitled: "Comments on Assigments."
131 comments:
Anonymous
said...
THSt 624 Theological Heritage Studies Helen McClellan
The Mass Production of Manuscripts and the Creation of Schools
This past year I had the opportunity and privilege of teaching at GLAA (Great Lakes Adventist Academy) in Cedar Lake Michigan. I was confident that I would be the best teacher and that the students would learn from all that I had to teach them. Was I wrong! Yes, I had much to teach, but I also had much to learn; especially when it came to the reformation. It was around March when we completed our studies in Acts and began Adventist Heritage. Seeing that there was so much leading up to 1844 I thought it would be best to begin our studies with Martin Luther. Knowing I knew nothing about him I endeavored to read the teachers handbook and gain as much knowledge as I could in just three days. When class began on Monday I was confident that I could do justice to this great man. Perhaps I would have kept thinking this had it not been for reading our assigned textbook for this summer course. What impressed me the most concerning our early leaders is their desire to mass produce the scripture so that the common folk could read it for themselves. People like Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther went to great lengths to make the manuscripts available to everyone, even if it meant the loss of their lives. Their devotion is one that I wished my students to understand and in turn be able to better appreciate what they had- The Bible. It is often easy to take the Bible for granted, especially when you do not understand all that took place in order for each of us to have a Bible of our very own. It was through the Creation of schools that people like Erasmus got the idea not to change the theology, but to spread the theology (even flawed as it was). One of Erasmus ideas, which I agree with is that what is important in prayer is not its length or its form, but its sincerity (González, Justo, Christian Thought, p. 25). He also believes that knowledge comes from the diligent study of scripture; which is interesting since that is precisely what William Miller believed. After being apposed to Christianity,(an Atheist at heart), he finally turned to Christ and became a devout student of the Word. He believe as so many other theologians that it was in the study of God’s word that knowledge was obtained. My question to you fellow classmates, is why aren’t our schools teaching the Bible for the purpose of transformation? We have stopped teaching Adventist Heritage and many times the course is skipped in High school, thus we never understand the importance of our Heritage.
In reading chapter 2 of the textbook I had a couple of thoughts cross my mind. Our traditional view of Martin Luther, or at least the view that I was taught growing up, is that he was always talking about justification by faith and that was his most important thought. Never until I took an Early Church class in undergrad did I realize that there was much more that Luther contributed to our heritage. Through his study of Scripture he contributed much more. His purpose was to study Scripture.
The other thought that crossed my mind was that for Luther to go against the church so aggressively was a very bold move. He was facing the possibility of death and at one point believed he would die as Gonzalez says on page 39 that “Luther himself went to Worms convinced that he was going to what could well be his death.” His belief in what God had showed him was what kept him going and gave him the courage to defend what he believed to be true. Luther was willing to die in defense of his beliefs, not willing to recant anything.
These two thoughts directly tie into Dr. Hanna’s lecture on the title of this course “Protestant Theological Heritage.” As Protestant Christians we have inherited some of this spirit. As Protestant Seventh-day Adventists we believe that God has shown us the truth and we believe that we will defend it to the death. This is our heritage, this is what we have inherited.
Also, as Protestant Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that the Bible is our only creed. As Dr. Hanna mentioned in class Theology basically means “God talk.” God speaks through Scripture. Luther recognized this. He recognized that through Scripture he would find the truth. 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” God talks to us through the Scriptures. This is not to say that this is His only means of communication. There are other forms of which God utilizes, however, Scripture is by far one of the most direct forms of communication between God and man. Through Scripture the grace of Christ is revealed.
As Seventh-day Adventists I believe that we have inherited the purpose of studying Scripture and willing to die for our beliefs. While there are not many illustrations of Seventh-day Adventists giving their lives for the message in North America, there are many illustrations of it in other countries around the world. I believe that we have inherited these traits from the early Protestant Reformers.
For quite awhile now I have been trying to grasp the postmodern concept, or rather the extreme postmodern concept, of the lack of absolute truth in light of sharing Christianity, which to me is an absolute truth and not just a truth to me. Having taken Revelation, Inspiration and Hermeneutics from Dr. Hanna previously, we had several discussions in class on this topic. Yet even with those discussions and with other research I had previously done on my own and conversations I had previously had, I could not quite get a handle on how to think about and present the Gospel in a postmodern way.
I suppose one of my hang-ups is centered on the fact that I really value intellectual honesty. I do not really appreciate people who can make a strong presentation of a topic, when it becomes apparent that they have not paid any attention to or really thought through the other side of the argument. While just giving one set of facts or presenting a string of “proof texts” might lead to an easy win in the short term, it truly does injustice to everyone involved in the long term. For when a person eventually comes across the opposing stance on a topic, there is a high possibility of that person becoming enraptured by that “new” teaching.
So, this is why I had a hard time presenting Christianity as having the absolute truth, because I know that deep down we really only have a very close approximation to the absolute truth as God is in fact the only being who knows and is Absolute Truth. I felt that if I were to say that my belief is Truth, then I would ultimately be being intellectually dishonest. On the other hand, if I were to openly admit that Christianity is merely the closest approximation to absolute truth that humanity has, I would be opening the flood gates for the possible acceptance of Mohammed, Buddha and Confucius in addition to Jesus, since Christianity could then be seen as simply a truth and not the truth.
When Dr. Hanna presented his model in class today of a diverging path that leads to either liberalism (a truth) or conservatism (the truth) as a false dichotomy, because there is a better option – the Biblical model that veers neither to the right nor the left – I was wondering where he was going with that. Then, when he used the nature of Christ being both 100% human and 100% divine to illustrate that the Bible does not necessarily separate things into two distinct categories, I found myself amazed at how much sense that made.
I am not quite comfortable saying that the issues of being a Biblical Christian in a postmodern world have been totally reconciled with Dr. Hanna’s illustration of Christ’s nature, but I do believe that it has really helped me understand how the Bible can present a truth as well as the truth. I also realize that it now puts the onus on me, and on other Christians, to really study the Bible and see just exactly which is which.
As I consider reformation, I realize that reformation is under skirted by a shift in the source of truth. Reformation does not necessarily reject other forms of truth, but instead accentuates one aspect of truth. In the Roman Catholic system the Church was considered the authority on truth because the church interpreted scripture for the people. When the Protestant Reformation came about a shift in truth took place. The church as displaced as the authority on truth for Scripture. Despite the shift in truth from the church to Scripture, one should not assume that the church was completely cut out of the equation. Scripture simply rose to become the champion or rule of truth to the protestant community. In the 19th century science began to dominate truth. A reformation based on science began to undermine the protestant reformation of Biblical authority. Today, reformation is again taking place, but in a more subtle way. While the church gives lip service to Scripture as the ultimate source of truth, personal experience is quickly dethroning Scriptural authority. The church continues to use scripture as a source of truth, but scripture is interpreted in relation to one’s own personal world view or experience. I suspect that this trend of using personal experience as a source of truth will continue to gain strength in our generation leading to a movement away from scriptural authority and compromise based on personal intellect. I might suggest that truth can stem from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience, but truth must be accountable to the source of truth. As Dr. Hanna presented in class, truth needs to be seen a more holistic way. While science (the study of creation) can yield truth, so can personal experience (historical analysis). The church also can be a source of truth (inspired leaders lead by the Holy Spirit), but one thing that Protestant Reformers got right was that all truth must be subject to Scripture. Scripture is the rule as given by the Ruler. While the church should continue to use science, historical analysis, and church leadership to help guide our understanding of truth, these forms must be placed against the rule of faith and practice – Scripture. I suggest that we should be sensitive to reformers that suggest new ways of understanding truth because reformation often stems from an injustice by one group who overemphasize one aspect of truth. Let us continue to hold scripture as our rule for faith and practice while listening attentively to those who introduce new thought and test it accordingly.
I wanted to respond to the discussion that we had in class yesterday (06-10-09). The discussion about absolute truth I believe is a discussion that is necessary for Christians to have. I think we do a disservice to the truth when we decide that we will present the truth rigidly. As was presented in class, while we believe in absolute truth, we also have to understand that our knowledge of the truth is obscured many times because of the limitations of our humanity. What those of the postmodern mindset are looking for is honesty. For too long, both religion and science have made overarching statements that were found later to be false, and talked about all the great things they could accomplish and never did. It is feasible to suggest that we may not have had a postmodern mindset if it weren’t for the great failings of both religion and science. Stemming from this understanding is the knowledge that just as we have incomplete pictures of the truth, so do some of the people whose ideas we despise in total. I think it is problematic to say that because someone does not have the whole truth, then we should ignore the totality of what they have to say. That stance is also hypocritical because we do not have the whole truth either. It is even more problematic to me to say that because some people’s ideas have been used to justify evil acts than we should ignore the totality of those ideas. If that is true than people should not listen to us either because we believe in a book (the Bible) that has been used at times to justify evil acts. I personally believe in the reality of absolute truth. I also believe that many denominations, philosophers, and others have discovered different elements of that absolute truth. Therefore, in order to have as complete a picture of what the truth is, we will have to be willing to listen to everyone, examine their ideas in light of the Bible, and except truth from whatever corner it comes. As Ellen White said, “truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation."
So far this is a very nice presentation intended to open our minds in discussing the in the field of protestant theological heritage. The unkown author's contribution is a positive indication on how as Seventh-day Adventists we view the message of the sanctuary in relation to Luther's statement of justification by faith.There is no need need for us to defend our faith ubtil death because salvation is God's.
Toward a new signification of the human faith and reason. By E.A. Guzman
Both Erasmus and Luther aimed to reform the church. While the former cried for an ethical reformation of the ranks of the mother church based on humanism, the later insisted that the church wasn’t interpreting correctly the data of Scripture regarding justification by faith. Yet, independently of the motif both theologians returned to the raw material of information, or to the things themselves, in order to find the answers for their questions.
Although Erasmus first priority was ethics, and not dogmatics, it is noteworthy the way in which he uplifted the importance of the text of Scriptures in order to return to the “sources of Christianity.” However, because his focus was ethics, he concluded that the human task was “to dominate passions through the exercise of reason.” This conclusion was in accordance with the current orthodoxy that defined the works as an important element in the achievement of salvation, and it demonstrated a real spirit of reformation in a Roman Catholic paradigm.
On the other hand, Luther strongly agreed with the intentions of reformation, yet the agent of this reformation couldn’t be the human, because of his total depravity of the will. Therefore, justification by faith and redemption, and the process in which this dynamic occurs were attributed to a divine agent without any participation of humans in any level. That is, forensic justification.
It is evident that both Erasmus and Luther had some of the biblical truth on one hand, and despite their problems both tried to achieve new significations of faith and reason, because both were facing the same problem, namely the major apostasy of the church. In addition, it is noteworthy the movement by Luther and Erasmus of going back to the raw material of theology, that is Scripture. Despite both theologians have achieved different conclusions regarding the human will and salvation, it is still worthy to take the risk, instead of simply stand on the basis of tradition and repeat what our predecessors believed.
Nick Jones, I do agree with you regarding Luther’s positive influence in Christianity. However, we need to make a distinction regarding Luther, the “reformer”, and the “theologian.” While the first Luther should always inspire us to keep reforming the church, which it is, and it will be an unfinished work because the initiator and the consumer of the work is God himself. On the other hand, we should be critical to his theology, and of his thoughts.
Even his famous Forensic Justification notion should arise questions in our minds, because we all know that this notion came as a way to avoid any human merits in order to combat the Roman Catholic teaching, so in order to build his argumentation he had a very low view of human will. I am not saying that Luther’s theology should not be accepted, but I am saying that as an initial development it is acceptable, yet the immense debate that followed attests the necessity of adaptations. Luther was a hero, but not infallible.
Since the old ways have run their course, it is necessary to venture in new directions. This statement that Gonzalez presents at the beginning of the book made me immediately stop and think about certain patterns in history and the cyclical nature of problems. He noted some of the issues that led to the beginning of a new age and the quest for change, and I found it interesting that they parallel some of the same conditions that we face today. He noted problems with commerce, a monetary economy, large growth of cities, economic and political power, large banking houses handling capital, large amounts of poor people that they became a social class, poverty and a concentration of wealth in the cities, unprecedented rate of inflation, and wages not keeping pace with the price of food. Even the church was caught in the web of capitalistic and selfish desires. I began to wonder that if those were the signs of a changing era, and these are clearly signs that we see today, then could it be that we are about to transition again into a new era? The reformers Erasmus and Luther should be commended for the high standards they held for Biblical authority and their time in study. Martin Luther’s theology was so closely entangled in his life, that he could not separate them. He was willing to die for what he believed. Many individuals may find that aspect of his life to be problematic, but I believe that it is admirable. What we believe and profess should affect the way we live. The problem occurs when we profess to live and adhere to certain principles, but our lifestyle contradicts our beliefs. Erasmus did not believe that a person could serve God by withdrawing from the world and devoting their time to religious exercises. However, he did not respect individuals who abandoned this discipline and gave in to their own passions (pp.24). We live in the world, but we are not of the world.
There's no doubt about it...Luther didn't have it all right. But God did use him along with others in what was the beginning of a movement that would bring the Sacred Scriptures of the Bible before the people. The Catholic church was exposed as the Anti-Christ system of Revelation and the Little Horn Power of Daniel. These discoveries in no way used "wholistic" philosophy to undergird their existence. In the world of philosophy, the discovery of these Biblical truths among others came from a philosophic current that was more "reductionistic". So I have a difficult time Dr. Hanna with your insistence of using "wholistic" philosophy to explain our Protestant Theological Heritage. My reasons include the reality that GWF Hegel and his "wholistic" philosophy didn't arrive on the scene until the latter part of the 1700's. In addition to this, Hegelian proponents will be the first to admit that his works are extremely difficult to understand. My Holy Bible tells me in Ecclesiastes 7:29 (NLB) "That God made man simple, but that man has made his way complicated." I can't think of another text that is more appropriate for anyone who attempts to apply Hegelian Dialecticism and "Wholism" to the study of Biblical Truth, which is intrinsically "Reductionistic". After all Jesus said that there is NO other name given among men by which we must be saved, other than the name of Jesus. Any "wholistic" approach opens the door for a dualistic "cosmic"/ecumenical model. This is what the French Jesuit de Chardin was espousing 50 plus years ago with his "Cosmic Christ" Christology.
Meade Adams I would like to comment on the issue of nominalism’s attempted subversion of the medieval synthesis. Perhaps it would more appropriately be labeled as a comment on the tendency and theology of reactionism. Gonzalez pointed out in chapter one that nominalism rose in an attempt to subvert the foundations of the medieval synthesis and offer a sort of alternative to the hierarchical system the Christianity had fallen under. However, he points out that “while destroying the very foundation of the medieval synthesis, nominalism had little to offer in its place” (p. 20). Nominalism was a reaction to the oppressive hierarchy of the medieval church. However, I believe that history shows us several things about reactionary movements. First, reactionary movements tend to overreact. Very often, a reaction to an extreme will itself be extreme. I have rarely heard of a reactionary movement that sprung out of an extreme that moved immediately toward a balance. This can be seen in the rise of liberal theology in the heat of ultra-conservatism. It went to the complete other extreme. Second, reactionary movements are essentially subversive. They usually do not simply offer a plausible alternative but they act as a subversive catalyst by their very existence. They seek to shake the foundation of the establishment. These are a few things I have observed in regards to reactionary movements and I believe they still ring true of nominalism and even the whole Protestant Reformation itself. Thoughts?
Protestant Theological Heritage Reflections by Taurus Montgomery June 12, 2009 The first week of class has been better than I expected. After reviewing my notes there are a few things I appreciate and now have a better understanding of thus far. My reflection is on some of the things we talked about in class as well as from the reading of the first chapters. I appreciate Dr. Hanna’s approach to studying Protestant Theological Heritage and history. I think he made a solid, biblical case when unpacking the tile of the class – Protestant Theological Heritage. The meaning of heritage is broad and deep. The Bible declares that God is the heritage of the priests of Israel, yea the heritage of all the people of Israel. He chose the priest in order to help the people become priests unto Himself. Furthermore, God’s dwelling place, the sanctuary, is His heritage. The land He promised Israel is His heritage. But the heritage of the Lord is still much broader. God’s heritage has cosmic dimensions. The entire creation, our world and the universe is God’s heritage. The broadness of this concept of heritage is all encompassing, thus, it includes the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation deserves our study as Adventist for two reasons. The first reason it deserves our study is because it is God’s heritage as explained above. The second reason it deserves our study is because it is humbling. We can learn a lot from those who have gone before us. We are indeed standing on the shoulders of Ellen White, James White, and J.N Andrews. But it is also because of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley and others, that we know and understand certain Bible truths. As I was reading the chapter on Martin Luther I discovered something for the first time. I had always thought Martin Luther was organically against the Roman Catholic Church. I thought he had no respect for the Church and her authority because of the error she was teaching. I was surprised to discover something different. Luther acknowledged he bequeathed the Scriptures from the Church and rejected those things the church held but were unbiblical. But he was adamant against those extreme reformers who rejected church authority all together. Luther didn’t feel the same way. He just wanted the change to change its positions on some of their unbiblical teachings. As Adventist, we must appreciate the Protestant Reformation and acknowledge that the majority of our teachings are not that unique. The main difference we have is and the Doctrine of the Sanctuary. Mostly everything else we teach has been handed down to us from the Protestant Reformation. This should humble us. About Philosophy We must not reject philosophy all together as some do. Neither must we allow it to dictate our theology. But rather, we must approach philosophy with a biblical framework. The Bible must be our guide as we seek to dialogue with Plato, Aristotle, and the likes. Medieval Synthesis The medieval synthesis is an interesting notion. The idea that heaven and earth was so close together that humans can perceive divine things through universals, or windows of ultimate reality. The implications of this idea are mind boggling for a twenty-first century Christian. For example, the structures of earthly society were a direct reflection of heavenly reality. I could never understand how people could believe that the Pope was God on earth. It was difficult for me to grasp this concept until the airplane illustration was given by Hanna to remind me how different worldviews and mindsets change through history.
How can we define ‘Protestant Theological Heritage’? Despite other possible definitions, I enjoyed and feel that was well putted the fact that God is our heritage and the heritage of the entire nation. It was also inspiring the fact that God brings us into His Sanctuary, which becomes also our heritage; but even more attractive is the concept that God’s heritage is historical, unfolded, and revealed throughout the many historical events occurred during the years of the existence of this planet. I spent some time thinking about our heritage as SDAs, our historical method of prophetic interpretation, and Gonzales’ book was a powerful tool. As a matter of fact, although the classes and the discussions were great, the most fun I had while reading Gonzales’ book. It reminded me of something special. I recently had the privilege of going with Dr. Damsteegt to a Great Controversy tour, where I had the privilege to visited many places where the protestant reformation took place. I stood close to the place where Luther said: “I cannot recant. Here I stand.” I visit the place where Zwingli was killed for the love of the Word of God. I stood in the very place where John Huss were burned because he could not submit himself to the tyranny of the RCC, and rather die than compromise the truth that he had found in the Scripture. In this class, I’m learning how to appreciate even more the works of the Reformers from which I believe my church, the SDA church, inherit something very special for it’s existence – a truth appreciation and unquestionable loyalty for the Scripture. I wonder, however, if this crucial and so precious heritage isn’t gradually disappearing in the midst of the post-modern era? If so, how many of us are really preparing to light it back up?
When the truth is more important than people, I start to question if it is really God’s way. Is it really God’s way to push the truth, regardless of if it drives people away? Jesus in scripture drew people to himself; he loved them. If people do not accept truth, why do we leave them to the hyenas? Yet if we ask these questions, we’re labeled as compromisers. So debate is stifled and more people are hurt when they don’t live up to truth. I almost want to capitalize truth, but don’t want to confuse it with Jesus. The word “truth” becomes a battling ram and is used as a weapon far to often. Am I being too postmodern to question if your truth is the true truth? And if I dare ask that question, then am I opening Pandora’s box where there suddenly is no more truth at all (again a compromiser)?
I wish we would be more tolerant of each other (again my post-modernity coming through). Dr. Hanna mentioned different aspects of the same truth that seem contradictory, but are each a part of the same jewel. It reminds me of the story of three blind men feeling an elephant and not understanding it was the same animal or how the same animal could be so different. We’re all on different paths and it seems that truth is different depending on where you are in the journey. Some things that I am convicted on may not hold true for you. I see in my own journey where some things that didn’t bother me, I now no longer do, because I have grown in the faith. But when someone tells me that his or her rigid rules are the truth, I balk a little and actually become more stubborn.
Another comment that made me ponder was about if phrasing our beliefs in a way that postmoderns will accept is really compromise. If I believe people are rejecting the truth, maybe I should look at my methods of presenting that truth. I believe we are called to reach people and if we’re not doing that, it’s not their problem, it’s mine.
I have really enjoyed this first week of class. I really found the way that Dr. Hanna unpacked the title of the class very interesting. I loved the way that Dr. Hanna brought out heritage can also be defined as inheritance. Through the texts Dr. Hanna showed us that God says to priest that he is their inheritance, but in Exodus 19:6 He states that Israel is a kingdom of priest, also we know that Israel can be taken as anyone who accepts Jesus Christ. So in short anyone who trust and believes in Christ is entitled to the heritage/inheritance of God. After breaking down heritage Dr. Hanna talked about theological which can be broken down as “God talk”. This week we learned that God talks to us in 3 ways God talks to us through Jesus who is the word of God, God talks to us through the bible which is the word of God, God talks to us through the church.
In this class, I want to learn a big picture of the protestant heritage. Techinically, protestant heritage is from Catholic. And the reformers couldn’t remove all the dimensions from Catholic and developed their Theology based on Roman Catholic. If we go up more, we can find the early church and Jesus teachings. People usually think God’s sactuary as God’s place in heaven. But the Bible tells us that His sanctuary is the earth, Israel, and whole universe. So we are actually living in God’s sanctuary right now. So this is another illustration for big pictures. My favorite part from last week’s class and reading is that perspectives can be differed from where I am standing. If I am Catholic, I would say sixteenth century is the worst period of church history. But because I am a protestant Christian, I say Martin Luther is a great hero in church history and sixteenth century is a remarkable period in church history. Like this, liberalism and conservatism can be different according to where I am and who I am talking to. Elderly pastors and elders think tradition is always right and that is conservative. But they sometimes forget why they have to do things and not to do things. They just think those behaviors and music they have been doing and singing are right for church and they are conservative. But young people do not like follow everything in church if they cannot fully understand why they should be conservative. I personally wanted to be conservative as a young pastor. But I have failed to meet older pastors expectations. They always request me more and more. I believe that we should preserve the tradition and the heritage but I don’t think every tradition is right. The reformers didn’t take them right and reformed whole Christianity. That’s why we could have right faith and have this church. So I want to keep that in mind. All perspectives depend on where I am standing.
I have often heard it said from the pulpits and lecterns of our churches and schools that the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the remnant church has been given a special end time message to preach to the world, but if we fail to share this message God could pass that message to another group of people, another church. First, let me say that I in no way am suggesting that we are at this point. Although, when I wander the halls of this educational institution full of the leaders of tomorrow’s church, I hear many who grumble about the need for change in the church or those who protest certain positions the church takes. I don’t want to pass judgment on whether change is necessary or not, but I wonder if a look back at history might give us some insights on how to address these issues.
To begin with, I noticed in our readings that Gonzalez describes Martin Luther as having patiently tried to work with the church in order to bring about change. For many years Luther worked for the church and submitted to its authority, at points even with great questions in his mind as to the correctness of some of his church’s doctrines. I am impressed that Luther seemed to have labored intently on trying to reform the church from within not solely attacking it from without. In the end Luther was cast out and had to seek reform through vehicles outside of the Catholic church, but this seemed to be the last resort. Another individual who showed similar respect for the ecclesiastical authority was Erasmus. Although Erasmus ultimately conceded to all the doctrines of the church, during his lifetime of service to the church he worked as well to try to change things from within. Although I think that Erasmus folded on what he knew to be truth in the end, his intentions at first were noble.
So, how should we handle issues in which we find disagreement with our church’s doctrine? It seems to me that change must be attempted within the church first. This idea that the church has lost all truth and that a new and more correct church must be established in its place seems to be overreacting to the issues. As Luther and Erasmus demonstrated, great pain should be taken to address the issues within the context of the church systems in order that change might be effected on the basis of biblical truth and consent of the entire body. Both elements need to be recognized. If the church is unwilling to conform to biblical truth after confronted internally, then I would say it is reasonable to work outside the church. If we believe the church is errant in its ways, then we have a responsibility not to complain and break free, but instead to bring it to the church. Luther and Erasmus had the right idea (partially).
Our discussion in class begins with understanding what Heritage is. What better way to understand Heritage than to look at biblical references. One in particular that we looked at was Ezekiel 44:28 in which the Word of God says that God is their inheritance. Heritage and inheritance meaning the same thing, this is a mystery in itself. In this mysterious gift of God we realize that it is indeed a blessing. The blessing comes from the meaning behind God being Israel’s inheritance, “God’s relationship with His people.”
Since the fall of man everything that God has done for man has been to build relationship with humanity and to restore humanity in a perfect world and a perfect relationship with God. I can’t wait for that, a perfect relationship and a perfect nature. God can’t wait either for this restoration, inheritance, to fully come to fold. Why else would He die on the cross, as I continue to learn more from this class I am focusing my attention on God’s relationship with humanity and the steps he has done throughout Protestantism to restore the relationship between God and humanity.
By Jahisber Penuela Reflection I have found interesting Gonzalez’s book (page 47-50), where he discuses Luther’s interpretation of the Word of God, the cannon and the source of authority of the church. He pointed out that Luther had opponents not only in the Catholic Church, but also those called “enthusiastic” followers of Luther in the protestant camp who wished to do away with the entire tradition of the church. According to Gonzalez, it was said that the Roman Catholic Church had created Scripture and established the Canon, and by doing so, it demonstrated the authority of the church over the Scripture. Interestingly, Luther’s response to this argument was that even though it was true that the church established the canon, the gospel established the church. In other words, the authority of Scripture is not in the canon but in the gospel In here we are dealing with a complicated issue since it is necessary to define canon, Scripture, and of course gospel. I would say then, two things regarding Luther’s response. First of all, I would follow the some ideas of Luther’s conclusion changing some wording: the Catholic Church provided a channel for the recognition among believers of inspired writings. (Even though history teaches us that it was by decrees and councils). But, what should be said about the Jewish writings? Should we be thankful to the Catholic Church for them? I would say no. They were already accepted as inspired. However, the issue of the New Testament writings becomes complicated for two reasons: 1. As Justo Gonzalez said, Jesus’ command was not to write but to proclaim (What could we argue of John’s vision in revelation 1:9?). 2. By the time the New Testament writings appeared there was not “officially” organized Catholic Church. Therefore, the role of the Catholic Church in establishing was more likely to be an instrument in receiving tradition from early Christians. Who has the last word regarding the formation of the canon? Certainly, the Catholic Church not. If so, the protestant churches should have to accept today’s Catholic canon. Then, who? Honestly, I do not know. The issue in discussion, according to Gonzalez, is one of authority. Luther puts the authority not in the cannon but in the gospel. The issue not discussed by Gonzalez is that the gospel comes out of the canon. Furthermore, as I would argue later, if one piece of the canon if left out, certainly the gospel would change and therefore its authority is not longer valid. I am not saying that if we had only the gospel of John, that book would not be authoritative to portray the gospel. No. What I am saying here is, as we know the 27 books of the NT, the source of authority is represented by those known writings. So, why not 26 or 28? I have not idea. What I can say with moderate certainty, is that Luther’s response lacks of consistency in a sense that the canon is something tangible, but gospel is something abstract and define by the canon itself. Secondly, and maybe more important, is Luther’s stand point regarding the book of Jacobo (James). It is interesting that Protestant reformation proclaimed the sola Scripture principle, which is more than the primacy of Scripture over tradition. But, at the same time, according to Gonzales, Luther took some liberties with the letter of Jacobo and the Revelation of John. Furthermore, to what I said before of the issue of consistency, I would add that if the authority in interpreting the Bible is not canon, as argued by Luther, but in the Gospel, then it seems to me then, that the gospel is a subjective truth. I mean, that if found “my” gospel to be in contradiction to the narrative in Genesis 1-11, I reject that portion of the canon just because it is not part of the gospel. Again, who has the last word? I am not aiming to settle the issue, but for me Luther’s response to the Roman Catholic claim of authority does not make sense at all. If could ask you, why do you accept the cannon of the NT? Would you go with Luther’s response or the Roman Catholic claim? But, Why?
by Jounghan Kim In this class, I have been learning about what heritage is. About term heritage Ex 19: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. EX15:17 Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established. Moses used this term for lsraelite, and biblical concept of herigate is more broad than talking God's nation and land dwelling place.
I would like to know more about protestant because our church SDA also one of protestants. God has worked through people. And God's people have mark of Jesus. I would like to learn through this class so that I can walk like as God's protestant.
THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage Instructor : Dr. Martin Hanna, Ph.D. By. Ki Seung Jhang
The first week of this class was so good to me. I have never considered about the protestant theological heritage. But I could have the opportunity study and meditate it. And also I have learned new concept and confirmed some concepts.
Especially I like the definition of the biblical heritage. God is our heritage. His dwelling in our hearts is our heritage. Israel made the idol of cow image for Moses received the ten commandments from God. After that, God said Moses that “[Go up] to a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in your midst, because you are an obstinate people, lest I destroy you on the way." (Ex 33:3) But Moses asked God going with them as the sign that this nation is his people. And God said to Moses "I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight, and I have known you by name." (Ex 33:17) The heaven is not our inheritance. It is not useless that we get the heaven and eternal life without him. Therefore, he is our inheritance, and his dwelling with us is our inheritance. And his heritage is historical heritage.
Protestant reformation has occurred against Roman Catholic in 16C – 18C. But in 19C, it is no longer against Roman Catholic Church. Then, they has been split into Liberal and Conservative Theology. Theology was queen of science in Pre-Modern era, but it was corrupted in protestant era. Then in the Modern era, science was the king of university. Then finally, in the post-modern era, both theology and science were dethroned. I think that today many people’s hard hearts is caused from this process. Therefore, the way of our lives affect the value of the gospel, because people generally may evaluate the truth by seeing us. I have learned the lesson that I have to live rightly on the truth.
I have learned that the word “Ecumenical” is biblical word. I didn’t know that before. This also can be used in healthy or unhealthy way by us. This sentence is giving me big burden to the attitude of my Christian life. I learned why I have to live as “A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR [God's] OWN POSSESSION”.(1 Pt 2:9) I am praying God giving me the ability for this because my will is like a rope of sand. Dear God help me and be with me till your second coming.
The Protestantism is one idea that shall have no end, due to the fact that every generation that comes up has a different worldview to various issues. The protesters of the 18th C. had a different view about Justification by Faith, and as time has gone by the theologian to the 21st C. have a new definition. This is because education is not a point, but it is linear. This first week I came to a point of understanding that whatever we learn about especially in the arena of the Bible should be taken in a more inclusive manner than exclusive sense. In the book, I came to learn that change comes with a price. The early reformers were attacked severely and some were killed because most leaders believe in the ‘status quo’. It is also a point to note, that to make any worth reformation, one needs to be bold as it was to Martin Luther. When going to Worms, Luther believed that his death was beckoning though he never feared, but went with a bold spirit. Such is the attitude that is needed to make any worth different in the world full of no change. This should be done in a manner to defend the truth, and never leave it to be trampled. What we are learning in this class ties up with this spirit that reformers had. As Adventist we have this spirit in the current world that many other religious groups have classified us as a ‘cult’. This is what all that we can do stand for the truth no matter what befall us. The Sabbath truth and the Health truth have made us to be alienated by many religious organizations, but as the reformers of the old, we are ready to face whatever the predicament that comes across us. The crescendo of anchorage should be the Bible and the Bible alone. This is the real talk of God to humanity. With the Bible as our guide, the traditions shall have no room, and our teachings shall accommodate the will of God. Reformers knew this and it enabled them to stand firm.
I agree with Sergio’s emphasis on the” historical aspect of the heritage.” This shows that God works in space and time, and also that He oversees all human activities. The divine attributes of foreknowledge and predestination emphasizes the way in which God conduct his church, even during the middle ages (the Dark Age was not so dark, just as the Enlightenment was not so bright). The divine allowance of the depravity of the church during this time only emphasized the way in which God respects the free-will in detriment of his predestination. Thus, the history is not closed as in Calvin understood, but it is open, taking into consideration our decisions. If the church was deprived it is because the people was corrupted. The same is true today, and the inverse is also true.
This historical heritage is understood by SDA as part of the divine plan registered in Daniel and Revelation, nonetheless, this heritage is only possible because it was given by God (the giver of the heritage), and it is only historical because of the notion that things don’t happen by chance, but by God’s providence, who acts immanently in time, conducting and leading humanity’s desire to return to the original state to be according to His image. This process was initiated and it will be completed by the same person. That is, God.
It having very interesting to analyzed the first three chapters of this book, “Christian Thought” by Justo L. Gonzalez...After reading these chapters, I came out with four conclusions: #1 through history God always has being leading, #2 God can choose any man regardless the denomination to do his work, #3 God is above culture and traditions, and #4 The knowledge of the Word of God and truth are progressive. Through the readings of these chapters, I came to understand the life of Martin Luther a little bit more. The author said, “Martin Luther is, like Augustine, one of those thinkers whose theology is so closely bound up with his life that one cannot understand one apart from the other” (pg. 29). I understand the reason why even though Martin Luther loved so much his church (Catholic) he was willing to fight against leaders and corruptions of the church. According to the author, Luther was the most influential person of the sixteenth century. Luther was not always, influential, instead the history show that in his early years as a monk, he had problem with sin and grace, justice and love. What really called my attention was to find out that Luther found the first glimmer of hope in the book of Psalms. On the other hand, one can ask how a man like Luther with such spiritual insight could have rejected the commandments of God. I believe the answer to such contradiction is that as every morning the day light progresses through the day, the knowledge of the Word of God is “progressive as well.”
In his third volume of A History of Christian Thought, Justo González begins his discussion of the history of Christian theology by examining the social, economic and philosophical factors which influenced the European nations during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. One of the most significant factors which impacted scholastic theology in the Middle Ages was nominalism which contrasted with realism. The author stated that nominalism was a theory in philosophy that maintained the idea “that there is an ultimate unity of all things, and that this unity is somehow discernible from the human perspective” (p. 20). I want to comment on the shift that took place within nominalism. González says that “the nominalists of the fifteenth century did not deny the existence of universals. What they denied was that through the universals the human mind has a definite perception of the ultimate nature of reality” (p. 20). This point is significant to me because it shows how the methods of doing theology were shifting from human reasoning to a more concrete system of understanding life and truth. Our human logic cannot fully comprehend the physical and spiritual life. In her book The Desire of Ages, Ellen G. White states “that in Him dwelt knowledge which no human being, unaided by divine agency could comprehend” (p. 507). To some degree, I think this statement summarizes the intellectual shift that was taking place during the fifteenth century.
Reflecting on Erasmus and Humanism, I see a large conflict between underlying presupposition, and the onging resultant “ism’s”. The presupposition I am thinking of is that Erasmus was fervent in his endeavor to go to the source of Scripture. He aimed to find the most ancient documents possible to establish a reliable text in which to study. That is a good thing. A resultant idea is that the whole Bible is relevant for a Christian. Another resultant idea is that of Pacifism. I see that these two are in conflict. Where pacifism is more Luthern/Calvinsitic, as Tota Scriptura is more what Erasmus endeavored for. What I mean is that Gonzalez indicates that Luther had a way of measuring Scripture by how much gospel was in a particular passage, chucking the Pentateuch, James, and even Revelation, (49-51) on the grounds that it was Law. This is similar to the Adventist approach to Non-Combatancy. I understand the basic theme of that form of Pacifism as thus: Theocracy. Theocracy can be described as the direct rule of God. That in of itself is an ideal that we Christians do strive for. But in theocracy there seems to be events that would appear to contradict the direct commands of God. On the other hand these events are directed by God. Such as the taking of AI by Joshua and the ensuing slaughter, or Samuel, as directed by God, commands Saul to kill every living thing. The disconnect is that even we measure Bible as did Luther, perhaps not the exact same “one has more gospel than the other.” Yet we teach and preach that there are 66 relevant books of the Bible. But we do no better than the Antinomian Calvinists by selecting a smorgess board of what we think God should be, that He deals hypcrytically under a Theocracy, but holds on to the definitive of His Law in the Christian era? That is a similar paradigm as the Dispensationalists use to establish their covenant theology. Similar to the paradigm that justified slavery in America, uses the same methodology that some use to maintain a male only “ordained” clergy. It goes back to interpretation issue, as well as a view of God. Thirdly my issue with the Pacifist Non-combatant stance many Adventists advocate is the doctrine of hell. If killing in any way was wrong, and God cannot do wrong, since it is His will not to do so. How then can a god like that kill so many in our Anihilist view of Hell? God will not only kill the individuals that are alive He will wipe out the very existence of those from the past. From my understanding, God is all that is grace, but He is also that is all justice. Can He still be both? Do we continue teaching 66 books of the Bible plus a mountain of Ellen White writings? Yet chalk off Justice as a thing of the past, as Luther has done. (yet he advocated the punishment of the Jews later in his life).
When studying Protestant theological Heritage in search for the foundations or explanations of why current theological stances are in existence, I find the doctrinal position of Martin Luther on the Law of God to be enlightening of how the dismissal of divine laws was allowed to perpetrate through the change which occurred in the form of the Protestant Reformation. On pages 51 and 52, Justo Gonzalez cites in our textbook, A History of Christian Thought, the sermon of Luther, How Christians Should Regard Moses: “’In the first place I dismiss the commandments given to the people of Israel. They neither urge nor compel me.’ The law of Moses was indeed God’s Word; but it was God’s Word to the Jews, and Christians are not Jews. This is true not only of the so-called ceremonial law, but of the entire law of Moses, including the ten commandments. Moses is God’s lawgiver for the Jews, but not for us. If there are in Moses laws that we ought to accept, we are to regard them as applicable to us not on the authority of Moses, but on the authority of natural law. Indeed, much that is contained in the law of Moses, such as the prohibition of stealing, adultery, and murder, is known by all persons because it is engraved in their hearts. Therefore, Christians must obey these laws on the authority not of Moses, but of nature.” There are several things that jump out at me in these quotations. I would like to mention that from this portion of his work, we can see Luther maintaining the theology he had before his split with the church in the idea that the law of God was only given to the Jews. We all know that this is a very prominent teaching in many Protestant churches still today. As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that one can be considered a Jew Spiritually. One of the clearest source texts of our own theological stance on this subject comes from where Paul wrote in Romans 2:29, “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly.” If we can be considered a Jew inwardly in order to be ranked among God’s chosen ones, His children, or perhaps even His Remnant, then being ethnically a Jew is not necessary and should not be the focus. But I think Luther did not have the same understanding as we do on this text. In the second half of this message Luther points out that Christians keep the laws of God which are still valid because they are natural laws which are embedded in the human heart. This idea of keeping the law by natural inspiration is not in opposition to the scriptures. For just a few verses before, in Romans 2:12-15 we read, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;).” While I have been in agreement with this specific part of Luther’s teaching, that the law of God works through man in a divine way, even if he does not know God, I am curious about the division that is placed upon which laws God is able to implant upon a man’s heart in order to have him keep it. It would appear that all of the last 6 commandments, which deal with our relationships with the natural world around us, would be, according to Luther, written upon the hearts of man and able to be kept through the “natural law.” But what about the first 4, which deal specifically with our relationship, recognition, respect, and worship of God? I know there seems to be a special feeling in my being on the Sabbath day. But for the one who knows no better, is the Sabbath law, or the other 3 encoded upon man’s conscience in a way that constitutes within us a realization of what is right and wrong?
A point that Dr. Hanna brought up in class yesterday was that there are two forms of humanism, secular humanism and Christian humanism. I believe that this was an important distinction for him to make, especially when we were discussing Erasmus and the forming of humanism. It was important in my mind that we remember that when we talk about humanism in the time of Erasmus, that it was the beginning of humanism. Much like the beginning of many movements within the Christian church, it was religiously focused. It was only later when the secular focus came.
Today we find that humanism is mostly thought of in the Secular realm of philosophy which has ethics, reason, justice, etc. as their main priority. However, this was not what Erasmus had in mind when presenting humanism to the world. Gonzalez says on page 23 that “The reformation that Erasmus advocated was in the field of ethics rather than dogmatics.” Erasmus “advocated a return to the sources of Christianity.”
It seems to me that Erasmus was trying to change the Catholic church from within. He was not attempting as other Reformers to create a new theology, but to create a higher moral compass for the Catholic church. He advocated for the “philosophy of Christ,” which as Gonzalez says “starts from the fact that truths is one, and that therefore God is active wherever true wisdom is found,” (24). According to Gonzalez the commandments of Christ are close to the ethical counsel of the Stoics and the Platonists.
So how does this affect us today? Do we appear humanistic in our approaches to certain doctrines? How can we, if we can, use religious humanism to reach other people?
These are the questions are going through my head, and I do not have the answers to them. However, one thing that I am sure is that as Adventists we believe that following the law of God is important. While we are saved by grace, we obey the law because we are in a saving relationship with Christ. Therefore our moral compass should already be pointing in the right direction. Does that mean we are humanistic?
My perspective of Martin Luther was compromised when I read about his theological positions. Sure, I knew that Luther got some things right and other things wrong, but I did not realize the extent of his extremes on the subject of the Law and the Old Testament. The following statement caught me off guard: “Now if anyone confronts you with Moses and his commandments, and wants to compel you to keep them, simply answer, ‘Go to the Jews with your Moses; I am no Jew’ (Gonzalez, History of Christian Thought, p. 52).” I found this statement interesting because it seems as though the majority of protestantism has taken the same position and is stuck in a anti law position.
As I have considered the issue of reformation, I realized that Adventism is the connecting entity between faith and works. Where as the Catholic Church focused on works, Luther focused on faith (grace). Adventism has taken on the role of reconnecting the two in a healthy truthful balance (a debate that continues in the church to this day). Adventism recognizes righteousness by faith, but also recognizes that the law plays its part into the equation as well.
Taking Dr. Hanna’s model of truth being in the center of two extremes, it is possible that when there are two extreme views containing truth, a deeper truth is yet to be uncovered or understood. This was the issue in 1888 with debates about the moral vs. ceremonial law in Galations.
I would like to throw out a crazy thought I had for the sake of discussion, realizing that there is more than likely no truth in it. The debate over pre-fall vs. post fall nature of Christ is very difficult in our church today. Both sides can seemingly prove their position and refute the other from the writings of Ellen White. Is it possible that Christ had both a pre-fall nature and a post-fall nature? Let me explain, Christ had a pre-fall nature because he is fully God and existed before the fall into eternity, yet Christ was fully human born into humanity with a fallen sinful human nature. I know this dumbs down the subject and is not a valid representation of of what my true position on the matter is, but in the sake of deeper truth, I wanted to use this as an illustration.
Just like Catholicism and Luther took extreme views on works vs. faith which pointed to a deeper truth brought out by Adventists (Faith and Works have a harmony) Is it possible that the issue of the pre-fall vs. post-fall nature of Christ is pointing to a greater truth that harmonizes truth from both sides of the issue?
Reflection #2 by Nathan Kennedy Although, in class, Dr. Hanna demonstrated the general divergences of conservative and liberal theology there seems to be a common factor. The one thing seems to be in common in either, that is the whole issue of predestination. Gonzalez notes that Zwingli was able to refute anything based on his view of predestination that had anything to with law, or as works. He says, “Zwingli can easily refute every attempt to base salvation on works.” Although it is true that one cannot base salvation on works, however here nearly 500 years later, it is obvious that the critics of the Adventist movement, utilize this very paradigm to proverbially, lay the hammer down. As a result (particularly since Questions on Doctrine in the 1950s) much of our own leadership and theology has moved in the direction of the Evangelical movement in many ways. I am convinced that people are addicted to the idea of assurance in Salvation. In working with individuals from a protestant background, they want assurance in salvation before ever considering anything an Adventist may present. Because inherently, deep down, we each know we are not good. But we want someone else to say we are good. Calvinism provides this assurance. Our critics can always hold us to the fire, if the presupposition lies in predestination, and the Sovereignty of God, in Zwingli’s and later Calvin’s terms. They both seem to have borrowed this from Augustine. Gonzalez states the feeling among the Anabaptists was thus: “What leads a person…into true faith is not predestination. The doctrine of predestination, especially as taught by Zwingli, is an abomination and a way to excuse us and blame God for our sin.” (91) I have to say that I agree with this statement. I had to say a hearty Amen to this, even if he is just attempting to represent the Anabaptists in an accurate way. Taken to an extreme the Mennonite view of Pacifism which is a result of Anabaptist movement. Socialism was very common in the movement, “From the very beginning there were some in the movement who believed that they should possess all things in common.” Either view, Zwingli or Simmons, is an extreme to avoid the Doctrine of Evil. On one hand, evil is a result of God’s plan to teach us righteousness, while on the other God is seen as some Disneyland character of mushy, warm and fuzzies. Neither of these are correct, in my view and either will lead one to reject large portions of what Scripture teaches.
I would like to comment on chapter 3 which deals with the reformer Zwingli. I have always been fascinated by the debate about predestination and determinism. It poses serious intellectual and philosophical challenges for me personally. Now for the sake of disclaimer, I know that my limited mind cannot fully comprehend the things of God and that some things must be accepted by faith. I accept that God can be omniscient yet still allow us true free choice. However, it is something I accept only by faith because it makes no philosophical sense. Now none of us accept the type of predestination that Zwingli and Calvin proposed. We do, however, try to temper that language with the language of God’s foreknowledge. We say that God foreknows all things but does not control us. However, there is a school of philosophical thought that advocates that if something is foreknown, then that thing is, in fact, predetermined. For example, it was prophesied before Cyrus was born that he would free the Jews and allow them to go back to Jerusalem. Was that prophecy a result of God’s foreknowledge that this would happen? And if so, was Cyrus bound by some fatalistic destiny that he could not control? Maybe he thought he was acting as a free agent but was he really? The story is told of a young man that went to a bookstore and pulled an old raggedy book off the shelf written 100 years ago about his life. So he picks up the book and starts reading. He finds out that the book is eerily accurate about every detail of his life. He comes to the page that deals with the particular day he was in. It said that in that day he would get in a cab and get in a crippling accident. The man, not wanting to experience this fate, decided that he would simply sit on the park bench for the rest of the day. About 30 minutes later he got a call saying that his wife had taken ill and he needed to get to the hospital. Without thinking twice he immediately got up and caught a cab to the hospital. The point of the story is this: even after the man’s great attempts to avoid the predestined/foreknown fate that was his, it ended up happening anyway. He was caught in the web free choice/fate. It appears that this is the way we talk about God’s foreknowledge whether we realize it or not. Are we really free? Thoughts?
It is not that I have never studied about the reformation, I have, but I was really young and therefore everything I learn in class in "new" to me. Today I asked "where were the Christians?" I knew that more than likely all of you knew the answer, but for me it was a question that i needed answered in order to better understand the reformation era and why God used people like Luther, and Zwingli to futher his cause. I know that God has faithful men and women in all churches but someimes it is good to have clearity as to the timeline of which we are studying. Now I understand a little better where we are going in class and I want to also that all of you for you patience.
What I found interesting about Zwingli was that he went to far. He decided that since there was no organ in the Bible, there shouldn't be one in the church. Sometimes we tend to take things to the extreme much like Zwingli.
I was impressed how close he was to some of our beliefs. Even Calvin has much to say about education that we model in our schools today.
It always amazaes me how God uses people thougout history and I can't wait to see how he will use me in a few minutes (ha-ha!).
Blog Assignment #1: Reforming… By J. Harold Alomía
“The Protestant Reform was carried out by a Catholic.” True statement. And yet this historical fact was argued in class today June 17, 2009 in what seemed a case for semantics. No one would deny the historical reality that Luther was a monk, and an honest monk, and that for sometime during his reform, he was not considering the Church as debunked. His desire was to reform the Church, and his initial questioning, as stated by González, was against the preachers of indulgences, preachers that were detrimental to the pope [pg 36]. This in some way gives us an indication that initially Luther was not out to cause a ‘furore’ but just to raise an intellectual discussion of his theses. The rest is known history. However, taking the discussion and placing it in some way as an attempt of the Spirit of God to reform the Roman Catholic Church seems stretching God’s work. It is not that God would not act in an attempt to reform ‘His church’, however it seems that there is a certain point in the life of a person and by extent of an organization, that reform becomes impossible, due to whatever reasons we might encounter. It seems that we can safely state that God does move within the ranks of any religious and even non-religious organization, but does that mean that the Spirit of God was out to reform the Roman Catholic Church that had become a system usurping God’s place? Or was God taking individual people from that broke and spurious system that were sincere in order to uphold the biblical truth buried under centuries of tradition, abuse and ignorance? It seems that the system, the organization was un-reformable. It appears to be God’s M.O. to attempt to reform and eventually after long attempts and much grace, due to the non-response of the attempted reformee, He simply rescues that which can be rescued from what is overwhelmingly un-rescueable. The ante-diluvian world saw this principle in effect. Israel saw this principle in action. During Jesus’ ministry on earth, did he attempt to reform Judaism? Or was he establishing a new movement on purpose? That is an ongoing debate in NT studies. Some scholars debate that he was attempting to reform Judaism, but failed [see Arthur Pazia, or George Ladd]. However, when in Mark 2:21, 22 Jesus states “no one puts new wine in old wine skins” he seems to be making a declaration that declares his intention of establishing a new movement in place of the warped religion that had been deformed due again, to traditions and ignorance of the Scripture. Thus, dare we wonder if the organizational aspect of our ‘Remnant Church’ will be stripped away for the eschatological reality of a movement that awaits the final establishment of the kingdom of the Messiah at the end of days? Only time will tell. As far as a Spirit attempt to reform that which was irreformable in the XVI century and is irreformable today I would disagree with that idea. The institution was, is and will remain irremediably deformed, the Roman Catholic system cannot be rescued, it will not allow itself to be rescued; however a sinking ship does not have to take all the souls on board down to the depths of the ocean to a watery grave; and that is where the life saving Spirit is constantly acting, in preserving the truth, and rescuing the souls of those who wish to be rescued.
BLOG ASSIGNMENT #2: Arrogance By: J. Harold Alomía.
I have been hearing quite a bit about the arrogance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in stating that it is the ‘Remnant Church’. Perhaps it is not the intention of the lectures to state that it is not, however, it seems that in our mindset we have transformed a statement into an attitude. It might be splitting hairs, however why is it arrogant to state ‘we are the remnant church’? I think the question should be rather what is the meaning of being the Remnant Church? Is it a passport to heaven that has been issued in the Most Holy and delivered via ‘Gabriel-PS’ to the offices of the GC in Maryland? A caricature of course, but what is the concept of Remnant? The only ones that have the truth? We can get into the argument of ‘there is no absolute truth’ [statement which in itself is an absolute], but that is not the point in this particular post. We agree that being the Remnant does not mean the ‘Go to Heaven’ card is in our SDA hands exclusively, and perhaps for post-modernity sake we can also concur that we are not the owners of truth [if there is ‘truth’ in the postmodern mind]. We do not own the truth if the Truth is God, however if we are sitting in the classroom of the SDA Seminary, preparing to be pastors of the SDA church… why is it? Should it not be because we believe that we have, in some ways, in spite of our post-modern lingo… at least, well, the truth? If we have that truth, then it seems to me that we should be sharing that Truth and communicating it, instead of denying we have it.
Remnant is not a ‘privilege’ title [In the sense of entitlement], rather it seems to me that it is a responsibility, a mission title that is bestowed to the group of faithful that are commissioned to share and proclaim that truth to a world that is bombarded with all sorts of ‘alternatives truths’, and that group of faithful at the present time is…? The Seventh-day Adventist Church. Is it arrogance to state that? I believe that arrogance is more of an attitude and not necessarily a statement. Would we accuse Jesus of arrogance when he stated he was the bread of life, The living water? When he basically stated that he was the Messiah? Was he being arrogant? Interestingly it was the religious leaders that accused him of heresy for those statements, factual statements of who he was, and thus what his mission was. Maybe we have overlooked what Remnant means and entails because we have vested a factual statement that should humble us with a cloak of arrogance that is unacceptable. It is that arrogance that should be purged from our discourse and from our self-image, however in purging the attitude of arrogance we should not purge and erase what we are, the Remnant called to proclaim the Truth, a group of people that have a particular mission, and not an entitled seat at the heavenly banquet hall.
Declining Authority of Hierarchy I find it interesting that the Catholic Church’s decline coincides with its greed for power and money. It reminds of Solomon’s son taxing the people even more than his father did. Gonzalez points out that there was a schism that prompted many popes to waste no time trying to lay claim to one of the most powerful positions in the world at that time. In the rush for power, any hope that the church had at being religious or providing for their flock was lost. What strikes me is that is can happen on various levels in any church organization. If our eyes are more fixed on power or greed, then any hope we have of furthering the kingdom of God is lost. Erasmus v Luther. I never noticed the strides Erasmus made before Luther came onto the national scene. Gonzalez says that just before Luther came, the church was on the verge of reformation, but as Luther came in, sides began to be formed. It almost comes across as if Luther stunted the reformation and made it more divisive. Protestants were calling on Erasmus to side with them, while Catholics were saying Erasmus was with Luther. Erasmus recoiled and as a result stood up for issues he had earlier condemned. I have seen this in politics with the war on terror, if you don’t support the war on terror then you don’t support the troops and so on. It is amazing what people will take sides on when they are afraid of being on the wrong side. I do appreciate the emphasis Erasmus placed on getting back to the roots of scripture I am surprised that it wasn’t until the Mysticists came along that schools for the youth were established for the best learning. Even in the Old Testament there was the school of the prophets. Even Moses had to have been educated in Egypt. But to now have an established system up learning for the youth caught me off guard.
Luther What impresses me about Luther is, everything he did he did to help his church. His initial move was not to cause a split and start his own church but to improve his own church. Gonzalez points out though that as a result of Luther’s message to the church, the church wanted to silence him…get rid of him. Gonzalez says, “These ‘immense and unintended consequences; came in connection with the issue of indulgences.” It is one thing to preach indulgences; it is another to see it in person. God has amazing ways of waking us up to see the truth. It is one thing for me to look at Luther and wonder why it took him so long to realize his error, it is another thing entirely to look at myself and correct the error of my ways. I do not believe that we have everything figured out and our theology is still growing, will someone 50, 100, 1,000 years down the road look at me and wonder why it took me so long to realize a truth about God that is plain to the universe. Though Luther still made bogus statements about the 10 commandments after the reformation, he was still living up to as much truth as God had called him to, that is all I can ask, that I am at least being faithful to the truth I have been given.
I think I owe a few of you apologies. It has not been my intention to argue with Dr. Hanna just for the sake of arguing. But I am sorry if I've offended anyone with my comments. I will be presenting my concerns in the 5 minutes allotted to each of us at the end of class. Those of you who have been offended by my comments, I encourage you to prayerfully do some investigative study into the ecumenical movement and its emerging Cosmic Christology, the ideas of Protestantism's sola scriptura versus Roman Catholicism's prima scriptura, and then modern day Counter-Reformation efforts by the Roman Catholic Church. I will be putting together a presentation that attempts to communicate the concerns I have with Dr. Hanna's model. I spoke with Dr. Hanna today after class, and he agreed that I should present my concerns both in class and during the presentation. Again I'm sorry for any offense that was taken with my conduct in class earlier today. with Jesus, Jeff Walper
I wanted to respond to the discussion that took place this week. I think the question of how we look at the Catholic Church highlights a very interesting issue in the way that we think. For whatever reason we tend to think in terms of either-or. Therefore it is problematic for us to think that the Catholic Church (even in structure) can be both good and bad. It becomes problematic for us to think that the Pope, someone who calls Himself (essentially) God on Earth could be both good and bad. It becomes problematic to think of someone’s philosophical treatise as both good and bad. I don’t understand the psychology or the philosophy of it, but human beings cannot hold to seemingly contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time. And so we end up applying this ideology to our institutions as well. The seminary must be Adventist and teach Adventist thought in an Adventist way and must be protected from the evil thoughts of the outside world. I think we all agree with this in principle, but we probably disagree with this in application. I don’t agree with everything I have heard come from professors in year here at the seminary (although I think we would all disagree about the ideas with which we disagree.). However, if a seminary should be anything, it should be a place where all kinds of ideas can be placed on the table, held up to the standard of the Bible, and then either held or discarded based on what the Bible says. The seminary, in my opinion, is not a place where students come to be indoctrinated. Rather, it is a place where students come to learn more about God and the many ways in which their faith and the Christian faith have struggled to understand who God is and what He requires of us. Incidentally, it is this same issue that caused the fragmentation of the Catholic Church into Catholic and Protestant and then the many splinters of the Protestant movement. Instead of being willing to hear ideas from all quarters and test those ideas by the Biblical standard, religious groups drew a circle around their beliefs and promulgated the idea that truth could go no further than what they said and how they said it. If we are willing to do the same thing today, it makes me wonder about the future of our denomination as well.
It is the closed mind that cannot allow another to believe something different than they themselves believe. Those who do not know how to think for themselves are stuck with what someone, sometime, has placed upon their minds. Whenever a teacher approaches with an idea, those unable to think for themselves have to put up a barrier and say, “you are wrong” to the one proposing a new idea, because it invades what is already there, and they do not know how to handle a new idea. It short circuits their old understanding, and they are uncomfortable with this. It is those who know how to think for themselves which can allow a professor to teach something without adamantly opposing it. Why? Because they know how to think for themselves. They know how to process information. They know how to determine if something is right or not, and while determining, they know what to accept and what to excuse. An open mind that is learning to think for itself, rather than what has been placed in us by another is in need in this class. It is O.K. to disagree with our Professor. But it is not O.K. to highjack the class because we don’t believe what he is teaching. If you believe it, accept it, if you don’t believe it, dismiss it. If you can’t stand it that he is teaching it, by all means, you should get out of the class before he persuades you to do something different than your conscious is telling you. But please stop this nonsense, as so many of us are really tired of the attitude you guys are displaying, and have displayed in other classes for as long as you have been here at the Seminary. What makes you think you have everything figured out and that everybody else has it all wrong? This should speak to you and tell you that you have a bit of learning to do, and a great deal of humility to learn. I am coming to this class to learn something. I do not appreciate your attitude. I do not appreciate your wasting my time, as the Professor can’t teach because he is always having to nurse your little wounds. For heavens sake, we are in the Seminary. If you think you will be a great leader for this church some day and you maintain your current attitude, you are greatly mistaken. I have heard you do the exact same thing in other classes, and I am tired of it.
Piasi suleiman Reflection #2. As pertains to the second chapter on our discussion, martin Luther is being portrayed as one of the most significant theologian of the sixteenth century. one of the questions I had been pondering as we have been conducting our discussions in the whole week was, After all we are Adventist and future pastors and some are going to be bible teachers, why should we waste time to study on this course for we cant see Adventist theology mentioned anywhere in this book. why don’t we study the bible and the writings of Ellen g white and just go home to evangelize? But later on I came to realize was that God was still using this early reformers to prepare his truth progressively.anothe lesson I learned is that. Martin luther’s monastery life had much to do with our present theology.We need to understand that the works of the law will not earn us salvation. Not only that his other issues he tackled with like saints answering their a ligancy to the priest was unbiblical but also was another way of exclusively misusing of the authority of the church. I liked one of the most new dimensions of understanding I got in the book and the even the ongoing discussions in class about earlier reformers more especially martin luther.His reformations challenged the earlier Christians to study deep on the deceptions they have been carrying on within the catholic church.This led to mass protest to new protestant churches.Hence more study led to more revelations on the truth of the scriptures. Through this even the truth about the Sabbath and the sanctuary gained more power adding more advantage to evangelism more easy in the Adventist church however that I my opinion. The other new dimension I got is that though martin Luther reformed from the catholic church, he dint broke the bridge he used to pass through to his new truth.He respected the catholic church though he differed with some of its principles for it was the same church that preserved Christianity through the darkages hence it dint deserve disrespect..The lesson to learn from him too is that ,we should not strongly despise the churches that have been preaching the word of God. God has been using them them to accomplish his mission on earth.Infact some of us will agree with me that you were not born Adventists but you have been Christians from different churches but the only truth you dint know was about the Sabbath. So your church raised you in Christ till when you got the Adventist message.
God is our means of justification. God has a plan to meet the fallen man where he is, facilitating transformation and ultimately, full restoration, with growth in eternity beyond. The plan of redemption is a goal-oriented process. these includes the means of initiation into the covenant relation with God, a process of sanctification in our willingness to accept the choice we make,and and our final glorification. Focus on this important entrance into covenant relationship has led some to a nervous concern about one’s relation to God’s law and his legal standing with reference to it. It is inevitable that the Adventist believer will see his past failings in sharp contrast to the divine ideal, but is it really God’s plan for us to emphasize the temporary covering of forgiveness, and feel that the transformational aspects of the gospel are extraneous, or worse and dangerous?
The gospel is an all-or-nothing proposition. With our consent and active cooperation Jesus transforms us completely, or, without our real consent and active cooperation Jesus will not force our transformation. The moment of our initial acceptance of Christ means a never before that time experienced psychological release from guilt. We are accepted in the Beloved. But another question must be asked. Is the Beloved accepted in us? Is our faith in Jesus a static experience only, stationary at the cross, or is Jesus a moving target we actively track, accurately follow by faith? As our experience advances day by day, we are to be transformed. Every child of God moves inevitably toward the close of their personal probation. This is only a recognition of the simple truth that It is in this life that we are to separate sin from us, through faith in the atoning blood of Christ. Our precious Saviour invites us to join ourselves to Him, to unite our weakness to His strength, our ignorance to His wisdom, our unworthiness to His merits. God’s providence is the school in which we are to learn the meekness and lowliness of Jesus. The Lord is ever setting before us, not the way we would choose, which seems easier and pleasant to us, but the true aims of life. There is need for us to accept the message of rightousness by faith without doctrinal compromise.What god has done for man on the cross of calvary is not an issue of discussion but acceptance.
the debate in the class on 06/18/2009 regarding the issue of salvation was a healthy one.as for my friends through whom i have read their comments it is true that salvation is not man's making.Salvation is an act of God and in His forknowledge He is the one who knows who will enter into the kingdom ofcourse based on the choices that we make now and whether we have lived the light that we have recieved.the early reformers,Luther,Zwingli,annabaptists and others with all their imperfections they lived the light revealed to them till their day and for their eternity is God to decide.The discussions are more healthful and let us all be positive as we begin to understand the concepts in ways that are broad and meangniful.Do not cling to the old too much lets learn and think and wrestle out with issues in amore proffessional way.
the on going debate in the class is healthful.The issue of salvation is God's and not man's.in His forknowledge He alone knows who shall enter into the kingdom.Let 's open up and begin to understand issues as really they are.the reformers did their best to lead the church where it is now.. let us also in thinking and correct interpretation of biblical truth with the Greeks and the Hebrews that we have learned give the correct information tom the sheep.
The Bible says in “The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” (Proverbs 4:18) The meaning of this text has become clearer and clearer to me this week during this class. In my reading of chapters three and four of the textbook I can see how new light was being discovered by each reformer. Although Luther is the most significant figure, there are some things that he was wrong about. For example, his beliefs about the Eucharist, baptism, and predestination were unbiblical. When Zwingli came along he challenged Luther on these issues went further, and sometimes too far. The best example is his understanding of predestination. Zwingli argues that not only did God know some of the angels would fall but that “God also ordained it…so that all could better understand the nature of righteousness by contrasting it with unrighteousness.” Thus, Zwingli concluded that the fall of Satan and humanity was not against the will of God. However, there were some things Zwingli was correct on, such as the bodily presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper. But his understanding of baptism was still unbiblical and the Anabaptist came along and added truth. They argued for a rejection of infant baptism. The point I’m trying to make is that the light of truth became clearer and clearer as time went on. The cycle of apostasy-reform kept happening and it kept leading to more truth. The Anabaptist movement is a prime example of how history always repeats itself. Gonzales divides the Anabaptist movement into three parts: early, radical, and later movements being spiritualists and rationalist. The radicals are the ones who began to take the reformation to the furthest extreme to the point where innocent lives were taken. The leaders had the tendency to declare that they were to be prophets, Messiah’s, and visionaries for God. We have witness the same fanaticism today in people like David Koresh, Jim Jones, and the movement in Texas about two years ago. I think we can learn a lot from this by making sure that we stay with the biblical perimeters. The third thing I appreciated about class this week was the point that God used scholarship as a key component to bring about the Protestant Reformation. This is significant to me because I get tired of hearing people argue about whether or not we should go to the Seminary or pursue higher education. I do understand the hang-ups some have about higher learning. There is indeed a tendency for academicians to be irrelevant and impractical for ministry. I have been there. I have also been to the anti-education extreme where all I wanted to do was be in a community, door-to-door 24hrs a day and never do any schoolwork again. But I’ve grown to understand the need for both.
I’m very pleased with all the information presented by Gonzales in his book A History of Christian Though. I’m impressed with the way Gonzalez writes, approaching broadly the history of the Protestant Reformation, making possible to the SDA reader to identify the teachings that are similar to our own understanding of the Scripture today. The chapter about Zwingli was very interesting to me in many ways. Hence many aspects could be emphasized, I want to detain myself to reflect on the first paragraph of page 71 on which Gonzales speaks about Zwingli’s motivations to become a Reformer. I observed that even though Zwingli for some time had profited from the practice of mercenary services, something happened to him that led him to become an activist against the very practice that he once was a participant. Gonzalez states that was “after the battle of Marignano (1515), where large numbers of Swiss soldiers died for an unworthy cause not their own, and when others simply sold themselves to Francis I for a higher price, Zwingli began attacking the practice of mercenary service.” was the beginning of a new history for the people of Switzerland; after this… we know the history, the ideas, the debates, the victories, the death. My reflection then, turned upon my church, the SDA church; it was through the teaching of this church that I became to know Christ. Back then, there was no different lines of Adventism, there was only ADVENTISM. It was common to hear the pastor preach about a biblical teaching and say: “This is the way we understand, therefore that’s the way we teach.” There was no variance, no different opinion about what it meant, although, we could notice different ways to explain the SDA teaching on a particular topic or doctrine. Unfortunately, we don’t see much of this approach these days. It seems that today there are many ways to understand one teaching, even though it may not quite reflect the teaching of the statement of our fundamental beliefs. I wonder though, what would take to raise a reformer like Zwingli from the midst of our church today? Someone who is committed exclusively to what the statement of the fundamental beliefs says, and the way it is, without any kind of juggling or compromise? How many will need to “die,” to bring this to a pass? Could it be done by reasoning, faith, and full commitment to the PRIMA, TOTA, and SOLA Scriptura? I believe it can. I believe it will.
My comment today is focused on the “role of the absolute.” When we were discussing Zwingli’s position on this in class, I could not help but finding myself agree with his logic at first. I do believe God is an absolute Being, thus it would only stand to reason that He is in absolute control of everything. Yet as the discussion went further and pointed out the glaring flaw of this logic, namely that if God is in control of humanity and humanity sins, then God is basically sinning, I remembered why I was an Arminian.
But this also got me thinking along another line that is somewhat related to this: miracles and theodicy. I have a friend who is a leader in the Adventist Church that has a real problem with miracles. This person gets upset when people give their testimonies about how God miraculously healed them from something, or provided for them with something, or blessed them with something. My friend complains, “What about all of those other people that prayed for a miracle and nothing ever happened? Why does God not act equally with them?”
I admit that having heard this person’s objections repeatedly over the course of several years, I too find myself thinking at times, “Well I’m glad that Mrs. Doe was healed, but imagine how the family of Mr. Smith is feeling now, because he wasn’t healed!” And I start to think that people who do experience such blessings should just keep it to themselves. But as soon as I catch myself thinking along those lines, I realize that we need those testimonies to reassure us that God still does work; we just have to trust that everything will be as it should in the end.
That realization that we simply need to yield to God is a humbling one. I think as modern (and postmodern) humans we have been conditioned to seek answers, to know the “why” of it all. It seems our era’s emphasis on epistemology and its ensuing pride has encroached upon our faith in Providence. It is not an easy thing for us to yield, for us to throw our hands up and walk away without receiving the answers we have come to expect.
Yet it is that very nature of yielding that offers the most stunning and satisfying explanation as to the role of the absolute from an Arminian perspective. In chapter three, Gonzales discusses the Anabaptist view of predestination. The Anabaptists thought that this doctrine, specifically as it was taught by Zwingli and his followers, was an offensive disgrace because it provided a way for us to excuse ourselves and place the blame for our sins upon God Himself (p. 91). The author goes on to explain that it is our will to rebel against God, to not yield to Him, that causes sin. And since we do not yield to God, He yields to us. “It is because God yields to the human will, and does not violate it, that we are allowed to continue as we are” (p. 91).
The fact that God yields to us is just an amazing concept to think about. The fact that He yields to inferior beings actually attests to His absolute power. Just as we find it supremely difficult to submit as finite beings testifies to our lack of absolute control, God’s willingness to submit is a proof that He truly is the Absolute Being and is in absolute control.
Garth Dottin Gonzales says that Zwingli was first led by patriotic and intellectual considerations which derived from his practice of mercenary service. He later changed from that belief, but his reform movement always had political and nationalistic overtones. Many people believe that as a church we should be separate from the world to the extent at which Christians should not play a part in any political area. This chapter demonstrated the importance of being involved in the affairs of the world while remaining true to God and Scripture. Zwingli understood the importance of Scripture, and saw it as being infallible and certain to be fulfilled. His quest to understand scripture led him in the direction of predestination. He argued that everything that happens was ordained by God because He is not under the law. Furthermore, salvation is the result of divine election and not of any effort on our part (76). In other words, Zwingli is presenting that God chose some to be saved and some to be lost. People who continue in evil are part of the reprobate and those who do good works are part of the elect. Moreover, people who abandon God while in adversity are not part of the elect. That assertion made me immediately think of Peter’s rejection of Christ, and I pondered if Zwingli would view him as being a reprobate. I affirm some of Zwingli’s theology on the basis of him regarding the bible as the only source of doctrine, and his belief in the sovereignty of God. However, it appears that his theology determines the election of an individual based only on exterior actions or deeds. It immediately brought me to (1 Sam 16:7) “man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart.”
First, I want to talk about predestination and freedom. To understand predestination correctly, we need to remember the fact that we have freedom and God works through the freedom. If we don’t relate freedom with predestination, we can’t have different opinion on predestination from Cavil’s. Here is good example of God works through our freedom in the Scripture. The story is about the conversation between David and God in 1Sam 23:10-13. “ [10] David said, "O LORD, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. [11] Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, God of Israel, tell your servant." And the LORD said, "He will." [12] Again David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will." [13] So David and his men, about six hundred in number, left Keilah and kept moving from place to place. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he did not go there.”
God said Saul would come to Keilah to kill David but because David fled from the city Saul didn’t come to Keilah. And the citizens of Keilah didn’t even surrender David to Saul because David already left there. Did God lie to David? No, He didn’t. He just told David how things are supposed to happen but because of human freedom that prediction can be changed. This is what I learned about predestination and freedom from this class
Second topic I want to deal with is Reormation in Catholic and Adventism. We spent a lot of time disscussing this topic in the class. I personally think that we are historically from Early church, Catholics, and Protestant Reformation. We cannot deny that fact because history says that. And we are also descendents of Millerites. That’s why I believe we should study history especially Christian history so that we can know our roots and what we are supposed to do not to make the same mistake as people did before.
By Jahisber Penuela Journal 2 Regarding of the ongoing discussion I just want to make a brief comment of what I have learned. In class was mentioned the issue of fragmentation as part of the inheritance of the protestant reformation. The protestant reformation represented an increasing of fragmentation, which is a transition to the modern age. So, as consequence today we live in an age of relativism, and in an era of rejection of the existence of the absolute truth. This process was the fulfillment of the prophecy. Within that context it was mentioned also the 1888 event in Adventist history. Dr Hanna mentioned that before 1888 the emphasis was on the ceremonial law being school master to lead s to Christ, and after 1888 SDA added to that emphasis the understanding that the moral Law is also a school master that leads us to Christ. But, that previous emphasis was not wrong at all. At that even it was found unit and it was updated the understanding of the Law, not for unfaithfulness to Scripture, but for the existence of new light. The problem that I am seeing is the issue of the fragmentation as the new light is coming to be known. In the Seventh Day Adventist church as it develops its theology, it may trigger an increasing of Adventist relativism concerning its theology (if not already SDA church has reach that level). It may cause a world wide division. History teaches us that every movement has been divided. So, how do we know within our Adventism that such and such movement is spurious? Sometimes I have found myself fighting against such movements concern of the UNITY. I wonder how many today’s reformed movements within Adventism are really taking more seriously the Bible, when at the same time we act as the Pharisees of Jesus’ time: Afraid that somebody else (or something else) may take our leadership, our tithe or may be our “dignity” to be call church and not sect of the Protestantism.
I appreciate the way you have mentioned your concerns about the ‘wasting” time. I struggled with that too. My point is that the more we become acquainted with the development of theology I history, the more we will be able to distinguish what is the correct path for the SDA in today’s debate. The problem ten, that I see, is that how do we balance that “we should not strongly despise the churches that have been preaching the word of God” without compromising that “God has been using them them to accomplish his mission.”
One of the ideas that came out in our class discussions this week was that God used scholarship to bring about the Protestant Reformation. Most of the reformers, and certainly those we have studied in the class thus far, have been keen students of the Word of God and academia in general. Luther himself came to launch the reformation within the setting of the Catholic university. Erasmus, Zwingli, Aquinas, and others printed and translated many texts. Their life’s work was to ascertain truth, and the vehicle they chose to maneuver through the task was scholarship.
I am reminded from their example that we too are in a university setting, even at a theological seminary. We are not here to simply attain a degree by completing the assignment. As ministers, are we not called to that same type of devoted scholarship as the reformers? We are to be scholars of the God’s Word. And as we all interact and dialogue with the fellow scholars/ministers around us, then we can further our understanding. If we wall ourselves up with the our current understanding of truth, unwilling to explore and experience any further truths of God’s word, then we have shut ourselves off to the working of the Holy Spirit. Scholarship is definitely a way that the Seventh-day Adventist Church can continue to carry the fullness of the Bible truth to the entire world.
I want to comment on our discussion this past week in class. I feel also that one of our issues as a church and as a seminary is that we fail to look at ourselves closely, and we fail to remove the beam out of our eyes before we not only point out the beam in others but also insist in taking it out.
Let me be more specific. Here we are in 2009 and our church has very unhealthy structures, structures that can be viewed as demonic. Here in North America we have conferences that are black and we have conferences that are white. We still will not embrace our women who drop everything they have and know and enter into ministry, many times paying their own way through seminary.
First with our division in the church, when we look at Romans 2 when Paul speaks about the state of the world, one in which is surrounded in evilness, men having un natural relationships, women having un natural relationships, and man becoming inventors of new ways of evilness. We ought to be careful because it sounds a lot like the times in which we live in today. Then when you look at the division in church in the time, with Greek Christian household assemblies and Jewish household assemblies, we ought to be careful because it sounds a lot like the church of today!
Even when we take a look at the seminary in which we have only 3 black professors, one of which is African American, two of which are West Indian and none of which are African. 1 or two professors of Latin descent, I can’t recall if we have a Chinese, Korean, Japanese or any of our other beautiful Asian cultures. (Not talking about program leaders or chairs of departments) When we look at our seminary it does not reflect the World Church.
I realize that many of us do not believe that we have a race issue in the church but we defiantly do! I believe that the reason we have these unhealthy structures is because we like Martin Luther did, we don’t look at The Letter of Romans in a contextual manner. Paul was a contextual writer, when we look deeper at Romans we see that while righteousness by faith is there the purpose of Romans was to address the separation in the Church. Paul uses Christ as the thread that all are sown with. Jew with the law before faith in Christ was lost and Gentiles before faith in Christ were lost. Christ is our common denominator.
Am I saying that everyone in seminary is racist, absolutely not, I am saying we have structures in our church that are very exclusive, we have a platform that is even more exclusive, which then makes others form organizations or sub structures to have a platform, and as the church in my opinion is in a very similar state of the Church of Rome that Paul wrote to: we absolutely need Christ! To my acknowledgement not even the Catholic Church, as we know as the beast has race separated structures. We as the remnant with a remnant message need be careful and pointing out the flaws of others when we as a Church have many flaws. Preach the truths that we have, preach them with the power of Christ, but in our church there is still a reforming spirit, one that wants to learn more and more of God, one that is not limited to tradition but is ready to step out of the box of tradition and draw closer to God!
I just wondered why I have to study the history especially about philosophies. I registered Andrews University Seminary for studying the bible. I have to teach people only with the bible. They don’t care about the theological history. But why I have to learn the Plato accessing by human reason, Aristotle accessing by five senses, Deductive thinking, Inductive thinking, Neo Platonism, and Augustine. But I learned the important lesson. I always have thought why Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge good and evil as I read this scene. If I were Eve, I could not eat that fruit. But I could get the good lesson from this class.” I will not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge good and evil because I have the history of six thousands.” “I will follow the Jesus on the cross because I have the history of two thousands story.“ “We can find the way that we must go through seeing the commentary of reformers’ about various themes.” This class is very tough to me because this class is treating the thoughts of eras and my English is so poor. I am very struggling to catch up this class.
I thought he was always excellent person. But he had a psychological depression as he was a young. This was so shocked to me. I didn’t know that he became a great person through the weakness. I remember God’s word 1 Cor 1:26-28 through him. “1 Cor 1:26-28 “26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are,“ I believe that God will use me gladly if I summit my poor experiences and my will for him. This is good news for like me poor person.
I would like to talk about Zwingli and the beginning of the reformed tradition. Zwingli and Luther differed in many ways. Whereas Luther followed an anguished spiritual pilgrimage dealing with the basic issue of his relationship with God, Zwingli was led by patriotic and intellectual considerations. Zwingli’s patriotism was aroused by the practice of mercenary service. At the battle of Marignano, many Swiss soldiers died and Zwingli began attacking the practice of mercenary service. So Zwilgli’s reform movement always had nationalistic and political overtones. I think he appreached the scripture as a Christian humanist. He focused on message of Scripture. he clearly states that it is impossible to understand scripture apart from divine guidance. Zwingli wishes to draw his entire theology out of Scripture. And yet, when, immediately after there words, he goes on to discuss the nature of God, most of his argument seems to be taken from the philosophers rather than from scripture Now a day we need to return to Scripture.
Luther didn’t go too far away from the Roman Catholic understand of the sacraments, which the Pope understand as a way to infuse grace to humans. The Roman teaching attributes the sacramental infusion of grace to several religious rituals. Luther rejected the majority of the sacraments, except the duo baptism/Eucharist.
Luther would claim words like these, “The Master is present in the bread, ‘ this is my body.’” This would only be possible because of the communicatio idiomatum teaching, which justifies the omnipresent movement of the resurrected Jesus, who was concomitant on the right hand of the Father and also in the bread during Eucharist. When I first read this I saw some seeds of panentheistic ideas regarding the omnipresence of God. Because if Jesus could be on the bread, and in heaven during the same time, by default He could be anywhere else. Moreover, Luther believed that the sacrament preceded faith, which I interpreted as only other way to say that the sacrament can be non- cognitive. The reason is as follows, if the person doesn’t need to believe, so the person can partake of the sacrament in ignorance, without understanding nothing, and still be partakers of the benefits of the ritual. So, we don’t need to know the giver in order to receive the gift. The same logic would be noticed in the baptism of infants.
Luther’s aggiornamento in the sacraments were not enough, so only later on, Martin Chemnitz improved the teaching of Eucharist introducing the concept of multivolipresence, which is the ability to be in several places, as God’s wills. Again, the question of the presence of God is central to the understanding of the sacraments. Unfortunately, the ontological framework of Luther and of most of the reformers was the Catholic one. They could never understand Jesus, away from the Old Testament notion of the presence of God. Without the sanctuary they have no platform in which to explain the immanence of God, so the fruit never falls far from the tree. The Lutherans became merely German Catholics justified by faith.
I come from an evangelical background so I have a strong assurance of my salvation and have always been saddened by Adventists who are just not sure. 1 John 5:13 says “We can know that we have eternal life.” I came from believing “Once saved always saved” to understanding that a person can lose their salvation. I had another teacher say it’s easy to be saved and hard to be lost. However, the discussion in class on Tuesday helped me understand where other Adventists are coming from—a more holistic view of salvation that includes not only justification but sanctification and glorification as well. But even so, I don’t believe it is presumption to claim to be saved. All that I do is claim the abundant promises in scriptures, like Acts 16:31 “Believe and you will be saved…” and John 3:16, “…whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” Nor do I think a preoccupation with worrying over my salvation is healthy to my spiritual life. I think worry is a tool of the devil that he uses to draw us away from God. Maybe its also a lack of faith.
On a related note, I found the following quote from our textbook interesting: “This was the main reason that Luther insisted on infant baptism to deny baptism to infants, on the ground that they have no faith, would imply that the power of baptism-and therefore of the gospel-depends on our ability to receive it. This would simply be a new form of justification by works” (65). I had never considered how our very decision to turn to Christ could be considered a work. Talk about deep thinking! Yet I wonder how theologians who believe in free will answer this challenge. Understanding this aspect of Luther’s theology also helps me understand Luther’s belief that we are totally passive toward God.
This week was another week of blessings in this class for I continue to learn about the way how according to my understanding God has been leading men and women throughout history. While reading and listening to different lectures and debates in class, it called my attention how during the years of the reformation the light about God and the plan of salvation was in progress. As the professor in class did, I will like to point out that the men a woman used by God during years of reformation were Catholics. They were the men and women that God called to create a reform. However, the question that I ask is, God called these men and women to reform from what? The answer is to reform from the true that they departed from years ago. I strongly believe the early in history the Roman Catholic church was God’s church in the same way how Israel was God’s people, but both of them apostate. In Revelation 12, we see a woman who is dress up in white, this woman represents the church of God that ran to the desert and after the dragon sent a river of water, the earth open and hide the woman. For me, this is the same woman of Revelation 17, who now became Babylon, who is in the desert sited by many water. In Revelation we don’t see two churches as many will think, there is only one church who at the beginning was pure and then corrupts and later on reforms. Another way to see that is going to Revelation 6 where we find four horses which in reality is one, who a the beginning is white (pure). This horse represents the church that was establish by Jesus and his disciples but little by little changed due to the persecution. But even though the horse changes colors, then in Revelation 19:11 the horse becomes white again, because once again they came back to Jesus and the truth of the Bible. The last way to illustrate my point is with the seven churches, the first church “Sardis” is faithful, pure, a church that suffers a lot for the cause of Jesus, but that later on became corrupt, and it is again in Laodicea the same church, which later on recaptures the truth of the Bible.
I really like how Joubghan Kim points out the difference between Zwingli and Luther that regardless their differences God used both of them. This is a proof that God can use people from different background with different needs to accomplish His purpose.
I agree with the comment "anonymous' made to Morgan Kochenower in reflection #2. I agree that Luther did what he did for the benefit of his church. The light that he received he wanted to share it with his church and help it come to the scriptures again. I agree when you said that Luther lived up to the truth that he received. However, we need to know that the revelation of the Bible truth is progressive, Luther did not and the other reformers did not receive all the Bible truth at once. therefore, Luther took a giant step for his time.
This week was another very informative week of class I really enjoyed the comparison between Luther and Zwingli. I really enjoyed the topic of reformation we spoke of this week and how Hanna brought out the many reformations and there is always a need for reformations until Jesus returns, and I found that very interesting and true. We as Seventh – day Adventist sometimes get this idea that we have it all right and that we cannot improve. But just as there were problems in the church back then, there are problems in our church today. We need to have the spirit of reformation where we see something not right or biblical and seek to reform that problem and not just sit here behind the walls of Adventism thinking we have it all right.
Reflection for week 1 by John Treat Professor Hanna quoted a passage that is in eleven different places which says that “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history. [3SM 162.3}” He applied this to the Protestant Reformation. We can learn the things that the reformers did right, what they did wrong, and what they were reacting against. What they were reacting against included their reliance on tradition. This lead to many problems. First, when a literal reading of the Bible contradicted tradition, then church theologians felt that they needed an allegorical interpretation of those passages of the Bible. Second, there was no way to correct the church; leading to deeper apostasy. Third, works were emphasized to the point that faith, grace and forgiveness were eclipsed. Erasmus tried to reform the church and returned to the original sources, which was good. Justo L. Gonzalez states that the Erasmus followed his convictions by following a more moderate course; Ellen G. White disagrees with that assessment. She evaluates his character as “timid and time serving” which resulted in him lacking “moral greatness” (GC216). She also wrote that his New Testaments were valuable contributions (GC245). Professor Hanna pointed out the comment that Gonzalez made in the “Preface to the Second Edition” that makes the connection between history and biography. It is true that the history that lead up to our will have its influence on our biography. This can be seen in the Reformation characters that will be discussed later in the course. Gonzales points out that the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church was one of the conditions that called for the reformation and many saw it. Erasmus pushed in this direction and had many of the higher clergy convinced that reformation was needed. We can only speculate how the reformation would have turned out if Erasmus and those that were going along with him had sided with the reformation rather than deciding that the cost to them was too high. On page 23 of the text book, Gonzales reports that Erasmus condemned theologians for "hairsplitting.” Again we can only wonder how church history would have turned out both before and after Erasmus if theologians had not practiced making these fine distinctions about things that in them selves do not matter, while important issues lie uninvestigated. The history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church would have been different as well without some of the controversies of the 1888 General conference session.
In the first week we discussed the assertion of the author of our text book, Gonzalez, that history leads to biography. This can be seen in the life of Martin Luther. He had a close call with lightning, which brought to the front of his mind his lack of assurance of salvation; the result was that he joined a monastery. He pursued the assurance of salvation with vigor, to the point that it effected him for the rest of his life, according to our text book. All this work to obtain the assurance of salvation was of no effect. He tried to bring the body into subjection by various privations, but that did not work. He tried six hour confessions, but that did not work. His superior put him to work for other people and to studying theology. As part of his studies, he read the Bible. On passage that particularly a arrested his attention was Romans 1:17 which says in part “for therein is the righteousness of God revealed”; he was told that this was talking about the judgment of God, which was a very oppressive thought to him. His feelings about God were hate rather than love at this point. About this time he went to Rome. He saw great corruption at that time in the Roman church, which disgusted him. He still believed the process of gaining merit however; so he climbed a certain set of steps on his knees, because this was supposed to be of benefit. He was stuck with the though, from the rest of Romans 1:17, that the righteousness was by faith. He found, also in Romans, that we are justified by faith without works. These two discoveries had a profound effect on the rest of his life, his theology, on the protestant churches, and even on the Roman Catholic Church. His desperate search for the assurance of salvation led his to three of his great “solas” “only by grace,” “only by faith,” and only by Christ. Salvation was equated with justification by faith alone by grace alone and by Christ alone, without works being involved in the slightest. He interpreted the rest of Romans and the rest of the Bible in the light of the previous idea; this lead to wanting to exclude James from the canon of Scripture because it disagreed with his idea about justification by faith alone. Going along with the humanists, he came up with his other great “sola”: “sola scriptura” ( only by the Scripture). Our text book pointed out that he did not always live with the sola scriptura principle; he used it when it was convenient to fight against the Roman Catholic Church. At other times he went along with tradition. He did not accept latter church fathers like Aquinas, but he used Augustine; he was an Augustinian monk.
He pushed hard against the Roman Catholic Church and their works oriented salvation through the church and their use of tradition to interpret Scripture. Luther pushed hard against the Roman Catholic Church, ad it was at a very high cost. He was hated by many in high places in the Roman Church; they tried to kill him. He fought against the Roman Catholic Church vigorously, but he also fought against those he called enthusiasts, that went further than he did. This group of enthusiasts included those that only went by the “Spirit” without the word of God, which were rightly censored. The enthusiasts also included those that took the Word of God further that he did. I think things would have worked out better if he had sided with the latter group. I think things would have worked out better if he had not make all other scriptures conform to his idea of justification by faith alone. This led to wanting to exclude the book of James from the canon of Scripture. If he had more thoroughly studied what the rest of the Bible said on justification or ever what the rest of Romans said on the subject he might have come to a more balanced answer.
What is the cost of following Jesus today? If we look at the life of Martin Luther...it cost him everything he knew...his professorship, his membership in the church he loved, friendships, etc.
When he decided that he was going to live his life based on the Word of God and not the word of man, he was ousted from the church of Rome. He didn't choose to leave, so much that he was tossed. It reminds me of Jesus' words in Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." and John 15:20 "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also."
Luther stood tall for the Word of God and the results were...he paid a price for doing so. Now, if Luther would have recapitulated to Rome, refusing to stand for the Word of God in the name of peace, or if he would have accepted some method of interpretation that said "the just will live by faith and works" instead of the biblical "the just will live by faith,"...if he would have taken, dare I say a "wholistic" approach, then we would have no existence as a people today. So the idea that "either - or" statements or ideas are unbiblical...I just don't see that. Perhaps the most significant part of our our identity...our Protestant Theological Heritage is intrinsic in the Class Title...we exist, in part, to continue to "Protest" against anything unbiblical.
It should be no wonder that one of the first assertions of the Counter-Reformation was Roman Catholicism's proclamation that any Bible Translation other than the Vulgate was "drivel"...So I guess its clear what their concern was. Its all about control to Roman Catholicism. I believe that we should have a good understanding of the areas that continue to attract Counter-Reformation antagonism. That way, we can stop dancing on these ideas that we're doing "higher learning" and anything that questions it is "anti-intellectual"...call it what you will...we need to get back to the simple Word of God and stop making it all so messy. Our work is to Herald the 3 Angel's Message, that's the reason we exist. God had a work for Luther to do...God had a work for Zwingli to do. God has a work for us to do as a Seventh-day Adventist and that is to preach the 3 Angel's Message. THIS is our work.
The other day we were discussing the radical reformers in the early Protestant movement. Radical reformers have always been a part of the Christian church. However, usually I believe that they have been labeled as heretics. What we must remember is that a heretic does not believe himself or herself to be one. They are only labeled a heretic by the majority church. I have always found these radical reformers to be very interesting, particularly the Anabaptists.
The Anabaptist surprise me every time I read about them. Most surprising for me to find while reading Gonzalez is that while they were labeled “rebaptizers”, this name given to them “was not altogether exact, for the Anabaptists did not believe that they were rebaptizing anyone, but considered that they were rather administering the only valid form of baptism” (89). I had not caught that point earlier on in my church history classes.
What they called themselves was brethren. This was probably because they wanted to get back to the New Testament church where the community took care of everyone and each other. This was an important aspect for these Anabaptists.
So why bring this up? How does this fit in with our heritage? I believe that when the Seventh-day Adventist church came into being, we were a radical reformation. Most denominations at the time of our conception, and still to this day, believe that Sunday is the Sabbath, that there is an eternal burning hell, and that there will be a rapture. Though many were united in the 1840’s, there was a splintering after the Great Disappointment of 1844 and the Seventh-day Adventist church was born out of this.
Our purpose was to get back to the Bible. Our forefathers studied the Bible, gleaned our doctrines of the Bible, based everything on the Bible. This was radical in that time when so many were steeped in Protestant tradition. It is interesting that the tradition that the Protestant reformation sought to change in the Catholic church became what the Seventh-day Adventist church would fight later on.
I believe that there is always room for radical reformers. The only thing is that as a radical reformer we must keep the Bible in front of us and prove everything from the Bible. We cannot use traditions or other books to show that our beliefs are correct. The Bible should be our only creed. I also believe that the Seventh-day Adventist church can and still is a radical reformer in these days.
Reflection 1 Fenades Theology which does not reform and transform looses its power of what it is really supposed to be. In our class discussions which have grappling with different issues but ultimately if our ideas do not change the way we think and the way we live in order to be of value to others then for me its true meaning has been lost. While looking at Erasmus and the Humanist I find some relevant points and lessons one can draw some of which reflect the way our church operates. Erasmus’ theology seems to resonate with our current need for ethics rather than dogmatics or doctrines. His believe that correct theological affirmations were of secondary importance when compared with the actual practice of Christian life is the same principle held today especially with the postmodern generation. Theology which does affect how we live has lost its proper use. Theology should produce change in the life of people in the way they live and act and I think. Another point that intrigued me was the talk about the visible and the invisible church, which was rightly stated that this can be similar to what we call in our church as the remnant of the remnant the latter being the invisible church. Though this may seem true I wonder whether one has to be in the visible church in order to belong to the invisible, what about those who are not in the visible church and perhaps they belong to the invisible church. We have people who are ‘termed’ as remnant yet I believe they are in the invisible church of God. In our church and in our teaching we have emphasized so much in belonging to the visible church and we have forgotten that our being visible is meant to be a reflection of the invisible church. Though the reformers appeared to be radical in there emphases of belonging to the visible we are not far from them in our emphasis of being an Adventist without teaching people of actually why we should be Adventist.
Reflection 2 Having discussion in our class about the differences between ontology and epistemology it brings me to the realization that even in our post-modern Era we are still coming to grips with with pretty the same issues these great theologians were facing although nowadays they are framed in a different manner. In our postmodern instead of argument of what is real and how do we know what is real we have the arguments of what is truth and how do we know it is truth? Do we have absolute truth or truth is relative? As we move to more and more individualistic society the cry in this arguments lie on the basis of , “don’t impose on what you think is right on me because your ‘right’ may not be my right”. This is the same questions for the arguments of ontology and epistemology, what you term as real may not be actually ‘real’ and if it is, how do you know it is real? I see this kind of style in our churches, in our debates and how we do theology. Most of the heated debates are as a result of ‘you are right’ and ‘I am wrong’ or vice versa. But can’t we give room for both of us being right and being wrong? Both of us can be right and wrong, but we should take caution as I believe that there should be parameters to determine what we can and can’t do be right. Setting these parameters and who to set them, I think is the challenge that we must wrestle with. As an Adventist I find it necessary to have a balance on how we intertwine scholastic work, doctrines and ethics. It is important to ask how our churches are receiving the heritage and adapting it to their context. The reformed tradition‘s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism. We should be open to questioning on our theology. Sometimes in our church those who question our practices and understanding of theology are as seen as sinning through questioning. I believe there should be a healthy way in which people can present there claims without being seen as doing something wrong. Striking a balance in this matter is one of the struggles we face and yet that searching for the balance should always be there
One of Martin Luther’s contributions to Protestant theology was his approach for doing theology. For Luther, he used a dialectical method of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that was influential in his theological. The dialectical method is basically a method of discovering and defending a theological truth with a contrasting truth. Luther often used dialectic to discuss essential matters of Christian life and faith. However, his basic fundament position was that the Bible should serve as a norm and final critique for all conclusions, including his own assertions. When we consider the fact that Martin Luther felt compelled to write his “Heidelburg Dispensations” which condemned Aristotle’s philosophical influence within theology, he was beginning to outline the new “starting point of theology.” According to Gonzalez, Luther believed that “the Word of God is the starting point for theology” p. 47. I have planned to consider Luther’s dialectical method of theology as the subject for my research proposal. Luther’s usage of the dialectical method in his theology seems to have been because of his personal experience with the issue of the righteousness of God. In his life, Luther questioned how it was possible for a sinner to enter into a relationship with a righteous God. Yet, he was able to discover the meaning of the righteousness of God after he meditated on Scripture was first applied to his own experience. By examining Luther’s dialect and the way he grappled with the problems of his life, we can learn how to draw from Scripture insights that will help us proclaim the gospel to others as a result of our lives being changed because of our experience and encounter with Scripture.
Name: Joel Rosana Reflection Paper #2 The study of the magisterial reformers gives us the background of how the Roman Catholic Church was so brutal in terms of suppressing what was the Biblical truth. The Catholic Church was much egocentric to the formations of their doctrines. What we clearly see is that many of their doctrines had monetary attachments, i.e. the purgatory doctrine was meant for the relatives of the dead to pay penance in order for their dead person to be prayed for and get the opportunity of been transferred from hell to heaven. Even the doctrine of celibacy was meant to deny the priest the opportunity of inheritance at the time of dead, and all he had made belonged to the church. So our study in class exposed all these and when the reformers studied the Bible came to realize what the truth was, they embarked on the truth at all cost. Some paid for the resolutions they took for instance others denied the privileges they had, their books burned, etc. Martin Luther and Zwingli did a lot of reform that has give the current church a base of knowing the truth as it is in the Bible. In the class we did discuss that these magisterial reformers though came out of the Roman Catholic Church they did not full come out clean, but came with the teachings that brought controversy among themselves. The doctrine of Eucharist in Luther’s teaching was contrary to what the Bible teaches and this brought a sharp argument with Zwingli who was much more Biblical in this doctrine, though he too had some wrong teachings that were not according to the Bible. Lesson that I learnt in all these is that reformation is a journey that is even on progress in the twenty first century. And as time goes by new revelation is unveiled to us and these tell us to be sober to change because it is the core of learning.
I would like to comment on the discussion we’ve been having in class this week about the difference between central doctrines or theologies and theologies of the edges. I believe this distinction is absolutely necessary as too many people are making theologies of the edges central issues. Certain things are NOT central issues. The divinity of Christ: central. The doctrine of the cross and atonement: central. The doctrine of a bodily resurrection and final judgment: central. Our doctrines on things like jewelry: NOT CENTRAL. I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my church experience, there is more controversy, argument and dissention over these “edge” issues than the those central ones. I don’t hear everyday Adventist members debating about the nature of Christ and whether it was pre or post fall. I DO hear members ready to chop heads over jewelry, worship styles (mostly music), and women wearing pants in the church. I think we should have some discussions on that. Why do we continue to make “edge” issues central doctrinal issues? I mean, people sound like they’re ready to shoot somebody that claims to be Adventist and dares to have in earrings! Does anyone else see a problem with this? By the way, these same people seem to have forgotten what Jesus says is the largest identifying marker of a Christian: “By this will all men know you are my disciples; if you have LOVE for one another”. We’re so worried about being “distinctive” Adventists that we have excluded ourselves from being Christian.
In our discussion this week of Lutheran theology to the Formula of Concord and the various controversies that arose during that time, I find the Osiandrian controversy very fascinating as it has a lot resemblance to the new age movement teaching today whereby God is described in a mystical way, the ultimate reality. Knowing God for them is receiving higher truths which can be gained by getting in touch with this ultimate reality (God) in a mystical way or by doing some form of practices. For them Man has not taken the image of God. God is a transcended being which cannot be like man. Studying the controversy it seems that the New Age movement is partly a collection of the some of these teachings which have undergone some modification. For example the Osiandrian controversy argues that the image of God was not something to be found in Adam and seems to suggest that if it was not that God had purposed for his son to be incarnate, then there was no reason of actually making Adam. The incarnation is not a response of sin. When one looks carefully at the controversy and the New age movement sin is belittled and it implies that we have something worthwhile to offer to God in order to be saved. we are not completely unworthy and unable to save ourselves relying wholly on the grace of God but we can contribute something towards our salvation. One thing I find that, we should realize as we study this theological heritage is that, there is no one group that got it all together right but by creating the atmosphere of openness to debate and challenging of each others views, those who came after them learned to create a more sound biblical based theology which we have inherited. If we stop from creating that same environment where we can question why we believe what we believe and have healthy debates then out theology will never grow and be reformed.
Reflection for week 3 One of the subjects that was brought up in class was the relationship of sola Scriptura to the writings of Ellen G. White. There are four places in the Bible that say something to the effect of do not add to or take away from what God says (Deut 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18-19). It does not say do not take away from the Bible or Scripture; it says do not take away from what God said. This does not seem to leave us the option of ignoring the writings of Ellen G. White under some concept that we call sola scriptura. If we accept the Bible as the Word of God, then we must make sure that we have included everything that God has said. The only question left for us to determine is whether Ellen G. White was a messenger of the Lord or not. We are instructed to do this when the Bible tells us to try the spirits (1 John 4:1). The Bible also tells us that there will be false prophets (Matthew 24:11, 24). This does not leave us with the alternative of going along to get along with others that profess to be Christians and ignore Ellen G. White. We must try her and see if she is a true prophet of a false prophet. We do not need to call her writings canon, but we are not at liberty to pass by what the Holy Spirit has given to the church. She does say that she was the lesser light to bring us to the greater light of Scripture (The Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903). At least one of the scholars of the Seventh-day Adventist church thinks that using the writings of Ellen White is a kind of cheating; he says that we need to the hard work of exegesis to uncover the true meaning of Scripture. The above passage of Scripture does not seem to leave open that option unless we declare her to be a false prophet. If we do that wrongly, we are risking committing the sin against the Holy Spirit. Any good scholar will take into account all the different points of view on any given question; therefore, I think that any good Seventh-day Adventist scholar will include in his research all the data that bears on the subject, which includes the writings of Ellen G. White. Any time I see a document that is written and published by our church that has in it something that conflicts with what I know Ellen White to have said, I think that the writer and editor that produced that work did not do their homework. I discount what they have written or said. You might need to give up some cherished idea, but read what the prophet wrote; it is worth it; she is inspired and inspiring.
In light of recent class discussions and my proposal linking extremism of the past to current discussions surrounding the human nature of Christ, I would like to clarify my current understanding.
I hold that Christ took a fallen human nature. This statement alone might instantly place me in the camp of heretics by some, but I take this position because it is promoted in the Bible and Ellen White's writings. By saying that Christ took a fallen nature I am not implying that his experience was exactly like ours. There are distinct differences in Christ's experience and similarities as well. One possible explanation for understanding this controversy is that Christ was "born again" (lead by the Spirit) from the beginning. I am not completely satisfied with the term "born again," but in this argument it will be used for the sake of comparison. Since Christ was "born again" (lead by the Spirit) from the beginning of his experience and never sinned, he never built up sinful habits (propensities) toward sin. When we are born again we struggle with the propensities that our sinful behavior has instilled in us. In other words, we can be born again and lead by the Spirit yet continually struggle with sinful habits or experiences that have influenced us. Since Christ never sinned and was lead by the Spirit from the beginning He never built up these tendencies (propensities) to sin.
While I believe that my above explanation does not come close to a complete understanding of the subject, I believe that it can be a starting point to further study. How does "fully human" yet "fully Divine" factor into all of this?
I don't believe that this topic should be avoided in the Adventist Church, rather, we need more open dialog about this issue. We only reach a problem when we decide that our position is right and everyone else is wrong refusing to listen to their points. Maybe someone with a differing position will have some points that will challenge your thinking and deepen your understanding.
Reflection #3 There are two things I will like to reflect on from this week’s discussion and my readings. The first thing is the doctrine of predestination. I believe it is a biblical doctrine. According to Paul in Ephesians 1:4-5, “God hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” God has predestined all of us to be saved. This was a decision made before the foundation of the world. However, the views of Calvinism on this subject disturbed me. Calvin’s view of predestination is faulty. He pushed Luther and Zwingli and went to the extreme of double predestination. This is the idea that God has chosen before time that He would save some people and destroy others. In order to defend this position, Calvin argues that God’s divine decree (synonymous with predestination) is not even based on His foreknowledge of the each person’s response to the gospel. But rather, it is based on God’s infinite wisdom and divine prerogative. As human being we should not try to probe the secret counsels of God. We do not have the right or audacity to question why God would decree some to be saved and others to be lost. It is a divine mystery that would be insane for humans to probe. Although Calvin is the one who is most known for this doctrine he is not the first to teach it in this manner. Augustine of Hippo could be considered the father of the notion of double predestination. Thomas Aquinas also taught a variation of it. I appreciate our colleague’s attempt to simply this complex doctrine in his explanation to the high school kids he is working with. The chart he used in class was a helpful, although limited, way to illustrate the differences between the theologies of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Adventism, and Catholics. He has given me an idea on how to approach the issue and try to simply it. The second thing I want to reflect on from this week stems from a presentation from one of our colleagues. He made is doing his paper on pacifism. I find that interesting because it has always been a difficult issue for me, particularly when non-believers raise questions about “The God of the Old Testament” as opposed to “The God of the New Testament.” If God told His people to go to war and slaughter every living creature, then, how dare Christians assert themselves as pacifist in times of war? I am aware of the counter argument that in the New Testament Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. But what do we do with Paul’s admonition for us to obey those who are in government authority? I know that we must obey as long as it does not oppose something the Word of God teaches. But that goes back to the first question of the way God told Israel to destroy nations who opposed their plans for them. This is an issue that I have to wrestle with and will continue to until I get an answer. One thing I am sure of is that “God is the same today, yesterday, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). His nature is the same. So, I guess the question I’m trying to answer is, Why would God tell His people in the Old Testament to go to war and then in the New Testament tell His people to turn the other cheek? Any comments?
Garth Dottin It was interesting to see the doctrinal similarities and differences between the Anabaptist and Seventh-day Adventists. The Anabaptist affirmed that Christians must remain faithful to the state unless it conflicts with the word of God. They asserted that their institutions were never to be supported by the state monetarily, and opposed infant baptism. They also advocated for the total restoration of New Testament Christianity. However, in their quest to follow scripture correctly, they became extremist and diverged from scripture. This chapter demonstrates the extent to which some people will go in their search for true spirituality. It shows how important it is to have balance when studying the Bible and applying it to life. It presents the modern problem of some Christians regarding their biased interpretation, and their rigid application of scripture. Some modern day Christians presented Christianity as a strict set of the legalistic rules, and make it to lose its appeal to nonbelievers. We should learn from the history of the Anabaptist. Extremism, fanaticism, and radicalism will only attract a following temporarily, but the end result will always be apostasy, moral decline, and a straying from true Biblical teaching.
As we have been discussing the Anabaptists and some of the other Radical reformation movements, I have been thinking about the transition that radical religious movements seem to go through. It seems that these groups go through a process of being radical to the creation of an establishment that results in a more conservative structure. Luther was radical, at least for his time. But within a relatively short amount of time Lutherans came to be seen as a conservative and very un-radical. If I had never taken this course, I would have had no idea that Anabaptists had ever been considered part of the “Radical” Reformation. Adventists come from this same radical tradition. It is at least my understanding that Adventism in its early stages held many radical positions. It does not seem that way today. Why is that? How did Adventism go from radical to conservative? I think there are two reasons for this phenomenon. The first is that while Adventism was “radical” for its day, it was actually a movement to return to a proper understanding of Scripture, which by nature is going to be very conservative. This is interesting because this leads to the implication that Adventism in its earlier stages was so conservative that it was radical in its own way. But because the doctrinal beliefs of Adventism were meant to be a return to a prior (or at least a more true) set of beliefs and doctrines the neo-conservatism of the Adventist movement can be understood. I think the second reason is common to many denominations and it has also affected Adventism as well. Many denominations throughout the centuries have discovered new light, or the importance of an old light. Once they have made this discovery, they once again draw a line around their set of beliefs and then imply that there is no new truth to know. Then if someone comes along with more light, they persecute (figuratively) that person as much as they were persecuted for the light that God allowed them to discover. This I think is an improper course of action, not because we should anything that anyone says, but because it is important for us to be welcome to challenges and new ways to understand the truth we think we know. Ellen G. White said that there is no stake of truth that we should not be willing to remove from the ground and move further. She also said that the fact that we have believed something for a long time does not make it any more true, should it be found to be false. As I’ve said before on this blog, truth can afford to be fair. It seems that sometimes we feel like we cannot.
Class discussion earlier this week on the historic periods of prophecy really got me thinking more about a thought that has been percolating in the back of my mind during this whole session. (I’m not sure exactly how these prophetic periods tie into my original thoughts, but it did at least spark a completed thought to coalesce.) We have been talking about how this line of Protestant Reformers has progressed over the centuries mainly because the previous reforming movement and/or leader did not go far enough in other people’s opinions. This is why we have Calvin pushing further than Zwingli, who pushed further than Luther, etc.
In a previous class I had from Dr. Bob Johnston, I learned that throughout history God has had a special people on the earth that teach His truth – which is obviously not a new concept. But, what I found interesting was the fact that His people tend to go through periods of great growth and severe reduction. Painted in broad stokes it looks like the following. He started off with the entire human race, which expanded greatly, but was narrowed back down to Noah. Then Noah’s descendants increased in number, but God selected Abraham to start a special lineage. The Israelites expanded into a nation, but was then reduced to just the Kingdom of Judah. The Jews were then winnowed into a handful of Christians. Those Christians grew into the Catholic Church, which was then lessened into the followers of the Reformation. The increase then decrease of the Reformation continued with the various different leaders and denominations up until the Adventist Church was formed.
It seems as if this cycle of expansion and reduction has been occurring more and more frequently as history progresses – to be clear, this is just an opinion as I have not done much research on specific dates. I guess my question with that view of history in mind is, does the rapid nature of the progression of truth since the Reformation hold any significance? Additionally, why does it seem that with every cycle of constriction, the numbers of subsequent expansion seem to be lessened? Does this mean that we will eventually get to the point where the increase of God’s people will be negligible at best? I suppose what I am getting at is that it appears we are building towards something – Christ’s return, I would imagine – with these cycles of “reformation.” But using this cycle as a pattern, it does not seem as if many people will be there at for the climax.
As an interesting side note, during my pondering of this issue, Ellen White’s vision of the people falling off the narrow path that was ascending to heaven comes to mind. I wonder if possibly this vision might have a grander implication for this cycle of more and more people falling away as the truth gets ever closer to the One who is Truth.
Reflection #3 In the third week of our discussion, we had a very contagious discussion on martin Luther’s theology and Zwingli’s theology, and how they are related to our present understanding of the of salvation. As we had been discussing, we realized that their theologies and protests have something to learn as far as reformation is concern.Though their theologies could not be so far called perfect theology we could see that they contributed a lot to our present understanding salvation. By taking for example martin Luther’s firm teaching on righteousness by faith,Luther emphasized a lot on this section as if works have no part to play toward our journey of salvation.For example where did he take other verses in the bible like ,you can tell by their fruits,fruits here implying to their character.those who will inherit heaven must wash their garment with the blood of the lamb ,I will was their sins and they will be as white as snow and several others.so we will get downwards that works have arole play though not to earn salvation to us. Ellen white also comments that on this issue by basing her inspirational books on the christian character.people who are full of the holy spirit,manifests the character of God in their lifes,our character always predict where we are going.I also wanted to comment on the on the other issue which emerged in almost the end of the week,That as much as our salvation depends on the grace of God,Our salvation also depends on our works. Most of the members accepted that phrase but some though they dint comment on this issue because of time din’t accept for I could tell from their dilemma in their faces .I have to be sincere in this part that I don’t accept that concept.I strongly believe that our works cannot earn us salvation.We are saved by jesus Christ through his grace and this grace gives us the power to live as his children for we no longer belong to the devil. For instance if we talk of our works then there was no need for jesus to come and die on the cross for us. so then the Pharisees could have earned their salvation through their works.
Nathan Kennedy Reflection #3 The last week of class has been very intense from my perspective. Raising up questions of Christ’s nature, the danger of Zwingli’s/Calvin’s predestination view, non-combatancy, comparative charts, the so-called “Emergent Church,” and what really got me thinking was Morgan’s presentation on his sports analogy. I liked it a lot, as he pointed out, one can go and hear many a sermon on the virtues of one sport or another from a pulpit and not note one text or reference to the rules. I had never looked at it quite like that. It is true the rules are what make a specific game enjoyable and exiting. Should both parties follow the rules, the game is smooth and even challenging. However when one team attempts to play only the rules they wish (even when they have a “good” reason) it causes strife and division on the other team, and if both play their own game, it would be confusion. That is a very good analogy of the current state of Christianity today. It also makes a lot of sense as to why many of our critics can have a field day with us. They play their way, not the Bible’s rules. I have often reflected on the absolute danger of the predestination issue, and I am even more convinced that it needs to be taught to our people, when they elect to be baptized, and presented often from the pulpit. When the average Joe/Jane goes to websites like www.nonsda.org or www.ellenwhiteexposed.com and reads and sees the allegations brought to his/her attention, they can easily discern that the basic presupposition of the allegations rests basically on the issue of predestination. When they do look at these things they may or may not come to us, their appointed leadership (many do not trust the appointed leadership, we ourselves may be a skeptical at times). They may just quit coming to church, even if they are just looking for an out on their conscience, and we would never know. However, I would argue that informed people on the issue of predestination and how it leads to the false dichotomy of Law vs Grace, Old Covenant vs New Covenant, which these sites rely heavily on. Perhaps I am being too optimistic here, as we are not only combating this issue of predestination, we are standing before a culture that is hell bent on pleasure at any cost, now. To add to that, the culture has embraced the tolerance movement (including our beloved NARLA) to a degree, that no one out there is ever a “bad” person.
Enough of my ramblings, Morgan, you are spot on about the “rules of the game” idea that you have. I would like to see that idea fleshed out more, I am looking forward to it.
I like the way the professor is handling the issues of the reformation in comparison with the issues that are facing the Adventist church today.As the reformers were struggling with the doctrines that led to deviation from the Catholic church we need also to wrestle with the scripture and through the guidance of the Holy spirit give proper meaning to what the Bible as the word of God says.it is imperative that we are living in the world that is vast growing in knowledge, a world that questions the aunthecity of the bible let us be all prepared to give reason of our faith.
3RD Reflection I spend sometime this third week reflecting upon the Anabaptists and their contribution for Christianity. Although I was aware of some of their contributions to Christianity, it was good to revive the memories of such contributions, especially on a few aspects that helped shape Adventism. In few occasions I have heard pastors and/or some professors to affirm that Adventism has no roots in the others protestant movements, but in all honesty I’m starting to question if this is a unquestionable allegation. This questioning comes not as an attempt to challenge the proponent’s position, but to verify through my own means what history has to say about our establishment as a denomination, with membership that exceeds fifteen million members worldwide. Despite the fact that the Anabaptists cannot be seeing as a denomination in itself, but instead as a religious movement, which end up developing itself into a few different groups with very distinct differences, it is important to observe that in the early years of the Reformations, Anabaptists gained some attention because of the rejection of infant baptism, “the traditional doctrines of the Trinity and the immortality of the soul (p 89).” Interesting enough, SDAs also deny the baptism of infants, and reject the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Some of the other aspects that we have in common with the Anabaptists is the idea that no human being is led to salvation by predestination, but be exercising their free will. I would further suggest that in agreement with the Anabaptists, the idea of predestination is just an excuse for our sins and a form o blaming God for it (p 91). Certainly other aspects of the Anabaptists beliefs can be found in the SDA’ theological thinking, as well from other denominations, nevertheless, one must keep in mind the fact that, nowadays, the concept of a timeless God rejected by the SDA interpretation of the scripture, is accountable for the key difference between the SDA theological interpretation of Scripture, and the interpretation of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others Reformer’s movement. Sergio Silva
The connection involving law and grace had been a debated issue among theologians during the centuries. Through the Reformation, this relationship assumed a center stage. Which for some theologians the issue of the law and grace was a key turning point form the Catholic umbrella. Did Luther's Roman Catholic opponents accuse him of advocating antinomianism? Gonzalez’s book mentions that “the first stage of the controversy broke out when Agricola attacked Melanchthon’s Instructions for visitors at Luther request.” What I have found interesting in this debate, is that Justo Gonzalez concludes that Luther had recommended the Law (through Melanchthon’s book) as helpful for believers in understanding the expected moral life of a Christian. Moreover, it is mentioned the Decalogue itself “was to be preached often, not only to bring sinners to repentance, but also so that believers could gain a better idea of the will of God, and to seek to obey it. Agricola objected such instructions. However, it is something interesting in Agricola’s concern, According to him, “one cannot judge true believers by their level of virtue.” Is it not so today? I mean, following a holistic view, not all Agricola’s arguments were baseless. At least, I see in his concern a level of “truth” on the emphasis in extremism on the performance of the Law. Perhaps, what we can learn form this is that we cannot judge people by his performance of the Law. Otherwise, we would be no better than the Pharisees. On the other hand, we cannot reject (or forget) God’s righteous judgment according to deeds. As we have seen in class this debate, over the role of the law for the believer was one of the major controversies leading up to the Formula of Concord. I wonder how many debates during the SDA church has been lessened for the sake of unity, but erring by omission of the “truth” behind such debates. How do we balance this out? Is it Unity or truth? The Formula of Concord seems to have been compromised on the side of unity.
I would like to share some thoughts about the paper that I am doing. My paper is based on Schleiermacher’s contribution on the shift from modernity to liberal theology. Particularly, on the doctrine of creation of man.
To be brief, I have found challenging issues in his writings. One of those for example, It is that Schleiermacher leaned toward a view of the dichotomy of the human nature, soul and body. However, as we have studied the protestant theological heritage, concerning this issue there was not new emphasis because Schleiermacher continued with the main stream of Protestantism. Nevertheless the protestant heritage passed through the new liberal theology containing an insidious tenet: Human nature as “historical consciousness.” My question is if such formulation is unfortunate for the sake of the truth or if it is a counterpart of the Scripture. I have named such formulation “insidious” because even though he centered his thought on historicity, on the other hand his view seems to contradict his own view because of his understanding of human nature (Greek dichotomy Soul – body).
We have seen in class that in Pre-modern age theology dominated the science, Theology as the Queen of the Science. In this sense in the pre-modern view, reason was assumed to be part of the timeless soul, but in the modern view by the rise of modern science, enlightenment and rationalism influenced the universities and as result theology was displaced and not longer was regarded as science. Therefore, reason in the modern age become limited to historical reality and was placed “outside” of the soul. Today, in Post-modern times, it was said in class too that theology lost its prestige. Also that in the 21st century the relativism, there is no absolute truth, and appears the quest between to Theology and Science.
How is it related to Schleiermacher’s “historical consciousness. ” I do not have A+ answer, but I would say that this theological implication triggers two conclusions. First, and perhaps a positive one, is that while bridging criticism and protestant theology Schleiermacher rejects deism (which is the theory of the watch’s maker: God created the world but, or He is unable to control it, or He is merely a spectator). Secondly, of which I consider non-biblical, it is the assumption of the immortality of the soul, which I reject since the biblical view of the human person is unitary, not dual. In short, a response to Schleiermacher’s view of the nature of man should be elaborated undoubtedly concerning the assumption of the timeless soul.
THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage Instructor : Dr. Martin Hanna, Ph.D. By. Ki Seung Jhang “How are you in the pure Religion, to visit the sick, the fatherless, and the widow, when both blind, and sick, and halt and lame lie up and down, cry up and down almost in every corner of the city, and men and women are so decked with gold and silver in their delicate state, that they cannot tell how to go. Surely you know not that you are one mould and blood, that dwell upon the face of the earth. Would not a little out of your abundance and superfluity maintain these poor children, halt, lame, and blind, or set them at work that can work and they that cannot, find a place of relief for them; would not that be a grace to you?” (p 101) Above state is the mention of George Fox (1624-1691) who is the founder of the Quaker movement. He insisted the involvement in social issues by a pacifist standpoint. I don’t agree with his doctrines. I am just attracted by his statement. I just felt this statement is needed to us. There are many leaders and bible teachers in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. My opinion applies to Korean Church in America. I don’t know this can be applied to other churches. Most Korean pastors are the shutter men of the churches. They open the door of church before worship and closed the door after worship. It is very hard to find lay people who do it instead of pastor. Korean pastors are like building manager. If church need to repair roof, and pastor research the roofing company and report the board meeting of church. And church board meeting decide a roofing company, and pastor make a contract, supervise and report the board meeting. Purchasing church supplies is the portion of pastors. It is ok that pastors do like this with love. But elders and many deacons are taking rest. Especially elders are just reigning over the church only with their mouth. They don’t move their finger. I know that there are some elders who serve the church, but most elders are not. SDA is short to practice the love and truths. I am feeling that SDA is just seeking the truth without practicing them. We have to be changed from static to dynamic. We need to start at the church with the smallest service. I expect that SDA become to be changed, and to finish spreading gospel to the end of the world through this change. I hope SDA living and practicing church.
I have learned many things last week. First, the story of Anabatism inspired me a lot. Because it reminds me of the same problem that Adventists have now. Some are radical and extreme while others are moderate. But without right theolgy being radical is dangerous and people often get worst result from it. Another topic I was impressed was Catholics. Dr. Hanna quoted Ellen White’s writing.
“There is need of a much closer study of the word of God; especially should Daniel and the Revelation have attention as never before in the history of our work. We may have less to say in some lines, in regard to the Roman power and the papacy; but we should call attention to what the prophets and apostles have written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit has so shaped matters, both in the giving of the prophecy and in the events portrayed, as to teach that the human agent is to be kept out of sight, hid in Christ, and that the Lord God of heaven and His law are to be exalted. Read the book of Daniel”(TM, 112)
We may talk about the dragon and the remnant too much. There are lots of good topics that both denominations can enjoy but we tend to separate each other. As time goes on, more Adventists doubt Ellen White’s authority and whenever they find errors from her writings they feel smarter than others. But if we lost the authority of her writings, I think we will lose our identity too. I can’t understand why people keep doubting her authority and become Adventists. I have heard many good presentations. Colleagues have original insights.
In one way or the other we have come from a very far distance of so many reformations to our current state. During our class discussion as a Seventh day Adventist church so far we cling to some of the old minor issues forgetting the major issues like the message of righteousness by faith and what God has done for humanity. We need to stand firm not defending our doctrines on who we are but on what God has commissioned us to do on earth. Mission is soon coming to an end but worshipping God remains forever.
Nathan Kennedy Reflection #4 Tyler Crafts presentation is very pertinent as a reminder. As I have mentioned in my previous reflections, our critics accuse us from departing from protestant ideals. But as Tyler pointed out, the reformers’ understanding of prophecy was indeed historicism. However we as a church are judged by either the Preterist or Futurist paradigm, particularly as it applies to Daniel 8 and 9. Luther often applied the beast figure to that of the Papacy. Yet as time has come, the main line churches are becoming more and more Darby/Rivera. Darby was the English preacher that developed the futurist interpretation as we know it today, taking it from the Catholic Counter Reformation. Rivera was a Jesuit Priest who was the RCC’s tool for the counter reformation. took statements from Hippolytus and came to the foundation of futurism. My question is one more of vexation and frustration, I suppose. If then the protestant reformers were in fact historicists. What gives our critics the right to attempt measure our doctrine according to “protestant” views, while they themselves stand in wanting? It is a bit hypocritical in my honest opinion. The trinity issue, is still a problem. I am thinking of a very small but very vocal off shoot of our church. The Creation Seventh Day Adventists or CSDA, are very bitter and angry at the general conference for not affirming them as Seventh-day Adventist. I like the presentation which our brother gave. What alarmed me was that he mentioned that in his schooling there in Brazil, this issue has not been brought up. With that in mind, it would be well for someone who can communicate this tender and explosive subject to the brethren there in Brazil.
I would like to talk about Andrew Osiander: mystical trend. They said we can meet Christ through meditattion and mysticism in person and also, Jesus came down in this world. It is not because human being had committed sins but because God already had planned. I agree with that. It seems both of them are same. But I liked the words: God already planned for us. Sometimes I misunderstand what God has done for us. Through last week, I really thank God to realize againg Who God is. He is our Father God who loved us so much more than we understand.
I would like to comment on Christy’s reflection #1. First, I appreciate Christy telling the truth about her thoughts on “truth”. I agree with her first statement...that the truth should never be more important than people. She mentions that “Jesus loved people and He never drew them away”. As I thought about that I remembered that Jesus declares that He is the truth. He says, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”
I am not sure what the implications are if we say that Jesus = truth, but it raises some interesting thoughts in my mind that maybe we do not truly understand what “truth” really is. As well do we know how relational it can be.
Here is a wonderful text that reminds me of how important the “truth” of love is...
1 Corinthians 13 “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked to think evil; does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, Love never fails...
1 Corinthians 13 does say that we should “rejoice in truth” and that we should not “rejoice in iniquity”. This seems to imply that “truth” is something that will lead us away from iniquity. If it does not then maybe it is not “truth”...Maybe this means that truth points us in the direction of our only hope...Jesus Christ. The passage also hints to the fact that there is more that we will know that now we only know in part. Not only will we have knowledge but we ourselves will be known. So it seems to me that there is some link between “truth” and “relationship”.
The Bible does command us in 1 Corinthians 14 to “Pursue love”.
and if that sounds too mushy...I will just add to that 1 John 4:7, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” and if Jesus is the “truth” and God is “love” then the only way must be to unite both.
This reflection is not necessarily a comment on what others have said in the class. Instead it is on a thought that I have had during the class that may be related. I have been wondering a lot about they way that we call ourselves... “Adventists” instead of “Seventh-day Adventist’s”. It seems to me that something gets lost when we abbreviate our name to other’s and ourselves in that way. When I first stepped into a “Seventh-day Adventist” church I distinctly remembered how unique I thought the name was. I had never heard of a denomination that had a number in their name. I had to ask the Pastor who lead out in my very first prayer meeting what they believed and what was the meaning behind the name. He simply said, Seventh day... that the seventh day was the Sabbath... “Okay” I thought, “that is no problem”...and then he continued...”Adventist meaning that Jesus is coming back to the earth one day”... My reaction was one of surprise and I could not believe that anyone who was intelligent would believe something like that. A few days later the Holy Spirit gently led me to the understanding that this was all true.
Our name is very unique and very important...it lifts up the central truths that distinguish who we are. Not to mention it is a great conversation starter. I wonder if there is any connection to when we started to call ourselves “Adventist’s” instead of “Seventh-day Adventists” and the loss of our identity.
Yes, In many ways I do believe that we have lost our identity, or at the very least we are in an identity crisis. I may sound harsh to someone who is cherishing the idea that we are still the same Seventh-day Adventist's that we used to be...but it seems to me that we have lost our way and that our precious light is being abbreviated because we do not want to pronounce what God has given us to say.
The way that this seems to relate to PTH is that many have died to bring us the inheritance that we have. How can we so lazily toss aside a name that came out of the sacrifices of so many. Maybe it is only a small unnoticeable change to some...not worth worrying about or mentioning...I am reminded that it is in the the little things that we need to be faithful so that we can prove that we can be faithful in the greater. We have a name that we can be proud of and we have a truth that we need to proclaim. let's not forget who we are!!
Calvinism, predestination and state By Elmer Guzman
The notion of predestination is pervasive in the entire theological system of Calvin. Yet, Gonzalez clearly interpreted Calvin’s thought been different from the Calvinistic school of theology that came later, which was much stricter than Calvin himself. According to Calvin, Theology was based on Soteriology, while Soteriology was based on predestination. Therefore, the entire system had a common platform which was the sovereign divine will leading humanity through predestination and providence. This strict understanding of theology is classically noticed in the way in elect and the reprobate, yet what called my attention is the way in which he interpreted the power of the State, because the political leaders also would have been predestined to achieve God’s purpose, so Calvin has a positive view of politics, despite all the problems innate to human will. This reformed notion empowers the State with the right of death penalty, and wage just and necessary wars. Gonzalez grounds this authority in the natural law, from which springs the civil laws. What called my attention is the fact that some protestant countries “partially” influenced by Reformed protestant theology, still grant the state the power to issue death penalty, and are more inclined to begin new wars, because the state in a sense has this right. On the other hand, Seventh-day Adventism has the tendency to agree more with the Anabaptists saying that politics and religion are two institutions different and nature and purpose, and therefore they should remain completely separated. Maybe we should give some thought to how properly relate the relations of church and state, because the state is not hell, neither heaven.
I appreciated the point that Nick brought up... that our purpose was to get back to the Bible, and that going back to the Bible was radical in a time when, as he put it, “so many were steeped in Protestant tradition”.
It is interesting how religious tradition can compete with the Bible. I wonder if this is because we get too comfortable and stop looking to the Bible, not only as a source of knowledge, but as a source of life. This may be why there are observable cycles in the Reformation as Nick mentioned in one of his other blogs.
It seems that it is human nature for us to put something before God. We often talk about the Great Controversy as being something that can be seen in History. We also have a “Great Controversy” within our own selves, a tug of war in our own being. Thankfully the war is won through Christ, and thankfully Christ did what was very radical to accomplish what no one else was able to. We are indebted to Christ’s radical response of love.
In chapter six of our textbook, Gonzales provides a short section at the end of the chapter on the significance of John Calvin’s theology. And as I read the author’s explanation of the growth of Calvin’s Institutes and Calvin’s own reasons for those writings, I could not help but begin to think of Ellen White’s voluminous catalog of written materials. One paragraph in particular caught my attention – the highlights of which follow.
• Calvin included a lot of material concerning certain issues that were being debated at that time, which shows his pastoral concern. • He did not intend for his Institutes to be a permanent systematization of Christian doctrine, but a practical handbook for Christians. • The Institutes have drawn attention away from Calvin’s other works, specifically his biblical commentaries, which provide a more complete picture of who he was.
I do not think that it is difficult to draw the parallels here between Calvin and White. First, they both wrote extensively on the issues of their times, not necessarily as transcendent literature, but as material that covered the hot topics of their day. (Adventists should not own bicycles, anyone?) Second, they both wanted their writings to have a practical impact in the lives of their readers. Their main intention was not to develop a timeless system of theology, but rather they wanted their writings to affect others’ thoughts and lives in a functional manner. After all, White frequently stressed the need for present truth – not necessarily timeless truth. Third, it is easy for people to focus on the more controversial writings they produced at the expense of their insightful God-centered commentaries.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not stating that Calvin was just as inspired as White was in terms of having the gift of prophecy. But, I find it hard to imagine that none of his writings and/or teachings bear the mark of Divine inspiration. So to that effect, White’s material contained in the “little red books” is indeed on a different plane, but the fact remains that through the controversial things contained in those writings and combined with the way they were used – or misused – have detracted from her Conflict of the Ages commentaries.
I know I might be descending down a slippery slope by comparing or ranking her writings, but I know that people have not read any part of this life-changing series due to being turned off by her other writings. Those writings have colored people’s view of White and they will not gain a more complete picture of who she was by not reading her important commentaries.
I guess I am left with the question, is this a normal reaction to leaders who are significant denominational pioneers? The similarities were just too striking to ignore.
Ok, so I may end up sounding a little like Melanchthon in this posting because it may appear to some that I am making similar compromises that he did, and perhaps I am, I am not sure, but this is what I think. In response to Nathan’s statement in class the other day about his struggle of what to do with a dying Catholic if you are on the battlefield. If there was an opportunity, I would certainly give way to a Catholic Priest who understands the Catholic Theology himself. But if one of my soldiers was laying there dying, or fearful and about to enter battle, I personally wouldn’t have a problem trying to provide the religious services that the Catholic soldier understands is needed. While I realize that the rite means a vastly different thing to me than it does to him, I don’t think it would actually hurt anything to give him those rites. I think that God is able to accept him as he is, and to me is not really an issue of salvation. But if he believes it is an issue of salvation himself, I would not want to prevent him from the best connection with God that he may know how to have at that moment. There isn’t time for bible study in that setting, nor for even conversation so much, and I am under the impression that it is against United States Army Regulations to attempt to persuade him differently, especially in that setting. So I would ask, what are your other options? What else are you going to do? This is a major part of accepting your job, I am sure! By the way, if you think I have gone too far out of the way, feel free to write a Concordance correcting me!
I find it interesting and a little worrisome that we are comparing each of the reformers to Luther. In our discussion on Calvin earlier this week, we seem to be comparing each of his theological ideas and doctrines to those of Luther. In looking back at my notes, we did the same thing with Zwingli, we compared Zwingli’s theological ideas and doctrines to those of Luther. Is history just about comparing and contrasting different points of view? Can Calvin not stand on his own two feet without comparing him to Luther?
I understand that Luther is one of the first major reformers of the Protestant Reformation. But we do not compare him to anyone before him. We always talk about Luther and what he did in his time and in his culture. It is only after Luther do I find constant comparison.
Two things that I notice from this. First, it is important to compare and contrast. It is through learning the differences that we can fully understand history. We have to look at the full context of history to understand it and that means comparing and contrasting differing views. We do this all the time when talk abut sports figures and their statistics. It is part of history, we are always comparing and trying to find out who is better, bigger, etc...
Second, on the flip side, if we only compare and contrast I believe we lose much of the ideas that the person being studied had to offer. In Calvin’s case, I believe that we spent so much time comparing him to Luther that we did not discuss much of his impact on the Protestant Reformation. We spent much time comparing his theology and doctrinal ideas to those of Luther.
My basic idea is that we need to have balance when looking at history. We also need to have balance when looking at Protestant theological heritage. While comparing and contrasting have a purpose and fulfill an important role, we cannot just compare everything to Luther. We should also compare it to Zwingli and other reformers. But not only just compare, but also look at why and how Calvin and other reformers came to these positions and how they affected the people they were trying to reach.
Zwingli’s main concern was upholding the sovereignty of God. The question is, can this be done without the doctrine of predestination? Adventists believe this can be done and done better than Zwingli’s attempt. The official statement of beliefs state that “All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe.” There is simply no good explanation for double predestination that holds up the character of God. To believe that God chooses some to be damned to hell is a slight on his character and brings a question to his love. God does not want robots to serve him; he has given us free will to choose. This is really what the Great Controversy is all about—whose side will we choose? Who will we believe and serve? This world is a stage that allows Satan to demonstrate to the universe what his rule would really be like. God is unmasking the deception of sin and allowing everyone to see how different His ways truly are. God is love and desires loving service—not fearful obedience or robotic bondage.
Zwingli’s argument that God is above the law is creative, but not satisfying. If God is the only cause, then he sins, which is blasphemy. God’s character is perfect, just, upright. The Bible says there was no sin found in Jesus, and since Jesus revealed the Father, we can know there is no sin in God. If double predestination was really the case, it would make more sense for God to cause all the elect to be sinless (since it is possible—Jesus was) and all the damned to be sinful.
The belief in predestination seriously challenges mission. If God has already decided who will be saved, then why preach the gospel? If predestination is true, than nothing missionaries do will make any difference—they have no influence on the person or on God. I did not find any counter-argument in Zwingli’s theology addressing this question. For Adventists though, mission is the reason we exist. Our trumpet call is the three angel’s message to let the world know that Jesus is coming soon and to help prepare them to be ready. God’s will is for all to be saved and he uses the church to accomplish this goal.
I found the controversies regarding the adiaphora interesting when applied to our times. A lot of our own controversies seem to be dealing with matters that are part of the adiaphora. But part of the problem is at least one side in every argument does not think the matters is non-essential. If we as a body came to a consensus on what is essential, perhaps our controversies would be less divisive and more tolerant of differences in opinion. Is our position that the 28 fundamentals are the essentials and anything not covered is adiaphora? One good thing about our church structure is that we can agree to add to the fundamentals, as we just recently did. But until an issue reaches that point, can we agree to disagree instead of fighting and causing hurt? What is more important—being right or looking out for our neighbors?
I’m not sure how to take Flacius’s argument that in times of crisis, nothing is adiaphora. If anything, I think it would be more towards the opposite—let’s put our differences aside and fight the common enemy together. When facing persecution, suddenly battles over things that seemed so important are suddenly seen in a different light.
Is it an indication of adiaphora when there is not a clear picture in Scriptures? Can we simply leave such matters to the individual conscience and stop trying to convince others (sometimes with force) that our way is the right and only way?
I would like to continue the discussion on missiology as it relates to the Reformation. One of the presentations yesterday dealt with missions to Muslims and the questions that arise from that endeavor. Dr. Hanna put out the idea of brining Muslims in to send them back and I believe that’s where the discussion got started. I think that it was an excellent suggestion. In fact, it is not just a suggestion, but also a biblical mandate! The Bible clearly says GO out and make disciples. However, it seem to me that Adventists have adopted a more separatist, exclusive attitude towards those of other faiths or of no faith. It is as if they seek to keep themselves “pure” and “untainted” from “those people”. We raise our children this way. We don’t want them to play with the other children in the neighborhood because they might be “contaminated”. Therefore, we withdraw and isolate ourselves in “Adventist ghettos”, so to speak, like Berrien Springs. My issue is this: while the class at large seemed to agree that it would not be “sinful” to conduct additional services on Sunday morning or to go to a Sunday church, I think that on either of these points one will encounter significant opposition from the membership. I feel that Adventism stirs up and sort of encourages a culture of prejudice and even hate for Sunday keepers and especially Catholics. American media no doubt stirs up a culture of hate and prejudice for Muslims. For example, when the roof caved in at my church a few years ago we were seeking a place to worship in while it was being repaired. A local Catholic priest very graciously offered their sanctuary for us to use for a reasonable rate of rent. The board overwhelmingly rejected the offer because they could not worship in the “house of Babylon”. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the type of evangelistic ministry that we were talking about but their prejudice would not allow it. In this context, I see this type of ministry to be potentially problematic in the field. Thoughts?
I am commenting on Nathans presentation. I believe the issue of Soldiers and Adventism is a vital one. When we look at the fact that we have increasing numbers of young men and women in the service we have to take a look at this. I appreciate the material presented to the class in Nathans presentation. Biblical scenarios were given to possibly support our soldiers serving this country abroad.
What’s my stance? I feel that the church’s official stand point should be not to have a say either way but to rather allow the choice to lie in the hands of the Christian. Surely we realize the church is not going to come out on paper and tell its young men and women to join the military but when a young man or woman enters the service he or she should know that they are not going to hail for picking up arms and that their church back home supports them. Do we not have a responsibility for those Christians in the Militray to give them Christ as we know him as a church?
There have been several topics discussed in class this week that have peaked my interest. A comment was made in class about giving people what they need from the churches perspective vs. giving people what they need from the individuals perspective. I would suggest that there needs to be a combination of both in order to rightly facilitate the 3 angels messages.
There is a common assumption in the Adventist church that people need the truth. This assumption is correct - people do need greater truth for these last days. While people do need truth, I think that we often make our focus purely intellectual. Maybe we have been unsuccessful in facilitating truth by focusing on the intellectual aspects while neglecting the practical aspects. Christ almost always met a persons practical needs before he met their spiritual needs.
In my experience, people are more receptive to intellectual truth if you live out the truth practically by your example. Setting an example is not necessarily when someone follows all the requirements of the law (the Pharisees were good at that), but rather when you show practical love in meeting peoples needs they will be more open. I have found that people are more receptive to intellectual truth after i have been able to meet their immediate practical needs. This is the concept of friendship evangelism.
The second topic was EGW and inspiration. What should we consider inspired - letters, blogs, grocery lists? While inspiration can become very complicated I would like to make one distinction. When we quote EGW, we should use materials that were meant for publication. I am not saying that other writings are not inspired, I am just saying that EGW did not intend for every writing to be held as general truth for all generations. Certainly we can profit from various sources and situations, but we must do so more carefully. Books like the Conflict of the Ages Series, Christ Object Lessons, and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, should be our first choice for reference. Further, I would suggest that we should quote from the most current Great Controversy version rather than quoting from the "Spirit of Prophecy" version. The older editions are truthful and inspired, but the latest edition reflects EGW's greatest clarity on the topic (she had the opportunity to revise it and smooth out things that maybe didn't really reflect what she was trying to say).
So where should we get our information if we are are discussing the end times? The Great Controversy. Where should we go if we are discussing the nature of Christ? The Desire of Ages. Where should we go if we are discussing a parable? Christ object lessons. I am not suggesting that you can not go other places, but you should not base your idea's off of manuscript 1379 without first consulting the major works that were meant for publication.
Wednesday’s presentation on the use of technology in the reformation was very refreshing. No doubt the reformers of the Protestant Reformation sought to use the printing press to their advantage in disseminating their message. This fact is certainly a reminder that we need to be aware of the variety of new media in our world that we too can use to share our message. I think that the variety of new media, like twitter, facebook, myspace, etc, are great opportunities to develop relationships with people in which we can then share about Christ. This should not come to the point though, where we lose touch with the relationships in the non-digital world around us. One of the questions that came to my mind during this presentation is what to do with concept of putting the message into the vernacular? The presenter suggested that there is a need for the message to be communicated in a relevant medium in order to reach people today. I agree with this to an extent, but how far do we take this, and how far did the reformers themselves take this. From the perspective of the reformers, they were using new technology to disseminate the message, but this was balanced against the fact that they were emphasizing a return to the original sources. When we place our message in the vernacular, are we compromising the original? I suppose our message can have a variety of meanings, from the general message to Scripture itself. Our message needs to be in the language of the people, in the sense that it uses the understandable words and vocabulary. But I think that message that is specifically Scripture must remain true to the original text in concept as well as wording where possible.
Found a great quote in Great Controversy that describes where Protestantism came from. She writes in chapter 11 of the Great Controversy..."One of the noblest testimonies ever uttered for the Reformation was the Protest offered by the Christian princes of Germany at the Diet of Spires in 1529. The courage, faith, and firmness of those men of God gained for succeeding ages liberty of thought and of conscience.
Their Protest gave to the reformed church the name of Protestant; its principles are "the very essence of Protestantism." (D'Aubigne, book 13, chapter 6)
So the question might be, what were the principles of this "protest" that supplied us the "very essence of Protestantism?"
The German princes stated..."We protest by these presents, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our Judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree, in anything that is contrary to God, to His holy word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls."
"There is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the word of God. . . . The Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine....
The Holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and clearer texts;...this Holy Book is, in all things necessary for the Christian, EASY OF UNDERSTANDING, and calculated to scatter the darkness.
We are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of His only word, such as it is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it.”
"The principles contained in this celebrated Protest . . . constitute the very essence of Protestantism.
May God help us to faithfully continue what the bold German Princes did, along with Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hus, Wyclif, and the countless others who gave their lives to perpetuate the Protestant Movement of courageously lifting up the Word of God and it alone as their rule of faith and doctrine.
It may seem simplistic and antiquated, but it remains the source of life.
An important conclusion that I gleaned from our class discussions concerning our Protestant heritage is that to exclusively disregard a medieval or religious approach to the Reformation is not to suggest that it played no significant role in that movement. For example, Zwingli did not reject all humanistic approaches but only that which could not be proven by Scripture. I think we should remember that these views were the acceptable within social context of that time. On the other hand, we should not ignore the consequences of these ideas which influenced in a negative way the Reformation and various Protestant movements which emerged. When the reformers used ideas that went contrary to Scripture, it created many problems to the point where they rejected essential doctrines and truths about Christ. As we study the history of the Reformation, we can learn many lesson from the early reformer to help us avoid ideas and positions that can be stumbling block to us.
Nathaniel Lyles continues... As Dr. Hanna stated, we study our Protestant history to see where we are on the path of progression but also to see in history where the church has falling away.
Protestant Theological Heritage - Final Exam Essay: One of the key insights that I learned during this course was the wholistic nature of the term “heritage” as it relates to the Protestant Theological Heritage. During the first few of days of discussion, we explored the variety of biblical meanings of heritage or inheritance. God is described as being our inheritance, which we understand from Ezekiel 44:28 and Exodus 19:6. Heritage is also described as a rest, which we have not attained yet, Deut 12:9. The creation is described as God’s inheritance, Exodus 65:25. God’s dwelling place is our inheritance, Exodus 15:7. And God’s heritage is also described as being historical, Revelation 1:1,4,19. This broader, fuller definition is important when discussing the Protestant Theological Heritage because it illuminates the different angles from which we can understand the term. The phrase from this same discussion that most enriched my learning and expanded my understanding was as follows, “When we study history, in particular the Protestant Theological Heritage, we are studying part of God’s heritage.” I think that often times I have thought of the Protestant Theological Heritage from the limited perspective of theological views of the reformers. I have come to realize that this is a very limited understanding and does not fully encompass the entire meaning of the term heritage, or theological for that matter. A better understanding of the topic would suggest that this is a word from God received through the Protestant heritage. This recognizes that the history involved in the subject is a study of God’s actions in history. This also recognizes that the Protestant heritage is only a piece of the greater heritage that is from God. As I try to boil down this idea in my thinking, I come to the conclusion that God’s heritage is much bigger than the Protestant Theological heritage, yet this is still an important piece. I think that sometimes we pick and choose the important people or decisions of history that we find most helpful to the position that our church upholds. The reality is that all of history is God’s heritage and we must look at His actions throughout all of history, right down to our particular situation, and see God moving. One of the issues that seemed to come up during this same discussion was the question of whether or not the Catholic Church was part of God’s heritage. If we take a wholistic view of heritage we can’t help but answer yes to that question. Not everything about the Catholic Church is in line with the teaching of the Bible, but there is some truth, and certainly some people in the church who are faithful to God. If we look outside of the Protestant Reformation period (which we should because there is more than just that in God’s heritage) than we see that the only Christian church in existence n the first centuries was the Catholic church. God was working through this church even as it declined into apostasy. But continuing on from the Reformation period we could say that God continues His heritage through other groups, even now the Adventists. As I apply these concepts learned to my life and ministry I find that I need to be more inclusive of people, and groups of people when discussing who is God’s heritage. God has worked throughout history and His heritage is much greater than I can fully understand.
Calvin emphasized human depravity. He wrote that we can do nothing that is good, we could not even have a good thought or desire. He believed that our wills are so totally corrupted that we can only desire to do evil continually; therefore, there is no conflict in us. He did admit that we still have a will, a totally corrupted one. He could see that there were two destinies opposite described in the Bible; he called them the reprobate and the elect. This fixes our destiny before we are born, and we can do nothing about; he called this predestination. This presents a problem: God is responsible for sin in this model. Unlike Zwingli, Calvin does not want to charge Calvin with the responsibility for sin. His solution is that Adam had a free will and sinned voluntarily, which caused our total depravity and our guilt. Our depravity meant that we could do nothing toward salvation; we sinned enthusiastically. Since we sin voluntarily and enthusiastically, we are guilty of our own sin as well as the sin of Adam; therefore, we deserve to be punished. If God decided before we were born to elect us to salvation, then he is showing his mercy, otherwise we will punished in the fires of hell eternally, which we deserve. The reprobate cannot do anything but sin, but since the compulsion comes from themselves, God is not responsible. Since the reprobate have not good thoughts, Romans 7 must be discussing the elect, because he has good thoughts, even though he cannot do what is right. Calvin got this from Augustine. The idea that the reprobate can do nothing but sin, but that they are not compelled from the outside, and yet they are still responsible for their sin is called compatibilism. Calvin admits that the decree that decides that many will be the reprobate and are destined to burn in hell forever is a horrible decree. About the only response that he has to this is that he says that God has decided, who are you to question or criticize God? This brings up the theodicy, justice of God, question. The extreme injustice of this is one of the standard arguments against the theology of Calvin.
The topic of tradition emerged from a presentation within class that has sparked some of my interest. The question was asked; is all tradition bad? In the Protestant era it is argued that there were three views on the matter. Some believed that tradition was subject to scripture. Some advocated for the belief that tradition and scripture was on the same level, while others affirmed that our tradition must supersede scripture. Tradition is certainly not all bad, but there are some teachings that many people hold as Bible truth that have no Biblical basis. Many churches today are divided on the issues of evangelism and worship. They fight over the type of songs to be played during service, the “proper” methods of outreach, or the preference between contemporary or traditional styles of worship. Some argue that moving away from the traditional way of operation dilutes the unique message of the Church, promotes ecumenism, and violates scripture sacredness. I would argue that tradition is subject to scripture, but we must not reject elements of tradition all together. We can learn a lot from tradition, but we also have a responsibility to repackage the message of the gospel in unique ways for it to remain relevant.
I wanted to write about the commonalities of philosophy and theology, based on the Elvis’ presentation in class today (07-01). I, like Elvis, think that philosophy and theology are cousins, meaning that they are very much related. Dr. Canale would tell you that philosophy and theology study the same material, but in different ways. I agree. Both philosophy and theology study reality in its fullness. Philosophy studies it through the observation of that reality. Theology studies it (at least some theologies do) by studying the word of God and other religious sources in order to determine the nature of reality. Being an Adventist Christian, I trust the Bible and what it says about reality. Therefore I would be much more of a theologian than a philosopher. But that doesn’t mean that we all don’t do both at different times. The problem of course, is which study will inform the other. Will we allow our philosophy to norm our theology or our theology to norm our philosophy? Furthermore, we also have to realize that just because philosophy uses the “wrong” path does not mean that it does not occasionally come to the right conclusions. My partner in ministry is currently doing his PhD in philosophy at the University of Memphis. Because we travel a lot together we have had many different discussions about philosophy, theology, and the nature of reality. He has always said to me that the one aspect of philosophy that fascinates him the most is the fact that these people, without relying on God, often find themselves supporting biblical truths. Now clearly these philosophers don’t get everything right, but we don’t get everything right as theologians either. And so I am always impressed when my partner interweaves philosophical ideas into the seminars we present. Is he wrong for doing so? I think some people would say that he is. But why if these philosophical ideas are supported by God’s truth? I am not going to begrudge anyone the words and ideologies they use so long as they are supported by God’s truth. I think the concept here is that there are many different ways to present the Gospel. Some people may want to be strictly Biblical. Some may want to use philosophical terms and ideas. Some may want to use street slang. While every method of presenting the gospel may not be correct (or correct for the context), I think the problem comes when we determine that someone’s way of presenting the gospel is not correct without a clear “thus saith the Lord.” The point of the matter is that in order to save as many people as possible, we have to be able to vary our modes of communication. So it becomes a wonderful thing that God has created us all so different. The way one person presents the Gospel may not be something that I can do. The way I present the Gospel may not be in a way that you can do. But that doesn’t make either us right, wrong, or more right than someone else. We have to be able to make room in our church for all different types and modes and methods, including philosophical modes, so long as all these modes are in line with Scripture.
We have covered mostly Calvin this week. But whenever authors talk about aspects of Calvin theolgy, they compare it with Luther’s. It means both theologians are the biggest Reformers in history. My point is that both of them were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were sure of what they believed but in some points they couldn’t find common ground. This explains a lot of things about people having different denominations now. Because human beings are limited, they have parts of the truth. Ellen White herself did not know about Sabbath first and she confirmed it when someone brought it up. So within the same Bible, many doctirins and theories can be drawn. Although we should not generalize the relationship between Luther and Calvin as common events, we should accept that that kind of thing always happens. So even in Adventism, we can disagree each other because no one has the truth. Another subject that attracted me was the issue of the Army. The presenter argued that Bible and even Jesus did not go against Arms and Army so we may join the Army. I partly agree with the presentation. I believe that Christ did not stop all things related to Amrs is because of the special situation the earth is having. But I am sure that Christ did not make violence or arms. But as the presenter said, without power we cannot have peace now in a sense. Lastly, I want to talk about the term “tradition.” This word has positive and negative nuance. God respects tradition because He has led His people so far and that is tradition in a sense. But God doesn’t like tridition which is made by sinful humans. The important thing is that church tradition should be based on God. When church members make tradition by themselves, the church becomes babylon. We are making tradition now so we should follow God in every step so that we may make good tradition.
Piasi Suleiman Reflection #4 Being the last week of our discussion I could say that most of the discussion was aiming at pointing to major points we had discussed in this class. As part of the discussion we actually discussed of major reformers like Luther, Zwingli, Erasmus and calvin.Though the reform movement begun by luther, the entire universe was ripe for reformation and in various places that reformation took the protestant direction. During our discussion within the week, we were able to see how this later on theologians were able to establish their own theologies and hence were even able to elite their position without fearing that their theologies will sideline with their father of Protestantism [martin Luther].since I cannot wind up the whole week’s discussion in a single page, will pick up one of the points under this context in reference to their differences which will later on help us understand our different understanding of scriptures In this case I will take the example of Ulrich Zwingli and Martin luther.we discovered that this theologians differed in many ways but the most difference was from their convictions, martin Luther is known for his anguish spiritual pilgrimage dealing with the basic issue of his relationship with God while Zwingli is led by patriotic and intellectual consideration Martin Luther came with a conviction of the priority of the scripture above a tradition.Zwingle on the other side approached the scripture as a Christian humanistic hence his return to the Bible was part of the general return to the sources that characterized the humanistic movements. Though they seemed to differ, one thing I discovered was that their difference occurred within the context of the Bible. This applies to our contemporary Christian theologians and believers, we tend to differ in our interpretations of the scriptures but this should not cause us to hate one another but instead it should help us to search more of the word and pray for the guidance of the holy spirit to lead us. Mostly in this context God has something he wants to teach us under these circumstances. Know what God is still under control in these situations and has a perfect reason for everything that happens. Our diversity should be our strength. Many lessons will be learned that will help us.
Luther was spiritual inclined more than the average for his age. After some steps of his monastic life, and many trying to be good enough, Luther see himself as unacceptable and unjust person compared with a righteousness God. He was advised to do a peregrination to finish with his doubts. Gonzalez said in the page 31 of his book “A History of Christian Thought” that, Luther traveled to Rome with a heart filled with hope that he will be healed from his doubts. “He had arrived at Rome full of hope and faith; he left with painful doubt that the means of salvation offered by the church were indeed valid—and this is the first indication that we have that he allowed himself to doubt the established doctrine of his time.” These doubts and the reality he saw in Rome were a spark to start the fire that will “contaminate” the world in his time. The fuel was already inside of Luther. The Word of God and His Spirit was working in his soul and through him to share with the world many truths about the Word of God and his salvation. Luther was an imperfect man, yet, he was sincere Christian. God uses people no matter how old or younger they are. The requirement is sincere and pure heart captive by the Word of God .
Seems very important to me the application that professor Dr. Hanna did in class, when talking about protestant theological heritage and reformation. Is important to us to know that there is not just apostasy in the church history. There are reformations and, God has His people through the history. God always have His “saints” who did not surrendered themselves, yet, they were led through the Holy Spirit. These people in reality wrote the history of God’s people and reformation. It is very important to know that God is in control of the history. God’s actions can be seen through history. “History is His story”, because God is in control. Through history we can understand the inheritance that God gave to His people. God’s salvation is historical means that this salvation occurred in time and space. Salvation is God dwelling among us writing His story of salvation to share with everyone His presence and life to save us. No matter if the person is pagan or Christian. There is no salvation without historical actions from God and his direct intervention in human life. Jesus was a historical being in time and space and, His death and resurrection was in history. God used some historical ways through which ones He share knowledge of salvation with His creatures: through Scriptures (2Tim. 3:16), through Jesus Christ (John 1:1) and through His church (2 Cor. 3:2, 3), which has the mission to share the gospel with all nations, tribes and languages.
This last week of class was a handful of good ideas for research, which included not only good academic content, but some “revolutionary” ideas for practical ministry. I would like to highlight briefly some of the presentations I enjoyed the most. 1. The importance of the use of technology in ministry –– Although, as an institution SDAs are doing an excellent work in spreading the Gospel through the use of the various technological ways offered theses days, I think that its use in local churches is something to be considered further in our congregations. It is certainly important to explorer the use of Internet, television, and radio, in the reality of each congregation. “How do we fulfill the specific needs of the community where the congregation is located?” is a question to be answer not only by the church members, but also by the community in its vicinities – for this the Internet would play a major role in this work. 2. The clarification of the meaning of the “Cosmic Christ” –– this one probably was the most sensitive theme of the entire session on PTH. I hear the concern of our colleague with the new age cosmic christ built by Chardin, somewhat inspired or motivated by Hegel’s philosophy, and I think it’s a serious alert for all of us pastors to become more acquainted with this satanic schism trying to steal God’s sheep, and learn how to overcome these challenges to God’s glory. At the same time I must agree with Dr. Martin Hanna’s observation of the Cosmic Christ (please note the two bold/italic), which emphasizes the completeness of Christ’s sacrifice, and ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. As pastors and theologians we must be aware of these differences, and be able to clarify them to our members whenever a question appear, always keeping in mind that if we don’t do it, someone will.
Reading Gonzalez’s book we see many disagreements between the reformers. But I believe that those men were seeking and trying to find the truth. God through His Spirit used those men to do reformation. This assumption does not mean that these men were without possibility to make a mistake. One of the disagreements was about Jesus Christ’s divine and human nature. Calvin and Zwingli did not accept Luther’s interpretation about the resurrected body of Christ. They used the Latin phrase: communicatio idiomatum – which was a communication of the divine nature of Christ to the human nature. The divine attribute of omnipresence was controlling the human nature. Luther, for example, used the omnipresence of the Divine Christ “as an argument” to prove the literally presence of Christ in the sacrament. On other hand, Calvin and Zwingli said, “that the ubiquity, ‘(omnipresence)’ of the divine had not been communicated to the body of Christ, and that he could not therefore be present in heaven and on several altars at the same time.” Page 152. There are much more about the mystery of the incarnated Christ that we can understand. Calvin’s position about the body of Christ seems very confused to me. Calvin said that “although the divinity of the Second Person was fully present in Jesus, it was not circumscribed by his humanity.” Page 152. According Ellen White, Christ was totally divine and totally human. The human mind cannot understand this so profound concept. I believe that when we’ll be in heaven we’ll understand better, but not everything about incarnation of Christ, that it is mystery. The reformers did not comprehend every point of the Scriptures, and we also, cannot understand everything. But we can put our lives in the God’s hands, to be used like those men were used.
THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage Instructor : Dr. Martin Hanna, Ph.D. By. Ki Seung Jhang “The founders of the two great Protestant traditions, Luther and Zwingli, were followed by others who at once systematized and mitigated those traditions. As we shall wee in the next chapter, Calvin became the heir to Zwingli’s reformation, and the two may be said to be the founders of the Reformed tradition; but the general trend of Calvin’s theology was a movement away from Zwingli and toward Luther. The same may be said about the man who played a similar role in the Lutheran tradition, Philip Melanchthon, for the development of his theology can be seen as a movement away from Luther and toward Bucer and Calvin. This and the fact that Melanchthon mollified Luther’s theology on a number of other points, gave rise to several controversies within the Luthern churches. Other controversies arose, quite independently of the differences between Melanchthon and Luther, when lesser lights proposed views that seemed to threaten the core of Protestantism as, for instance, in the case of Osiander. These various controversies finally led to the Formula of Concord(1577), around which most of the Lutheran churches rallied.” (p 143) I can’t understand why the great reformers insisted different doctrines. I believe that God used them for his works. Of course, this book explained the reason that they became to insist different doctrines. But I still have a question how they who was lead by Holy Spirit could do like these. I felt them not to understand each other, and not abandon the self-estems of them. They kept their thoughts which they became to have through their background of education and environment, even though they started with pure mind to know the bible. I feel something wanting from them. Of course, there are different doctrines in the SDA. I learned the importance of the studying bible. This makes me to remember E.G. White’s words. “Satan is a diligent Bible student. He knows that his time is short, and he seeks at every point to counterwork the work of the Lord upon this earth. It is impossible to give any idea of the experience of the people of God who shall be alive upon the earth when celestial glory and a repetition of the persecutions of the past are blended. They will walk in the light proceeding from the throne of God. By means of the angels there will be constant communication between heaven and earth. And Satan, surrounded by evil angels, and claiming to be God, will work miracles of all kinds, to deceive, if possible, the very elect. God's people will not find their safety in working miracles, for Satan will counterfeit the miracles that will be wrought. God's tried and tested people will find their power in the sign spoken of in Exodus 31:12-18. They are to take their stand on the living word: "It is written." This is the only foundation upon which they can stand securely. Those who have broken their covenant with God will in that day be without God and without hope.” (3 TT, p 284) I believe that the studying bible with pure heart is the way to win over Satan.
The issue of philosophy and theology within the Christian tradition is almost as old as Christianity itself. Our history of the Reformation sheds light on this when we consider how the Protestants emphasized Scripture in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church which focused on its tradition and teaching. Although both the theologian and philosopher are engaged in the process of talking about God, the position they must be care of is where they begin talking about God - from Scripture or from knowledge. One of the consequences of only accepting knowledge as the primary criterion for understanding God and doing theology today is simply a lose sight of our Christian heritage. It is a deviation from the distinctive ideas of the Protestant faith. Our theology becomes ineffective and corrupt when it gradually changes to affirm views which are not based on the Spirit's leading but based on man's thinking.
When I saw Luther's life through this class, I was really impressed by him. God has been leading human being's history and let us understand through that. I know that we can study using history and heritages. Sometimes, people just follow with out thinking which is judgement; what is right and why or what is wrong and why. people want to follow the way many people went to. I could consider through this study. Most protestants died for what they believed and I saw what they had done. That was the way Jesus walked in this world. But I knew that all protestants were not perfect. Their way were not all the way that I should follow. I can choose the way I should follow through the fruits they left. Holy Spirit will lead me to right way until I get to heaven.
During our discussion in last week, we talked about reformers; Luther, Zwingli, Erasmus and Calvin. Through them, protestants could find their direction where they had to go.
All the reformers had their own theory understanding Jesus and salvation, and they gave us lots of their theories.
When I studied what reformers understood, I found out Jesus again. And I can understand why protestants got betting their life for keeping their faith.
Especially, Zwingli approached the scriptures as a Christian humanistic hence his return to the Bible was one of the reasons that we got reformation.
God has been using people who want to meet Jesus as their savior. And God works with them.
Through the people reformers I am cheered up. It makes me work and praise God.
Knowing History is really important. If we do not know where we are from, we would not be able to stand on Jesus' side.
There is no denomination that springs in a vacuum, but each movement stands upon the development of faith of previous system of thought. In this transition process, there is continuation and discontinuation of doctrine, development of beliefs, and special characteristics that the founders carry into the new denomination. The motivation of a new denomination it is not necessarily religious, but it can be political, geographical, or even better a mixture of all the elements. In the case of Seventh-day Adventism it is well recorded the indebtedness of early pioneers to the American Methodist Church, founded by John Wesley. While Adventist scholars have dealt with Wesleyan-Adventist relations regarding the topics of Spirituality, Christian Perfection, the relation between salvation and justification, there is still room for further research in the eschatological aspects of Wesleyan theology compared with the Adventist. This class Protestant Theological Heritage can trace the Adventist Movement back on Methodism, Anglicanism, yet the development and the fidelity of the movement to the Sola Scriptura principle made our church unique, as the remnant in progress in history.
Reflection 4 In Gonselez book on the knowledge of God, he points out that, “Adam did not just sin by disobeying but by incredulity. They did not believe that what God told them was true. I agree with Gonzalez’s point but I also think the “root of sin” is distrust or disbelieve. Distrust that God is not who He says He is and cannot do what He says He can do. Unlike Calvin who says that ‘incredulity leads to ambition and pride’, I suggest that distrust and disbelieve of what God says or can do leads to self-sufficiency. When we want to be self-sufficient we start finding ways and means of living on our own apart from God. The “I” factor which I call the basis of sin. Linking the “I” factor with Calvin’s institutes when he discusses about the knowledge of God, he talks about the insufficiency of human condition to know the “proper’ knowledge of God but his emphasis of not so much on God’s attitude towards us but rather on our proper attitude toward God reminds me of our discussion in class, ‘earning righteousness’ rather than ‘righteousness imputed’ on us. I believe the greatest difference of Christianity and other pagan religion is the God who pursues us , God who takes the initiative to love and reveal himself to us rather than us taking the initiative to do something so that God can in return do something for us. It is my conviction that it is in the understanding that, it is not “our doing” but “his doing” that makes us to be filled with wonder and awe of his amazing love and in return respond to His love in a proper attitude toward God, an attitude of obedience and gratitude.
The Anabaptists view about relationship between church and state was strict and orthodox. According to them, the state is unclean and Christians cannot be in contact with it. On the other hand, find in Calvin an “question of how Christians must view the state and relate to it.” The argument for this thought is that “the state is created by God… to serve divine justice.” Using this thinking, “as a result, the state has the legitimate right to impose the penalty of death, to raise taxes, and to wage just and necessary wars.” Page 173. The state is necessary to make the laws and also to certify if these laws will be fulfilled. The fulfillment of these laws is the security for order and prevents the social injustice. The acceptance and fulfillment of the law made by the state, however, it must be proportional to its compatibility with the God’s Laws. Since the state or church starts to act against the will of God and against His law, we must reject then and put our faith in the Word of God. The EUA the new continent with a religious proposition. Which was to have free land without union between state and church. A free state, for where Christians came to begin a new continent to worship God freely and without any interference of the state. I agree to the state has the right to charge taxes, which are necessary for the good of the society. However, talking about war and death penalty, we have to have a theocratic state like was in the ancient Israel. Today wars are made only with the proper interest of each government. Inside of these governments, particular interests exist. Who paid for everything is the people, which is oppressed with more and more taxes and their families who are decimated by the loss of their children who die in these unjust wars. About death penalty, if the law system of each country try to apply with justice, will be impossible because humans being are sinners and, its decisions will be injustice. We find death penalty in the Old Testament. But the only security application it is in a theocratic state. Christians, according to the Bible, has to pay taxes and obey its governments. But should better if they did not involve their selves with politics, unless if they are direct instructed by God in regarding of it. But this is very difficult to know. The Anabaptists consider the state unclean. On other hand Calvin said that God creates the state. I did not agree with Calvin when he said “the state has the legitimate right to impose the penalty of death, to raise taxes, and to wage just and necessary wars.” Page 173. In my understanding state has to be separated from the church. They are different institutions and cannot be together. Christians should obey their governments and pay taxes unless if state laws are contraries to God's law.
Name: Joel Rosana Reflection # 3 In what seems to be an issue of delight in the sphere of the church has become a point of contention – missiology. The current church exists for this major reason to preach the good news to the whole world and prepare the nations, peoples, races, tribe for the kingdom of God. The Christian fraternity has this major concern; who is fit for the kingdom? And in answering this concern many groups of people have been put out of the picture simply because of their religious beliefs. In class we learnt that the gospel message belongs to all peoples and Christians who have received the message should be delighted to pass it to many who have no opportunity of this good news. Regardless of their radical beliefs the Muslims are part of God’s people who never chose to be ones in many cases but have found themselves in the religion. One member presented his paper in class in the context that we need to reach these folks and preach to them but allow them to worship in their religion. I don’t agree to that sentiment because it is the work of the Lord to convict the soul and in that manner when one has received the truth as it is in the Bible he will willing be able to lean to the truth as much as the culture of his former religion may impact his living. My case of contention is that; missiology is God’s work and all who are doing it should rely to God for Providence of his words and the results are manifested by the Lord. The Bible clearly states, ‘He is that Author and the Finisher of our Faith.’ Leave everything to him and allow him to use in spreading the Gospel.
Name: Rosana Joel Reflection # 4 In the conclusion of this class dominant with the Christian Heritage, I have come to discover that in all major areas of reformation, there was a issue that was so critical that the early reformers did not have the better and Biblical perspective to it. In the Catholic Church, the word of the Lord was embraced yes, but in it there were some traditions that were incorporated into the church that led to the protest. Then came the magisterial reformers who did all they can to alienate themselves from the Catholic Church so that they can be Biblical and revolve their issues in the Bible, but amazingly they were short of the truth. Some of them embraced the same philosophy of the Eucharist to the protestant reformation as it was in the Mother Church. Due to the fact that some of their teachings were not biblical, there came another group of reformers known as the Radicals. They are given the name because of their fearless stand. This is one group that was really persecuted by the fellow Protestants. They were close to the Bible teachings though they were short in some of their teachings. It is from this level that Adventism was born and special revelation was given to Ellen G. White who with other reformers made what the Church is of now. In the end all reformations have been characterized with persecution. Though it is said the truth is painful and many will use all they can to do away with it, assuredly it is the only thing that will stand when all come to the end.
On pages 402 and 403 we read about the Catholic Church’s missionary approach to the Chinese. The Catholics were so adamant about pushing their own agenda for the Chinese on the believers there that they ended up losing all of their opportunity to witness for a very long time. Because the emperor allowed the continuation of the Chinese customary rites, the Pope ended up excommunicating the believers there. In turn, the Chinese Emperor is recorded to have excommunicated the Pope in return! The Catholic church had such an incredible ministry with the Chinese because Ricci was willing to take time to understand their culture and work with them the way they were, but the Church wanted to make the Chinese be like they were themselves. This mentality makes me think of all the missionary efforts that have resulted in “North American” contextualized Christianity being pushed upon peoples all over the world. The Adventist church has not been innocent in this either. Wherever missionaries have gone, most of the time they have attempted to teach the locals to sing the songs we sing back home, to worship the way we worship back home, to dress the way we dress back home. It is really surprising when we look at the arrogance that we have had, and our heritage has had. I think this is a good example of attempting to teach others the Bible without learning to contextualize it to their own culture. We are sometimes so afraid of the word “contextualization” because we are afraid that it automatically means we are going to have to compromise the gospel. But there are many ways we can contextualize the message and still remain true to the Gospel. I think if we look closely at the work of Jesus, that we will recognize His approaches at contextualization. If we look at Paul, we will see his contextualization. But these remained faithful to the scriptures while they were trying to make them most comprehendible to their listeners. I would propose that one of our greatest hindrances has been that we have become so used to the Gospel as it has been contextualized for ourselves, that we blindly think this is the only way, and don’t even recognize that we do indeed have our own contextual understandings of the Scriptures. If we are to be successful at reaching the world for Christ, we must be willing to understand where we have come from first, and then seek to discover where others are coming from as well. Just as Christ has met us where we are and called us to follow after Him, He desires to do the same to those believing in other faiths across the globe.
I want to spend my final reflection paper talking about three things. The first thing is something we talked about earlier in the class. Gonzales mentioned in the chapter on Martin Luther that theology is biographical. In other words, theology does not just fall out down out of the sky, but it grows out of the experiences of the theologians themselves. This is probably more evidenced in the life and theology of Martin Luther. His emphasis on justification by faith is largely due to the fact that he himself struggle to attain righteousness by works. As a budding theologian I can identify with Luther and his emphasis as well as his struggle. When I heard the gospel message my hard heart was melted by the love of Christ. But after accepting Him I thought it was my responsibility to make myself righteous. Much to my dismay it never worked out the way I wanted to. I did all kinds of things in order to make myself feel accepted of God. It was all out of sincerity, though sincerely wrong. It has been during my time here at Seminary and my last two years that God has been teaching me total dependence upon Him. I feel the need to emphasize righteousness by faith as did Martin Luther because of my bad experience in trying to do it on my own. Secondly, the discussion we had in class related to antinomianism raised several questions in my mind. How should we as Adventist teach the Law without appearing to be legalistic? And why is it that we emphasize the Law so much? Is it possible that we have overemphasized the Law and created a bunch of “works-oriented” believers? It is quite possible that John Agricola rejected Luther and Melanchthon because of their recommendation that the law be preached to bring sinners to repentance. I’m not supporting Agricola in his view. I think he is a heretic for his statements about the law. What I am saying is that I can see a need to teach the law in a more Christ-centered way and not overemphasize it, especially to believers. I think Adventists have stressed the law. I think a large part of why we teach the law the way we do is because of the Sabbath being in the Law. I think we feel as if the only way to defend the Sabbath is by emphasizing the Law. We need to teach the Law but not in such a way that people believe there is power in obeying the Law. Lastly, the class discussion we had on missions was a good discussion. I want to address something that was said in relationship to social, humanitarian aid and ministry. It was stated that we should respond to human needs with spiritual food. I’m not all too sure that this is what was meant by the student. I just wanted to say that the way Christ reached people was by meeting their physical needs and then providing their spiritual needs. There are times when we must get to the heart of spiritual matters with people as Christ did in the case of Nicodemus. Other than this incident, I am unaware of Jesus being so straightforward with nonbelievers without first meeting their physical needs. I also don’t believe that we should only meet people’s physical needs just to meet them. We have a responsibility to lead people to Christ. Whether it takes one day or one year, we have a duty to share the love of Christ with them intentionally.
IN RESPONSE TO Ryan Hablitzel: The Scriptures without doubts are and must be our only rule of faith. Although the reformers had sustained the Sola-scriptura, they had not been successful to breach completely with Catholic tradition. I believe that protestant heritage it must be interpreted in a holistic way. But I also believe that is dangerous the possibility that “truth can stem” from multiple sources such as “from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The truth, I believe, must be stemmed from the Word of God, and the reason is because this word is inspired by God. Therefore God’s word must be our only rule of faith and truth, conducting all aspects of the life. Although I agree with you in regarding what you said: “I suspect that this trend of using personal experience as a source of truth will continue to gain strength in our generation leading to a movement away from scriptural authority and compromise based on personal intellect”, I cannot agree in what you suggest “that truth can stem from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The church, for example is not the source of truth, but the instrument to apply the truth that was revealed to it. Science today, for example, it is based in atheism and evolutionism. Experience of many Christians today it is based only in the flesh’s passions, not in what God said in the Scripture. To have a better idea regarding this topic, is just to look at the condition of the matrimony today. I believe that we can use many sources, but these sources have to be measured by the Word of God. But in my way of thinking, many sources cannot be considered source of truth.
RESPONSE TO JASON: Hi Jason, I really appreciated your comment about the discussion that we had in class regarding the truth. I personally too believe in the absolute truth. I believe too that many denominations have discovered elements of the absolute truth, but not the absolute truth. I also believe that we don’t have the complete truth. Only God has all truth. But I also believe that God have just one church on the face of the earth. Therefore I believe that God gave us more truth to share with others. If we have more about truth, much more responsibility. Also, I believe that we have to investigate more and more to grow in the absolute truth.
IT has been several weeks since the last PTH class but I was having a discussion with some people on a social online network. This conversation stemmed from a stance from an organization that doesn’t believe in the investigative judgment. As the conversation continued the young lady felt as if Daniel 8 and 9 were not factual and since I was not willing to change my stance on the 70 weeks prophecy and 2300-day prophecy. I was then said to be partly to blame for the loss of members to the church.
I believe this is relevant to PTH because there has to be in my opinion a group of individuals in this church who are not afraid to reform. I think this reformation should be among those in the SDA church who are willing to go back to studying the Word! Who will use less secondary sources and who will truly believe in sola scriptura.
This doesn’t mean that we have to throw out our doctrines it instead means that we should ask for the faith of our founders! We need the faith of Christ, of Ellen White, of James White.
Is the Adventist Church perfect? Of course not, I’d be the first to say we miss the mark in some areas. However we are the only Church who even attempts to believe in Sola Scriptura. I’m A Christian first! I am Adventist not because; if Christ walked this earth He would be Adventist! Christ would be… Christ. I am Adventist because I have faith that it is the closest to how Christ would walk. I move as Christ calls me to.
As a church we cant be afraid to reform but we have to be aware of false movements!
Blog Assignment #3 … Virtual Tithe/Church. J. Harold Alomía
One of our colleagues presented an interesting paper that showing a progressive spirit in adopting some of the benefits of the electronic era. It is not the first time that I hear something like this. The intention is to make things quick and easy, convenience. It is the idea of avoiding the hassle of taking the tithe or offering to church, or sometimes one not having the right amount of change, or forgetting the change, or churches not accepting a check. It would be easier to just log on to our church website, make a credit card payment, and be done with it.
My caution is not against the presentation in class, nor the innovation; it is more a caution regarding the wave of ‘electronically’ being nowadays. I wonder if all of a sudden we are changing the shift of our worship to a ‘convenience’ basis and not to a worship surrendering basis. Our pews are too hard, our buildings are too boring, our services are too plain, our pulpits to old fashioned, our pastors need to tweet as they preach, be on Facebook, and pick up the offering by credit card, click to wash the feet.
These things are not bad in themselves, they can be useful, the problem begins when we miss the purpose of the worship service and assume that it has to be convenient and comfortable, avoiding hassles and difficulties; comfort instead of discipline. I don’t speak for asceticism nor worshiping in cold stone churches with no heat, it is the heart of the matter that I hope to address.
In a news piece published on November 15, 2009, CNN addresses this growing reality of the online church (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/13/online.church.services/index.html). I find myself not so enthusiastic about the notion of online church, and all other electronic devices for the convenience of the worshiper. It seems that worship sometimes is more focused on making the worshiper feel better rather than focused at praising and worshiping God.
Worship is the action that we have when we come to God’s presence. Granted it is an action that is not limited to a physical place yet there is a community aspect to worship that we cannot deny and that must not be ignored. The convenience of the online-card swiping-web-based-worship experience cannot be denied. Just wake up a Sabbath morning, relax in your pajamas, click on some buttons and while you sit in the comfort of your bed sipping at hot cereal-coffee, listen to a sermon, tweet about it, and click on the ‘I accept’ button to respond to the podcast – live stream sermon of the pastor. Convenience for sure. Some might even say that it is worship because of the attitude of the person on the others side of the screen.
That is not the issue, the issue is that once again a society that hungers for relationships and meaning, hides behind the computer screen avoiding the reality of a community that meets to worship and fellowship. Going back to the original thought that spurred this mental exercise; tithing and offering have the purpose of character building and educating. The tithe when released in the offering plate is to develop my faith in God, my trust that he cares for me. It is an exercise of relinquishing our right to keep ‘what we earned’ and turn it to God so that he can work in our lives. The tithing experience of separating the money I receive, placing it in the envelope and offering plate, is more than just a romanticized notion of “good ol’ days” it is an exercise of faith and surrender. No matter what easiness we might give to the process, the one who’s heart is not willing to tithe will not tithe. Perhaps in name of a holistic approach, that same experience can happen with the card swiping, or the web access; however reality is that the more we electrify our lives, the more machinery and mechanical our relationships become, including the most important one we need to have.
Blog Assignment #4 – “Sola Scriptura”? J. Harold Alomía. One semester later from the class, I am encountering an assignment that is making me think of the concept of Sola Scriptura that we shared in PTH. The main source of these thoughts is an SDA book that assumes to uphold the principle of Sola Scriptura, and claims to be a stalwart defense of the ‘traditional and time proven principle of the Reformation, the Adventist pioneers, and the church.’
We went over the terms of prima, sola, tota scriptura; and we have argued back and forth over what these terms mean. I am not concerned with that particular discussion for now.
I simply find it interesting that the defense of sola scriptura in some circles of our denomination seems 'solely' inconsistent. You see, we pride ourselves to carry the torch of the Protestant Reformation, we boast of continuing in the footsteps of Luther and Zwingli and the great reformers when it comes to biblical interpretation, we use the battle cry ‘sola scriptura’ when refuting the lies of Babylon… and yet we have our own SDAd version of ‘sola scriptura’.
It is in these circles when any other source that is not from the Bible is used, then it is the use of a method of interpretation that opens the door for high-criticism that in turn opens the door for unbelief and undermines the truth in Scripture. It must be the ‘Bible and only the Bible!’
Yet when I look closer to these vocal parties in the denomination, I find the inconsistency of ‘sola scriptura’ meaning: the Bible ‘alone’ plus Ellen White’s writings. That is not the Reformation intent of Sola Scriptura. It seems a tad inconsistent for those who uphold the Reformation torch to take the ‘time honored principle’, change it, give it an Adventist nuance and continue to call it the same thing, and say that it is the same thing that Luther used.
This is not a personal proscription of the prophetic gift of Ellen White. It is asking ourselves as a church, do we really believe in sola scriptura? Do we operate in our interpretation within the realms of ‘sola scriptura’? We might say yes. Then do we include the writings of EGW in this principle? And if we do is it still ‘sola scriptura’ in the same way Luther understood it? Can we still affirm that for us the term carries the same spirit of the Reformation?
If EGW is part of our understanding of ‘sola scriptura’, what position does she take? Technically we would state that she takes a subservient position to the Bible, and that she does not contradict the Bible ever (which I believe in). However it seems that many a group place the Bible subservient to EGW, and make EGW a trump card for any theological or exegetical exercise that one might attempt when studying Scripture. Others ignore her completely, which is perhaps a problem of equal perniciousness then the one that places her on top of the book she defended and upheld all her life.
Should we then say that we believe in sola scriptura? Perhaps yes, and at the same time, we should be aware that the nuance of the principle for us is then different then it is for the Baptist down the street, or the agnostic across the corner.
Perhaps it is a personal debate that no one else suffers or sees. I simply find it inconsistent for those who pride themselves in defending biblical truth and sola scriptura to shun any other source other than the Bible, regardless of how much good it might have; and then bring in another source, albeit inspired to bolster their claims and positions, and yet not the Bible. If I would just observe from the outside, it would seem quite inconsistent. The challenge seems to be in the ability that we can have as ministers to integrate sola scriptura in our lives, and to let the Truth of Christ shine, without disregarding or over regarding the added council God gave his church.
131 comments:
THSt 624 Theological Heritage Studies
Helen McClellan
The Mass Production of Manuscripts and the Creation of Schools
This past year I had the opportunity and privilege of teaching at GLAA (Great Lakes Adventist Academy) in Cedar Lake Michigan. I was confident that I would be the best teacher and that the students would learn from all that I had to teach them. Was I wrong! Yes, I had much to teach, but I also had much to learn; especially when it came to the reformation.
It was around March when we completed our studies in Acts and began Adventist Heritage. Seeing that there was so much leading up to 1844 I thought it would be best to begin our studies with Martin Luther. Knowing I knew nothing about him I endeavored to read the teachers handbook and gain as much knowledge as I could in just three days. When class began on Monday I was confident that I could do justice to this great man. Perhaps I would have kept thinking this had it not been for reading our assigned textbook for this summer course.
What impressed me the most concerning our early leaders is their desire to mass produce the scripture so that the common folk could read it for themselves. People like Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther went to great lengths to make the manuscripts available to everyone, even if it meant the loss of their lives. Their devotion is one that I wished my students to understand and in turn be able to better appreciate what they had- The Bible.
It is often easy to take the Bible for granted, especially when you do not understand all that took place in order for each of us to have a Bible of our very own. It was through the Creation of schools that people like Erasmus got the idea not to change the theology, but to spread the theology (even flawed as it was).
One of Erasmus ideas, which I agree with is that what is important in prayer is not its length or its form, but its sincerity (González, Justo, Christian Thought, p. 25). He also believes that knowledge comes from the diligent study of scripture; which is interesting since that is precisely what William Miller believed.
After being apposed to Christianity,(an Atheist at heart), he finally turned to Christ and became a devout student of the Word. He believe as so many other theologians that it was in the study of God’s word that knowledge was obtained. My question to you fellow classmates, is why aren’t our schools teaching the Bible for the purpose of transformation? We have stopped teaching Adventist Heritage and many times the course is skipped in High school, thus we never understand the importance of our Heritage.
Nick Jones
Reflection Paper 1
In reading chapter 2 of the textbook I had a couple of thoughts cross my mind. Our traditional view of Martin Luther, or at least the view that I was taught growing up, is that he was always talking about justification by faith and that was his most important thought. Never until I took an Early Church class in undergrad did I realize that there was much more that Luther contributed to our heritage. Through his study of Scripture he contributed much more. His purpose was to study Scripture.
The other thought that crossed my mind was that for Luther to go against the church so aggressively was a very bold move. He was facing the possibility of death and at one point believed he would die as Gonzalez says on page 39 that “Luther himself went to Worms convinced that he was going to what could well be his death.” His belief in what God had showed him was what kept him going and gave him the courage to defend what he believed to be true. Luther was willing to die in defense of his beliefs, not willing to recant anything.
These two thoughts directly tie into Dr. Hanna’s lecture on the title of this course “Protestant Theological Heritage.” As Protestant Christians we have inherited some of this spirit. As Protestant Seventh-day Adventists we believe that God has shown us the truth and we believe that we will defend it to the death. This is our heritage, this is what we have inherited.
Also, as Protestant Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that the Bible is our only creed. As Dr. Hanna mentioned in class Theology basically means “God talk.” God speaks through Scripture. Luther recognized this. He recognized that through Scripture he would find the truth. 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” God talks to us through the Scriptures. This is not to say that this is His only means of communication. There are other forms of which God utilizes, however, Scripture is by far one of the most direct forms of communication between God and man. Through Scripture the grace of Christ is revealed.
As Seventh-day Adventists I believe that we have inherited the purpose of studying Scripture and willing to die for our beliefs. While there are not many illustrations of Seventh-day Adventists giving their lives for the message in North America, there are many illustrations of it in other countries around the world. I believe that we have inherited these traits from the early Protestant Reformers.
Tyler Kraft
THST624
Reflection 1
6/10/09
For quite awhile now I have been trying to grasp the postmodern concept, or rather the extreme postmodern concept, of the lack of absolute truth in light of sharing Christianity, which to me is an absolute truth and not just a truth to me. Having taken Revelation, Inspiration and Hermeneutics from Dr. Hanna previously, we had several discussions in class on this topic. Yet even with those discussions and with other research I had previously done on my own and conversations I had previously had, I could not quite get a handle on how to think about and present the Gospel in a postmodern way.
I suppose one of my hang-ups is centered on the fact that I really value intellectual honesty. I do not really appreciate people who can make a strong presentation of a topic, when it becomes apparent that they have not paid any attention to or really thought through the other side of the argument. While just giving one set of facts or presenting a string of “proof texts” might lead to an easy win in the short term, it truly does injustice to everyone involved in the long term. For when a person eventually comes across the opposing stance on a topic, there is a high possibility of that person becoming enraptured by that “new” teaching.
So, this is why I had a hard time presenting Christianity as having the absolute truth, because I know that deep down we really only have a very close approximation to the absolute truth as God is in fact the only being who knows and is Absolute Truth. I felt that if I were to say that my belief is Truth, then I would ultimately be being intellectually dishonest. On the other hand, if I were to openly admit that Christianity is merely the closest approximation to absolute truth that humanity has, I would be opening the flood gates for the possible acceptance of Mohammed, Buddha and Confucius in addition to Jesus, since Christianity could then be seen as simply a truth and not the truth.
When Dr. Hanna presented his model in class today of a diverging path that leads to either liberalism (a truth) or conservatism (the truth) as a false dichotomy, because there is a better option – the Biblical model that veers neither to the right nor the left – I was wondering where he was going with that. Then, when he used the nature of Christ being both 100% human and 100% divine to illustrate that the Bible does not necessarily separate things into two distinct categories, I found myself amazed at how much sense that made.
I am not quite comfortable saying that the issues of being a Biblical Christian in a postmodern world have been totally reconciled with Dr. Hanna’s illustration of Christ’s nature, but I do believe that it has really helped me understand how the Bible can present a truth as well as the truth. I also realize that it now puts the onus on me, and on other Christians, to really study the Bible and see just exactly which is which.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
As I consider reformation, I realize that reformation is under skirted by a shift in the source of truth. Reformation does not necessarily reject other forms of truth, but instead accentuates one aspect of truth. In the Roman Catholic system the Church was considered the authority on truth because the church interpreted scripture for the people. When the Protestant Reformation came about a shift in truth took place. The church as displaced as the authority on truth for Scripture. Despite the shift in truth from the church to Scripture, one should not assume that the church was completely cut out of the equation. Scripture simply rose to become the champion or rule of truth to the protestant community. In the 19th century science began to dominate truth. A reformation based on science began to undermine the protestant reformation of Biblical authority. Today, reformation is again taking place, but in a more subtle way. While the church gives lip service to Scripture as the ultimate source of truth, personal experience is quickly dethroning Scriptural authority. The church continues to use scripture as a source of truth, but scripture is interpreted in relation to one’s own personal world view or experience. I suspect that this trend of using personal experience as a source of truth will continue to gain strength in our generation leading to a movement away from scriptural authority and compromise based on personal intellect.
I might suggest that truth can stem from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience, but truth must be accountable to the source of truth. As Dr. Hanna presented in class, truth needs to be seen a more holistic way. While science (the study of creation) can yield truth, so can personal experience (historical analysis). The church also can be a source of truth (inspired leaders lead by the Holy Spirit), but one thing that Protestant Reformers got right was that all truth must be subject to Scripture. Scripture is the rule as given by the Ruler. While the church should continue to use science, historical analysis, and church leadership to help guide our understanding of truth, these forms must be placed against the rule of faith and practice – Scripture.
I suggest that we should be sensitive to reformers that suggest new ways of understanding truth because reformation often stems from an injustice by one group who overemphasize one aspect of truth. Let us continue to hold scripture as our rule for faith and practice while listening attentively to those who introduce new thought and test it accordingly.
I wanted to respond to the discussion that we had in class yesterday (06-10-09). The discussion about absolute truth I believe is a discussion that is necessary for Christians to have. I think we do a disservice to the truth when we decide that we will present the truth rigidly. As was presented in class, while we believe in absolute truth, we also have to understand that our knowledge of the truth is obscured many times because of the limitations of our humanity. What those of the postmodern mindset are looking for is honesty. For too long, both religion and science have made overarching statements that were found later to be false, and talked about all the great things they could accomplish and never did. It is feasible to suggest that we may not have had a postmodern mindset if it weren’t for the great failings of both religion and science.
Stemming from this understanding is the knowledge that just as we have incomplete pictures of the truth, so do some of the people whose ideas we despise in total. I think it is problematic to say that because someone does not have the whole truth, then we should ignore the totality of what they have to say. That stance is also hypocritical because we do not have the whole truth either. It is even more problematic to me to say that because some people’s ideas have been used to justify evil acts than we should ignore the totality of those ideas. If that is true than people should not listen to us either because we believe in a book (the Bible) that has been used at times to justify evil acts. I personally believe in the reality of absolute truth. I also believe that many denominations, philosophers, and others have discovered different elements of that absolute truth. Therefore, in order to have as complete a picture of what the truth is, we will have to be willing to listen to everyone, examine their ideas in light of the Bible, and except truth from whatever corner it comes. As Ellen White said, “truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation."
So far this is a very nice presentation intended to open our minds in discussing the in the field of protestant theological heritage. The unkown author's contribution is a positive indication on how as Seventh-day Adventists we view the message of the sanctuary in relation to Luther's statement of justification by faith.There is no need need for us to defend our faith ubtil death because salvation is God's.
Toward a new signification of the human faith and reason.
By E.A. Guzman
Both Erasmus and Luther aimed to reform the church. While the former cried for an ethical reformation of the ranks of the mother church based on humanism, the later insisted that the church wasn’t interpreting correctly the data of Scripture regarding justification by faith. Yet, independently of the motif both theologians returned to the raw material of information, or to the things themselves, in order to find the answers for their questions.
Although Erasmus first priority was ethics, and not dogmatics, it is noteworthy the way in which he uplifted the importance of the text of Scriptures in order to return to the “sources of Christianity.” However, because his focus was ethics, he concluded that the human task was “to dominate passions through the exercise of reason.” This conclusion was in accordance with the current orthodoxy that defined the works as an important element in the achievement of salvation, and it demonstrated a real spirit of reformation in a Roman Catholic paradigm.
On the other hand, Luther strongly agreed with the intentions of reformation, yet the agent of this reformation couldn’t be the human, because of his total depravity of the will. Therefore, justification by faith and redemption, and the process in which this dynamic occurs were attributed to a divine agent without any participation of humans in any level. That is, forensic justification.
It is evident that both Erasmus and Luther had some of the biblical truth on one hand, and despite their problems both tried to achieve new significations of faith and reason, because both were facing the same problem, namely the major apostasy of the church. In addition, it is noteworthy the movement by Luther and Erasmus of going back to the raw material of theology, that is Scripture. Despite both theologians have achieved different conclusions regarding the human will and salvation, it is still worthy to take the risk, instead of simply stand on the basis of tradition and repeat what our predecessors believed.
Response to Nick Jones’ reflection paper 1
By E.A. Guzman
Nick Jones, I do agree with you regarding Luther’s positive influence in Christianity. However, we need to make a distinction regarding Luther, the “reformer”, and the “theologian.” While the first Luther should always inspire us to keep reforming the church, which it is, and it will be an unfinished work because the initiator and the consumer of the work is God himself. On the other hand, we should be critical to his theology, and of his thoughts.
Even his famous Forensic Justification notion should arise questions in our minds, because we all know that this notion came as a way to avoid any human merits in order to combat the Roman Catholic teaching, so in order to build his argumentation he had a very low view of human will. I am not saying that Luther’s theology should not be accepted, but I am saying that as an initial development it is acceptable, yet the immense debate that followed attests the necessity of adaptations. Luther was a hero, but not infallible.
Garth Dottin
Since the old ways have run their course, it is necessary to venture in new directions. This statement that Gonzalez presents at the beginning of the book made me immediately stop and think about certain patterns in history and the cyclical nature of problems. He noted some of the issues that led to the beginning of a new age and the quest for change, and I found it interesting that they parallel some of the same conditions that we face today. He noted problems with commerce, a monetary economy, large growth of cities, economic and political power, large banking houses handling capital, large amounts of poor people that they became a social class, poverty and a concentration of wealth in the cities, unprecedented rate of inflation, and wages not keeping pace with the price of food. Even the church was caught in the web of capitalistic and selfish desires. I began to wonder that if those were the signs of a changing era, and these are clearly signs that we see today, then could it be that we are about to transition again into a new era?
The reformers Erasmus and Luther should be commended for the high standards they held for Biblical authority and their time in study. Martin Luther’s theology was so closely entangled in his life, that he could not separate them. He was willing to die for what he believed. Many individuals may find that aspect of his life to be problematic, but I believe that it is admirable. What we believe and profess should affect the way we live. The problem occurs when we profess to live and adhere to certain principles, but our lifestyle contradicts our beliefs. Erasmus did not believe that a person could serve God by withdrawing from the world and devoting their time to religious exercises. However, he did not respect individuals who abandoned this discipline and gave in to their own passions (pp.24). We live in the world, but we are not of the world.
There's no doubt about it...Luther didn't have it all right. But God did use him along with others in what was the beginning of a movement that would bring the Sacred Scriptures of the Bible before the people. The Catholic church was exposed as the Anti-Christ system of Revelation and the Little Horn Power of Daniel. These discoveries in no way used "wholistic" philosophy to undergird their existence. In the world of philosophy, the discovery of these Biblical truths among others came from a philosophic current that was more "reductionistic". So I have a difficult time Dr. Hanna with your insistence of using "wholistic" philosophy to explain our Protestant Theological Heritage. My reasons include the reality that GWF Hegel and his "wholistic" philosophy didn't arrive on the scene until the latter part of the 1700's. In addition to this, Hegelian proponents will be the first to admit that his works are extremely difficult to understand. My Holy Bible tells me in Ecclesiastes 7:29 (NLB) "That God made man simple, but that man has made his way complicated." I can't think of another text that is more appropriate for anyone who attempts to apply Hegelian Dialecticism and "Wholism" to the study of Biblical Truth, which is intrinsically "Reductionistic". After all Jesus said that there is NO other name given among men by which we must be saved, other than the name of Jesus. Any "wholistic" approach opens the door for a dualistic "cosmic"/ecumenical model. This is what the French Jesuit de Chardin was espousing 50 plus years ago with his "Cosmic Christ" Christology.
Meade Adams
I would like to comment on the issue of nominalism’s attempted subversion of the medieval synthesis. Perhaps it would more appropriately be labeled as a comment on the tendency and theology of reactionism. Gonzalez pointed out in chapter one that nominalism rose in an attempt to subvert the foundations of the medieval synthesis and offer a sort of alternative to the hierarchical system the Christianity had fallen under. However, he points out that “while destroying the very foundation of the medieval synthesis, nominalism had little to offer in its place” (p. 20). Nominalism was a reaction to the oppressive hierarchy of the medieval church. However, I believe that history shows us several things about reactionary movements. First, reactionary movements tend to overreact. Very often, a reaction to an extreme will itself be extreme. I have rarely heard of a reactionary movement that sprung out of an extreme that moved immediately toward a balance. This can be seen in the rise of liberal theology in the heat of ultra-conservatism. It went to the complete other extreme. Second, reactionary movements are essentially subversive. They usually do not simply offer a plausible alternative but they act as a subversive catalyst by their very existence. They seek to shake the foundation of the establishment.
These are a few things I have observed in regards to reactionary movements and I believe they still ring true of nominalism and even the whole Protestant Reformation itself. Thoughts?
Protestant Theological Heritage
Reflections by Taurus Montgomery
June 12, 2009
The first week of class has been better than I expected. After reviewing my notes there are a few things I appreciate and now have a better understanding of thus far. My reflection is on some of the things we talked about in class as well as from the reading of the first chapters.
I appreciate Dr. Hanna’s approach to studying Protestant Theological Heritage and history. I think he made a solid, biblical case when unpacking the tile of the class – Protestant Theological Heritage. The meaning of heritage is broad and deep. The Bible declares that God is the heritage of the priests of Israel, yea the heritage of all the people of Israel. He chose the priest in order to help the people become priests unto Himself. Furthermore, God’s dwelling place, the sanctuary, is His heritage. The land He promised Israel is His heritage. But the heritage of the Lord is still much broader. God’s heritage has cosmic dimensions. The entire creation, our world and the universe is God’s heritage. The broadness of this concept of heritage is all encompassing, thus, it includes the Protestant Reformation.
The Protestant Reformation deserves our study as Adventist for two reasons. The first reason it deserves our study is because it is God’s heritage as explained above. The second reason it deserves our study is because it is humbling. We can learn a lot from those who have gone before us. We are indeed standing on the shoulders of Ellen White, James White, and J.N Andrews. But it is also because of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley and others, that we know and understand certain Bible truths.
As I was reading the chapter on Martin Luther I discovered something for the first time. I had always thought Martin Luther was organically against the Roman Catholic Church. I thought he had no respect for the Church and her authority because of the error she was teaching. I was surprised to discover something different. Luther acknowledged he bequeathed the Scriptures from the Church and rejected those things the church held but were unbiblical. But he was adamant against those extreme reformers who rejected church authority all together. Luther didn’t feel the same way. He just wanted the change to change its positions on some of their unbiblical teachings.
As Adventist, we must appreciate the Protestant Reformation and acknowledge that the majority of our teachings are not that unique. The main difference we have is and the Doctrine of the Sanctuary. Mostly everything else we teach has been handed down to us from the Protestant Reformation. This should humble us.
About Philosophy
We must not reject philosophy all together as some do. Neither must we allow it to dictate our theology. But rather, we must approach philosophy with a biblical framework. The Bible must be our guide as we seek to dialogue with Plato, Aristotle, and the likes.
Medieval Synthesis
The medieval synthesis is an interesting notion. The idea that heaven and earth was so close together that humans can perceive divine things through universals, or windows of ultimate reality. The implications of this idea are mind boggling for a twenty-first century Christian. For example, the structures of earthly society were a direct reflection of heavenly reality. I could never understand how people could believe that the Pope was God on earth. It was difficult for me to grasp this concept until the airplane illustration was given by Hanna to remind me how different worldviews and mindsets change through history.
Sergio Silva - 1st reflection paper.
How can we define ‘Protestant Theological Heritage’? Despite other possible definitions, I enjoyed and feel that was well putted the fact that God is our heritage and the heritage of the entire nation. It was also inspiring the fact that God brings us into His Sanctuary, which becomes also our heritage; but even more attractive is the concept that God’s heritage is historical, unfolded, and revealed throughout the many historical events occurred during the years of the existence of this planet. I spent some time thinking about our heritage as SDAs, our historical method of prophetic interpretation, and Gonzales’ book was a powerful tool. As a matter of fact, although the classes and the discussions were great, the most fun I had while reading Gonzales’ book. It reminded me of something special.
I recently had the privilege of going with Dr. Damsteegt to a Great Controversy tour, where I had the privilege to visited many places where the protestant reformation took place. I stood close to the place where Luther said: “I cannot recant. Here I stand.” I visit the place where Zwingli was killed for the love of the Word of God. I stood in the very place where John Huss were burned because he could not submit himself to the tyranny of the RCC, and rather die than compromise the truth that he had found in the Scripture.
In this class, I’m learning how to appreciate even more the works of the Reformers from which I believe my church, the SDA church, inherit something very special for it’s existence – a truth appreciation and unquestionable loyalty for the Scripture. I wonder, however, if this crucial and so precious heritage isn’t gradually disappearing in the midst of the post-modern era? If so, how many of us are really preparing to light it back up?
Reflection 1
When the truth is more important than people, I start to question if it is really God’s way. Is it really God’s way to push the truth, regardless of if it drives people away? Jesus in scripture drew people to himself; he loved them. If people do not accept truth, why do we leave them to the hyenas? Yet if we ask these questions, we’re labeled as compromisers. So debate is stifled and more people are hurt when they don’t live up to truth. I almost want to capitalize truth, but don’t want to confuse it with Jesus. The word “truth” becomes a battling ram and is used as a weapon far to often. Am I being too postmodern to question if your truth is the true truth? And if I dare ask that question, then am I opening Pandora’s box where there suddenly is no more truth at all (again a compromiser)?
I wish we would be more tolerant of each other (again my post-modernity coming through). Dr. Hanna mentioned different aspects of the same truth that seem contradictory, but are each a part of the same jewel. It reminds me of the story of three blind men feeling an elephant and not understanding it was the same animal or how the same animal could be so different. We’re all on different paths and it seems that truth is different depending on where you are in the journey. Some things that I am convicted on may not hold true for you. I see in my own journey where some things that didn’t bother me, I now no longer do, because I have grown in the faith. But when someone tells me that his or her rigid rules are the truth, I balk a little and actually become more stubborn.
Another comment that made me ponder was about if phrasing our beliefs in a way that postmoderns will accept is really compromise. If I believe people are rejecting the truth, maybe I should look at my methods of presenting that truth. I believe we are called to reach people and if we’re not doing that, it’s not their problem, it’s mine.
I have really enjoyed this first week of class. I really found the way that Dr. Hanna unpacked the title of the class very interesting. I loved the way that Dr. Hanna brought out heritage can also be defined as inheritance. Through the texts Dr. Hanna showed us that God says to priest that he is their inheritance, but in Exodus 19:6 He states that Israel is a kingdom of priest, also we know that Israel can be taken as anyone who accepts Jesus Christ. So in short anyone who trust and believes in Christ is entitled to the heritage/inheritance of God. After breaking down heritage Dr. Hanna talked about theological which can be broken down as “God talk”. This week we learned that God talks to us in 3 ways God talks to us through Jesus who is the word of God, God talks to us through the bible which is the word of God, God talks to us through the church.
first reflection paper
In this class, I want to learn a big picture of the protestant heritage. Techinically, protestant heritage is from Catholic. And the reformers couldn’t remove all the dimensions from Catholic and developed their Theology based on Roman Catholic. If we go up more, we can find the early church and Jesus teachings.
People usually think God’s sactuary as God’s place in heaven. But the Bible tells us that His sanctuary is the earth, Israel, and whole universe. So we are actually living in God’s sanctuary right now. So this is another illustration for big pictures.
My favorite part from last week’s class and reading is that perspectives can be differed from where I am standing. If I am Catholic, I would say sixteenth century is the worst period of church history. But because I am a protestant Christian, I say Martin Luther is a great hero in church history and sixteenth century is a remarkable period in church history. Like this, liberalism and conservatism can be different according to where I am and who I am talking to. Elderly pastors and elders think tradition is always right and that is conservative. But they sometimes forget why they have to do things and not to do things. They just think those behaviors and music they have been doing and singing are right for church and they are conservative. But young people do not like follow everything in church if they cannot fully understand why they should be conservative. I personally wanted to be conservative as a young pastor. But I have failed to meet older pastors expectations. They always request me more and more.
I believe that we should preserve the tradition and the heritage but I don’t think every tradition is right. The reformers didn’t take them right and reformed whole Christianity. That’s why we could have right faith and have this church. So I want to keep that in mind. All perspectives depend on where I am standing.
I have often heard it said from the pulpits and lecterns of our churches and schools that the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the remnant church has been given a special end time message to preach to the world, but if we fail to share this message God could pass that message to another group of people, another church. First, let me say that I in no way am suggesting that we are at this point. Although, when I wander the halls of this educational institution full of the leaders of tomorrow’s church, I hear many who grumble about the need for change in the church or those who protest certain positions the church takes. I don’t want to pass judgment on whether change is necessary or not, but I wonder if a look back at history might give us some insights on how to address these issues.
To begin with, I noticed in our readings that Gonzalez describes Martin Luther as having patiently tried to work with the church in order to bring about change. For many years Luther worked for the church and submitted to its authority, at points even with great questions in his mind as to the correctness of some of his church’s doctrines. I am impressed that Luther seemed to have labored intently on trying to reform the church from within not solely attacking it from without. In the end Luther was cast out and had to seek reform through vehicles outside of the Catholic church, but this seemed to be the last resort. Another individual who showed similar respect for the ecclesiastical authority was Erasmus. Although Erasmus ultimately conceded to all the doctrines of the church, during his lifetime of service to the church he worked as well to try to change things from within. Although I think that Erasmus folded on what he knew to be truth in the end, his intentions at first were noble.
So, how should we handle issues in which we find disagreement with our church’s doctrine? It seems to me that change must be attempted within the church first. This idea that the church has lost all truth and that a new and more correct church must be established in its place seems to be overreacting to the issues. As Luther and Erasmus demonstrated, great pain should be taken to address the issues within the context of the church systems in order that change might be effected on the basis of biblical truth and consent of the entire body. Both elements need to be recognized. If the church is unwilling to conform to biblical truth after confronted internally, then I would say it is reasonable to work outside the church. If we believe the church is errant in its ways, then we have a responsibility not to complain and break free, but instead to bring it to the church. Luther and Erasmus had the right idea (partially).
Our discussion in class begins with understanding what Heritage is. What better way to understand Heritage than to look at biblical references. One in particular that we looked at was Ezekiel 44:28 in which the Word of God says that God is their inheritance. Heritage and inheritance meaning the same thing, this is a mystery in itself. In this mysterious gift of God we realize that it is indeed a blessing. The blessing comes from the meaning behind God being Israel’s inheritance, “God’s relationship with His people.”
Since the fall of man everything that God has done for man has been to build relationship with humanity and to restore humanity in a perfect world and a perfect relationship with God. I can’t wait for that, a perfect relationship and a perfect nature. God can’t wait either for this restoration, inheritance, to fully come to fold. Why else would He die on the cross, as I continue to learn more from this class I am focusing my attention on God’s relationship with humanity and the steps he has done throughout Protestantism to restore the relationship between God and humanity.
By Jahisber Penuela
Reflection
I have found interesting Gonzalez’s book (page 47-50), where he discuses Luther’s interpretation of the Word of God, the cannon and the source of authority of the church. He pointed out that Luther had opponents not only in the Catholic Church, but also those called “enthusiastic” followers of Luther in the protestant camp who wished to do away with the entire tradition of the church. According to Gonzalez, it was said that the Roman Catholic Church had created Scripture and established the Canon, and by doing so, it demonstrated the authority of the church over the Scripture. Interestingly, Luther’s response to this argument was that even though it was true that the church established the canon, the gospel established the church. In other words, the authority of Scripture is not in the canon but in the gospel
In here we are dealing with a complicated issue since it is necessary to define canon, Scripture, and of course gospel. I would say then, two things regarding Luther’s response. First of all, I would follow the some ideas of Luther’s conclusion changing some wording: the Catholic Church provided a channel for the recognition among believers of inspired writings. (Even though history teaches us that it was by decrees and councils). But, what should be said about the Jewish writings? Should we be thankful to the Catholic Church for them? I would say no. They were already accepted as inspired. However, the issue of the New Testament writings becomes complicated for two reasons: 1. As Justo Gonzalez said, Jesus’ command was not to write but to proclaim (What could we argue of John’s vision in revelation 1:9?). 2. By the time the New Testament writings appeared there was not “officially” organized Catholic Church. Therefore, the role of the Catholic Church in establishing was more likely to be an instrument in receiving tradition from early Christians. Who has the last word regarding the formation of the canon? Certainly, the Catholic Church not. If so, the protestant churches should have to accept today’s Catholic canon. Then, who? Honestly, I do not know. The issue in discussion, according to Gonzalez, is one of authority. Luther puts the authority not in the cannon but in the gospel. The issue not discussed by Gonzalez is that the gospel comes out of the canon. Furthermore, as I would argue later, if one piece of the canon if left out, certainly the gospel would change and therefore its authority is not longer valid. I am not saying that if we had only the gospel of John, that book would not be authoritative to portray the gospel. No. What I am saying here is, as we know the 27 books of the NT, the source of authority is represented by those known writings. So, why not 26 or 28? I have not idea. What I can say with moderate certainty, is that Luther’s response lacks of consistency in a sense that the canon is something tangible, but gospel is something abstract and define by the canon itself.
Secondly, and maybe more important, is Luther’s stand point regarding the book of Jacobo (James). It is interesting that Protestant reformation proclaimed the sola Scripture principle, which is more than the primacy of Scripture over tradition. But, at the same time, according to Gonzales, Luther took some liberties with the letter of Jacobo and the Revelation of John. Furthermore, to what I said before of the issue of consistency, I would add that if the authority in interpreting the Bible is not canon, as argued by Luther, but in the Gospel, then it seems to me then, that the gospel is a subjective truth. I mean, that if found “my” gospel to be in contradiction to the narrative in Genesis 1-11, I reject that portion of the canon just because it is not part of the gospel. Again, who has the last word? I am not aiming to settle the issue, but for me Luther’s response to the Roman Catholic claim of authority does not make sense at all. If could ask you, why do you accept the cannon of the NT? Would you go with Luther’s response or the Roman Catholic claim? But, Why?
by Jounghan Kim
In this class, I have been learning about what heritage is. About term heritage Ex 19: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. EX15:17 Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.
Moses used this term for lsraelite, and biblical concept of herigate is more broad than talking God's nation and land dwelling place.
I would like to know more about protestant because
our church SDA also one of protestants. God has worked through people. And God's people have mark of Jesus. I would like to learn through this class so that I can walk like as God's protestant.
THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage
Instructor : Dr. Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
By. Ki Seung Jhang
The first week of this class was so good to me. I have never considered about the protestant theological heritage. But I could have the opportunity study and meditate it. And also I have learned new concept and confirmed some concepts.
Especially I like the definition of the biblical heritage. God is our heritage. His dwelling in our hearts is our heritage. Israel made the idol of cow image for Moses received the ten commandments from God. After that, God said Moses that “[Go up] to a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in your midst, because you are an obstinate people, lest I destroy you on the way." (Ex 33:3) But Moses asked God going with them as the sign that this nation is his people. And God said to Moses "I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight, and I have known you by name." (Ex 33:17) The heaven is not our inheritance. It is not useless that we get the heaven and eternal life without him. Therefore, he is our inheritance, and his dwelling with us is our inheritance. And his heritage is historical heritage.
Protestant reformation has occurred against Roman Catholic in 16C – 18C. But in 19C, it is no longer against Roman Catholic Church. Then, they has been split into Liberal and Conservative Theology. Theology was queen of science in Pre-Modern era, but it was corrupted in protestant era. Then in the Modern era, science was the king of university. Then finally, in the post-modern era, both theology and science were dethroned. I think that today many people’s hard hearts is caused from this process. Therefore, the way of our lives affect the value of the gospel, because people generally may evaluate the truth by seeing us. I have learned the lesson that I have to live rightly on the truth.
I have learned that the word “Ecumenical” is biblical word. I didn’t know that before. This also can be used in healthy or unhealthy way by us. This sentence is giving me big burden to the attitude of my Christian life. I learned why I have to live as “A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR [God's] OWN POSSESSION”.(1 Pt 2:9) I am praying God giving me the ability for this because my will is like a rope of sand. Dear God help me and be with me till your second coming.
The Protestantism is one idea that shall have no end, due to the fact that every generation that comes up has a different worldview to various issues. The protesters of the 18th C. had a different view about Justification by Faith, and as time has gone by the theologian to the 21st C. have a new definition. This is because education is not a point, but it is linear. This first week I came to a point of understanding that whatever we learn about especially in the arena of the Bible should be taken in a more inclusive manner than exclusive sense.
In the book, I came to learn that change comes with a price. The early reformers were attacked severely and some were killed because most leaders believe in the ‘status quo’. It is also a point to note, that to make any worth reformation, one needs to be bold as it was to Martin Luther. When going to Worms, Luther believed that his death was beckoning though he never feared, but went with a bold spirit. Such is the attitude that is needed to make any worth different in the world full of no change. This should be done in a manner to defend the truth, and never leave it to be trampled.
What we are learning in this class ties up with this spirit that reformers had. As Adventist we have this spirit in the current world that many other religious groups have classified us as a ‘cult’. This is what all that we can do stand for the truth no matter what befall us. The Sabbath truth and the Health truth have made us to be alienated by many religious organizations, but as the reformers of the old, we are ready to face whatever the predicament that comes across us.
The crescendo of anchorage should be the Bible and the Bible alone. This is the real talk of God to humanity. With the Bible as our guide, the traditions shall have no room, and our teachings shall accommodate the will of God. Reformers knew this and it enabled them to stand firm.
Response to Sergio’s reflection #1
By E.A. Guzman
I agree with Sergio’s emphasis on the” historical aspect of the heritage.” This shows that God works in space and time, and also that He oversees all human activities. The divine attributes of foreknowledge and predestination emphasizes the way in which God conduct his church, even during the middle ages (the Dark Age was not so dark, just as the Enlightenment was not so bright). The divine allowance of the depravity of the church during this time only emphasized the way in which God respects the free-will in detriment of his predestination. Thus, the history is not closed as in Calvin understood, but it is open, taking into consideration our decisions. If the church was deprived it is because the people was corrupted. The same is true today, and the inverse is also true.
This historical heritage is understood by SDA as part of the divine plan registered in Daniel and Revelation, nonetheless, this heritage is only possible because it was given by God (the giver of the heritage), and it is only historical because of the notion that things don’t happen by chance, but by God’s providence, who acts immanently in time, conducting and leading humanity’s desire to return to the original state to be according to His image. This process was initiated and it will be completed by the same person. That is, God.
Reflection
It having very interesting to analyzed the first three chapters of this book, “Christian Thought” by Justo L. Gonzalez...After reading these chapters, I came out with four conclusions: #1 through history God always has being leading, #2 God can choose any man regardless the denomination to do his work, #3 God is above culture and traditions, and #4 The knowledge of the Word of God and truth are progressive.
Through the readings of these chapters, I came to understand the life of Martin Luther a little bit more. The author said, “Martin Luther is, like Augustine, one of those thinkers whose theology is so closely bound up with his life that one cannot understand one apart from the other” (pg. 29). I understand the reason why even though Martin Luther loved so much his church (Catholic) he was willing to fight against leaders and corruptions of the church. According to the author, Luther was the most influential person of the sixteenth century. Luther was not always, influential, instead the history show that in his early years as a monk, he had problem with sin and grace, justice and love.
What really called my attention was to find out that Luther found the first glimmer of hope in the book of Psalms. On the other hand, one can ask how a man like Luther with such spiritual insight could have rejected the commandments of God. I believe the answer to such contradiction is that as every morning the day light progresses through the day, the knowledge of the Word of God is “progressive as well.”
Nathaniel Lyles
In his third volume of A History of Christian Thought, Justo González begins his discussion of the history of Christian theology by examining the social, economic and philosophical factors which influenced the European nations during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. One of the most significant factors which impacted scholastic theology in the Middle Ages was nominalism which contrasted with realism. The author stated that nominalism was a theory in philosophy that maintained the idea “that there is an ultimate unity of all things, and that this unity is somehow discernible from the human perspective” (p. 20). I want to comment on the shift that took place within nominalism. González says that “the nominalists of the fifteenth century did not deny the existence of universals. What they denied was that through the universals the human mind has a definite perception of the ultimate nature of reality” (p. 20). This point is significant to me because it shows how the methods of doing theology were shifting from human reasoning to a more concrete system of understanding life and truth. Our human logic cannot fully comprehend the physical and spiritual life. In her book The Desire of Ages, Ellen G. White states “that in Him dwelt knowledge which no human being, unaided by divine agency could comprehend” (p. 507). To some degree, I think this statement summarizes the intellectual shift that was taking place during the fifteenth century.
Refelction Paper # 1
Nathan Kennedy
Reflecting on Erasmus and Humanism, I see a large conflict between underlying presupposition, and the onging resultant “ism’s”. The presupposition I am thinking of is that Erasmus was fervent in his endeavor to go to the source of Scripture. He aimed to find the most ancient documents possible to establish a reliable text in which to study. That is a good thing. A resultant idea is that the whole Bible is relevant for a Christian. Another resultant idea is that of Pacifism. I see that these two are in conflict. Where pacifism is more Luthern/Calvinsitic, as Tota Scriptura is more what Erasmus endeavored for.
What I mean is that Gonzalez indicates that Luther had a way of measuring Scripture by how much gospel was in a particular passage, chucking the Pentateuch, James, and even Revelation, (49-51) on the grounds that it was Law. This is similar to the Adventist approach to Non-Combatancy. I understand the basic theme of that form of Pacifism as thus: Theocracy. Theocracy can be described as the direct rule of God. That in of itself is an ideal that we Christians do strive for. But in theocracy there seems to be events that would appear to contradict the direct commands of God. On the other hand these events are directed by God. Such as the taking of AI by Joshua and the ensuing slaughter, or Samuel, as directed by God, commands Saul to kill every living thing.
The disconnect is that even we measure Bible as did Luther, perhaps not the exact same “one has more gospel than the other.” Yet we teach and preach that there are 66 relevant books of the Bible. But we do no better than the Antinomian Calvinists by selecting a smorgess board of what we think God should be, that He deals hypcrytically under a Theocracy, but holds on to the definitive of His Law in the Christian era? That is a similar paradigm as the Dispensationalists use to establish their covenant theology. Similar to the paradigm that justified slavery in America, uses the same methodology that some use to maintain a male only “ordained” clergy. It goes back to interpretation issue, as well as a view of God.
Thirdly my issue with the Pacifist Non-combatant stance many Adventists advocate is the doctrine of hell. If killing in any way was wrong, and God cannot do wrong, since it is His will not to do so. How then can a god like that kill so many in our Anihilist view of Hell? God will not only kill the individuals that are alive He will wipe out the very existence of those from the past. From my understanding, God is all that is grace, but He is also that is all justice. Can He still be both? Do we continue teaching 66 books of the Bible plus a mountain of Ellen White writings? Yet chalk off Justice as a thing of the past, as Luther has done. (yet he advocated the punishment of the Jews later in his life).
Be a Blessing
Nathan Kennedy
Andrew Pearce
When studying Protestant theological Heritage in search for the foundations or explanations of why current theological stances are in existence, I find the doctrinal position of Martin Luther on the Law of God to be enlightening of how the dismissal of divine laws was allowed to perpetrate through the change which occurred in the form of the Protestant Reformation. On pages 51 and 52, Justo Gonzalez cites in our textbook, A History of Christian Thought, the sermon of Luther, How Christians Should Regard Moses: “’In the first place I dismiss the commandments given to the people of Israel. They neither urge nor compel me.’ The law of Moses was indeed God’s Word; but it was God’s Word to the Jews, and Christians are not Jews. This is true not only of the so-called ceremonial law, but of the entire law of Moses, including the ten commandments. Moses is God’s lawgiver for the Jews, but not for us. If there are in Moses laws that we ought to accept, we are to regard them as applicable to us not on the authority of Moses, but on the authority of natural law. Indeed, much that is contained in the law of Moses, such as the prohibition of stealing, adultery, and murder, is known by all persons because it is engraved in their hearts. Therefore, Christians must obey these laws on the authority not of Moses, but of nature.”
There are several things that jump out at me in these quotations. I would like to mention that from this portion of his work, we can see Luther maintaining the theology he had before his split with the church in the idea that the law of God was only given to the Jews. We all know that this is a very prominent teaching in many Protestant churches still today. As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that one can be considered a Jew Spiritually. One of the clearest source texts of our own theological stance on this subject comes from where Paul wrote in Romans 2:29, “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly.” If we can be considered a Jew inwardly in order to be ranked among God’s chosen ones, His children, or perhaps even His Remnant, then being ethnically a Jew is not necessary and should not be the focus. But I think Luther did not have the same understanding as we do on this text.
In the second half of this message Luther points out that Christians keep the laws of God which are still valid because they are natural laws which are embedded in the human heart. This idea of keeping the law by natural inspiration is not in opposition to the scriptures. For just a few verses before, in Romans 2:12-15 we read, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;).” While I have been in agreement with this specific part of Luther’s teaching, that the law of God works through man in a divine way, even if he does not know God, I am curious about the division that is placed upon which laws God is able to implant upon a man’s heart in order to have him keep it. It would appear that all of the last 6 commandments, which deal with our relationships with the natural world around us, would be, according to Luther, written upon the hearts of man and able to be kept through the “natural law.” But what about the first 4, which deal specifically with our relationship, recognition, respect, and worship of God? I know there seems to be a special feeling in my being on the Sabbath day. But for the one who knows no better, is the Sabbath law, or the other 3 encoded upon man’s conscience in a way that constitutes within us a realization of what is right and wrong?
Nick Jones
Reflection Paper 2
A point that Dr. Hanna brought up in class yesterday was that there are two forms of humanism, secular humanism and Christian humanism. I believe that this was an important distinction for him to make, especially when we were discussing Erasmus and the forming of humanism. It was important in my mind that we remember that when we talk about humanism in the time of Erasmus, that it was the beginning of humanism. Much like the beginning of many movements within the Christian church, it was religiously focused. It was only later when the secular focus came.
Today we find that humanism is mostly thought of in the Secular realm of philosophy which has ethics, reason, justice, etc. as their main priority. However, this was not what Erasmus had in mind when presenting humanism to the world. Gonzalez says on page 23 that “The reformation that Erasmus advocated was in the field of ethics rather than dogmatics.” Erasmus “advocated a return to the sources of Christianity.”
It seems to me that Erasmus was trying to change the Catholic church from within. He was not attempting as other Reformers to create a new theology, but to create a higher moral compass for the Catholic church. He advocated for the “philosophy of Christ,” which as Gonzalez says “starts from the fact that truths is one, and that therefore God is active wherever true wisdom is found,” (24). According to Gonzalez the commandments of Christ are close to the ethical counsel of the Stoics and the Platonists.
So how does this affect us today? Do we appear humanistic in our approaches to certain doctrines? How can we, if we can, use religious humanism to reach other people?
These are the questions are going through my head, and I do not have the answers to them. However, one thing that I am sure is that as Adventists we believe that following the law of God is important. While we are saved by grace, we obey the law because we are in a saving relationship with Christ. Therefore our moral compass should already be pointing in the right direction. Does that mean we are humanistic?
Ryan Hablitzel
ID# 138672
My perspective of Martin Luther was compromised when I read about his theological positions. Sure, I knew that Luther got some things right and other things wrong, but I did not realize the extent of his extremes on the subject of the Law and the Old Testament. The following statement caught me off guard: “Now if anyone confronts you with Moses and his commandments, and wants to compel you to keep them, simply answer, ‘Go to the Jews with your Moses; I am no Jew’ (Gonzalez, History of Christian Thought, p. 52).” I found this statement interesting because it seems as though the majority of protestantism has taken the same position and is stuck in a anti law position.
As I have considered the issue of reformation, I realized that Adventism is the connecting entity between faith and works. Where as the Catholic Church focused on works, Luther focused on faith (grace). Adventism has taken on the role of reconnecting the two in a healthy truthful balance (a debate that continues in the church to this day). Adventism recognizes righteousness by faith, but also recognizes that the law plays its part into the equation as well.
Taking Dr. Hanna’s model of truth being in the center of two extremes, it is possible that when there are two extreme views containing truth, a deeper truth is yet to be uncovered or understood. This was the issue in 1888 with debates about the moral vs. ceremonial law in Galations.
I would like to throw out a crazy thought I had for the sake of discussion, realizing that there is more than likely no truth in it. The debate over pre-fall vs. post fall nature of Christ is very difficult in our church today. Both sides can seemingly prove their position and refute the other from the writings of Ellen White. Is it possible that Christ had both a pre-fall nature and a post-fall nature? Let me explain, Christ had a pre-fall nature because he is fully God and existed before the fall into eternity, yet Christ was fully human born into humanity with a fallen sinful human nature. I know this dumbs down the subject and is not a valid representation of of what my true position on the matter is, but in the sake of deeper truth, I wanted to use this as an illustration.
Just like Catholicism and Luther took extreme views on works vs. faith which pointed to a deeper truth brought out by Adventists (Faith and Works have a harmony) Is it possible that the issue of the pre-fall vs. post-fall nature of Christ is pointing to a greater truth that harmonizes truth from both sides of the issue?
Reflection #2
by Nathan Kennedy
Although, in class, Dr. Hanna demonstrated the general divergences of conservative and liberal theology there seems to be a common factor. The one thing seems to be in common in either, that is the whole issue of predestination. Gonzalez notes that Zwingli was able to refute anything based on his view of predestination that had anything to with law, or as works. He says, “Zwingli can easily refute every attempt to base salvation on works.”
Although it is true that one cannot base salvation on works, however here nearly 500 years later, it is obvious that the critics of the Adventist movement, utilize this very paradigm to proverbially, lay the hammer down. As a result (particularly since Questions on Doctrine in the 1950s) much of our own leadership and theology has moved in the direction of the Evangelical movement in many ways. I am convinced that people are addicted to the idea of assurance in Salvation. In working with individuals from a protestant background, they want assurance in salvation before ever considering anything an Adventist may present. Because inherently, deep down, we each know we are not good. But we want someone else to say we are good. Calvinism provides this assurance.
Our critics can always hold us to the fire, if the presupposition lies in predestination, and the Sovereignty of God, in Zwingli’s and later Calvin’s terms. They both seem to have borrowed this from Augustine. Gonzalez states the feeling among the Anabaptists was thus: “What leads a person…into true faith is not predestination. The doctrine of predestination, especially as taught by Zwingli, is an abomination and a way to excuse us and blame God for our sin.” (91) I have to say that I agree with this statement. I had to say a hearty Amen to this, even if he is just attempting to represent the Anabaptists in an accurate way.
Taken to an extreme the Mennonite view of Pacifism which is a result of Anabaptist movement. Socialism was very common in the movement, “From the very beginning there were some in the movement who believed that they should possess all things in common.” Either view, Zwingli or Simmons, is an extreme to avoid the Doctrine of Evil. On one hand, evil is a result of God’s plan to teach us righteousness, while on the other God is seen as some Disneyland character of mushy, warm and fuzzies. Neither of these are correct, in my view and either will lead one to reject large portions of what Scripture teaches.
Be a Blessing
Nathan Kennedy
Meade Adams
Reflection 2
I would like to comment on chapter 3 which deals with the reformer Zwingli. I have always been fascinated by the debate about predestination and determinism. It poses serious intellectual and philosophical challenges for me personally. Now for the sake of disclaimer, I know that my limited mind cannot fully comprehend the things of God and that some things must be accepted by faith. I accept that God can be omniscient yet still allow us true free choice. However, it is something I accept only by faith because it makes no philosophical sense. Now none of us accept the type of predestination that Zwingli and Calvin proposed. We do, however, try to temper that language with the language of God’s foreknowledge. We say that God foreknows all things but does not control us. However, there is a school of philosophical thought that advocates that if something is foreknown, then that thing is, in fact, predetermined. For example, it was prophesied before Cyrus was born that he would free the Jews and allow them to go back to Jerusalem. Was that prophecy a result of God’s foreknowledge that this would happen? And if so, was Cyrus bound by some fatalistic destiny that he could not control? Maybe he thought he was acting as a free agent but was he really? The story is told of a young man that went to a bookstore and pulled an old raggedy book off the shelf written 100 years ago about his life. So he picks up the book and starts reading. He finds out that the book is eerily accurate about every detail of his life. He comes to the page that deals with the particular day he was in. It said that in that day he would get in a cab and get in a crippling accident. The man, not wanting to experience this fate, decided that he would simply sit on the park bench for the rest of the day. About 30 minutes later he got a call saying that his wife had taken ill and he needed to get to the hospital. Without thinking twice he immediately got up and caught a cab to the hospital. The point of the story is this: even after the man’s great attempts to avoid the predestined/foreknown fate that was his, it ended up happening anyway. He was caught in the web free choice/fate. It appears that this is the way we talk about God’s foreknowledge whether we realize it or not. Are we really free? Thoughts?
Helen McClellan
Reflection Paper 2
It is not that I have never studied about the reformation, I have, but I was really young and therefore everything I learn in class in "new" to me.
Today I asked "where were the Christians?" I knew that more than likely all of you knew the answer, but for me it was a question that i needed answered in order to better understand the reformation era and why God used people like Luther, and Zwingli to futher his cause.
I know that God has faithful men and women in all churches but someimes it is good to have clearity as to the timeline of which we are studying. Now I understand a little better where we are going in class and I want to also that all of you for you patience.
What I found interesting about Zwingli was that he went to far. He decided that since there was no organ in the Bible, there shouldn't be one in the church. Sometimes we tend to take things to the extreme much like Zwingli.
I was impressed how close he was to some of our beliefs. Even Calvin has much to say about education that we model in our schools today.
It always amazaes me how God uses people thougout history and I can't wait to see how he will use me in a few minutes (ha-ha!).
Blog Assignment #1: Reforming…
By J. Harold Alomía
“The Protestant Reform was carried out by a Catholic.” True statement. And yet this historical fact was argued in class today June 17, 2009 in what seemed a case for semantics. No one would deny the historical reality that Luther was a monk, and an honest monk, and that for sometime during his reform, he was not considering the Church as debunked. His desire was to reform the Church, and his initial questioning, as stated by González, was against the preachers of indulgences, preachers that were detrimental to the pope [pg 36]. This in some way gives us an indication that initially Luther was not out to cause a ‘furore’ but just to raise an intellectual discussion of his theses. The rest is known history. However, taking the discussion and placing it in some way as an attempt of the Spirit of God to reform the Roman Catholic Church seems stretching God’s work. It is not that God would not act in an attempt to reform ‘His church’, however it seems that there is a certain point in the life of a person and by extent of an organization, that reform becomes impossible, due to whatever reasons we might encounter.
It seems that we can safely state that God does move within the ranks of any religious and even non-religious organization, but does that mean that the Spirit of God was out to reform the Roman Catholic Church that had become a system usurping God’s place? Or was God taking individual people from that broke and spurious system that were sincere in order to uphold the biblical truth buried under centuries of tradition, abuse and ignorance? It seems that the system, the organization was un-reformable. It appears to be God’s M.O. to attempt to reform and eventually after long attempts and much grace, due to the non-response of the attempted reformee, He simply rescues that which can be rescued from what is overwhelmingly un-rescueable. The ante-diluvian world saw this principle in effect. Israel saw this principle in action. During Jesus’ ministry on earth, did he attempt to reform Judaism? Or was he establishing a new movement on purpose? That is an ongoing debate in NT studies. Some scholars debate that he was attempting to reform Judaism, but failed [see Arthur Pazia, or George Ladd]. However, when in Mark 2:21, 22 Jesus states “no one puts new wine in old wine skins” he seems to be making a declaration that declares his intention of establishing a new movement in place of the warped religion that had been deformed due again, to traditions and ignorance of the Scripture.
Thus, dare we wonder if the organizational aspect of our ‘Remnant Church’ will be stripped away for the eschatological reality of a movement that awaits the final establishment of the kingdom of the Messiah at the end of days? Only time will tell. As far as a Spirit attempt to reform that which was irreformable in the XVI century and is irreformable today I would disagree with that idea. The institution was, is and will remain irremediably deformed, the Roman Catholic system cannot be rescued, it will not allow itself to be rescued; however a sinking ship does not have to take all the souls on board down to the depths of the ocean to a watery grave; and that is where the life saving Spirit is constantly acting, in preserving the truth, and rescuing the souls of those who wish to be rescued.
BLOG ASSIGNMENT #2: Arrogance
By: J. Harold Alomía.
I have been hearing quite a bit about the arrogance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in stating that it is the ‘Remnant Church’. Perhaps it is not the intention of the lectures to state that it is not, however, it seems that in our mindset we have transformed a statement into an attitude. It might be splitting hairs, however why is it arrogant to state ‘we are the remnant church’? I think the question should be rather what is the meaning of being the Remnant Church? Is it a passport to heaven that has been issued in the Most Holy and delivered via ‘Gabriel-PS’ to the offices of the GC in Maryland? A caricature of course, but what is the concept of Remnant? The only ones that have the truth? We can get into the argument of ‘there is no absolute truth’ [statement which in itself is an absolute], but that is not the point in this particular post.
We agree that being the Remnant does not mean the ‘Go to Heaven’ card is in our SDA hands exclusively, and perhaps for post-modernity sake we can also concur that we are not the owners of truth [if there is ‘truth’ in the postmodern mind]. We do not own the truth if the Truth is God, however if we are sitting in the classroom of the SDA Seminary, preparing to be pastors of the SDA church… why is it? Should it not be because we believe that we have, in some ways, in spite of our post-modern lingo… at least, well, the truth? If we have that truth, then it seems to me that we should be sharing that Truth and communicating it, instead of denying we have it.
Remnant is not a ‘privilege’ title [In the sense of entitlement], rather it seems to me that it is a responsibility, a mission title that is bestowed to the group of faithful that are commissioned to share and proclaim that truth to a world that is bombarded with all sorts of ‘alternatives truths’, and that group of faithful at the present time is…? The Seventh-day Adventist Church. Is it arrogance to state that? I believe that arrogance is more of an attitude and not necessarily a statement. Would we accuse Jesus of arrogance when he stated he was the bread of life, The living water? When he basically stated that he was the Messiah? Was he being arrogant? Interestingly it was the religious leaders that accused him of heresy for those statements, factual statements of who he was, and thus what his mission was. Maybe we have overlooked what Remnant means and entails because we have vested a factual statement that should humble us with a cloak of arrogance that is unacceptable. It is that arrogance that should be purged from our discourse and from our self-image, however in purging the attitude of arrogance we should not purge and erase what we are, the Remnant called to proclaim the Truth, a group of people that have a particular mission, and not an entitled seat at the heavenly banquet hall.
Morgan Kochenower
Reflection #1
Declining Authority of Hierarchy
I find it interesting that the Catholic Church’s decline coincides with its greed for power and money. It reminds of Solomon’s son taxing the people even more than his father did. Gonzalez points out that there was a schism that prompted many popes to waste no time trying to lay claim to one of the most powerful positions in the world at that time. In the rush for power, any hope that the church had at being religious or providing for their flock was lost. What strikes me is that is can happen on various levels in any church organization. If our eyes are more fixed on power or greed, then any hope we have of furthering the kingdom of God is lost.
Erasmus v Luther.
I never noticed the strides Erasmus made before Luther came onto the national scene. Gonzalez says that just before Luther came, the church was on the verge of reformation, but as Luther came in, sides began to be formed. It almost comes across as if Luther stunted the reformation and made it more divisive. Protestants were calling on Erasmus to side with them, while Catholics were saying Erasmus was with Luther. Erasmus recoiled and as a result stood up for issues he had earlier condemned. I have seen this in politics with the war on terror, if you don’t support the war on terror then you don’t support the troops and so on. It is amazing what people will take sides on when they are afraid of being on the wrong side. I do appreciate the emphasis Erasmus placed on getting back to the roots of scripture
I am surprised that it wasn’t until the Mysticists came along that schools for the youth were established for the best learning. Even in the Old Testament there was the school of the prophets. Even Moses had to have been educated in Egypt. But to now have an established system up learning for the youth caught me off guard.
Morgan Kochenower
Reflection #2
Luther
What impresses me about Luther is, everything he did he did to help his church. His initial move was not to cause a split and start his own church but to improve his own church.
Gonzalez points out though that as a result of Luther’s message to the church, the church wanted to silence him…get rid of him. Gonzalez says, “These ‘immense and unintended consequences; came in connection with the issue of indulgences.” It is one thing to preach indulgences; it is another to see it in person. God has amazing ways of waking us up to see the truth. It is one thing for me to look at Luther and wonder why it took him so long to realize his error, it is another thing entirely to look at myself and correct the error of my ways. I do not believe that we have everything figured out and our theology is still growing, will someone 50, 100, 1,000 years down the road look at me and wonder why it took me so long to realize a truth about God that is plain to the universe.
Though Luther still made bogus statements about the 10 commandments after the reformation, he was still living up to as much truth as God had called him to, that is all I can ask, that I am at least being faithful to the truth I have been given.
I think I owe a few of you apologies. It has not been my intention to argue with Dr. Hanna just for the sake of arguing. But I am sorry if I've offended anyone with my comments. I will be presenting my concerns in the 5 minutes allotted to each of us at the end of class. Those of you who have been offended by my comments, I encourage you to prayerfully do some investigative study into the ecumenical movement and its emerging Cosmic Christology, the ideas of Protestantism's sola scriptura versus Roman Catholicism's prima scriptura, and then modern day Counter-Reformation efforts by the Roman Catholic Church. I will be putting together a presentation that attempts to communicate the concerns I have with Dr. Hanna's model. I spoke with Dr. Hanna today after class, and he agreed that I should present my concerns both in class and during the presentation. Again I'm sorry for any offense that was taken with my conduct in class earlier today.
with Jesus,
Jeff Walper
I wanted to respond to the discussion that took place this week. I think the question of how we look at the Catholic Church highlights a very interesting issue in the way that we think. For whatever reason we tend to think in terms of either-or. Therefore it is problematic for us to think that the Catholic Church (even in structure) can be both good and bad. It becomes problematic for us to think that the Pope, someone who calls Himself (essentially) God on Earth could be both good and bad. It becomes problematic to think of someone’s philosophical treatise as both good and bad. I don’t understand the psychology or the philosophy of it, but human beings cannot hold to seemingly contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time.
And so we end up applying this ideology to our institutions as well. The seminary must be Adventist and teach Adventist thought in an Adventist way and must be protected from the evil thoughts of the outside world. I think we all agree with this in principle, but we probably disagree with this in application. I don’t agree with everything I have heard come from professors in year here at the seminary (although I think we would all disagree about the ideas with which we disagree.). However, if a seminary should be anything, it should be a place where all kinds of ideas can be placed on the table, held up to the standard of the Bible, and then either held or discarded based on what the Bible says. The seminary, in my opinion, is not a place where students come to be indoctrinated. Rather, it is a place where students come to learn more about God and the many ways in which their faith and the Christian faith have struggled to understand who God is and what He requires of us.
Incidentally, it is this same issue that caused the fragmentation of the Catholic Church into Catholic and Protestant and then the many splinters of the Protestant movement. Instead of being willing to hear ideas from all quarters and test those ideas by the Biblical standard, religious groups drew a circle around their beliefs and promulgated the idea that truth could go no further than what they said and how they said it. If we are willing to do the same thing today, it makes me wonder about the future of our denomination as well.
It is the closed mind that cannot allow another to believe something different than they themselves believe. Those who do not know how to think for themselves are stuck with what someone, sometime, has placed upon their minds. Whenever a teacher approaches with an idea, those unable to think for themselves have to put up a barrier and say, “you are wrong” to the one proposing a new idea, because it invades what is already there, and they do not know how to handle a new idea. It short circuits their old understanding, and they are uncomfortable with this. It is those who know how to think for themselves which can allow a professor to teach something without adamantly opposing it. Why? Because they know how to think for themselves. They know how to process information. They know how to determine if something is right or not, and while determining, they know what to accept and what to excuse. An open mind that is learning to think for itself, rather than what has been placed in us by another is in need in this class. It is O.K. to disagree with our Professor. But it is not O.K. to highjack the class because we don’t believe what he is teaching. If you believe it, accept it, if you don’t believe it, dismiss it. If you can’t stand it that he is teaching it, by all means, you should get out of the class before he persuades you to do something different than your conscious is telling you. But please stop this nonsense, as so many of us are really tired of the attitude you guys are displaying, and have displayed in other classes for as long as you have been here at the Seminary. What makes you think you have everything figured out and that everybody else has it all wrong? This should speak to you and tell you that you have a bit of learning to do, and a great deal of humility to learn. I am coming to this class to learn something. I do not appreciate your attitude. I do not appreciate your wasting my time, as the Professor can’t teach because he is always having to nurse your little wounds. For heavens sake, we are in the Seminary. If you think you will be a great leader for this church some day and you maintain your current attitude, you are greatly mistaken. I have heard you do the exact same thing in other classes, and I am tired of it.
Piasi suleiman
Reflection #2.
As pertains to the second chapter on our discussion, martin Luther is being portrayed as one of the most significant theologian of the sixteenth century. one of the questions I had been pondering as we have been conducting our discussions in the whole week was, After all we are Adventist and future pastors and some are going to be bible teachers, why should we waste time to study on this course for we cant see Adventist theology mentioned anywhere in this book. why don’t we study the bible and the writings of Ellen g white and just go home to evangelize? But later on I came to realize was that God was still using this early reformers to prepare his truth progressively.anothe lesson I learned is that.
Martin luther’s monastery life had much to do with our present theology.We need to understand that the works of the law will not earn us salvation. Not only that his other issues he tackled with like saints answering their a ligancy to the priest was unbiblical but also was another way of exclusively misusing of the authority of the church. I liked one of the most new dimensions of understanding I got in the book and the even the ongoing discussions in class about earlier reformers more especially martin luther.His reformations challenged the earlier Christians to study deep on the deceptions they have been carrying on within the catholic church.This led to mass protest to new protestant churches.Hence more study led to more revelations on the truth of the scriptures. Through this even the truth about the Sabbath and the sanctuary gained more power adding more advantage to evangelism more easy in the Adventist church however that I my opinion.
The other new dimension I got is that though martin Luther reformed from the catholic church, he dint broke the bridge he used to pass through to his new truth.He respected the catholic church though he differed with some of its principles for it was the same church that preserved Christianity through the darkages hence it dint deserve disrespect..The lesson to learn from him too is that ,we should not strongly despise the churches that have been preaching the word of God. God has been using them them to accomplish his mission on earth.Infact some of us will agree with me that you were not born Adventists but you have been Christians from different churches but the only truth you dint know was about the Sabbath. So your church raised you in Christ till when you got the Adventist message.
God is our means of justification. God has a plan to meet the fallen man where he is, facilitating transformation and ultimately, full restoration, with growth in eternity beyond. The plan of redemption is a goal-oriented process. these includes the means of initiation into the covenant relation with God, a process of sanctification in our willingness to accept the choice we make,and and our final glorification.
Focus on this important entrance into covenant relationship has led some to a nervous concern about one’s relation to God’s law and his legal standing with reference to it. It is inevitable that the Adventist believer will see his past failings in sharp contrast to the divine ideal, but is it really God’s plan for us to emphasize the temporary covering of forgiveness, and feel that the transformational aspects of the gospel are extraneous, or worse and dangerous?
The gospel is an all-or-nothing proposition. With our consent and active cooperation Jesus transforms us completely, or, without our real consent and active cooperation Jesus will not force our transformation.
The moment of our initial acceptance of Christ means a never before that time experienced psychological release from guilt. We are accepted in the Beloved. But another question must be asked. Is the Beloved accepted in us? Is our faith in Jesus a static experience only, stationary at the cross, or is Jesus a moving target we actively track, accurately follow by faith? As our experience advances day by day, we are to be transformed. Every child of God moves inevitably toward the close of their personal probation. This is only a recognition of the simple truth that It is in this life that we are to separate sin from us, through faith in the atoning blood of Christ. Our precious Saviour invites us to join ourselves to Him, to unite our weakness to His strength, our ignorance to His wisdom, our unworthiness to His merits. God’s providence is the school in which we are to learn the meekness and lowliness of Jesus. The Lord is ever setting before us, not the way we would choose, which seems easier and pleasant to us, but the true aims of life. There is need for us to accept the message of rightousness by faith without doctrinal compromise.What god has done for man on the cross of calvary is not an issue of discussion but acceptance.
the debate in the class on 06/18/2009 regarding the issue of salvation was a healthy one.as for my friends through whom i have read their comments it is true that salvation is not man's making.Salvation is an act of God and in His forknowledge He is the one who knows who will enter into the kingdom ofcourse based on the choices that we make now and whether we have lived the light that we have recieved.the early reformers,Luther,Zwingli,annabaptists and others with all their imperfections they lived the light revealed to them till their day and for their eternity is God to decide.The discussions are more healthful and let us all be positive as we begin to understand the concepts in ways that are broad and meangniful.Do not cling to the old too much lets learn and think and wrestle out with issues in amore proffessional way.
the on going debate in the class is healthful.The issue of salvation is God's and not man's.in His forknowledge He alone knows who shall enter into the kingdom.Let 's open up and begin to understand issues as really they are.the reformers did their best to lead the church where it is now.. let us also in thinking and correct interpretation of biblical truth with the Greeks and the Hebrews that we have learned give the correct information tom the sheep.
The Bible says in “The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” (Proverbs 4:18)
The meaning of this text has become clearer and clearer to me this week during this class. In my reading of chapters three and four of the textbook I can see how new light was being discovered by each reformer. Although Luther is the most significant figure, there are some things that he was wrong about. For example, his beliefs about the Eucharist, baptism, and predestination were unbiblical. When Zwingli came along he challenged Luther on these issues went further, and sometimes too far. The best example is his understanding of predestination. Zwingli argues that not only did God know some of the angels would fall but that “God also ordained it…so that all could better understand the nature of righteousness by contrasting it with unrighteousness.” Thus, Zwingli concluded that the fall of Satan and humanity was not against the will of God. However, there were some things Zwingli was correct on, such as the bodily presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper. But his understanding of baptism was still unbiblical and the Anabaptist came along and added truth. They argued for a rejection of infant baptism. The point I’m trying to make is that the light of truth became clearer and clearer as time went on. The cycle of apostasy-reform kept happening and it kept leading to more truth.
The Anabaptist movement is a prime example of how history always repeats itself. Gonzales divides the Anabaptist movement into three parts: early, radical, and later movements being spiritualists and rationalist. The radicals are the ones who began to take the reformation to the furthest extreme to the point where innocent lives were taken. The leaders had the tendency to declare that they were to be prophets, Messiah’s, and visionaries for God. We have witness the same fanaticism today in people like David Koresh, Jim Jones, and the movement in Texas about two years ago. I think we can learn a lot from this by making sure that we stay with the biblical perimeters.
The third thing I appreciated about class this week was the point that God used scholarship as a key component to bring about the Protestant Reformation. This is significant to me because I get tired of hearing people argue about whether or not we should go to the Seminary or pursue higher education. I do understand the hang-ups some have about higher learning. There is indeed a tendency for academicians to be irrelevant and impractical for ministry. I have been there. I have also been to the anti-education extreme where all I wanted to do was be in a community, door-to-door 24hrs a day and never do any schoolwork again. But I’ve grown to understand the need for both.
I’m very pleased with all the information presented by Gonzales in his book A History of Christian Though. I’m impressed with the way Gonzalez writes, approaching broadly the history of the Protestant Reformation, making possible to the SDA reader to identify the teachings that are similar to our own understanding of the Scripture today. The chapter about Zwingli was very interesting to me in many ways. Hence many aspects could be emphasized, I want to detain myself to reflect on the first paragraph of page 71 on which Gonzales speaks about Zwingli’s motivations to become a Reformer.
I observed that even though Zwingli for some time had profited from the practice of mercenary services, something happened to him that led him to become an activist against the very practice that he once was a participant. Gonzalez states that was “after the battle of Marignano (1515), where large numbers of Swiss soldiers died for an unworthy cause not their own, and when others simply sold themselves to Francis I for a higher price, Zwingli began attacking the practice of mercenary service.” was the beginning of a new history for the people of Switzerland; after this… we know the history, the ideas, the debates, the victories, the death.
My reflection then, turned upon my church, the SDA church; it was through the teaching of this church that I became to know Christ. Back then, there was no different lines of Adventism, there was only ADVENTISM. It was common to hear the pastor preach about a biblical teaching and say: “This is the way we understand, therefore that’s the way we teach.” There was no variance, no different opinion about what it meant, although, we could notice different ways to explain the SDA teaching on a particular topic or doctrine. Unfortunately, we don’t see much of this approach these days. It seems that today there are many ways to understand one teaching, even though it may not quite reflect the teaching of the statement of our fundamental beliefs. I wonder though, what would take to raise a reformer like Zwingli from the midst of our church today? Someone who is committed exclusively to what the statement of the fundamental beliefs says, and the way it is, without any kind of juggling or compromise? How many will need to “die,” to bring this to a pass? Could it be done by reasoning, faith, and full commitment to the PRIMA, TOTA, and SOLA Scriptura? I believe it can. I believe it will.
Sergio Silva
Tyler Kraft
Reflection 2
6/18/09
My comment today is focused on the “role of the absolute.” When we were discussing Zwingli’s position on this in class, I could not help but finding myself agree with his logic at first. I do believe God is an absolute Being, thus it would only stand to reason that He is in absolute control of everything. Yet as the discussion went further and pointed out the glaring flaw of this logic, namely that if God is in control of humanity and humanity sins, then God is basically sinning, I remembered why I was an Arminian.
But this also got me thinking along another line that is somewhat related to this: miracles and theodicy. I have a friend who is a leader in the Adventist Church that has a real problem with miracles. This person gets upset when people give their testimonies about how God miraculously healed them from something, or provided for them with something, or blessed them with something. My friend complains, “What about all of those other people that prayed for a miracle and nothing ever happened? Why does God not act equally with them?”
I admit that having heard this person’s objections repeatedly over the course of several years, I too find myself thinking at times, “Well I’m glad that Mrs. Doe was healed, but imagine how the family of Mr. Smith is feeling now, because he wasn’t healed!” And I start to think that people who do experience such blessings should just keep it to themselves. But as soon as I catch myself thinking along those lines, I realize that we need those testimonies to reassure us that God still does work; we just have to trust that everything will be as it should in the end.
That realization that we simply need to yield to God is a humbling one. I think as modern (and postmodern) humans we have been conditioned to seek answers, to know the “why” of it all. It seems our era’s emphasis on epistemology and its ensuing pride has encroached upon our faith in Providence. It is not an easy thing for us to yield, for us to throw our hands up and walk away without receiving the answers we have come to expect.
Yet it is that very nature of yielding that offers the most stunning and satisfying explanation as to the role of the absolute from an Arminian perspective. In chapter three, Gonzales discusses the Anabaptist view of predestination. The Anabaptists thought that this doctrine, specifically as it was taught by Zwingli and his followers, was an offensive disgrace because it provided a way for us to excuse ourselves and place the blame for our sins upon God Himself (p. 91). The author goes on to explain that it is our will to rebel against God, to not yield to Him, that causes sin. And since we do not yield to God, He yields to us. “It is because God yields to the human will, and does not violate it, that we are allowed to continue as we are” (p. 91).
The fact that God yields to us is just an amazing concept to think about. The fact that He yields to inferior beings actually attests to His absolute power. Just as we find it supremely difficult to submit as finite beings testifies to our lack of absolute control, God’s willingness to submit is a proof that He truly is the Absolute Being and is in absolute control.
Garth Dottin
Gonzales says that Zwingli was first led by patriotic and intellectual considerations which derived from his practice of mercenary service. He later changed from that belief, but his reform movement always had political and nationalistic overtones. Many people believe that as a church we should be separate from the world to the extent at which Christians should not play a part in any political area. This chapter demonstrated the importance of being involved in the affairs of the world while remaining true to God and Scripture.
Zwingli understood the importance of Scripture, and saw it as being infallible and certain to be fulfilled. His quest to understand scripture led him in the direction of predestination. He argued that everything that happens was ordained by God because He is not under the law. Furthermore, salvation is the result of divine election and not of any effort on our part (76). In other words, Zwingli is presenting that God chose some to be saved and some to be lost. People who continue in evil are part of the reprobate and those who do good works are part of the elect. Moreover, people who abandon God while in adversity are not part of the elect. That assertion made me immediately think of Peter’s rejection of Christ, and I pondered if Zwingli would view him as being a reprobate. I affirm some of Zwingli’s theology on the basis of him regarding the bible as the only source of doctrine, and his belief in the sovereignty of God. However, it appears that his theology determines the election of an individual based only on exterior actions or deeds. It immediately brought me to (1 Sam 16:7) “man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart.”
Reflection #2
First, I want to talk about predestination and freedom. To understand predestination correctly, we need to remember the fact that we have freedom and God works through the freedom. If we don’t relate freedom with predestination, we can’t have different opinion on predestination from Cavil’s. Here is good example of God works through our freedom in the Scripture. The story is about the conversation between David and God in 1Sam 23:10-13.
“
[10] David said, "O LORD, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. [11] Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, God of Israel, tell your servant." And the LORD said, "He will." [12] Again David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will." [13] So David and his men, about six hundred in number, left Keilah and kept moving from place to place. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he did not go there.”
God said Saul would come to Keilah to kill David but because David fled from the city Saul didn’t come to Keilah. And the citizens of Keilah didn’t even surrender David to Saul because David already left there. Did God lie to David? No, He didn’t. He just told David how things are supposed to happen but because of human freedom that prediction can be changed. This is what I learned about predestination and freedom from this class
Second topic I want to deal with is Reormation in Catholic and Adventism. We spent a lot of time disscussing this topic in the class. I personally think that we are historically from Early church, Catholics, and Protestant Reformation. We cannot deny that fact because history says that. And we are also descendents of Millerites. That’s why I believe we should study history especially Christian history so that we can know our roots and what we are supposed to do not to make the same mistake as people did before.
By Jahisber Penuela
Journal 2
Regarding of the ongoing discussion I just want to make a brief comment of what I have learned. In class was mentioned the issue of fragmentation as part of the inheritance of the protestant reformation. The protestant reformation represented an increasing of fragmentation, which is a transition to the modern age. So, as consequence today we live in an age of relativism, and in an era of rejection of the existence of the absolute truth. This process was the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Within that context it was mentioned also the 1888 event in Adventist history. Dr Hanna mentioned that before 1888 the emphasis was on the ceremonial law being school master to lead s to Christ, and after 1888 SDA added to that emphasis the understanding that the moral Law is also a school master that leads us to Christ. But, that previous emphasis was not wrong at all. At that even it was found unit and it was updated the understanding of the Law, not for unfaithfulness to Scripture, but for the existence of new light.
The problem that I am seeing is the issue of the fragmentation as the new light is coming to be known. In the Seventh Day Adventist church as it develops its theology, it may trigger an increasing of Adventist relativism concerning its theology (if not already SDA church has reach that level). It may cause a world wide division. History teaches us that every movement has been divided. So, how do we know within our Adventism that such and such movement is spurious? Sometimes I have found myself fighting against such movements concern of the UNITY. I wonder how many today’s reformed movements within Adventism are really taking more seriously the Bible, when at the same time we act as the Pharisees of Jesus’ time: Afraid that somebody else (or something else) may take our leadership, our tithe or may be our “dignity” to be call church and not sect of the Protestantism.
Comments on the reflection by Piasi Suleiman
I appreciate the way you have mentioned your concerns about the ‘wasting” time. I struggled with that too. My point is that the more we become acquainted with the development of theology I history, the more we will be able to distinguish what is the correct path for the SDA in today’s debate. The problem ten, that I see, is that how do we balance that “we should not strongly despise the churches that have been preaching the word of God” without compromising that “God has been using them them to accomplish his mission.”
One of the ideas that came out in our class discussions this week was that God used scholarship to bring about the Protestant Reformation. Most of the reformers, and certainly those we have studied in the class thus far, have been keen students of the Word of God and academia in general. Luther himself came to launch the reformation within the setting of the Catholic university. Erasmus, Zwingli, Aquinas, and others printed and translated many texts. Their life’s work was to ascertain truth, and the vehicle they chose to maneuver through the task was scholarship.
I am reminded from their example that we too are in a university setting, even at a theological seminary. We are not here to simply attain a degree by completing the assignment. As ministers, are we not called to that same type of devoted scholarship as the reformers? We are to be scholars of the God’s Word. And as we all interact and dialogue with the fellow scholars/ministers around us, then we can further our understanding. If we wall ourselves up with the our current understanding of truth, unwilling to explore and experience any further truths of God’s word, then we have shut ourselves off to the working of the Holy Spirit. Scholarship is definitely a way that the Seventh-day Adventist Church can continue to carry the fullness of the Bible truth to the entire world.
Byron Shea Crockett
I want to comment on our discussion this past week in class. I feel also that one of our issues as a church and as a seminary is that we fail to look at ourselves closely, and we fail to remove the beam out of our eyes before we not only point out the beam in others but also insist in taking it out.
Let me be more specific. Here we are in 2009 and our church has very unhealthy structures, structures that can be viewed as demonic. Here in North America we have conferences that are black and we have conferences that are white. We still will not embrace our women who drop everything they have and know and enter into ministry, many times paying their own way through seminary.
First with our division in the church, when we look at Romans 2 when Paul speaks about the state of the world, one in which is surrounded in evilness, men having un natural relationships, women having un natural relationships, and man becoming inventors of new ways of evilness. We ought to be careful because it sounds a lot like the times in which we live in today. Then when you look at the division in church in the time, with Greek Christian household assemblies and Jewish household assemblies, we ought to be careful because it sounds a lot like the church of today!
Even when we take a look at the seminary in which we have only 3 black professors, one of which is African American, two of which are West Indian and none of which are African. 1 or two professors of Latin descent, I can’t recall if we have a Chinese, Korean, Japanese or any of our other beautiful Asian cultures. (Not talking about program leaders or chairs of departments) When we look at our seminary it does not reflect the World Church.
I realize that many of us do not believe that we have a race issue in the church but we defiantly do! I believe that the reason we have these unhealthy structures is because we like Martin Luther did, we don’t look at The Letter of Romans in a contextual manner. Paul was a contextual writer, when we look deeper at Romans we see that while righteousness by faith is there the purpose of Romans was to address the separation in the Church. Paul uses Christ as the thread that all are sown with. Jew with the law before faith in Christ was lost and Gentiles before faith in Christ were lost. Christ is our common denominator.
Am I saying that everyone in seminary is racist, absolutely not, I am saying we have structures in our church that are very exclusive, we have a platform that is even more exclusive, which then makes others form organizations or sub structures to have a platform, and as the church in my opinion is in a very similar state of the Church of Rome that Paul wrote to: we absolutely need Christ! To my acknowledgement not even the Catholic Church, as we know as the beast has race separated structures. We as the remnant with a remnant message need be careful and pointing out the flaws of others when we as a Church have many flaws. Preach the truths that we have, preach them with the power of Christ, but in our church there is still a reforming spirit, one that wants to learn more and more of God, one that is not limited to tradition but is ready to step out of the box of tradition and draw closer to God!
THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage
I just wondered why I have to study the history especially about philosophies. I registered Andrews University Seminary for studying the bible. I have to teach people only with the bible. They don’t care about the theological history. But why I have to learn the Plato accessing by human reason, Aristotle accessing by five senses, Deductive thinking, Inductive thinking, Neo Platonism, and Augustine. But I learned the important lesson. I always have thought why Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge good and evil as I read this scene. If I were Eve, I could not eat that fruit. But I could get the good lesson from this class.” I will not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge good and evil because I have the history of six thousands.” “I will follow the Jesus on the cross because I have the history of two thousands story.“ “We can find the way that we must go through seeing the commentary of reformers’ about various themes.” This class is very tough to me because this class is treating the thoughts of eras and my English is so poor. I am very struggling to catch up this class.
I thought he was always excellent person. But he had a psychological depression as he was a young. This was so shocked to me. I didn’t know that he became a great person through the weakness. I remember God’s word 1 Cor 1:26-28 through him. “1 Cor 1:26-28 “26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are,“ I believe that God will use me gladly if I summit my poor experiences and my will for him. This is good news for like me poor person.
I would like to talk about Zwingli and the beginning of the reformed tradition.
Zwingli and Luther differed in many ways. Whereas Luther followed an anguished spiritual pilgrimage dealing with the basic issue of his relationship with God, Zwingli was led by patriotic and intellectual considerations.
Zwingli’s patriotism was aroused by the practice of mercenary service. At the battle of Marignano, many Swiss soldiers died and Zwingli began attacking the practice of mercenary service. So Zwilgli’s reform movement always had nationalistic and political overtones.
I think he appreached the scripture as a Christian humanist. He focused on message of Scripture.
he clearly states that it is impossible to understand scripture apart from divine guidance.
Zwingli wishes to draw his entire theology out of Scripture. And yet, when, immediately after there words, he goes on to discuss the nature of God, most of his argument seems to be taken from the philosophers rather than from scripture
Now a day we need to return to Scripture.
Sacramental omnipresence
by Elmer Guzman
Luther didn’t go too far away from the Roman Catholic understand of the sacraments, which the Pope understand as a way to infuse grace to humans. The Roman teaching attributes the sacramental infusion of grace to several religious rituals. Luther rejected the majority of the sacraments, except the duo baptism/Eucharist.
Luther would claim words like these, “The Master is present in the bread, ‘ this is my body.’” This would only be possible because of the communicatio idiomatum teaching, which justifies the omnipresent movement of the resurrected Jesus, who was concomitant on the right hand of the Father and also in the bread during Eucharist. When I first read this I saw some seeds of panentheistic ideas regarding the omnipresence of God. Because if Jesus could be on the bread, and in heaven during the same time, by default He could be anywhere else.
Moreover, Luther believed that the sacrament preceded faith, which I interpreted as only other way to say that the sacrament can be non- cognitive. The reason is as follows, if the person doesn’t need to believe, so the person can partake of the sacrament in ignorance, without understanding nothing, and still be partakers of the benefits of the ritual. So, we don’t need to know the giver in order to receive the gift. The same logic would be noticed in the baptism of infants.
Luther’s aggiornamento in the sacraments were not enough, so only later on, Martin Chemnitz improved the teaching of Eucharist introducing the concept of multivolipresence, which is the ability to be in several places, as God’s wills. Again, the question of the presence of God is central to the understanding of the sacraments. Unfortunately, the ontological framework of Luther and of most of the reformers was the Catholic one. They could never understand Jesus, away from the Old Testament notion of the presence of God. Without the sanctuary they have no platform in which to explain the immanence of God, so the fruit never falls far from the tree. The Lutherans became merely German Catholics justified by faith.
On Salvation (Week 2)
I come from an evangelical background so I have a strong assurance of my salvation and have always been saddened by Adventists who are just not sure. 1 John 5:13 says “We can know that we have eternal life.” I came from believing “Once saved always saved” to understanding that a person can lose their salvation. I had another teacher say it’s easy to be saved and hard to be lost. However, the discussion in class on Tuesday helped me understand where other Adventists are coming from—a more holistic view of salvation that includes not only justification but sanctification and glorification as well. But even so, I don’t believe it is presumption to claim to be saved. All that I do is claim the abundant promises in scriptures, like Acts 16:31 “Believe and you will be saved…” and John 3:16, “…whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” Nor do I think a preoccupation with worrying over my salvation is healthy to my spiritual life. I think worry is a tool of the devil that he uses to draw us away from God. Maybe its also a lack of faith.
On a related note, I found the following quote from our textbook interesting: “This was the main reason that Luther insisted on infant baptism to deny baptism to infants, on the ground that they have no faith, would imply that the power of baptism-and therefore of the gospel-depends on our ability to receive it. This would simply be a new form of justification by works” (65). I had never considered how our very decision to turn to Christ could be considered a work. Talk about deep thinking! Yet I wonder how theologians who believe in free will answer this challenge. Understanding this aspect of Luther’s theology also helps me understand Luther’s belief that we are totally passive toward God.
This week was another week of blessings in this class for I continue to learn about the way how according to my understanding God has been leading men and women throughout history. While reading and listening to different lectures and debates in class, it called my attention how during the years of the reformation the light about God and the plan of salvation was in progress.
As the professor in class did, I will like to point out that the men a woman used by God during years of reformation were Catholics. They were the men and women that God called to create a reform. However, the question that I ask is, God called these men and women to reform from what? The answer is to reform from the true that they departed from years ago. I strongly believe the early in history the Roman Catholic church was God’s church in the same way how Israel was God’s people, but both of them apostate. In Revelation 12, we see a woman who is dress up in white, this woman represents the church of God that ran to the desert and after the dragon sent a river of water, the earth open and hide the woman. For me, this is the same woman of Revelation 17, who now became Babylon, who is in the desert sited by many water.
In Revelation we don’t see two churches as many will think, there is only one church who at the beginning was pure and then corrupts and later on reforms. Another way to see that is going to Revelation 6 where we find four horses which in reality is one, who a the beginning is white (pure). This horse represents the church that was establish by Jesus and his disciples but little by little changed due to the persecution. But even though the horse changes colors, then in Revelation 19:11 the horse becomes white again, because once again they came back to Jesus and the truth of the Bible. The last way to illustrate my point is with the seven churches, the first church “Sardis” is faithful, pure, a church that suffers a lot for the cause of Jesus, but that later on became corrupt, and it is again in Laodicea the same church, which later on recaptures the truth of the Bible.
I really like how Joubghan Kim points out the difference between Zwingli and Luther that regardless their differences God used both of them. This is a proof that God can use people from different background with different needs to accomplish His purpose.
I agree with the comment "anonymous' made to Morgan Kochenower in reflection #2. I agree that Luther did what he did for the benefit of his church. The light that he received he wanted to share it with his church and help it come to the scriptures again. I agree when you said that Luther lived up to the truth that he received. However, we need to know that the revelation of the Bible truth is progressive, Luther did not and the other reformers did not receive all the Bible truth at once. therefore, Luther took a giant step for his time.
This week was another very informative week of class I really enjoyed the comparison between Luther and Zwingli. I really enjoyed the topic of reformation we spoke of this week and how Hanna brought out the many reformations and there is always a need for reformations until Jesus returns, and I found that very interesting and true.
We as Seventh – day Adventist sometimes get this idea that we have it all right and that we cannot improve. But just as there were problems in the church back then, there are problems in our church today. We need to have the spirit of reformation where we see something not right or biblical and seek to reform that problem and not just sit here behind the walls of Adventism thinking we have it all right.
Reflection for week 1 by John Treat
Professor Hanna quoted a passage that is in eleven different places which says that “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history. [3SM 162.3}” He applied this to the Protestant Reformation. We can learn the things that the reformers did right, what they did wrong, and what they were reacting against. What they were reacting against included their reliance on tradition. This lead to many problems. First, when a literal reading of the Bible contradicted tradition, then church theologians felt that they needed an allegorical interpretation of those passages of the Bible. Second, there was no way to correct the church; leading to deeper apostasy. Third, works were emphasized to the point that faith, grace and forgiveness were eclipsed.
Erasmus tried to reform the church and returned to the original sources, which was good. Justo L. Gonzalez states that the Erasmus followed his convictions by following a more moderate course; Ellen G. White disagrees with that assessment. She evaluates his character as “timid and time serving” which resulted in him lacking “moral greatness” (GC216). She also wrote that his New Testaments were valuable contributions (GC245).
Professor Hanna pointed out the comment that Gonzalez made in the “Preface to the Second Edition” that makes the connection between history and biography. It is true that the history that lead up to our will have its influence on our biography. This can be seen in the Reformation characters that will be discussed later in the course.
Gonzales points out that the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church was one of the conditions that called for the reformation and many saw it. Erasmus pushed in this direction and had many of the higher clergy convinced that reformation was needed. We can only speculate how the reformation would have turned out if Erasmus and those that were going along with him had sided with the reformation rather than deciding that the cost to them was too high.
On page 23 of the text book, Gonzales reports that Erasmus condemned theologians for "hairsplitting.” Again we can only wonder how church history would have turned out both before and after Erasmus if theologians had not practiced making these fine distinctions about things that in them selves do not matter, while important issues lie uninvestigated. The history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church would have been different as well without some of the controversies of the 1888 General conference session.
Reflection for week 2 by John Treat
In the first week we discussed the assertion of the author of our text book, Gonzalez, that history leads to biography. This can be seen in the life of Martin Luther. He had a close call with lightning, which brought to the front of his mind his lack of assurance of salvation; the result was that he joined a monastery. He pursued the assurance of salvation with vigor, to the point that it effected him for the rest of his life, according to our text book. All this work to obtain the assurance of salvation was of no effect. He tried to bring the body into subjection by various privations, but that did not work. He tried six hour confessions, but that did not work. His superior put him to work for other people and to studying theology. As part of his studies, he read the Bible. On passage that particularly a arrested his attention was Romans 1:17 which says in part “for therein is the righteousness of God revealed”; he was told that this was talking about the judgment of God, which was a very oppressive thought to him. His feelings about God were hate rather than love at this point. About this time he went to Rome. He saw great corruption at that time in the Roman church, which disgusted him. He still believed the process of gaining merit however; so he climbed a certain set of steps on his knees, because this was supposed to be of benefit. He was stuck with the though, from the rest of Romans 1:17, that the righteousness was by faith. He found, also in Romans, that we are justified by faith without works. These two discoveries had a profound effect on the rest of his life, his theology, on the protestant churches, and even on the Roman Catholic Church. His desperate search for the assurance of salvation led his to three of his great “solas” “only by grace,” “only by faith,” and only by Christ. Salvation was equated with justification by faith alone by grace alone and by Christ alone, without works being involved in the slightest. He interpreted the rest of Romans and the rest of the Bible in the light of the previous idea; this lead to wanting to exclude James from the canon of Scripture because it disagreed with his idea about justification by faith alone.
Going along with the humanists, he came up with his other great “sola”: “sola scriptura” ( only by the Scripture). Our text book pointed out that he did not always live with the sola scriptura principle; he used it when it was convenient to fight against the Roman Catholic Church. At other times he went along with tradition. He did not accept latter church fathers like Aquinas, but he used Augustine; he was an Augustinian monk.
He pushed hard against the Roman Catholic Church and their works oriented salvation through the church and their use of tradition to interpret Scripture. Luther pushed hard against the Roman Catholic Church, ad it was at a very high cost. He was hated by many in high places in the Roman Church; they tried to kill him. He fought against the Roman Catholic Church vigorously, but he also fought against those he called enthusiasts, that went further than he did. This group of enthusiasts included those that only went by the “Spirit” without the word of God, which were rightly censored. The enthusiasts also included those that took the Word of God further that he did. I think things would have worked out better if he had sided with the latter group. I think things would have worked out better if he had not make all other scriptures conform to his idea of justification by faith alone. This led to wanting to exclude the book of James from the canon of Scripture. If he had more thoroughly studied what the rest of the Bible said on justification or ever what the rest of Romans said on the subject he might have come to a more balanced answer.
What is the cost of following Jesus today? If we look at the life of Martin Luther...it cost him everything he knew...his professorship, his membership in the church he loved, friendships, etc.
When he decided that he was going to live his life based on the Word of God and not the word of man, he was ousted from the church of Rome. He didn't choose to leave, so much that he was tossed. It reminds me of Jesus' words in Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." and John 15:20 "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also."
Luther stood tall for the Word of God and the results were...he paid a price for doing so. Now, if Luther would have recapitulated to Rome, refusing to stand for the Word of God in the name of peace, or if he would have accepted some method of interpretation that said "the just will live by faith and works" instead of the biblical "the just will live by faith,"...if he would have taken, dare I say a "wholistic" approach, then we would have no existence as a people today. So the idea that "either - or" statements or ideas are unbiblical...I just don't see that. Perhaps the most significant part of our our identity...our Protestant Theological Heritage is intrinsic in the Class Title...we exist, in part, to continue to "Protest" against anything unbiblical.
It should be no wonder that one of the first assertions of the Counter-Reformation was Roman Catholicism's proclamation that any Bible Translation other than the Vulgate was "drivel"...So I guess its clear what their concern was. Its all about control to Roman Catholicism. I believe that we should have a good understanding of the areas that continue to attract Counter-Reformation antagonism. That way, we can stop dancing on these ideas that we're doing "higher learning" and anything that questions it is "anti-intellectual"...call it what you will...we need to get back to the simple Word of God and stop making it all so messy. Our work is to Herald the 3 Angel's Message, that's the reason we exist. God had a work for Luther to do...God had a work for Zwingli to do. God has a work for us to do as a Seventh-day Adventist and that is to preach the 3 Angel's Message. THIS is our work.
Nick Jones
Reflection Paper 3
The other day we were discussing the radical reformers in the early Protestant movement. Radical reformers have always been a part of the Christian church. However, usually I believe that they have been labeled as heretics. What we must remember is that a heretic does not believe himself or herself to be one. They are only labeled a heretic by the majority church. I have always found these radical reformers to be very interesting, particularly the Anabaptists.
The Anabaptist surprise me every time I read about them. Most surprising for me to find while reading Gonzalez is that while they were labeled “rebaptizers”, this name given to them “was not altogether exact, for the Anabaptists did not believe that they were rebaptizing anyone, but considered that they were rather administering the only valid form of baptism” (89). I had not caught that point earlier on in my church history classes.
What they called themselves was brethren. This was probably because they wanted to get back to the New Testament church where the community took care of everyone and each other. This was an important aspect for these Anabaptists.
So why bring this up? How does this fit in with our heritage? I believe that when the Seventh-day Adventist church came into being, we were a radical reformation. Most denominations at the time of our conception, and still to this day, believe that Sunday is the Sabbath, that there is an eternal burning hell, and that there will be a rapture. Though many were united in the 1840’s, there was a splintering after the Great Disappointment of 1844 and the Seventh-day Adventist church was born out of this.
Our purpose was to get back to the Bible. Our forefathers studied the Bible, gleaned our doctrines of the Bible, based everything on the Bible. This was radical in that time when so many were steeped in Protestant tradition. It is interesting that the tradition that the Protestant reformation sought to change in the Catholic church became what the Seventh-day Adventist church would fight later on.
I believe that there is always room for radical reformers. The only thing is that as a radical reformer we must keep the Bible in front of us and prove everything from the Bible. We cannot use traditions or other books to show that our beliefs are correct. The Bible should be our only creed. I also believe that the Seventh-day Adventist church can and still is a radical reformer in these days.
Reflection 1
Fenades
Theology which does not reform and transform looses its power of what it is really supposed to be. In our class discussions which have grappling with different issues but ultimately if our ideas do not change the way we think and the way we live in order to be of value to others then for me its true meaning has been lost. While looking at Erasmus and the Humanist I find some relevant points and lessons one can draw some of which reflect the way our church operates. Erasmus’ theology seems to resonate with our current need for ethics rather than dogmatics or doctrines. His believe that correct theological affirmations were of secondary importance when compared with the actual practice of Christian life is the same principle held today especially with the postmodern generation. Theology which does affect how we live has lost its proper use. Theology should produce change in the life of people in the way they live and act and I think.
Another point that intrigued me was the talk about the visible and the invisible church, which was rightly stated that this can be similar to what we call in our church as the remnant of the remnant the latter being the invisible church. Though this may seem true I wonder whether one has to be in the visible church in order to belong to the invisible, what about those who are not in the visible church and perhaps they belong to the invisible church. We have people who are ‘termed’ as remnant yet I believe they are in the invisible church of God. In our church and in our teaching we have emphasized so much in belonging to the visible church and we have forgotten that our being visible is meant to be a reflection of the invisible church. Though the reformers appeared to be radical in there emphases of belonging to the visible we are not far from them in our emphasis of being an Adventist without teaching people of actually why we should be Adventist.
Reflection 2
Having discussion in our class about the differences between ontology and epistemology it brings me to the realization that even in our post-modern Era we are still coming to grips with with pretty the same issues these great theologians were facing although nowadays they are framed in a different manner. In our postmodern instead of argument of what is real and how do we know what is real we have the arguments of what is truth and how do we know it is truth? Do we have absolute truth or truth is relative? As we move to more and more individualistic society the cry in this arguments lie on the basis of , “don’t impose on what you think is right on me because your ‘right’ may not be my right”. This is the same questions for the arguments of ontology and epistemology, what you term as real may not be actually ‘real’ and if it is, how do you know it is real?
I see this kind of style in our churches, in our debates and how we do theology. Most of the heated debates are as a result of ‘you are right’ and ‘I am wrong’ or vice versa. But can’t we give room for both of us being right and being wrong? Both of us can be right and wrong, but we should take caution as I believe that there should be parameters to determine what we can and can’t do be right. Setting these parameters and who to set them, I think is the challenge that we must wrestle with.
As an Adventist I find it necessary to have a balance on how we intertwine scholastic work, doctrines and ethics. It is important to ask how our churches are receiving the heritage and adapting it to their context. The reformed tradition‘s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism. We should be open to questioning on our theology. Sometimes in our church those who question our practices and understanding of theology are as seen as sinning through questioning. I believe there should be a healthy way in which people can present there claims without being seen as doing something wrong. Striking a balance in this matter is one of the struggles we face and yet that searching for the balance should always be there
One of Martin Luther’s contributions to Protestant theology was his approach for doing theology. For Luther, he used a dialectical method of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that was influential in his theological. The dialectical method is basically a method of discovering and defending a theological truth with a contrasting truth. Luther often used dialectic to discuss essential matters of Christian life and faith. However, his basic fundament position was that the Bible should serve as a norm and final critique for all conclusions, including his own assertions. When we consider the fact that Martin Luther felt compelled to write his “Heidelburg Dispensations” which condemned Aristotle’s philosophical influence within theology, he was beginning to outline the new “starting point of theology.” According to Gonzalez, Luther believed that “the Word of God is the starting point for theology” p. 47. I have planned to consider Luther’s dialectical method of theology as the subject for my research proposal. Luther’s usage of the dialectical method in his theology seems to have been because of his personal experience with the issue of the righteousness of God. In his life, Luther questioned how it was possible for a sinner to enter into a relationship with a righteous God. Yet, he was able to discover the meaning of the righteousness of God after he meditated on Scripture was first applied to his own experience. By examining Luther’s dialect and the way he grappled with the problems of his life, we can learn how to draw from Scripture insights that will help us proclaim the gospel to others as a result of our lives being changed because of our experience and encounter with Scripture.
Name: Joel Rosana
Reflection Paper #2
The study of the magisterial reformers gives us the background of how the Roman Catholic Church was so brutal in terms of suppressing what was the Biblical truth. The Catholic Church was much egocentric to the formations of their doctrines. What we clearly see is that many of their doctrines had monetary attachments, i.e. the purgatory doctrine was meant for the relatives of the dead to pay penance in order for their dead person to be prayed for and get the opportunity of been transferred from hell to heaven. Even the doctrine of celibacy was meant to deny the priest the opportunity of inheritance at the time of dead, and all he had made belonged to the church. So our study in class exposed all these and when the reformers studied the Bible came to realize what the truth was, they embarked on the truth at all cost. Some paid for the resolutions they took for instance others denied the privileges they had, their books burned, etc.
Martin Luther and Zwingli did a lot of reform that has give the current church a base of knowing the truth as it is in the Bible. In the class we did discuss that these magisterial reformers though came out of the Roman Catholic Church they did not full come out clean, but came with the teachings that brought controversy among themselves. The doctrine of Eucharist in Luther’s teaching was contrary to what the Bible teaches and this brought a sharp argument with Zwingli who was much more Biblical in this doctrine, though he too had some wrong teachings that were not according to the Bible.
Lesson that I learnt in all these is that reformation is a journey that is even on progress in the twenty first century. And as time goes by new revelation is unveiled to us and these tell us to be sober to change because it is the core of learning.
Meade Adams
I would like to comment on the discussion we’ve been having in class this week about the difference between central doctrines or theologies and theologies of the edges. I believe this distinction is absolutely necessary as too many people are making theologies of the edges central issues. Certain things are NOT central issues. The divinity of Christ: central. The doctrine of the cross and atonement: central. The doctrine of a bodily resurrection and final judgment: central. Our doctrines on things like jewelry: NOT CENTRAL. I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my church experience, there is more controversy, argument and dissention over these “edge” issues than the those central ones. I don’t hear everyday Adventist members debating about the nature of Christ and whether it was pre or post fall. I DO hear members ready to chop heads over jewelry, worship styles (mostly music), and women wearing pants in the church. I think we should have some discussions on that. Why do we continue to make “edge” issues central doctrinal issues? I mean, people sound like they’re ready to shoot somebody that claims to be Adventist and dares to have in earrings! Does anyone else see a problem with this? By the way, these same people seem to have forgotten what Jesus says is the largest identifying marker of a Christian: “By this will all men know you are my disciples; if you have LOVE for one another”. We’re so worried about being “distinctive” Adventists that we have excluded ourselves from being Christian.
Reflection 3
In our discussion this week of Lutheran theology to the Formula of Concord and the various controversies that arose during that time, I find the Osiandrian controversy very fascinating as it has a lot resemblance to the new age movement teaching today whereby God is described in a mystical way, the ultimate reality. Knowing God for them is receiving higher truths which can be gained by getting in touch with this ultimate reality (God) in a mystical way or by doing some form of practices. For them Man has not taken the image of God. God is a transcended being which cannot be like man.
Studying the controversy it seems that the New Age movement is partly a collection of the some of these teachings which have undergone some modification. For example the Osiandrian controversy argues that the image of God was not something to be found in Adam and seems to suggest that if it was not that God had purposed for his son to be incarnate, then there was no reason of actually making Adam. The incarnation is not a response of sin.
When one looks carefully at the controversy and the New age movement sin is belittled and it implies that we have something worthwhile to offer to God in order to be saved. we are not completely unworthy and unable to save ourselves relying wholly on the grace of God but we can contribute something towards our salvation.
One thing I find that, we should realize as we study this theological heritage is that, there is no one group that got it all together right but by creating the atmosphere of openness to debate and challenging of each others views, those who came after them learned to create a more sound biblical based theology which we have inherited. If we stop from creating that same environment where we can question why we believe what we believe and have healthy debates then out theology will never grow and be reformed.
Reflection for week 3
One of the subjects that was brought up in class was the relationship of sola Scriptura to the writings of Ellen G. White. There are four places in the Bible that say something to the effect of do not add to or take away from what God says (Deut 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18-19). It does not say do not take away from the Bible or Scripture; it says do not take away from what God said. This does not seem to leave us the option of ignoring the writings of Ellen G. White under some concept that we call sola scriptura. If we accept the Bible as the Word of God, then we must make sure that we have included everything that God has said. The only question left for us to determine is whether Ellen G. White was a messenger of the Lord or not. We are instructed to do this when the Bible tells us to try the spirits (1 John 4:1). The Bible also tells us that there will be false prophets (Matthew 24:11, 24). This does not leave us with the alternative of going along to get along with others that profess to be Christians and ignore Ellen G. White. We must try her and see if she is a true prophet of a false prophet. We do not need to call her writings canon, but we are not at liberty to pass by what the Holy Spirit has given to the church. She does say that she was the lesser light to bring us to the greater light of Scripture (The Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903). At least one of the scholars of the Seventh-day Adventist church thinks that using the writings of Ellen White is a kind of cheating; he says that we need to the hard work of exegesis to uncover the true meaning of Scripture. The above passage of Scripture does not seem to leave open that option unless we declare her to be a false prophet. If we do that wrongly, we are risking committing the sin against the Holy Spirit. Any good scholar will take into account all the different points of view on any given question; therefore, I think that any good Seventh-day Adventist scholar will include in his research all the data that bears on the subject, which includes the writings of Ellen G. White. Any time I see a document that is written and published by our church that has in it something that conflicts with what I know Ellen White to have said, I think that the writer and editor that produced that work did not do their homework. I discount what they have written or said. You might need to give up some cherished idea, but read what the prophet wrote; it is worth it; she is inspired and inspiring.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
In light of recent class discussions and my proposal linking extremism of the past to current discussions surrounding the human nature of Christ, I would like to clarify my current understanding.
I hold that Christ took a fallen human nature. This statement alone might instantly place me in the camp of heretics by some, but I take this position because it is promoted in the Bible and Ellen White's writings. By saying that Christ took a fallen nature I am not implying that his experience was exactly like ours. There are distinct differences in Christ's experience and similarities as well. One possible explanation for understanding this controversy is that Christ was "born again" (lead by the Spirit) from the beginning. I am not completely satisfied with the term "born again," but in this argument it will be used for the sake of comparison. Since Christ was "born again" (lead by the Spirit) from the beginning of his experience and never sinned, he never built up sinful habits (propensities) toward sin. When we are born again we struggle with the propensities that our sinful behavior has instilled in us. In other words, we can be born again and lead by the Spirit yet continually struggle with sinful habits or experiences that have influenced us. Since Christ never sinned and was lead by the Spirit from the beginning He never built up these tendencies (propensities) to sin.
While I believe that my above explanation does not come close to a complete understanding of the subject, I believe that it can be a starting point to further study. How does "fully human" yet "fully Divine" factor into all of this?
I don't believe that this topic should be avoided in the Adventist Church, rather, we need more open dialog about this issue. We only reach a problem when we decide that our position is right and everyone else is wrong refusing to listen to their points. Maybe someone with a differing position will have some points that will challenge your thinking and deepen your understanding.
Blessings as you study God's Word.
Reflection #3
There are two things I will like to reflect on from this week’s discussion and my readings.
The first thing is the doctrine of predestination. I believe it is a biblical doctrine. According to Paul in Ephesians 1:4-5, “God hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” God has predestined all of us to be saved. This was a decision made before the foundation of the world. However, the views of Calvinism on this subject disturbed me. Calvin’s view of predestination is faulty. He pushed Luther and Zwingli and went to the extreme of double predestination. This is the idea that God has chosen before time that He would save some people and destroy others. In order to defend this position, Calvin argues that God’s divine decree (synonymous with predestination) is not even based on His foreknowledge of the each person’s response to the gospel. But rather, it is based on God’s infinite wisdom and divine prerogative. As human being we should not try to probe the secret counsels of God. We do not have the right or audacity to question why God would decree some to be saved and others to be lost. It is a divine mystery that would be insane for humans to probe. Although Calvin is the one who is most known for this doctrine he is not the first to teach it in this manner. Augustine of Hippo could be considered the father of the notion of double predestination. Thomas Aquinas also taught a variation of it.
I appreciate our colleague’s attempt to simply this complex doctrine in his explanation to the high school kids he is working with. The chart he used in class was a helpful, although limited, way to illustrate the differences between the theologies of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Adventism, and Catholics. He has given me an idea on how to approach the issue and try to simply it.
The second thing I want to reflect on from this week stems from a presentation from one of our colleagues. He made is doing his paper on pacifism. I find that interesting because it has always been a difficult issue for me, particularly when non-believers raise questions about “The God of the Old Testament” as opposed to “The God of the New Testament.” If God told His people to go to war and slaughter every living creature, then, how dare Christians assert themselves as pacifist in times of war? I am aware of the counter argument that in the New Testament Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. But what do we do with Paul’s admonition for us to obey those who are in government authority? I know that we must obey as long as it does not oppose something the Word of God teaches. But that goes back to the first question of the way God told Israel to destroy nations who opposed their plans for them. This is an issue that I have to wrestle with and will continue to until I get an answer. One thing I am sure of is that “God is the same today, yesterday, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). His nature is the same. So, I guess the question I’m trying to answer is, Why would God tell His people in the Old Testament to go to war and then in the New Testament tell His people to turn the other cheek? Any comments?
Garth Dottin
It was interesting to see the doctrinal similarities and differences between the Anabaptist and Seventh-day Adventists. The Anabaptist affirmed that Christians must remain faithful to the state unless it conflicts with the word of God. They asserted that their institutions were never to be supported by the state monetarily, and opposed infant baptism. They also advocated for the total restoration of New Testament Christianity. However, in their quest to follow scripture correctly, they became extremist and diverged from scripture. This chapter demonstrates the extent to which some people will go in their search for true spirituality. It shows how important it is to have balance when studying the Bible and applying it to life. It presents the modern problem of some Christians regarding their biased interpretation, and their rigid application of scripture. Some modern day Christians presented Christianity as a strict set of the legalistic rules, and make it to lose its appeal to nonbelievers. We should learn from the history of the Anabaptist. Extremism, fanaticism, and radicalism will only attract a following temporarily, but the end result will always be apostasy, moral decline, and a straying from true Biblical teaching.
As we have been discussing the Anabaptists and some of the other Radical reformation movements, I have been thinking about the transition that radical religious movements seem to go through. It seems that these groups go through a process of being radical to the creation of an establishment that results in a more conservative structure. Luther was radical, at least for his time. But within a relatively short amount of time Lutherans came to be seen as a conservative and very un-radical. If I had never taken this course, I would have had no idea that Anabaptists had ever been considered part of the “Radical” Reformation. Adventists come from this same radical tradition. It is at least my understanding that Adventism in its early stages held many radical positions. It does not seem that way today. Why is that? How did Adventism go from radical to conservative?
I think there are two reasons for this phenomenon. The first is that while Adventism was “radical” for its day, it was actually a movement to return to a proper understanding of Scripture, which by nature is going to be very conservative. This is interesting because this leads to the implication that Adventism in its earlier stages was so conservative that it was radical in its own way. But because the doctrinal beliefs of Adventism were meant to be a return to a prior (or at least a more true) set of beliefs and doctrines the neo-conservatism of the Adventist movement can be understood.
I think the second reason is common to many denominations and it has also affected Adventism as well. Many denominations throughout the centuries have discovered new light, or the importance of an old light. Once they have made this discovery, they once again draw a line around their set of beliefs and then imply that there is no new truth to know. Then if someone comes along with more light, they persecute (figuratively) that person as much as they were persecuted for the light that God allowed them to discover. This I think is an improper course of action, not because we should anything that anyone says, but because it is important for us to be welcome to challenges and new ways to understand the truth we think we know. Ellen G. White said that there is no stake of truth that we should not be willing to remove from the ground and move further. She also said that the fact that we have believed something for a long time does not make it any more true, should it be found to be false. As I’ve said before on this blog, truth can afford to be fair. It seems that sometimes we feel like we cannot.
Tyler Kraft
Protestant Theological Heritage
Reflection #3
6/26/09
Class discussion earlier this week on the historic periods of prophecy really got me thinking more about a thought that has been percolating in the back of my mind during this whole session. (I’m not sure exactly how these prophetic periods tie into my original thoughts, but it did at least spark a completed thought to coalesce.) We have been talking about how this line of Protestant Reformers has progressed over the centuries mainly because the previous reforming movement and/or leader did not go far enough in other people’s opinions. This is why we have Calvin pushing further than Zwingli, who pushed further than Luther, etc.
In a previous class I had from Dr. Bob Johnston, I learned that throughout history God has had a special people on the earth that teach His truth – which is obviously not a new concept. But, what I found interesting was the fact that His people tend to go through periods of great growth and severe reduction. Painted in broad stokes it looks like the following. He started off with the entire human race, which expanded greatly, but was narrowed back down to Noah. Then Noah’s descendants increased in number, but God selected Abraham to start a special lineage. The Israelites expanded into a nation, but was then reduced to just the Kingdom of Judah. The Jews were then winnowed into a handful of Christians. Those Christians grew into the Catholic Church, which was then lessened into the followers of the Reformation. The increase then decrease of the Reformation continued with the various different leaders and denominations up until the Adventist Church was formed.
It seems as if this cycle of expansion and reduction has been occurring more and more frequently as history progresses – to be clear, this is just an opinion as I have not done much research on specific dates. I guess my question with that view of history in mind is, does the rapid nature of the progression of truth since the Reformation hold any significance? Additionally, why does it seem that with every cycle of constriction, the numbers of subsequent expansion seem to be lessened? Does this mean that we will eventually get to the point where the increase of God’s people will be negligible at best? I suppose what I am getting at is that it appears we are building towards something – Christ’s return, I would imagine – with these cycles of “reformation.” But using this cycle as a pattern, it does not seem as if many people will be there at for the climax.
As an interesting side note, during my pondering of this issue, Ellen White’s vision of the people falling off the narrow path that was ascending to heaven comes to mind. I wonder if possibly this vision might have a grander implication for this cycle of more and more people falling away as the truth gets ever closer to the One who is Truth.
Reflection #3
In the third week of our discussion, we had a very contagious discussion on martin Luther’s theology and Zwingli’s theology, and how they are related to our present understanding of the of salvation. As we had been discussing, we realized that their theologies and protests have something to learn as far as reformation is concern.Though their theologies could not be so far called perfect theology we could see that they contributed a lot to our present understanding salvation.
By taking for example martin Luther’s firm teaching on righteousness by faith,Luther emphasized a lot on this section as if works have no part to play toward our journey of salvation.For example where did he take other verses in the bible like ,you can tell by their fruits,fruits here implying to their character.those who will inherit heaven must wash their garment with the blood of the lamb ,I will was their sins and they will be as white as snow and several others.so we will get downwards that works have arole play though not to earn salvation to us.
Ellen white also comments that on this issue by basing her inspirational books on the christian character.people who are full of the holy spirit,manifests the character of God in their lifes,our character always predict where we are going.I also wanted to comment on the on the other issue which emerged in almost the end of the week,That as much as our salvation depends on the grace of God,Our salvation also depends on our works.
Most of the members accepted that phrase but some though they dint comment on this issue because of time din’t accept for I could tell from their dilemma in their faces .I have to be sincere in this part that I don’t accept that concept.I strongly believe that our works cannot earn us salvation.We are saved by jesus Christ through his grace and this grace gives us the power to live as his children for we no longer belong to the devil. For instance if we talk of our works then there was no need for jesus to come and die on the cross for us. so then the Pharisees could have earned their salvation through their works.
NOTE to all participants and Dr Hanna.my refrection#1 is posted on the commenting side.please bear with me this error.
Nathan Kennedy
Reflection #3
The last week of class has been very intense from my perspective. Raising up questions of Christ’s nature, the danger of Zwingli’s/Calvin’s predestination view, non-combatancy, comparative charts, the so-called “Emergent Church,” and what really got me thinking was Morgan’s presentation on his sports analogy. I liked it a lot, as he pointed out, one can go and hear many a sermon on the virtues of one sport or another from a pulpit and not note one text or reference to the rules. I had never looked at it quite like that. It is true the rules are what make a specific game enjoyable and exiting. Should both parties follow the rules, the game is smooth and even challenging. However when one team attempts to play only the rules they wish (even when they have a “good” reason) it causes strife and division on the other team, and if both play their own game, it would be confusion. That is a very good analogy of the current state of Christianity today. It also makes a lot of sense as to why many of our critics can have a field day with us. They play their way, not the Bible’s rules.
I have often reflected on the absolute danger of the predestination issue, and I am even more convinced that it needs to be taught to our people, when they elect to be baptized, and presented often from the pulpit. When the average Joe/Jane goes to websites like www.nonsda.org or www.ellenwhiteexposed.com and reads and sees the allegations brought to his/her attention, they can easily discern that the basic presupposition of the allegations rests basically on the issue of predestination. When they do look at these things they may or may not come to us, their appointed leadership (many do not trust the appointed leadership, we ourselves may be a skeptical at times). They may just quit coming to church, even if they are just looking for an out on their conscience, and we would never know. However, I would argue that informed people on the issue of predestination and how it leads to the false dichotomy of Law vs Grace, Old Covenant vs New Covenant, which these sites rely heavily on. Perhaps I am being too optimistic here, as we are not only combating this issue of predestination, we are standing before a culture that is hell bent on pleasure at any cost, now. To add to that, the culture has embraced the tolerance movement (including our beloved NARLA) to a degree, that no one out there is ever a “bad” person.
Enough of my ramblings, Morgan, you are spot on about the “rules of the game” idea that you have. I would like to see that idea fleshed out more, I am looking forward to it.
Be a Blessing
Nathan Kennedy
I like the way the professor is handling the issues of the reformation in comparison with the issues that are facing the Adventist church today.As the reformers were struggling with the doctrines that led to deviation from the Catholic church we need also to wrestle with the scripture and through the guidance of the Holy spirit give proper meaning to what the Bible as the word of God says.it is imperative that we are living in the world that is vast growing in knowledge, a world that questions the aunthecity of the bible let us be all prepared to give reason of our faith.
3RD Reflection
I spend sometime this third week reflecting upon the Anabaptists and their contribution for Christianity. Although I was aware of some of their contributions to Christianity, it was good to revive the memories of such contributions, especially on a few aspects that helped shape Adventism.
In few occasions I have heard pastors and/or some professors to affirm that Adventism has no roots in the others protestant movements, but in all honesty I’m starting to question if this is a unquestionable allegation. This questioning comes not as an attempt to challenge the proponent’s position, but to verify through my own means what history has to say about our establishment as a denomination, with membership that exceeds fifteen million members worldwide.
Despite the fact that the Anabaptists cannot be seeing as a denomination in itself, but instead as a religious movement, which end up developing itself into a few different groups with very distinct differences, it is important to observe that in the early years of the Reformations, Anabaptists gained some attention because of the rejection of infant baptism, “the traditional doctrines of the Trinity and the immortality of the soul (p 89).” Interesting enough, SDAs also deny the baptism of infants, and reject the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Some of the other aspects that we have in common with the Anabaptists is the idea that no human being is led to salvation by predestination, but be exercising their free will. I would further suggest that in agreement with the Anabaptists, the idea of predestination is just an excuse for our sins and a form o blaming God for it (p 91).
Certainly other aspects of the Anabaptists beliefs can be found in the SDA’ theological thinking, as well from other denominations, nevertheless, one must keep in mind the fact that, nowadays, the concept of a timeless God rejected by the SDA interpretation of the scripture, is accountable for the key difference between the SDA theological interpretation of Scripture, and the interpretation of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others Reformer’s movement.
Sergio Silva
By Jahisber Penuela
Journal 3
The connection involving law and grace had been a debated issue among theologians during the centuries. Through the Reformation, this relationship assumed a center stage. Which for some theologians the issue of the law and grace was a key turning point form the Catholic umbrella. Did Luther's Roman Catholic opponents accuse him of advocating antinomianism? Gonzalez’s book mentions that “the first stage of the controversy broke out when Agricola attacked Melanchthon’s Instructions for visitors at Luther request.” What I have found interesting in this debate, is that Justo Gonzalez concludes that Luther had recommended the Law (through Melanchthon’s book) as helpful for believers in understanding the expected moral life of a Christian. Moreover, it is mentioned the Decalogue itself “was to be preached often, not only to bring sinners to repentance, but also so that believers could gain a better idea of the will of God, and to seek to obey it. Agricola objected such instructions. However, it is something interesting in Agricola’s concern, According to him, “one cannot judge true believers by their level of virtue.” Is it not so today? I mean, following a holistic view, not all Agricola’s arguments were baseless. At least, I see in his concern a level of “truth” on the emphasis in extremism on the performance of the Law. Perhaps, what we can learn form this is that we cannot judge people by his performance of the Law. Otherwise, we would be no better than the Pharisees. On the other hand, we cannot reject (or forget) God’s righteous judgment according to deeds.
As we have seen in class this debate, over the role of the law for the believer was one of the major controversies leading up to the Formula of Concord. I wonder how many debates during the SDA church has been lessened for the sake of unity, but erring by omission of the “truth” behind such debates. How do we balance this out? Is it Unity or truth? The Formula of Concord seems to have been compromised on the side of unity.
By Jahisber Penuela
Journal 4
I would like to share some thoughts about the paper that I am doing. My paper is based on Schleiermacher’s contribution on the shift from modernity to liberal theology. Particularly, on the doctrine of creation of man.
To be brief, I have found challenging issues in his writings. One of those for example, It is that Schleiermacher leaned toward a view of the dichotomy of the human nature, soul and body. However, as we have studied the protestant theological heritage, concerning this issue there was not new emphasis because Schleiermacher continued with the main stream of Protestantism. Nevertheless the protestant heritage passed through the new liberal theology containing an insidious tenet: Human nature as “historical consciousness.” My question is if such formulation is unfortunate for the sake of the truth or if it is a counterpart of the Scripture. I have named such formulation “insidious” because even though he centered his thought on historicity, on the other hand his view seems to contradict his own view because of his understanding of human nature (Greek dichotomy Soul – body).
We have seen in class that in Pre-modern age theology dominated the science, Theology as the Queen of the Science. In this sense in the pre-modern view, reason was assumed to be part of the timeless soul, but in the modern view by the rise of modern science, enlightenment and rationalism influenced the universities and as result theology was displaced and not longer was regarded as science. Therefore, reason in the modern age become limited to historical reality and was placed “outside” of the soul. Today, in Post-modern times, it was said in class too that theology lost its prestige. Also that in the 21st century the relativism, there is no absolute truth, and appears the quest between to Theology and Science.
How is it related to Schleiermacher’s “historical consciousness. ” I do not have A+ answer, but I would say that this theological implication triggers two conclusions. First, and perhaps a positive one, is that while bridging criticism and protestant theology Schleiermacher rejects deism (which is the theory of the watch’s maker: God created the world but, or He is unable to control it, or He is merely a spectator). Secondly, of which I consider non-biblical, it is the assumption of the immortality of the soul, which I reject since the biblical view of the human person is unitary, not dual. In short, a response to Schleiermacher’s view of the nature of man should be elaborated undoubtedly concerning the assumption of the timeless soul.
Reflection 3.
THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage
Instructor : Dr. Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
By. Ki Seung Jhang
“How are you in the pure Religion, to visit the sick, the fatherless, and the widow, when both blind, and sick, and halt and lame lie up and down, cry up and down almost in every corner of the city, and men and women are so decked with gold and silver in their delicate state, that they cannot tell how to go. Surely you know not that you are one mould and blood, that dwell upon the face of the earth. Would not a little out of your abundance and superfluity maintain these poor children, halt, lame, and blind, or set them at work that can work and they that cannot, find a place of relief for them; would not that be a grace to you?” (p 101)
Above state is the mention of George Fox (1624-1691) who is the founder of the Quaker movement. He insisted the involvement in social issues by a pacifist standpoint.
I don’t agree with his doctrines. I am just attracted by his statement. I just felt this statement is needed to us. There are many leaders and bible teachers in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. My opinion applies to Korean Church in America. I don’t know this can be applied to other churches. Most Korean pastors are the shutter men of the churches. They open the door of church before worship and closed the door after worship. It is very hard to find lay people who do it instead of pastor. Korean pastors are like building manager. If church need to repair roof, and pastor research the roofing company and report the board meeting of church. And church board meeting decide a roofing company, and pastor make a contract, supervise and report the board meeting. Purchasing church supplies is the portion of pastors. It is ok that pastors do like this with love. But elders and many deacons are taking rest. Especially elders are just reigning over the church only with their mouth. They don’t move their finger. I know that there are some elders who serve the church, but most elders are not. SDA is short to practice the love and truths. I am feeling that SDA is just seeking the truth without practicing them. We have to be changed from static to dynamic. We need to start at the church with the smallest service. I expect that SDA become to be changed, and to finish spreading gospel to the end of the world through this change. I hope SDA living and practicing church.
Reflection paper #3
I have learned many things last week. First, the story of Anabatism inspired me a lot. Because it reminds me of the same problem that Adventists have now. Some are radical and extreme while others are moderate. But without right theolgy being radical is dangerous and people often get worst result from it.
Another topic I was impressed was Catholics. Dr. Hanna quoted Ellen White’s writing.
“There is need of a much closer study of the word of God; especially should Daniel and the Revelation have attention as never before in the history of our work. We may have less to say in some lines, in regard to the Roman power and the papacy; but we should call attention to what the prophets and apostles have written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit has so shaped matters, both in the giving of the prophecy and in the events portrayed, as to teach that the human agent is to be kept out of sight, hid in Christ, and that the Lord God of heaven and His law are to be exalted. Read the book of Daniel”(TM, 112)
We may talk about the dragon and the remnant too much. There are lots of good topics that both denominations can enjoy but we tend to separate each other.
As time goes on, more Adventists doubt Ellen White’s authority and whenever they find errors from her writings they feel smarter than others. But if we lost the authority of her writings, I think we will lose our identity too. I can’t understand why people keep doubting her authority and become Adventists.
I have heard many good presentations. Colleagues have original insights.
In one way or the other we have come from a very far distance of so many reformations to our current state. During our class discussion as a Seventh day Adventist church so far we cling to some of the old minor issues forgetting the major issues like the message of righteousness by faith and what God has done for humanity. We need to stand firm not defending our doctrines on who we are but on what God has commissioned us to do on earth. Mission is soon coming to an end but worshipping God remains forever.
Nathan Kennedy
Reflection #4
Tyler Crafts presentation is very pertinent as a reminder. As I have mentioned in my previous reflections, our critics accuse us from departing from protestant ideals. But as Tyler pointed out, the reformers’ understanding of prophecy was indeed historicism. However we as a church are judged by either the Preterist or Futurist paradigm, particularly as it applies to Daniel 8 and 9. Luther often applied the beast figure to that of the Papacy. Yet as time has come, the main line churches are becoming more and more Darby/Rivera. Darby was the English preacher that developed the futurist interpretation as we know it today, taking it from the Catholic Counter Reformation. Rivera was a Jesuit Priest who was the RCC’s tool for the counter reformation. took statements from Hippolytus and came to the foundation of futurism.
My question is one more of vexation and frustration, I suppose. If then the protestant reformers were in fact historicists. What gives our critics the right to attempt measure our doctrine according to “protestant” views, while they themselves stand in wanting? It is a bit hypocritical in my honest opinion.
The trinity issue, is still a problem. I am thinking of a very small but very vocal off shoot of our church. The Creation Seventh Day Adventists or CSDA, are very bitter and angry at the general conference for not affirming them as Seventh-day Adventist. I like the presentation which our brother gave. What alarmed me was that he mentioned that in his schooling there in Brazil, this issue has not been brought up. With that in mind, it would be well for someone who can communicate this tender and explosive subject to the brethren there in Brazil.
Be a Blessing
Nathan Kennedy
I would like to talk about Andrew Osiander: mystical trend.
They said we can meet Christ through meditattion and mysticism in person and also, Jesus came down in this world. It is not because human being had committed sins but because God already had planned. I agree with that. It seems both of them are same. But I liked the words: God already planned for us.
Sometimes I misunderstand what God has done for us. Through last week, I really thank God to realize againg Who God is. He is our Father God who loved us so much more than we understand.
Reflection #1
I would like to comment on Christy’s reflection #1. First, I appreciate Christy telling the truth about her thoughts on “truth”. I agree with her first statement...that the truth should never be more important than people. She mentions that “Jesus loved people and He never drew them away”. As I thought about that I remembered that Jesus declares that He is the truth. He says, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”
I am not sure what the implications are if we say that Jesus = truth, but it raises some interesting thoughts in my mind that maybe we do not truly understand what “truth” really is. As well do we know how relational it can be.
Here is a wonderful text that reminds me of how important the “truth” of love is...
1 Corinthians 13 “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked to think evil; does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, Love never fails...
1 Corinthians 13 does say that we should “rejoice in truth” and that we should not “rejoice in iniquity”. This seems to imply that “truth” is something that will lead us away from iniquity. If it does not then maybe it is not “truth”...Maybe this means that truth points us in the direction of our only hope...Jesus Christ. The passage also hints to the fact that there is more that we will know that now we only know in part. Not only will we have knowledge but we ourselves will be known. So it seems to me that there is some link between “truth” and “relationship”.
The Bible does command us in 1 Corinthians 14 to “Pursue love”.
and if that sounds too mushy...I will just add to that 1 John 4:7, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” and if Jesus is the “truth” and God is “love” then the only way must be to unite both.
Patricia Nesbit
Reflection # 2
This reflection is not necessarily a comment on what others have said in the class. Instead it is on a thought that I have had during the class that may be related. I have been wondering a lot about they way that we call ourselves... “Adventists” instead of “Seventh-day Adventist’s”. It seems to me that something gets lost when we abbreviate our name to other’s and ourselves in that way.
When I first stepped into a “Seventh-day Adventist” church I distinctly remembered how unique I thought the name was. I had never heard of a denomination that had a number in their name. I had to ask the Pastor who lead out in my very first prayer meeting what they believed and what was the meaning behind the name. He simply said, Seventh day... that the seventh day was the Sabbath... “Okay” I thought, “that is no problem”...and then he continued...”Adventist meaning that Jesus is coming back to the earth one day”... My reaction was one of surprise and I could not believe that anyone who was intelligent would believe something like that. A few days later the Holy Spirit gently led me to the understanding that this was all true.
Our name is very unique and very important...it lifts up the central truths that distinguish who we are. Not to mention it is a great conversation starter. I wonder if there is any connection to when we started to call ourselves “Adventist’s” instead of “Seventh-day Adventists” and the loss of our identity.
Yes, In many ways I do believe that we have lost our identity, or at the very least we are in an identity crisis.
I may sound harsh to someone who is cherishing the idea that we are still the same Seventh-day Adventist's that we used to be...but it seems to me that we have lost our way and that our precious light is being abbreviated because we do not want to pronounce what God has given us to say.
The way that this seems to relate to PTH is that many have died to bring us the inheritance that we have. How can we so lazily toss aside a name that came out of the sacrifices of so many. Maybe it is only a small unnoticeable change to some...not worth worrying about or mentioning...I am reminded that it is in the the little things that we need to be faithful so that we can prove that we can be faithful in the greater.
We have a name that we can be proud of and we have a truth that we need to proclaim. let's not forget who we are!!
Patricia Nesbit
Calvinism, predestination and state
By Elmer Guzman
The notion of predestination is pervasive in the entire theological system of Calvin. Yet, Gonzalez clearly interpreted Calvin’s thought been different from the Calvinistic school of theology that came later, which was much stricter than Calvin himself. According to Calvin, Theology was based on Soteriology, while Soteriology was based on predestination. Therefore, the entire system had a common platform which was the sovereign divine will leading humanity through predestination and providence.
This strict understanding of theology is classically noticed in the way in elect and the reprobate, yet what called my attention is the way in which he interpreted the power of the State, because the political leaders also would have been predestined to achieve God’s purpose, so Calvin has a positive view of politics, despite all the problems innate to human will. This reformed notion empowers the State with the right of death penalty, and wage just and necessary wars. Gonzalez grounds this authority in the natural law, from which springs the civil laws. What called my attention is the fact that some protestant countries “partially” influenced by Reformed protestant theology, still grant the state the power to issue death penalty, and are more inclined to begin new wars, because the state in a sense has this right.
On the other hand, Seventh-day Adventism has the tendency to agree more with the Anabaptists saying that politics and religion are two institutions different and nature and purpose, and therefore they should remain completely separated. Maybe we should give some thought to how properly relate the relations of church and state, because the state is not hell, neither heaven.
Response to Nick Jones Reflection #3
I appreciated the point that Nick brought up... that our purpose was to get back to the Bible, and that going back to the Bible was radical in a time when, as he put it, “so many were steeped in Protestant tradition”.
It is interesting how religious tradition can compete with the Bible. I wonder if this is because we get too comfortable and stop looking to the Bible, not only as a source of knowledge, but as a source of life.
This may be why there are observable cycles in the Reformation as Nick mentioned in one of his other blogs.
It seems that it is human nature for us to put something before God. We often talk about the Great Controversy as being something that can be seen in History. We also have a “Great Controversy” within our own selves, a tug of war in our own being. Thankfully the war is won through Christ, and thankfully Christ did what was very radical to accomplish what no one else was able to. We are indebted to Christ’s radical response of love.
Patricia Nesbit
Tyler Kraft
Protestant Theological Heritage
Reflection #4
6/30/09
In chapter six of our textbook, Gonzales provides a short section at the end of the chapter on the significance of John Calvin’s theology. And as I read the author’s explanation of the growth of Calvin’s Institutes and Calvin’s own reasons for those writings, I could not help but begin to think of Ellen White’s voluminous catalog of written materials. One paragraph in particular caught my attention – the highlights of which follow.
• Calvin included a lot of material concerning certain issues that were being debated at that time, which shows his pastoral concern.
• He did not intend for his Institutes to be a permanent systematization of Christian doctrine, but a practical handbook for Christians.
• The Institutes have drawn attention away from Calvin’s other works, specifically his biblical commentaries, which provide a more complete picture of who he was.
I do not think that it is difficult to draw the parallels here between Calvin and White. First, they both wrote extensively on the issues of their times, not necessarily as transcendent literature, but as material that covered the hot topics of their day. (Adventists should not own bicycles, anyone?) Second, they both wanted their writings to have a practical impact in the lives of their readers. Their main intention was not to develop a timeless system of theology, but rather they wanted their writings to affect others’ thoughts and lives in a functional manner. After all, White frequently stressed the need for present truth – not necessarily timeless truth. Third, it is easy for people to focus on the more controversial writings they produced at the expense of their insightful God-centered commentaries.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not stating that Calvin was just as inspired as White was in terms of having the gift of prophecy. But, I find it hard to imagine that none of his writings and/or teachings bear the mark of Divine inspiration. So to that effect, White’s material contained in the “little red books” is indeed on a different plane, but the fact remains that through the controversial things contained in those writings and combined with the way they were used – or misused – have detracted from her Conflict of the Ages commentaries.
I know I might be descending down a slippery slope by comparing or ranking her writings, but I know that people have not read any part of this life-changing series due to being turned off by her other writings. Those writings have colored people’s view of White and they will not gain a more complete picture of who she was by not reading her important commentaries.
I guess I am left with the question, is this a normal reaction to leaders who are significant denominational pioneers? The similarities were just too striking to ignore.
Reflection 3
Ok, so I may end up sounding a little like Melanchthon in this posting because it may appear to some that I am making similar compromises that he did, and perhaps I am, I am not sure, but this is what I think. In response to Nathan’s statement in class the other day about his struggle of what to do with a dying Catholic if you are on the battlefield. If there was an opportunity, I would certainly give way to a Catholic Priest who understands the Catholic Theology himself. But if one of my soldiers was laying there dying, or fearful and about to enter battle, I personally wouldn’t have a problem trying to provide the religious services that the Catholic soldier understands is needed. While I realize that the rite means a vastly different thing to me than it does to him, I don’t think it would actually hurt anything to give him those rites. I think that God is able to accept him as he is, and to me is not really an issue of salvation. But if he believes it is an issue of salvation himself, I would not want to prevent him from the best connection with God that he may know how to have at that moment. There isn’t time for bible study in that setting, nor for even conversation so much, and I am under the impression that it is against United States Army Regulations to attempt to persuade him differently, especially in that setting. So I would ask, what are your other options? What else are you going to do? This is a major part of accepting your job, I am sure! By the way, if you think I have gone too far out of the way, feel free to write a Concordance correcting me!
Nick Jones
Reflection Paper 4
I find it interesting and a little worrisome that we are comparing each of the reformers to Luther. In our discussion on Calvin earlier this week, we seem to be comparing each of his theological ideas and doctrines to those of Luther. In looking back at my notes, we did the same thing with Zwingli, we compared Zwingli’s theological ideas and doctrines to those of Luther. Is history just about comparing and contrasting different points of view? Can Calvin not stand on his own two feet without comparing him to Luther?
I understand that Luther is one of the first major reformers of the Protestant Reformation. But we do not compare him to anyone before him. We always talk about Luther and what he did in his time and in his culture. It is only after Luther do I find constant comparison.
Two things that I notice from this. First, it is important to compare and contrast. It is through learning the differences that we can fully understand history. We have to look at the full context of history to understand it and that means comparing and contrasting differing views. We do this all the time when talk abut sports figures and their statistics. It is part of history, we are always comparing and trying to find out who is better, bigger, etc...
Second, on the flip side, if we only compare and contrast I believe we lose much of the ideas that the person being studied had to offer. In Calvin’s case, I believe that we spent so much time comparing him to Luther that we did not discuss much of his impact on the Protestant Reformation. We spent much time comparing his theology and doctrinal ideas to those of Luther.
My basic idea is that we need to have balance when looking at history. We also need to have balance when looking at Protestant theological heritage. While comparing and contrasting have a purpose and fulfill an important role, we cannot just compare everything to Luther. We should also compare it to Zwingli and other reformers. But not only just compare, but also look at why and how Calvin and other reformers came to these positions and how they affected the people they were trying to reach.
Zwingli and Predestination
Reflection #3
Zwingli’s main concern was upholding the sovereignty of God. The question is, can this be done without the doctrine of predestination? Adventists believe this can be done and done better than Zwingli’s attempt. The official statement of beliefs state that “All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe.” There is simply no good explanation for double predestination that holds up the character of God. To believe that God chooses some to be damned to hell is a slight on his character and brings a question to his love. God does not want robots to serve him; he has given us free will to choose. This is really what the Great Controversy is all about—whose side will we choose? Who will we believe and serve? This world is a stage that allows Satan to demonstrate to the universe what his rule would really be like. God is unmasking the deception of sin and allowing everyone to see how different His ways truly are. God is love and desires loving service—not fearful obedience or robotic bondage.
Zwingli’s argument that God is above the law is creative, but not satisfying. If God is the only cause, then he sins, which is blasphemy. God’s character is perfect, just, upright. The Bible says there was no sin found in Jesus, and since Jesus revealed the Father, we can know there is no sin in God. If double predestination was really the case, it would make more sense for God to cause all the elect to be sinless (since it is possible—Jesus was) and all the damned to be sinful.
The belief in predestination seriously challenges mission. If God has already decided who will be saved, then why preach the gospel? If predestination is true, than nothing missionaries do will make any difference—they have no influence on the person or on God. I did not find any counter-argument in Zwingli’s theology addressing this question. For Adventists though, mission is the reason we exist. Our trumpet call is the three angel’s message to let the world know that Jesus is coming soon and to help prepare them to be ready. God’s will is for all to be saved and he uses the church to accomplish this goal.
Adiaphora
Reflection #4
I found the controversies regarding the adiaphora interesting when applied to our times. A lot of our own controversies seem to be dealing with matters that are part of the adiaphora. But part of the problem is at least one side in every argument does not think the matters is non-essential. If we as a body came to a consensus on what is essential, perhaps our controversies would be less divisive and more tolerant of differences in opinion. Is our position that the 28 fundamentals are the essentials and anything not covered is adiaphora? One good thing about our church structure is that we can agree to add to the fundamentals, as we just recently did. But until an issue reaches that point, can we agree to disagree instead of fighting and causing hurt? What is more important—being right or looking out for our neighbors?
I’m not sure how to take Flacius’s argument that in times of crisis, nothing is adiaphora. If anything, I think it would be more towards the opposite—let’s put our differences aside and fight the common enemy together. When facing persecution, suddenly battles over things that seemed so important are suddenly seen in a different light.
Is it an indication of adiaphora when there is not a clear picture in Scriptures? Can we simply leave such matters to the individual conscience and stop trying to convince others (sometimes with force) that our way is the right and only way?
Meade Adams-Reflection 4
I would like to continue the discussion on missiology as it relates to the Reformation. One of the presentations yesterday dealt with missions to Muslims and the questions that arise from that endeavor. Dr. Hanna put out the idea of brining Muslims in to send them back and I believe that’s where the discussion got started. I think that it was an excellent suggestion. In fact, it is not just a suggestion, but also a biblical mandate! The Bible clearly says GO out and make disciples. However, it seem to me that Adventists have adopted a more separatist, exclusive attitude towards those of other faiths or of no faith. It is as if they seek to keep themselves “pure” and “untainted” from “those people”. We raise our children this way. We don’t want them to play with the other children in the neighborhood because they might be “contaminated”. Therefore, we withdraw and isolate ourselves in “Adventist ghettos”, so to speak, like Berrien Springs. My issue is this: while the class at large seemed to agree that it would not be “sinful” to conduct additional services on Sunday morning or to go to a Sunday church, I think that on either of these points one will encounter significant opposition from the membership. I feel that Adventism stirs up and sort of encourages a culture of prejudice and even hate for Sunday keepers and especially Catholics. American media no doubt stirs up a culture of hate and prejudice for Muslims. For example, when the roof caved in at my church a few years ago we were seeking a place to worship in while it was being repaired. A local Catholic priest very graciously offered their sanctuary for us to use for a reasonable rate of rent. The board overwhelmingly rejected the offer because they could not worship in the “house of Babylon”. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the type of evangelistic ministry that we were talking about but their prejudice would not allow it. In this context, I see this type of ministry to be potentially problematic in the field. Thoughts?
I am commenting on Nathans presentation. I believe the issue of Soldiers and Adventism is a vital one. When we look at the fact that we have increasing numbers of young men and women in the service we have to take a look at this. I appreciate the material presented to the class in Nathans presentation. Biblical scenarios were given to possibly support our soldiers serving this country abroad.
What’s my stance? I feel that the church’s official stand point should be not to have a say either way but to rather allow the choice to lie in the hands of the Christian. Surely we realize the church is not going to come out on paper and tell its young men and women to join the military but when a young man or woman enters the service he or she should know that they are not going to hail for picking up arms and that their church back home supports them. Do we not have a responsibility for those Christians in the Militray to give them Christ as we know him as a church?
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
There have been several topics discussed in class this week that have peaked my interest. A comment was made in class about giving people what they need from the churches perspective vs. giving people what they need from the individuals perspective. I would suggest that there needs to be a combination of both in order to rightly facilitate the 3 angels messages.
There is a common assumption in the Adventist church that people need the truth. This assumption is correct - people do need greater truth for these last days. While people do need truth, I think that we often make our focus purely intellectual. Maybe we have been unsuccessful in facilitating truth by focusing on the intellectual aspects while neglecting the practical aspects. Christ almost always met a persons practical needs before he met their spiritual needs.
In my experience, people are more receptive to intellectual truth if you live out the truth practically by your example. Setting an example is not necessarily when someone follows all the requirements of the law (the Pharisees were good at that), but rather when you show practical love in meeting peoples needs they will be more open. I have found that people are more receptive to intellectual truth after i have been able to meet their immediate practical needs. This is the concept of friendship evangelism.
The second topic was EGW and inspiration. What should we consider inspired - letters, blogs, grocery lists? While inspiration can become very complicated I would like to make one distinction. When we quote EGW, we should use materials that were meant for publication. I am not saying that other writings are not inspired, I am just saying that EGW did not intend for every writing to be held as general truth for all generations. Certainly we can profit from various sources and situations, but we must do so more carefully. Books like the Conflict of the Ages Series, Christ Object Lessons, and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, should be our first choice for reference. Further, I would suggest that we should quote from the most current Great Controversy version rather than quoting from the "Spirit of Prophecy" version. The older editions are truthful and inspired, but the latest edition reflects EGW's greatest clarity on the topic (she had the opportunity to revise it and smooth out things that maybe didn't really reflect what she was trying to say).
So where should we get our information if we are are discussing the end times? The Great Controversy. Where should we go if we are discussing the nature of Christ? The Desire of Ages. Where should we go if we are discussing a parable? Christ object lessons. I am not suggesting that you can not go other places, but you should not base your idea's off of manuscript 1379 without first consulting the major works that were meant for publication.
May the Lord bless you as you study His word.
Wednesday’s presentation on the use of technology in the reformation was very refreshing. No doubt the reformers of the Protestant Reformation sought to use the printing press to their advantage in disseminating their message. This fact is certainly a reminder that we need to be aware of the variety of new media in our world that we too can use to share our message. I think that the variety of new media, like twitter, facebook, myspace, etc, are great opportunities to develop relationships with people in which we can then share about Christ. This should not come to the point though, where we lose touch with the relationships in the non-digital world around us.
One of the questions that came to my mind during this presentation is what to do with concept of putting the message into the vernacular? The presenter suggested that there is a need for the message to be communicated in a relevant medium in order to reach people today. I agree with this to an extent, but how far do we take this, and how far did the reformers themselves take this. From the perspective of the reformers, they were using new technology to disseminate the message, but this was balanced against the fact that they were emphasizing a return to the original sources. When we place our message in the vernacular, are we compromising the original? I suppose our message can have a variety of meanings, from the general message to Scripture itself. Our message needs to be in the language of the people, in the sense that it uses the understandable words and vocabulary. But I think that message that is specifically Scripture must remain true to the original text in concept as well as wording where possible.
Found a great quote in Great Controversy that describes where Protestantism came from.
She writes in chapter 11 of the Great Controversy..."One of the noblest testimonies ever uttered for the Reformation was the Protest offered by the Christian princes of Germany at the Diet of Spires in 1529. The courage, faith, and firmness of those men of God gained for succeeding ages liberty of thought and of conscience.
Their Protest gave to the reformed church the name of Protestant; its principles are "the very essence of Protestantism." (D'Aubigne, book 13, chapter 6)
So the question might be, what were the principles of this "protest" that supplied us the "very essence of Protestantism?"
The German princes stated..."We protest by these presents, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our Judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree, in anything that is contrary to God, to His holy word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls."
"There is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the word of God. . . . The Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine....
The Holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and clearer texts;...this Holy Book is, in all things necessary for the Christian, EASY OF UNDERSTANDING, and calculated to scatter the darkness.
We are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of His only word, such as it is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it.”
"The principles contained in this celebrated Protest . . . constitute the very essence of Protestantism.
May God help us to faithfully continue what the bold German Princes did, along with Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hus, Wyclif, and the countless others who gave their lives to perpetuate the Protestant Movement of courageously lifting up the Word of God and it alone as their rule of faith and doctrine.
It may seem simplistic and antiquated, but it remains the source of life.
Blessings
jjw
Nathaniel Lyles
An important conclusion that I gleaned from our class discussions concerning our Protestant heritage is that to exclusively disregard a medieval or religious approach to the Reformation is not to suggest that it played no significant role in that movement. For example, Zwingli did not reject all humanistic approaches but only that which could not be proven by Scripture. I think we should remember that these views were the acceptable within social context of that time. On the other hand, we should not ignore the consequences of these ideas which influenced in a negative way the Reformation and various Protestant movements which emerged. When the reformers used ideas that went contrary to Scripture, it created many problems to the point where they rejected essential doctrines and truths about Christ. As we study the history of the Reformation, we can learn many lesson from the early reformer to help us avoid ideas and positions that can be stumbling block to us.
Nathaniel Lyles continues...
As Dr. Hanna stated, we study our Protestant history to see where we are on the path of progression but also to see in history where the church has falling away.
Protestant Theological Heritage - Final Exam Essay:
One of the key insights that I learned during this course was the wholistic nature of the term “heritage” as it relates to the Protestant Theological Heritage. During the first few of days of discussion, we explored the variety of biblical meanings of heritage or inheritance. God is described as being our inheritance, which we understand from Ezekiel 44:28 and Exodus 19:6. Heritage is also described as a rest, which we have not attained yet, Deut 12:9. The creation is described as God’s inheritance, Exodus 65:25. God’s dwelling place is our inheritance, Exodus 15:7. And God’s heritage is also described as being historical, Revelation 1:1,4,19. This broader, fuller definition is important when discussing the Protestant Theological Heritage because it illuminates the different angles from which we can understand the term.
The phrase from this same discussion that most enriched my learning and expanded my understanding was as follows, “When we study history, in particular the Protestant Theological Heritage, we are studying part of God’s heritage.” I think that often times I have thought of the Protestant Theological Heritage from the limited perspective of theological views of the reformers. I have come to realize that this is a very limited understanding and does not fully encompass the entire meaning of the term heritage, or theological for that matter. A better understanding of the topic would suggest that this is a word from God received through the Protestant heritage. This recognizes that the history involved in the subject is a study of God’s actions in history. This also recognizes that the Protestant heritage is only a piece of the greater heritage that is from God.
As I try to boil down this idea in my thinking, I come to the conclusion that God’s heritage is much bigger than the Protestant Theological heritage, yet this is still an important piece. I think that sometimes we pick and choose the important people or decisions of history that we find most helpful to the position that our church upholds. The reality is that all of history is God’s heritage and we must look at His actions throughout all of history, right down to our particular situation, and see God moving.
One of the issues that seemed to come up during this same discussion was the question of whether or not the Catholic Church was part of God’s heritage. If we take a wholistic view of heritage we can’t help but answer yes to that question. Not everything about the Catholic Church is in line with the teaching of the Bible, but there is some truth, and certainly some people in the church who are faithful to God. If we look outside of the Protestant Reformation period (which we should because there is more than just that in God’s heritage) than we see that the only Christian church in existence n the first centuries was the Catholic church. God was working through this church even as it declined into apostasy. But continuing on from the Reformation period we could say that God continues His heritage through other groups, even now the Adventists.
As I apply these concepts learned to my life and ministry I find that I need to be more inclusive of people, and groups of people when discussing who is God’s heritage. God has worked throughout history and His heritage is much greater than I can fully understand.
Reflection for week 4 by John Treat
Calvin emphasized human depravity. He wrote that we can do nothing that is good, we could not even have a good thought or desire. He believed that our wills are so totally corrupted that we can only desire to do evil continually; therefore, there is no conflict in us. He did admit that we still have a will, a totally corrupted one. He could see that there were two destinies opposite described in the Bible; he called them the reprobate and the elect. This fixes our destiny before we are born, and we can do nothing about; he called this predestination. This presents a problem: God is responsible for sin in this model. Unlike Zwingli, Calvin does not want to charge Calvin with the responsibility for sin. His solution is that Adam had a free will and sinned voluntarily, which caused our total depravity and our guilt. Our depravity meant that we could do nothing toward salvation; we sinned enthusiastically. Since we sin voluntarily and enthusiastically, we are guilty of our own sin as well as the sin of Adam; therefore, we deserve to be punished. If God decided before we were born to elect us to salvation, then he is showing his mercy, otherwise we will punished in the fires of hell eternally, which we deserve. The reprobate cannot do anything but sin, but since the compulsion comes from themselves, God is not responsible. Since the reprobate have not good thoughts, Romans 7 must be discussing the elect, because he has good thoughts, even though he cannot do what is right. Calvin got this from Augustine. The idea that the reprobate can do nothing but sin, but that they are not compelled from the outside, and yet they are still responsible for their sin is called compatibilism.
Calvin admits that the decree that decides that many will be the reprobate and are destined to burn in hell forever is a horrible decree. About the only response that he has to this is that he says that God has decided, who are you to question or criticize God? This brings up the theodicy, justice of God, question. The extreme injustice of this is one of the standard arguments against the theology of Calvin.
Garth Dottin
4th Reflection
The topic of tradition emerged from a presentation within class that has sparked some of my interest. The question was asked; is all tradition bad? In the Protestant era it is argued that there were three views on the matter. Some believed that tradition was subject to scripture. Some advocated for the belief that tradition and scripture was on the same level, while others affirmed that our tradition must supersede scripture. Tradition is certainly not all bad, but there are some teachings that many people hold as Bible truth that have no Biblical basis.
Many churches today are divided on the issues of evangelism and worship. They fight over the type of songs to be played during service, the “proper” methods of outreach, or the preference between contemporary or traditional styles of worship. Some argue that moving away from the traditional way of operation dilutes the unique message of the Church, promotes ecumenism, and violates scripture sacredness.
I would argue that tradition is subject to scripture, but we must not reject elements of tradition all together. We can learn a lot from tradition, but we also have a responsibility to repackage the message of the gospel in unique ways for it to remain relevant.
I wanted to write about the commonalities of philosophy and theology, based on the Elvis’ presentation in class today (07-01). I, like Elvis, think that philosophy and theology are cousins, meaning that they are very much related. Dr. Canale would tell you that philosophy and theology study the same material, but in different ways. I agree. Both philosophy and theology study reality in its fullness. Philosophy studies it through the observation of that reality. Theology studies it (at least some theologies do) by studying the word of God and other religious sources in order to determine the nature of reality.
Being an Adventist Christian, I trust the Bible and what it says about reality. Therefore I would be much more of a theologian than a philosopher. But that doesn’t mean that we all don’t do both at different times. The problem of course, is which study will inform the other. Will we allow our philosophy to norm our theology or our theology to norm our philosophy? Furthermore, we also have to realize that just because philosophy uses the “wrong” path does not mean that it does not occasionally come to the right conclusions. My partner in ministry is currently doing his PhD in philosophy at the University of Memphis. Because we travel a lot together we have had many different discussions about philosophy, theology, and the nature of reality. He has always said to me that the one aspect of philosophy that fascinates him the most is the fact that these people, without relying on God, often find themselves supporting biblical truths. Now clearly these philosophers don’t get everything right, but we don’t get everything right as theologians either.
And so I am always impressed when my partner interweaves philosophical ideas into the seminars we present. Is he wrong for doing so? I think some people would say that he is. But why if these philosophical ideas are supported by God’s truth? I am not going to begrudge anyone the words and ideologies they use so long as they are supported by God’s truth. I think the concept here is that there are many different ways to present the Gospel. Some people may want to be strictly Biblical. Some may want to use philosophical terms and ideas. Some may want to use street slang. While every method of presenting the gospel may not be correct (or correct for the context), I think the problem comes when we determine that someone’s way of presenting the gospel is not correct without a clear “thus saith the Lord.” The point of the matter is that in order to save as many people as possible, we have to be able to vary our modes of communication. So it becomes a wonderful thing that God has created us all so different. The way one person presents the Gospel may not be something that I can do. The way I present the Gospel may not be in a way that you can do. But that doesn’t make either us right, wrong, or more right than someone else. We have to be able to make room in our church for all different types and modes and methods, including philosophical modes, so long as all these modes are in line with Scripture.
Reflection Paper #4
We have covered mostly Calvin this week. But whenever authors talk about aspects of Calvin theolgy, they compare it with Luther’s. It means both theologians are the biggest Reformers in history. My point is that both of them were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were sure of what they believed but in some points they couldn’t find common ground. This explains a lot of things about people having different denominations now. Because human beings are limited, they have parts of the truth. Ellen White herself did not know about Sabbath first and she confirmed it when someone brought it up. So within the same Bible, many doctirins and theories can be drawn. Although we should not generalize the relationship between Luther and Calvin as common events, we should accept that that kind of thing always happens. So even in Adventism, we can disagree each other because no one has the truth.
Another subject that attracted me was the issue of the Army. The presenter argued that Bible and even Jesus did not go against Arms and Army so we may join the Army. I partly agree with the presentation. I believe that Christ did not stop all things related to Amrs is because of the special situation the earth is having. But I am sure that Christ did not make violence or arms. But as the presenter said, without power we cannot have peace now in a sense.
Lastly, I want to talk about the term “tradition.” This word has positive and negative nuance. God respects tradition because He has led His people so far and that is tradition in a sense. But God doesn’t like tridition which is made by sinful humans. The important thing is that church tradition should be based on God. When church members make tradition by themselves, the church becomes babylon. We are making tradition now so we should follow God in every step so that we may make good tradition.
Piasi Suleiman
Reflection #4
Being the last week of our discussion I could say that most of the discussion was aiming at pointing to major points we had discussed in this class. As part of the discussion we actually discussed of major reformers like Luther, Zwingli, Erasmus and calvin.Though the reform movement begun by luther, the entire universe was ripe for reformation and in various places that reformation took the protestant direction.
During our discussion within the week, we were able to see how this later on theologians were able to establish their own theologies and hence were even able to elite their position without fearing that their theologies will sideline with their father of Protestantism [martin Luther].since I cannot wind up the whole week’s discussion in a single page, will pick up one of the points under this context in reference to their differences which will later on help us understand our different understanding of scriptures
In this case I will take the example of Ulrich Zwingli and Martin luther.we discovered that this theologians differed in many ways but the most difference was from their convictions, martin Luther is known for his anguish spiritual pilgrimage dealing with the basic issue of his relationship with God while Zwingli is led by patriotic and intellectual consideration Martin Luther came with a conviction of the priority of the scripture above a tradition.Zwingle on the other side approached the scripture as a Christian humanistic hence his return to the Bible was part of the general return to the sources that characterized the humanistic movements.
Though they seemed to differ, one thing I discovered was that their difference occurred within the context of the Bible. This applies to our contemporary Christian theologians and believers, we tend to differ in our interpretations of the scriptures but this should not cause us to hate one another but instead it should help us to search more of the word and pray for the guidance of the holy spirit to lead us. Mostly in this context God has something he wants to teach us under these circumstances. Know what God is still under control in these situations and has a perfect reason for everything that happens. Our diversity should be our strength. Many lessons will be learned that will help us.
Luther was spiritual inclined more than the average for his age. After some steps of his monastic life, and many trying to be good enough, Luther see himself as unacceptable and unjust person compared with a righteousness God. He was advised to do a peregrination to finish with his doubts.
Gonzalez said in the page 31 of his book “A History of Christian Thought” that, Luther traveled to Rome with a heart filled with hope that he will be healed from his doubts.
“He had arrived at Rome full of hope and faith; he left with painful doubt that the means of salvation offered by the church were indeed valid—and this is the first indication that we have that he allowed himself to doubt the established doctrine of his time.”
These doubts and the reality he saw in Rome were a spark to start the fire that will “contaminate” the world in his time. The fuel was already inside of Luther. The Word of God and His Spirit was working in his soul and through him to share with the world many truths about the Word of God and his salvation. Luther was an imperfect man, yet, he was sincere Christian. God uses people no matter how old or younger they are. The requirement is sincere and pure heart captive by the Word of God .
Reflection #2
Seems very important to me the application that professor Dr. Hanna did in class, when talking about protestant theological heritage and reformation. Is important to us to know that there is not just apostasy in the church history. There are reformations and, God has His people through the history. God always have His “saints” who did not surrendered themselves, yet, they were led through the Holy Spirit. These people in reality wrote the history of God’s people and reformation.
It is very important to know that God is in control of the history. God’s actions can be seen through history. “History is His story”, because God is in control. Through history we can understand the inheritance that God gave to His people. God’s salvation is historical means that this salvation occurred in time and space. Salvation is God dwelling among us writing His story of salvation to share with everyone His presence and life to save us. No matter if the person is pagan or Christian. There is no salvation without historical actions from God and his direct intervention in human life. Jesus was a historical being in time and space and, His death and resurrection was in history. God used some historical ways through which ones He share knowledge of salvation with His creatures: through Scriptures (2Tim. 3:16), through Jesus Christ (John 1:1) and through His church (2 Cor. 3:2, 3), which has the mission to share the gospel with all nations, tribes and languages.
Reflection on the 4TH week
This last week of class was a handful of good ideas for research, which included not only good academic content, but some “revolutionary” ideas for practical ministry. I would like to highlight briefly some of the presentations I enjoyed the most.
1. The importance of the use of technology in ministry –– Although, as an institution SDAs are doing an excellent work in spreading the Gospel through the use of the various technological ways offered theses days, I think that its use in local churches is something to be considered further in our congregations. It is certainly important to explorer the use of Internet, television, and radio, in the reality of each congregation. “How do we fulfill the specific needs of the community where the congregation is located?” is a question to be answer not only by the church members, but also by the community in its vicinities – for this the Internet would play a major role in this work.
2. The clarification of the meaning of the “Cosmic Christ” –– this one probably was the most sensitive theme of the entire session on PTH. I hear the concern of our colleague with the new age cosmic christ built by Chardin, somewhat inspired or motivated by Hegel’s philosophy, and I think it’s a serious alert for all of us pastors to become more acquainted with this satanic schism trying to steal God’s sheep, and learn how to overcome these challenges to God’s glory. At the same time I must agree with Dr. Martin Hanna’s observation of the Cosmic Christ (please note the two bold/italic), which emphasizes the completeness of Christ’s sacrifice, and ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. As pastors and theologians we must be aware of these differences, and be able to clarify them to our members whenever a question appear, always keeping in mind that if we don’t do it, someone will.
Sergio Silva
Reflection #3
Reading Gonzalez’s book we see many disagreements between the reformers. But I believe that those men were seeking and trying to find the truth. God through His Spirit used those men to do reformation. This assumption does not mean that these men were without possibility to make a mistake. One of the disagreements was about Jesus Christ’s divine and human nature. Calvin and Zwingli did not accept Luther’s interpretation about the resurrected body of Christ. They used the Latin phrase: communicatio idiomatum – which was a communication of the divine nature of Christ to the human nature. The divine attribute of omnipresence was controlling the human nature. Luther, for example, used the omnipresence of the Divine Christ “as an argument” to prove the literally presence of Christ in the sacrament. On other hand, Calvin and Zwingli said, “that the ubiquity, ‘(omnipresence)’ of the divine had not been communicated to the body of Christ, and that he could not therefore be present in heaven and on several altars at the same time.” Page 152.
There are much more about the mystery of the incarnated Christ that we can understand. Calvin’s position about the body of Christ seems very confused to me. Calvin said that “although the divinity of the Second Person was fully present in Jesus, it was not circumscribed by his humanity.” Page 152.
According Ellen White, Christ was totally divine and totally human. The human mind cannot understand this so profound concept. I believe that when we’ll be in heaven we’ll understand better, but not everything about incarnation of Christ, that it is mystery. The reformers did not comprehend every point of the Scriptures, and we also, cannot understand everything. But we can put our lives in the God’s hands, to be used like those men were used.
Reflection 4
THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage
Instructor : Dr. Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
By. Ki Seung Jhang
“The founders of the two great Protestant traditions, Luther and Zwingli, were followed by others who at once systematized and mitigated those traditions. As we shall wee in the next chapter, Calvin became the heir to Zwingli’s reformation, and the two may be said to be the founders of the Reformed tradition; but the general trend of Calvin’s theology was a movement away from Zwingli and toward Luther. The same may be said about the man who played a similar role in the Lutheran tradition, Philip Melanchthon, for the development of his theology can be seen as a movement away from Luther and toward Bucer and Calvin. This and the fact that Melanchthon mollified Luther’s theology on a number of other points, gave rise to several controversies within the Luthern churches. Other controversies arose, quite independently of the differences between Melanchthon and Luther, when lesser lights proposed views that seemed to threaten the core of Protestantism as, for instance, in the case of Osiander. These various controversies finally led to the Formula of Concord(1577), around which most of the Lutheran churches rallied.” (p 143)
I can’t understand why the great reformers insisted different doctrines. I believe that God used them for his works. Of course, this book explained the reason that they became to insist different doctrines. But I still have a question how they who was lead by Holy Spirit could do like these. I felt them not to understand each other, and not abandon the self-estems of them. They kept their thoughts which they became to have through their background of education and environment, even though they started with pure mind to know the bible. I feel something wanting from them. Of course, there are different doctrines in the SDA. I learned the importance of the studying bible. This makes me to remember E.G. White’s words. “Satan is a diligent Bible student. He knows that his time is short, and he seeks at every point to counterwork the work of the Lord upon this earth. It is impossible to give any idea of the experience of the people of God who shall be alive upon the earth when celestial glory and a repetition of the persecutions of the past are blended. They will walk in the light proceeding from the throne of God. By means of the angels there will be constant communication between heaven and earth. And Satan, surrounded by evil angels, and claiming to be God, will work miracles of all kinds, to deceive, if possible, the very elect. God's people will not find their safety in working miracles, for Satan will counterfeit the miracles that will be wrought. God's tried and tested people will find their power in the sign spoken of in Exodus 31:12-18. They are to take their stand on the living word: "It is written." This is the only foundation upon which they can stand securely. Those who have broken their covenant with God will in that day be without God and without hope.” (3 TT, p 284)
I believe that the studying bible with pure heart is the way to win over Satan.
Nathaniel Lyles
The issue of philosophy and theology within the Christian tradition is almost as old as Christianity itself. Our history of the Reformation sheds light on this when we consider how the Protestants emphasized Scripture in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church which focused on its tradition and teaching. Although both the theologian and philosopher are engaged in the process of talking about God, the position they must be care of is where they begin talking about God - from Scripture or from knowledge. One of the consequences of only accepting knowledge as the primary criterion for understanding God and doing theology today is simply a lose sight of our Christian heritage. It is a deviation from the distinctive ideas of the Protestant faith. Our theology becomes ineffective and corrupt when it gradually changes to affirm views which are not based on the Spirit's leading but based on man's thinking.
When I saw Luther's life through this class, I was really impressed by him. God has been leading human being's history and let us understand through that.
I know that we can study using history and heritages.
Sometimes, people just follow with out thinking which is judgement; what is right and why or what is wrong and why. people want to follow the way many people went to.
I could consider through this study.
Most protestants died for what they believed and I saw what they had done. That was the way Jesus walked in this world. But I knew that all protestants were not perfect. Their way were not all the way that I should follow.
I can choose the way I should follow through the fruits they left. Holy Spirit will lead me to right way until I get to heaven.
During our discussion in last week, we talked about reformers; Luther, Zwingli, Erasmus and Calvin. Through them, protestants could find their direction where they had to go.
All the reformers had their own theory understanding Jesus and salvation, and they gave us lots of their theories.
When I studied what reformers understood, I found out Jesus again. And I can understand why protestants got betting their life for keeping their faith.
Especially, Zwingli approached the scriptures as a Christian humanistic hence his return to the Bible was one of the reasons that we got reformation.
God has been using people who want to meet Jesus as their savior. And God works with them.
Through the people reformers I am cheered up. It makes me work and praise God.
Knowing History is really important. If we do not know where we are from, we would not be able to stand on Jesus' side.
Continuation and rupture
by Elmer Guzman
There is no denomination that springs in a vacuum, but each movement stands upon the development of faith of previous system of thought. In this transition process, there is continuation and discontinuation of doctrine, development of beliefs, and special characteristics that the founders carry into the new denomination. The motivation of a new denomination it is not necessarily religious, but it can be political, geographical, or even better a mixture of all the elements.
In the case of Seventh-day Adventism it is well recorded the indebtedness of early pioneers to the American Methodist Church, founded by John Wesley. While Adventist scholars have dealt with Wesleyan-Adventist relations regarding the topics of Spirituality, Christian Perfection, the relation between salvation and justification, there is still room for further research in the eschatological aspects of Wesleyan theology compared with the Adventist.
This class Protestant Theological Heritage can trace the Adventist Movement back on Methodism, Anglicanism, yet the development and the fidelity of the movement to the Sola Scriptura principle made our church unique, as the remnant in progress in history.
Reflection 4
In Gonselez book on the knowledge of God, he points out that, “Adam did not just sin by disobeying but by incredulity. They did not believe that what God told them was true. I agree with Gonzalez’s point but I also think the “root of sin” is distrust or disbelieve. Distrust that God is not who He says He is and cannot do what He says He can do. Unlike Calvin who says that ‘incredulity leads to ambition and pride’, I suggest that distrust and disbelieve of what God says or can do leads to self-sufficiency. When we want to be self-sufficient we start finding ways and means of living on our own apart from God. The “I” factor which I call the basis of sin.
Linking the “I” factor with Calvin’s institutes when he discusses about the knowledge of God, he talks about the insufficiency of human condition to know the “proper’ knowledge of God but his emphasis of not so much on God’s attitude towards us but rather on our proper attitude toward God reminds me of our discussion in class, ‘earning righteousness’ rather than ‘righteousness imputed’ on us.
I believe the greatest difference of Christianity and other pagan religion is the God who pursues us , God who takes the initiative to love and reveal himself to us rather than us taking the initiative to do something so that God can in return do something for us. It is my conviction that it is in the understanding that, it is not “our doing” but “his doing” that makes us to be filled with wonder and awe of his amazing love and in return respond to His love in a proper attitude toward God, an attitude of obedience and gratitude.
Reflection #4
Church and State in Calvin and Anabaptists
The Anabaptists view about relationship between church and state was strict and orthodox. According to them, the state is unclean and Christians cannot be in contact with it.
On the other hand, find in Calvin an “question of how Christians must view the state and relate to it.” The argument for this thought is that “the state is created by God… to serve divine justice.”
Using this thinking, “as a result, the state has the legitimate right to impose the penalty of death, to raise taxes, and to wage just and necessary wars.” Page 173.
The state is necessary to make the laws and also to certify if these laws will be fulfilled. The fulfillment of these laws is the security for order and prevents the social injustice. The acceptance and fulfillment of the law made by the state, however, it must be proportional to its compatibility with the God’s Laws. Since the state or church starts to act against the will of God and against His law, we must reject then and put our faith in the Word of God.
The EUA the new continent with a religious proposition. Which was to have free land without union between state and church. A free state, for where Christians came to begin a new continent to worship God freely and without any interference of the state.
I agree to the state has the right to charge taxes, which are necessary for the good of the society. However, talking about war and death penalty, we have to have a theocratic state like was in the ancient Israel.
Today wars are made only with the proper interest of each government. Inside of these governments, particular interests exist. Who paid for everything is the people, which is oppressed with more and more taxes and their families who are decimated by the loss of their children who die in these unjust wars.
About death penalty, if the law system of each country try to apply with justice, will be impossible because humans being are sinners and, its decisions will be injustice. We find death penalty in the Old Testament. But the only security application it is in a theocratic state.
Christians, according to the Bible, has to pay taxes and obey its governments. But should better if they did not involve their selves with politics, unless if they are direct instructed by God in regarding of it. But this is very difficult to know.
The Anabaptists consider the state unclean. On other hand Calvin said that God creates the state.
I did not agree with Calvin when he said “the state has the legitimate right to impose the penalty of death, to raise taxes, and to wage just and necessary wars.” Page 173.
In my understanding state has to be separated from the church. They are different institutions and cannot be together. Christians should obey their governments and pay taxes unless if state laws are contraries to God's law.
Name: Joel Rosana
Reflection # 3
In what seems to be an issue of delight in the sphere of the church has become a point of contention – missiology. The current church exists for this major reason to preach the good news to the whole world and prepare the nations, peoples, races, tribe for the kingdom of God. The Christian fraternity has this major concern; who is fit for the kingdom? And in answering this concern many groups of people have been put out of the picture simply because of their religious beliefs.
In class we learnt that the gospel message belongs to all peoples and Christians who have received the message should be delighted to pass it to many who have no opportunity of this good news. Regardless of their radical beliefs the Muslims are part of God’s people who never chose to be ones in many cases but have found themselves in the religion. One member presented his paper in class in the context that we need to reach these folks and preach to them but allow them to worship in their religion. I don’t agree to that sentiment because it is the work of the Lord to convict the soul and in that manner when one has received the truth as it is in the Bible he will willing be able to lean to the truth as much as the culture of his former religion may impact his living.
My case of contention is that; missiology is God’s work and all who are doing it should rely to God for Providence of his words and the results are manifested by the Lord. The Bible clearly states, ‘He is that Author and the Finisher of our Faith.’ Leave everything to him and allow him to use in spreading the Gospel.
Name: Rosana Joel
Reflection # 4
In the conclusion of this class dominant with the Christian Heritage, I have come to discover that in all major areas of reformation, there was a issue that was so critical that the early reformers did not have the better and Biblical perspective to it. In the Catholic Church, the word of the Lord was embraced yes, but in it there were some traditions that were incorporated into the church that led to the protest. Then came the magisterial reformers who did all they can to alienate themselves from the Catholic Church so that they can be Biblical and revolve their issues in the Bible, but amazingly they were short of the truth. Some of them embraced the same philosophy of the Eucharist to the protestant reformation as it was in the Mother Church. Due to the fact that some of their teachings were not biblical, there came another group of reformers known as the Radicals. They are given the name because of their fearless stand. This is one group that was really persecuted by the fellow Protestants. They were close to the Bible teachings though they were short in some of their teachings. It is from this level that Adventism was born and special revelation was given to Ellen G. White who with other reformers made what the Church is of now. In the end all reformations have been characterized with persecution. Though it is said the truth is painful and many will use all they can to do away with it, assuredly it is the only thing that will stand when all come to the end.
Andrew Pearce
Reflection #4
On pages 402 and 403 we read about the Catholic Church’s missionary approach to the Chinese. The Catholics were so adamant about pushing their own agenda for the Chinese on the believers there that they ended up losing all of their opportunity to witness for a very long time. Because the emperor allowed the continuation of the Chinese customary rites, the Pope ended up excommunicating the believers there. In turn, the Chinese Emperor is recorded to have excommunicated the Pope in return! The Catholic church had such an incredible ministry with the Chinese because Ricci was willing to take time to understand their culture and work with them the way they were, but the Church wanted to make the Chinese be like they were themselves. This mentality makes me think of all the missionary efforts that have resulted in “North American” contextualized Christianity being pushed upon peoples all over the world. The Adventist church has not been innocent in this either. Wherever missionaries have gone, most of the time they have attempted to teach the locals to sing the songs we sing back home, to worship the way we worship back home, to dress the way we dress back home. It is really surprising when we look at the arrogance that we have had, and our heritage has had. I think this is a good example of attempting to teach others the Bible without learning to contextualize it to their own culture. We are sometimes so afraid of the word “contextualization” because we are afraid that it automatically means we are going to have to compromise the gospel. But there are many ways we can contextualize the message and still remain true to the Gospel. I think if we look closely at the work of Jesus, that we will recognize His approaches at contextualization. If we look at Paul, we will see his contextualization. But these remained faithful to the scriptures while they were trying to make them most comprehendible to their listeners. I would propose that one of our greatest hindrances has been that we have become so used to the Gospel as it has been contextualized for ourselves, that we blindly think this is the only way, and don’t even recognize that we do indeed have our own contextual understandings of the Scriptures. If we are to be successful at reaching the world for Christ, we must be willing to understand where we have come from first, and then seek to discover where others are coming from as well. Just as Christ has met us where we are and called us to follow after Him, He desires to do the same to those believing in other faiths across the globe.
I want to spend my final reflection paper talking about three things. The first thing is something we talked about earlier in the class. Gonzales mentioned in the chapter on Martin Luther that theology is biographical. In other words, theology does not just fall out down out of the sky, but it grows out of the experiences of the theologians themselves. This is probably more evidenced in the life and theology of Martin Luther. His emphasis on justification by faith is largely due to the fact that he himself struggle to attain righteousness by works. As a budding theologian I can identify with Luther and his emphasis as well as his struggle. When I heard the gospel message my hard heart was melted by the love of Christ. But after accepting Him I thought it was my responsibility to make myself righteous. Much to my dismay it never worked out the way I wanted to. I did all kinds of things in order to make myself feel accepted of God. It was all out of sincerity, though sincerely wrong. It has been during my time here at Seminary and my last two years that God has been teaching me total dependence upon Him. I feel the need to emphasize righteousness by faith as did Martin Luther because of my bad experience in trying to do it on my own.
Secondly, the discussion we had in class related to antinomianism raised several questions in my mind. How should we as Adventist teach the Law without appearing to be legalistic? And why is it that we emphasize the Law so much? Is it possible that we have overemphasized the Law and created a bunch of “works-oriented” believers? It is quite possible that John Agricola rejected Luther and Melanchthon because of their recommendation that the law be preached to bring sinners to repentance. I’m not supporting Agricola in his view. I think he is a heretic for his statements about the law. What I am saying is that I can see a need to teach the law in a more Christ-centered way and not overemphasize it, especially to believers.
I think Adventists have stressed the law. I think a large part of why we teach the law the way we do is because of the Sabbath being in the Law. I think we feel as if the only way to defend the Sabbath is by emphasizing the Law. We need to teach the Law but not in such a way that people believe there is power in obeying the Law.
Lastly, the class discussion we had on missions was a good discussion. I want to address something that was said in relationship to social, humanitarian aid and ministry. It was stated that we should respond to human needs with spiritual food. I’m not all too sure that this is what was meant by the student. I just wanted to say that the way Christ reached people was by meeting their physical needs and then providing their spiritual needs. There are times when we must get to the heart of spiritual matters with people as Christ did in the case of Nicodemus. Other than this incident, I am unaware of Jesus being so straightforward with nonbelievers without first meeting their physical needs. I also don’t believe that we should only meet people’s physical needs just to meet them. We have a responsibility to lead people to Christ. Whether it takes one day or one year, we have a duty to share the love of Christ with them intentionally.
IN RESPONSE TO Ryan Hablitzel: The Scriptures without doubts are and must be our only rule of faith. Although the reformers had sustained the Sola-scriptura, they had not been successful to breach completely with Catholic tradition. I believe that protestant heritage it must be interpreted in a holistic way. But I also believe that is dangerous the possibility that “truth can stem” from multiple sources such as “from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The truth, I believe, must be stemmed from the Word of God, and the reason is because this word is inspired by God. Therefore God’s word must be our only rule of faith and truth, conducting all aspects of the life. Although I agree with you in regarding what you said: “I suspect that this trend of using personal experience as a source of truth will continue to gain strength in our generation leading to a movement away from scriptural authority and compromise based on personal intellect”, I cannot agree in what you suggest “that truth can stem from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The church, for example is not the source of truth, but the instrument to apply the truth that was revealed to it. Science today, for example, it is based in atheism and evolutionism. Experience of many Christians today it is based only in the flesh’s passions, not in what God said in the Scripture. To have a better idea regarding this topic, is just to look at the condition of the matrimony today. I believe that we can use many sources, but these sources have to be measured by the Word of God. But in my way of thinking, many sources cannot be considered source of truth.
RESPONSE TO JASON: Hi Jason, I really appreciated your comment about the discussion that we had in class regarding the truth. I personally too believe in the absolute truth. I believe too that many denominations have discovered elements of the absolute truth, but not the absolute truth. I also believe that we don’t have the complete truth. Only God has all truth. But I also believe that God have just one church on the face of the earth. Therefore I believe that God gave us more truth to share with others. If we have more about truth, much more responsibility. Also, I believe that we have to investigate more and more to grow in the absolute truth.
Byron Shea Crockett
IT has been several weeks since the last PTH class but I was having a discussion with some people on a social online network. This conversation stemmed from a stance from an organization that doesn’t believe in the investigative judgment. As the conversation continued the young lady felt as if Daniel 8 and 9 were not factual and since I was not willing to change my stance on the 70 weeks prophecy and 2300-day prophecy. I was then said to be partly to blame for the loss of members to the church.
I believe this is relevant to PTH because there has to be in my opinion a group of individuals in this church who are not afraid to reform. I think this reformation should be among those in the SDA church who are willing to go back to studying the Word! Who will use less secondary sources and who will truly believe in sola scriptura.
This doesn’t mean that we have to throw out our doctrines it instead means that we should ask for the faith of our founders! We need the faith of Christ, of Ellen White, of James White.
Is the Adventist Church perfect? Of course not, I’d be the first to say we miss the mark in some areas. However we are the only Church who even attempts to believe in Sola Scriptura. I’m A Christian first! I am Adventist not because; if Christ walked this earth He would be Adventist! Christ would be… Christ. I am Adventist because I have faith that it is the closest to how Christ would walk. I move as Christ calls me to.
As a church we cant be afraid to reform but we have to be aware of false movements!
Blog Assignment #3 … Virtual Tithe/Church.
J. Harold Alomía
One of our colleagues presented an interesting paper that showing a progressive spirit in adopting some of the benefits of the electronic era. It is not the first time that I hear something like this. The intention is to make things quick and easy, convenience. It is the idea of avoiding the hassle of taking the tithe or offering to church, or sometimes one not having the right amount of change, or forgetting the change, or churches not accepting a check. It would be easier to just log on to our church website, make a credit card payment, and be done with it.
My caution is not against the presentation in class, nor the innovation; it is more a caution regarding the wave of ‘electronically’ being nowadays. I wonder if all of a sudden we are changing the shift of our worship to a ‘convenience’ basis and not to a worship surrendering basis. Our pews are too hard, our buildings are too boring, our services are too plain, our pulpits to old fashioned, our pastors need to tweet as they preach, be on Facebook, and pick up the offering by credit card, click to wash the feet.
These things are not bad in themselves, they can be useful, the problem begins when we miss the purpose of the worship service and assume that it has to be convenient and comfortable, avoiding hassles and difficulties; comfort instead of discipline. I don’t speak for asceticism nor worshiping in cold stone churches with no heat, it is the heart of the matter that I hope to address.
In a news piece published on November 15, 2009, CNN addresses this growing reality of the online church (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/13/online.church.services/index.html). I find myself not so enthusiastic about the notion of online church, and all other electronic devices for the convenience of the worshiper. It seems that worship sometimes is more focused on making the worshiper feel better rather than focused at praising and worshiping God.
Worship is the action that we have when we come to God’s presence. Granted it is an action that is not limited to a physical place yet there is a community aspect to worship that we cannot deny and that must not be ignored. The convenience of the online-card swiping-web-based-worship experience cannot be denied. Just wake up a Sabbath morning, relax in your pajamas, click on some buttons and while you sit in the comfort of your bed sipping at hot cereal-coffee, listen to a sermon, tweet about it, and click on the ‘I accept’ button to respond to the podcast – live stream sermon of the pastor.
Convenience for sure. Some might even say that it is worship because of the attitude of the person on the others side of the screen.
That is not the issue, the issue is that once again a society that hungers for relationships and meaning, hides behind the computer screen avoiding the reality of a community that meets to worship and fellowship. Going back to the original thought that spurred this mental exercise; tithing and offering have the purpose of character building and educating. The tithe when released in the offering plate is to develop my faith in God, my trust that he cares for me. It is an exercise of relinquishing our right to keep ‘what we earned’ and turn it to God so that he can work in our lives.
The tithing experience of separating the money I receive, placing it in the envelope and offering plate, is more than just a romanticized notion of “good ol’ days” it is an exercise of faith and surrender. No matter what easiness we might give to the process, the one who’s heart is not willing to tithe will not tithe. Perhaps in name of a holistic approach, that same experience can happen with the card swiping, or the web access; however reality is that the more we electrify our lives, the more machinery and mechanical our relationships become, including the most important one we need to have.
Blog Assignment #4 – “Sola Scriptura”?
J. Harold Alomía.
One semester later from the class, I am encountering an assignment that is making me think of the concept of Sola Scriptura that we shared in PTH. The main source of these thoughts is an SDA book that assumes to uphold the principle of Sola Scriptura, and claims to be a stalwart defense of the ‘traditional and time proven principle of the Reformation, the Adventist pioneers, and the church.’
We went over the terms of prima, sola, tota scriptura; and we have argued back and forth over what these terms mean. I am not concerned with that particular discussion for now.
I simply find it interesting that the defense of sola scriptura in some circles of our denomination seems 'solely' inconsistent. You see, we pride ourselves to carry the torch of the Protestant Reformation, we boast of continuing in the footsteps of Luther and Zwingli and the great reformers when it comes to biblical interpretation, we use the battle cry ‘sola scriptura’ when refuting the lies of Babylon… and yet we have our own SDAd version of ‘sola scriptura’.
It is in these circles when any other source that is not from the Bible is used, then it is the use of a method of interpretation that opens the door for high-criticism that in turn opens the door for unbelief and undermines the truth in Scripture. It must be the ‘Bible and only the Bible!’
Yet when I look closer to these vocal parties in the denomination, I find the inconsistency of ‘sola scriptura’ meaning: the Bible ‘alone’ plus Ellen White’s writings. That is not the Reformation intent of Sola Scriptura. It seems a tad inconsistent for those who uphold the Reformation torch to take the ‘time honored principle’, change it, give it an Adventist nuance and continue to call it the same thing, and say that it is the same thing that Luther used.
This is not a personal proscription of the prophetic gift of Ellen White. It is asking ourselves as a church, do we really believe in sola scriptura? Do we operate in our interpretation within the realms of ‘sola scriptura’? We might say yes. Then do we include the writings of EGW in this principle? And if we do is it still ‘sola scriptura’ in the same way Luther understood it? Can we still affirm that for us the term carries the same spirit of the Reformation?
If EGW is part of our understanding of ‘sola scriptura’, what position does she take? Technically we would state that she takes a subservient position to the Bible, and that she does not contradict the Bible ever (which I believe in). However it seems that many a group place the Bible subservient to EGW, and make EGW a trump card for any theological or exegetical exercise that one might attempt when studying Scripture. Others ignore her completely, which is perhaps a problem of equal perniciousness then the one that places her on top of the book she defended and upheld all her life.
Should we then say that we believe in sola scriptura? Perhaps yes, and at the same time, we should be aware that the nuance of the principle for us is then different then it is for the Baptist down the street, or the agnostic across the corner.
Perhaps it is a personal debate that no one else suffers or sees. I simply find it inconsistent for those who pride themselves in defending biblical truth and sola scriptura to shun any other source other than the Bible, regardless of how much good it might have; and then bring in another source, albeit inspired to bolster their claims and positions, and yet not the Bible. If I would just observe from the outside, it would seem quite inconsistent. The challenge seems to be in the ability that we can have as ministers to integrate sola scriptura in our lives, and to let the Truth of Christ shine, without disregarding or over regarding the added council God gave his church.
Post a Comment