I am commenting on Helen McClellan's post on the Mass Production of Manuscripts and the Creation of Schools.
I too find it interesting how hard the early reformers worked on getting the Bible mass produced for the general population. It is sad that many Christians today take the Bible for granted and do not take the time to read its words. Could we as ministers (this includes teachers as well as pastors) impress upon the minds of Christians the importance of this book?
As for classes on Adventist Heritage, I never had any such class while in elementary or high school. It was not until I reached college that I actually had a class about our Adventist Heritage, and then at that, this class was not required for all students. I believe that it is up to us to change that. We need to make sure that we are presenting our heritage to our youth and our fellow Adventists so that they understand where we have come from.
Thanks Nick for your comments! I too believe that it is up to each of us to make changes not only in our schools, but in our churches. There are so many youth and adults alike who really do not understand the church doctrines, much less how we becae SDA's.
I must say I did not know what this course would be like, but thus far I am enjoying and learning so much. What I enjoy the most is how the teacher uses the Bible and expounds on an idea or text and not just recites what is already in the textbook. I like classes that use the scripture as its main textbook.
What did you think about chapter 3? I had never heard of Zwingli until now! What a differnce between him and Luther and other reformers.
This is a comment for Hellen McClellan. As I was reading your paper, I found that it helped to highlight the sacredness of the Bible for me. Here were people so totally committed to getting this supremely important text out to the general public that they were willing to die for it. Yet, I wonder if the fact that they were able to mass produce the Bible led to people eventually thinking of it as less sacred. I find it interesting that in a day where words can be typed and distributed to the masses without even using real paper or ink, that we have come to think less and less of the importance of the printed Bible. I myself am an avid Biblegateway.com user, and often take having the Bible just a few clicks away for granted. For another class, I have been studying about Muslims. During my studies, I have seen first hand how important the Qu’ran is to them. They treat it with reverence and awe, and I am pretty sure that they would be offended to see how many of us Christians treat our holy text. While the Qu’ran has experienced the same amount of technological breakthroughs that the Bible has – has been mass produced on the printing presses and can be found on the internet – Muslims have not really “forgotten” about the history, importance and holiness of their text as much as Christians have.
I too understand a little bit from where you are coming from. I agree that absolute truth is hard to come by. We can claim to have the truth, but I know that the truth that we have is only as close as we are humanly possible to get. God has not revealed everything to us and probably will not until He comes again. Therefore we cannot claim to have absolute truth, we can only claim to have truth.
Post moderns are definitely a hard group to pin down and have a similar regard for intellectual honesty that you do. The question is, how do we reach these postmoderns in a way that shows that we have intellectually studied the Bible? The answer I believe is to look in our past and how diligently our Adventist church founders focused much of their energy on finding what the Bible truly had to say. And I think instead of looking for Absolute truth, they looked for present truth.
Good point about Luther having much more to say than "Justification by Faith." It seems that Luther had a comment for every aspect of religious thought in his time. Besides he was a respected Doctor of Theology at Whittenberg with a wealth of experience and study.
While Luther did challenge the church on many issues, we should not think that he was against the church. Luther was not against the church and never intended to break apart the church. His intentions were to reform the church from within. This gives us insight into what happened with Adventism. Adventist never wanted to start a new denomination, but rather wanted to reform the church to understand present truth. Unfortunately it became necessary to form a new organization in order to facilitate the spreading of present truth.
I liked your point about intellectual honesty. I think it is necessary for us to step back and continually reevaluate the other side of an argument. I had come to the conclusion that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of an argument (much like Dr. Hanna is teaching us). It is important to acknowledge truth from a opponent in order to gain a greater understanding of truth.
While the Bible does not offer absolute truth, it does offer truth. I would argue that the majority of religions outside of Christianity are devoid of truth. My assumption is based on the fact that most religions outside of Christianity are based on the goal of become as God or a God yourself. This is the origonal sin in Christianity (Lucifer purposed to become like, equal to, God). Might I argue that people in other religions might understand truth through the leading of the Holy Spirit or Creation but typically not through the teachings of their religion. Since the Bible has consistently proven itself (prophecy) where all others have failed, it is a valid source of truth and a revelation from God containing truth, but not offering absolute truth.
I have been enjoying the discussion on absolute truth. And I agree in spirit with all that has been said. This comment is just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my position. I do believe that we have access to absolute truth since we have access to Jesus who is the incarnate Truth. We also have access to Absolute Truth through Scripture which is inspired truth. At the same time, because we are not absolute, we should not claim to possess or to understand all truth. Only God who is absolute can possess or understand Truth absolutely.
As the introduction to the SDA fundamental belief statements indicates: “ Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.”
This is a response to Ryan's comment. I totally agree with everything that you said. It does seem as we move throughout history that the standard for truth has shifted. And while all of the standards that have been proposed throughout the eras have been valid, only the Bible should be the real standard for truth. Furthermore, your comment sparked a thought in me that we do have to mindful of the time that we are living in and adjust our style (not our truth) to meet it.
This is a response to Tyler's comment. I swear I didn't read your before I wrote mine! :-D There were a lot of similarities in what we said and so I appreciated what you had to say. The other thing that I appreciated (that I did not mention) was this idea that the either/or dichotomoy, (as seen in the divinity of Christ example) is not a mode of thought that lends itself to true biblical understanding.
I agree with you in the fact that much of Luther’s life is omitted except for the fact that he presented justification by faith. The only thing I knew about Luther growing up was that he nailed a document on the door of some church. He was willing to die for what he believed. You presented the statement at the end of your post which says that “we as Seventh-day Adventist have inherited the purpose of studying scripture and dying for our beliefs.” While I understand the basis of your comment, I questioned whether someone could really inherit that trait of martyrdom. It seems to be something that comes out of a belief in truth, and faith in God. Not everyone could be a martyr, and some people will give up their faith and recant like many before did when facing death.
Response to Jason’s post . I agree with you Jason in the fact that we should not present truth rigidly. It does a disservice to the mission of the church in spreading the gospel of Jesus, and we cannot afford to be dogmatic. I must admit that I was in agreement with your position of being able to sit down and listen to everyone and examined their ideas biblically in order to formulate truth. Luther says that truth is formed by listening to the Holy Spirit and by searching the Scriptures. I began to wander if the idea that you presented is not advocating for ecumenism rather than truth. It appears that there is more of a compromise of ideas than the formation of what can be deemed as truth. Truth cannot be changed in spite of what anyone may think, feel or discuss. It is only then that I would be willing to die to defend it like Luther.
I'm commenting on Tyler Kraft's entry. Hey Tyler, I hear you... trying to grasp the postmodern concept that is often tossed around in the classroom is difficult. I guess sociologist and philosophers will always attempt to compartmentalize history into overly simplistic terms such as modernity, post-modernity, etc...in their effort to tell the story of history. But I think we've got to be careful how much we buy into all these man made theories. Over the past few years I've heard that Seventh-day Adventists need to come up with another way of evangelizing to accommodate the post-modern era we live in...I've also heard that the only reason that so many are giving their hearts to Jesus in India is because our evangelistic model is based in modernity and it matches up well with India, as it is 100 years or so behind the West. GWF Hegel tried to compartmentalize history by assigning philosophic labels to a timeline. He did this in an effort to tell the story of history. But Hegel wasn't what you and I would call a Christian. I believe there is a danger in leaning too heavily on these philosophic labels that attempt to tell us where people are at and what we need to do in light of this supposed classification.
Let's say we are living in a "post-modern" age...where no one believes in black or white... either/or...or Absolute Truth. I believe the Bible has the answer to us even in this type of a climate. The book of Judges repeats a phrase over and over in its pages. "The children of Israel had no king, every man did what was right in his own eyes." The vacuum created by this, was Israel's hunger for a National Monarchy. So if we are living in a time where people are struggling with accepting Absolute Reality, I believe the hunger that's in their hearts is for something SOLID that they can turn to and lean on. I think we still must present Jesus in all His charms as a Saviour of all mankind, unmovable, unshakable in any modern current.
I think if we make the gospel messy and complicated in an effort to reach people...it will only perpetuate their desperation. Revivals have never been accomplished through apologetics or philosophical arguments. Paul tried to match wits with the Pagan Philosophers in Rome, to which he had little success. So when he got to Corinth, his new strategy was to "know nothing among you, except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:1,2) Paul was much more successful by simply lifting up Jesus and Him crucified. Blessings brother! Jeff
and then attempting to teach an Absolute reality in Jesus Christ to someone who doesn't believe in anything Absolute is challenging
Hey Jason (Jason Hines), I agree with you. Christians have made some maxims over the years in regard to science and revelation that we've been embarrassed by. (i.e. the world is flat) And yes I've seen the same thing, people are looking for honesty, and I would add transparency as well. But I get wary when we start talking about opening up the door to allow philosophy and even some denominations to help us discern Biblical Truth. It's been my experience in my study...to find many embracing a philosophy that calls for ecumenism at all costs. Ecumenism was one of the main tenants of Vatican II in 1965, and it has been building steam for the last 40 years plus. I believe that God is calling His people together in a "ecumenical" sense, but that "ecumenical church" will be based on sola scriptura...and the call is "to come out of her My people." Unfortunately we find in Catholicism, the UN, and even in our own persuasion a message of prima scriptura that opens the door to other norms of revelation or truth to enter in...creating a hermeneutic that places us in a position of recopitualating to Rome and its view of prima scriptura. May God give us the discernment we need in the often muddy waters of higher learning. Blessings! Jeff
This is a response to Jason's comment. I agree completely with your point. We need to be more flexible in our interpretations; or at least understand that we don't have ALL absolute truth, but partial absolute truth.
I am responding to Ryan's comment. I like your thought process about the reformation's shift in the source of truth. I think it is necessary to understand what it was the reformation actually did as opposed to what it did not do.
I am commenting on Nick Jones reflections. I appreciate the connection you made with Martin Luther's devotion to study the Bible and his willingness to die for it with the Adventist movement. I wish it were true that all Adventist are die-hard "Sola Scripturist", but I believe that by and large we are.
I am commenting on Tyler Kraft's paper. Tyler your reflections on your struggle with presenting the Bible to post-moderns really inspire me to study the Word more diligently. In my early Christian experience I used "proof-texts" to win arguments but it never won people to a relationship with Christ. Thanks for your struggle. Keep wrestling!
A comment on Ryan Hablitzel Would be plausible to suggest that there was a time when there was no such a discussion about where the truth lies, because God was the only truth to be known? I wonder though if the Bible, which tells us the history of God as the creator of all things, the Guide, Redeemer is not the absolute truth, what would be (John 8:32; 14:6; 17:17, 19)? I completely agree with Dr. Hanna when he says that we do not have full understanding of the absolute truth, but the Bible, in my opinion, does have ABSOLUTE TRUTH… after all, it does have Jesus. “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).
I appreciate very much the concerns of those who warn about the dangers of non-biblical philosophy, including the philosophy of Hegel. I share this concern. This is why I present the biblical revelation as the key to discerning the mixture of truth and error in extra-biblical philosophical systems. Biblical revelation also is the key to discerning the value of wholistic biblical philosophy. Scripture illuminates our understanding of the Creator and His creation throughout the various stages of history.
The concept of God’s leading in a progressive understanding of truth during various periods of history is a biblical concept. “The path of the just is as a shining light that shines more and more until the perfect day” (Prov 4:18). “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his. And He changes the times and the seasons. He removes kings, and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan 2:20-21).
The knowledge for which Daniel gives thanks includes the knowledge the he and his friends gained in the university of Babylon. “God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days . . . the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. . . . and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. . . . And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm” (Dan 1:17-20).
My main concern, however, is that we understand that it is not enough to profess a commitment to sola Scriptura. We must also practice a commitment to sola Scriptura which causes us to respect all of Scripture (tota Scriptura). This is what I mean by a wholistic biblical perspective. So if Scripture teaches that God has revealed Himself in creation and in human history, then we should believe what Scripture teaches.
This is a comment concerning Helen McClellan’s “The Mass Production of Manuscripts and the Creation of Schools.” I became an Adventist when I was in 6th grade, so I don’t have the background of many Adventist who remember the way things used to be. I attended a ministry workshop regarding children’s Sabbath school and found out that there used to be themes each quarter that highlighted Adventist doctrine. I had never encountered this before, but realize the lack in my own church and have found an old theme lesson on Ellen White that I am now using. My point is that I think many other people don’t know how it used to be, which is why I agree that we should be teaching our history more than we do. And each of us can do our part in our corner of the world.
This is a comment concerning Jason Hines's post on 6/11/2009 2:43 PM. I appreciated your addition to the discussion concerning postmodern's search for honesty. When we are honest with others and ourselves, that is when we become authentic, which is what the world is looking for. I also agree that we need some humility in realizing that the remnant church doesn’t have a hold of the total absolute truth. We have much to offer though and need to find ways to communicate it.
This is a comment concerning Meade Adam's post. "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." I agree with this point you brought out 100% and just to add on to that statement reaction movement rarely bring something new to the table most of the time they come from a desire to undo what was previously done.
This is a comment concerning jjwalper's post. "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." This is a great point you brought out and i just want to state that no reformer has or will have it 100% right but God uses people as much as He according to where they are, and even though Luther didn't have it all right he made huge strides considering the time he lived in.
Who am I to question everything, or anyone? I’m just an ordinary man with limited vision and understanding of the Most High. Nonetheless, while I recognize my limitations and shortcomings, I am also able to figure out that free will is a gift granted to me by God; thus, I can make use of this gift to accept, or not the TRUTH (John 14:6) revealed to me in the Bible (Prima, Tota, Sola Scriptura). As a result I’ll have to deal with the consequences of my choices, for better or worse. So I wonder: “is it to respect people’s choices the same as to “leave them to the hyenas?”” And my conclusion is NO, after all when Christ returns, those who choose to accept Him will go to heaven with Him, but those that didn’t will be really left to the hyenas. Conclusively, I believe that my “job” as a Christian, is to present the TRUTH, which is Jesus Christ; it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convince the people from their sins, and finally it is their “job” is to accept… or not.
My husband is always trying to get me to join facebook and I'm like, I don't have time to talk to anyone. And now I find myself enjoying reading your insights and sharing mine. I just wanted to thank Mr. Hanna for encouraging us to share our thoughts, ideas, and even questions.
I am currently reading chapter 10 in our text book about Calvin and have enjoyed his insight on education. I truly believe we need not model his view on education, but we need to teach more from the bible. I'm working on the paper (15 page project) and would enjoy hearing about your view on Christian education.
Perhaps you haven't gotten to that chapter yet, but I would still like to hear your ideas.
I too ejoyed learning about the absolute truth. However I get a little confussed when everyone presents their views. I understood where Mr. Hanna was going but then someone said something in class and I was confussed. It wasn't until Mr. Hanna explained the nature of Christ 100% human and divine that I understood.
I also enjoyed listening about the sanctuary. I havn't had the opportunity of studying the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, but I look forward to taking tha course in the future.
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.
You talked about different perspectives. The same incident can be translated differently depending on where you are standing and who you are. We usually think that we are right when others don't agree with them. But in many cases, we are wrong. So I agree with that we need to be more tolerant.
This is a comment for Tyler Kraft. Thanks for your comments. Today, many christians doesn't take bibles at their hand as they are going to churchs because most church are showing them all tests fo the bibles and hymnals during their worship. Nobody feel to come the church with the bible and hymnal. I don't like this. We have read the bible with our eyes, ears, and feeling with hand. I believe that it is very important that we read the bible with our eyes even during the worship.
I didn't know that Muslim have not really "forgotten" about the history, importance and holiness of their thext as much as christian have. Christian history has been changed.So many truths has been changed.I believe that we remnant must keep the history of the truth.
Comments on the Reflections by Taurus Montgomery Thank you for your posting. I appreciate when you said that “we must appreciate the Protestant Reformation and acknowledge that the majority of our teachings are not that unique.” I fully agree since our heritage has been the Scriptures itself. Specifically, it is true because SDA church was the result of an awakening among several churches. However, it made me wonder when you pointed out that “the main difference we have is and the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, “ well it is true, but I would see a bigger picture regarding the nature the Bible, nature of God, those issues I would argue were not the entirely for the protestant reformation.
Thank you for your posting. Well, yes!! I fully agree with your perception of Luther’s role in the history of protestant reformation. God really led him to face the challenges of that period of time. However, I would ask you, maybe I am wrong, Would you say that everything in tradition is incorrect? I mean, Is to be rejected all the tradition?
I totally agree with your perception of what we stand. people like to talk about their situation. The situation always change according to where they stand. That is funny. And also I agree that all tradition is not right.
Martin Luther did not all right but God used him for Godself. I agree with that point. When we want to live for God, God will use us to work his salvation. I really thank God that He uses person who is not perfect the most important thing is God makes us perfect. God never fails.
This is a comment for Ryan Hablitzel. I agree with his opinion. I saw many people who are Adventist attending at Sunday churches for a few reasons which has lost interest in SDA. I also feel that SDA needs a reformation, not new denomination. We need to be reformed on the spirit of the truth.
I as an individual benefited a lot from the discussions we had in this week with dr.hannah what impressed me most was his unique approach on some of the most delicate discussions which for sure are so sensitive to discuss more especially in our orthodox Adventism .some of the professors can evade this topics because they can think that they are contradicting the doctrines of their church and not only that ,they will jeopardize their employment. For instance issues which we all understand for instance the divine nature of Christ and the human nature of Christ.Jesus was one hundred percent God and one hundred percent human, how do we now reconcile the absolute truth because for sure the nature of man is totally different from that of God.how was it possible for Christ to bear the two natures and yet dint collide with his two natures?.The professor tackled with this question by clearly saying that our human reasoning should not be part of finding the answer for this problem but the scriptures . The second issue I discovered in the process of the discussions within the week was that God has been with both ages and ensuring that his truth has been made clearer and clearer in every aspect of reformation that has happened and even that which will happen in future[pre-modern to post modern.]our study this week prepared me to see the protestant reformation from a different angle i.e how did it contribute towards our present truth,what were the causes of this protests and does our modern systems of church administrations save from any criticism. Lastly during my personal study on this topics I had mentioned above I discovered that the discussions we had in class were quite relevant to the authors of the books which were handling the same topic.
Im commenting on ron smith's comment on supporting his argument that though martin luther dint have what we can call absolute truth,But god used him to bring about major reformations which were neccessarly for the advancement of his work.
Im commenting on mcclellan's first reaction to the discussions in the class.In her article she was tranparent to her feelings hence her feeling led her to be so attentive to where the profesor will lead us to .but later on her confussion ceased and she wa able to on the track.that is how we react when we encounter new truths.my question is this do we real take our time to undrestand what the representers of that message real meant or we just rush to conclusions from the first time they open their mouth to speak.and hence at long land we miss what God intendent us to know.we need to giove people time to speak what they believe and challenge it after they have finnished not by our own integrity but with what the scriptures say.
Comment on Christy's reflection... Good points. I agree that truth loses its truth if we run over people. A message of truth should never be abusive to others, but that is not to say that people will not accept that truth. Truth presented in love is necessary, which is Christ's method.
Comment on Meade's reflection... Interesting what you point out, and I agree that reactionary movements generally tend to be subversive. I would suggest that this tends to be in reactions to the extremes only. And in the case of extreme positions, Gonzalez is right that little is offered in place of the original position.
I totally agree, Erasmus and Luther were separate entities. And each had a different mission at hand. As they divereged as their separate paths became apparent after their brief discussion, Luther's dominating personality, and Erasmus, I beleive, was inclined not to continue to challenge Luther. He would have likely caused more harm had he persued the debate further.
in response to Ki Seung Jhang: (also Christy Parafet said something similar)
Ki, you are on to something here when you said, "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."
This generation is very much one that bases its truth on individual expeiriences. Presenting them the facts does little good, as they can dig up 10 other contradictory facts for the one. They have to see to beleive, I know this is true. I am living it now. I have three step children, one of which does not live with us. The one that does not live with us has a totally different perspective on Christianity than the other two, as they have had it modeled (both good and regrettfully bad as well) to them and they more readily accept the facts- because they have seen God working in their lives through us and their schools.
I hope that you can develop this thought more, there is not enough modeling going on out there :)
While reading the different reflections posted, it called my attention what Ki Seung Jhang wrote about our heritage. It is good to know that it does not matter how poor or rich our parents are, we all have a heritage, which is our God. At the same time, it is also good to know that we are of an inmensable value because God considers us His heritage (Exodus 33:3; 19:6; 15:17
It was nice to read the reflection of Nathan Krause concerning the way how we should bring changes to the church. I do agree with what Krause said about looking back the life of Luther and Erasmus. I agree that we should be patient with our leaders. Moreover, I agree that reform should be done within the church and in the way not judge anybody. I will add to Nathan's comment that God gives different light to people, therefore le tus be patient, educate our members, and praise the Holy Spirit for His guidance.
Martin Luther gave the German people a great translation of the Bible. He made it available to everyone. So did John Wycliff. These men began something remarkable in their time and sometimes I wonder if we have lost the importance or value of the Bible. There are times when I hear a sermon and I wonder if the preacher has really spend time studying. Of-course, I am not here to judge, I just wish we (myself included) could go back to what Martin and others did.
What I mean is that Luther recommended that a passage from scripture should always be used as a text. He studied his personal devotional and then preached it to the audience. Zwingli, preached continuously through the whole books of the Bible. He became a strond and positive expository peacher. His successor at Zurich, Bullinger, did alsmost as much preaching as Calvin. For the first ten years of his life he preached through the whole Bible. These men devoted themself to the Word. And the Word alone gave them the answers they needed. Naturally at times their conclusions were wrong, but their determination to study the Word is what I see as crucial in our time. I strongly believe that we need to spend more time in the Word and less time trying to prepare a quick sermon fo Sabbath. Prasie the Lord for those ministers and teachers that are studying God's Word and sharing it with others. Let's do the same!
Commenting on piasi concerning my confussion in class.
There are many things that I find interesting in class. And when I am in doubt I write in down and look it up in the Bible. I am convinced that we need to listen and then study for ourselves. Recently I went to a Teacher's convention and the speaker was speaking on a topic that I had done much reaserch aout and preached for my final expository sermon at Southern. I knew immediately that the preacher was wrong. When I looked around the room most of the teachers and pastors there were shaking their heads in agreement. Was I mistaken with my studies? I went home after that long week and restudied the subject and was happy to see that I was right. So many times we hear something and it sounds good, but then we forget to study it for ourselves. We are hear to learn from Hanna and each other. However, as he himself mentions in class, be sure that what we belive goes with the Bible. On another note, the Bible alone should be our guide. But we also need to be aware of what the world believes so that we can share what God is really like.
In response to Christy Parfet's 1st Reflection posted.
"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?"
I think you have brought up a very important question. We are all training to lead the church in the future, and I hope we can learn this lesson well, for many have come before us, and we have still ended up being so ineffective in many churches in North America at actually increasing the Kingdom of God because we do not have enough respect for the person we are trying to reach to be sensitive to their current understandings or convictions. We may have some of the truth, but it is most likely that none of us have the complete truth. And so often, the truth that we do have ends up only revealing itself as knowledge devoid of compassion and understanding, which in itself can win no one to Christ.
In response to the 1st Reflection of Jung Yoo Kim (hope I spelled that correctly!)
Though I understand it is not the primary point you were trying to make, I wanted to express to you how I like the way you are thinking. You have stated that you think Martin Luther is a hero, but that your thinking is directly related to the fact that you are a Protestant. We Adventists have a hard time being kind and considerate to the Catholics sometimes, but it is an interesting exercise to sit and think about how things would look if you were a Catholic Priest instead of an Adventist Minister. For us, the Protestant Reformation is one of the greatest movements in the history of the world. But can you imagine what a sad thing it is to a Catholic? Many are sincere in their belief, and they watch half of their church fall away into error and damnation. The Protestant Reformation therefor becomes one of the sadest periods in History to them!
I agree with your four conclusions from the first three chapters. I believe it is a good summarization of these chapters. I find it always amazing to see how God has worked in history and who He has used to do this work. These are four good conclusions.
As to Martin Luther rejecting the ten commandments I am unsure what you mean by this. I wish you had included the reference in Gonzalez to that point, because I do not remember reading that point.
I agree that education is not a point but a linear progression. That is a good thought. We never stop learning, we never stop being educated. Through reading, preaching, and teaching we are always learning. This is human nature. We cannot help but learn things. I am glad that you brought this up in this conversation.
You mention that we as Adventists have this spirit of standing for truth. I agree that we have this spirit, but I fail to see it lived out in many Adventists lives. Many are comfortable with the “status quo” and it could be said that those with new progressive views are taken care of in one way or another. I believe that we need to remember that Biblical truth is progressive and not stagnant and that even in our own church we need to be open to change.
This is a response to Nick Jones. I was happy that you brought the issue humanism as it relates to the church. Maybe the solution to the difficulties that we have with humanism was suggested in class - that even though some aspects of humanism are wrong, there are also aspects of truth within humanism.
I always had a negative perception of humanism because it is presented as humanism = bad. While some humanism is bad, not all humanism is false. Can we find aspects of humanism in the Bible?
This is a reaction to Meade Adams. I liked your discussion of extremes. I think you nailed the discussion that one extreme leads to another and that it is difficult to find the medium (where in my opinion the truth usually lies).
I agree it is frustrating to find in the debate on the nature of Christ, individuals using the Bible and SOP as a cudgel to beat each other over the head. Many times there are statements taken out of its context, be it a letter Mrs. White wrote to a specific person or situation or a "proof" text of Scripture with a misleading heading before it. All this makes it difficult to sift through as each side has polarized into catch phrases, where one word can land another into a predetermined box and cornered there.
This tendency to drive each other into an extreme- as you mentioned Luther and the RCC, or I would add the Arminian VS Reformed controversy
I would like to respond to Ryan's 2nd post about Luther's theological positions. I too was taken aback a few years ago when i really became acquainted with Luther's views. He is so often presented as a hero to us and we never hear about these issues. Furthermore, i hear he was a real jerk at that. He was not a nice person
This is a response to Nick Jones' second post. I think we all have aspects of humanism in us and it is definitely in our church and doctrinal positions. None of us are humanistically pure.
It is true that Luther had a lot of problems, but he did begin amovement that was carried further with other important men like Zwingli and Calvin. We all have faults, make mistakes, and someimes we can even disagree with our beliefs, but all-in-all we need to see the truth in every situation.
My uncle is a Nazarene Minister and even though we do not always agree with our theology, I have learned much by him. He believes in sola scriptura and if it were not for his wife I believe he would be an adventist today.
What I am trying to say is, "Don't judge a book by its cover," listen, study, so that you can take the good from every situation.
When I lost my four children I thought nothing good can come from it, I was wrong. For five years God used me to minister to women who were going through similar dificulties in their lives.
God had a plan for Luther and what is remarkable is that he allowed himself to be used (even with the errors).
One of my problems has always been memorizing scripture. I like to study the Bible, but I can never momeorize it. I want to be able to lead people to Christ without having "notes". How do you all memorize your BIble? I really would like some ideas.
Response to J. Harold Alomia’s “Reforming” Entry… By Jeff Walper
I couldn’t agree with you more Harold. The Papal System has the blood of untold millions on its hands…men and women who attempted to “choose” to allow the Holy Spirit to teach them how to study the Bible and/or worship God. The label assigned to them for thus “choosing” to do so was “heretic” (the original definition from the Greek hairetikos meant “able to choose”)…Could God reform such a system? Only if that system was willing to cooperate with God…and history clearly tells us, no matter how aggressive “Catholic Historical Revisionists” have been…history tells me and all who want to study the Holy Bible, that the Papal System is/was/and always will be the Antichrist system. Now can I say that and comfortably sit back in some preverbal “Remnant” easy chair? Of course not! God is calling His people together based on ONE NORM…His Word…sola scriptura. After all there is only one thing that God cannot do…God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2) So Truth is the Absolute Authority in this world…and God, of course, is that Truth, as is the Holy Bible. It’s the word of God that has the power to change lives, to purify lives, to fight back the devil, to create new life…etc. So any system of belief that is based on Tradition or Human Philosophy, such as the Roman Catholic Church, be it ever so cleverly devised, is simply incapable of preparing man’s heart for an eternal dwelling in the presence of a Holy God. God worked a new movement because His Word was finally freed from both the Latin language and the chains of the monasteries. Its interesting that one of the first measures that the Catholic church took in their Counter Reformation efforts was to claim their Bible, the Vulgate, infallible and then announce Erasmus’ Received Text Heretical. At the heart of Catholicism, as you know, is the demand that they alone are the “Arbiters and Interpreters” of the Scriptures. One clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted William Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”. To which Tyndale responded, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!” This is what Protestant Theological Heritage was all about! We are to PROTEST against any measure that attempts to remove the Scriptures as the Ultimate Authority in our church. So that means that sola scriptura is the only Latin we need to know. Where side issues like tota scriptura and prima scriptura originated from, I have not the time nor the inclination to chase that one down, but what I do know is that the Roman Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura and so God has to reject them. So I suppose that places the impetus on us to go and sound the warning, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities'" (Revelation 18:4,5). May God help us not to get sidetracked in ambiguous dialectic musings that do little other than confuse minds. (Ecclesiastes 7:29) "God made us plain and simple, but we make ourselves very complicated." (John 8:31,32) "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, 'If you abide in My word (not philosophy), you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'" Blessings
I value and agree with the doctrinal points made by our participants where they are in harmony with the Bible as interpreted in the fundamental beliefs of our Church. I also value your points if they are not specifically required by the fundamental belief statements. However, in these cases, I sometimes find myself in partial agreement and partial disagreement.
I have in mind comments made in class and on our blog about the SDA teaching on God’s Remnant, Apostate Babylon, wholistic thinking, the usage of the English words cosmic and dialectic, and the usage of the terms sola, tota, and prima Scriptura.
It is very important that we affirm what our Church teaches based on the inspired word of God in Scripture. It is also important to avoid extreme statements that are simply not part of Scripture teaching or our statements of belief.
In addition, we must avoid even implying that someone else is not faithful to the biblical teaching unless they clearly indicate this. We must give each other the benefit of Christian courtesy by listening carefully before we jump to conclusions about the positions of others.
Unless I missed something, neither the teacher nor any of the students have suggested that any biblical teachings or any part of our Adventist doctrine in incorrect. I did not sense any implication that the Remnant is not remnant or that Babylon is not apostate.
We simply suggested that there were reform attempts manifested in apostate Babylon and that there were degrees of apostasy manifested in God’s Remnant. Israel was God’s Remnant among the nations. Yet because of their apostasy, God allowed them to go into Babylonian captivity.
At the same time, Daniel represented a spiritual remnant within the visible remnant of Israel, Through his witness, the king of Ancient Babylon initiated some religious reforms in that nation. These dynamics can be traced in spiritual Babylon and spiritual Israel until today.
With regard to the word “cosmic”: it is derived from the Greek word kosmos, which is used more than 150 times in the New Testament.
With regard to the word “dialectic”: it is derived from the word dialog–the idea being that persons who disagree can find points of agreement which can lead to settling their disagreements. The Greek word dialogismos is used 14 times in the New Testament.
With regard to “sola, tota, and prima Scriptura,” it is important to pay attention to how they are used and not to react to the words themselves. For example, I believe that the Bible alone (sola), and all of it (tota), is the rule (prima) of faith and practice.
These words (cosmic, dialectic, sola, tota, prima) may have taken on meanings that may make them less than ideal in some contexts. They may cause a stumbling block to some, as might be the case with any biblical or non-biblical term. Therefore, if and when we use these terms we must take care to be faithful to the biblical message. Where misunderstandings arise, suggestions for alternate terms should be welcome. However, it is unwise to jump to the conclusion that someone who uses these words is necessarily being unbiblical or unfaithful to Adventism.
Response to J. Harold Alomia’s “Arrogance” Entry… By Jeff Walper Yeah, I’ve heard the same thing Harold…that it’s arrogant to consider the Seventh-day Adventist church as the remnant. I suppose it is arrogant to think that God does not have people in other persuasions that He’s calling to come out of their “Babylon Religions”…But I know you’re not denying that. I’ve noticed that the wholistic philosophy that pervades our Seminary attempts to use caricatures in dialectic arguments that motivate or drive the students to accept whatever “wholism” or “synthesis” the teacher has in mind…in the name of not being unbalanced. I’ve seen it time and time again the exaggeration is on both sides of the dialectic, both the thesis and anti-thesis…(i.e.) so its not enough to talk about Christians and Muslims…you have to label them as Fundamental Christians and Radical Muslims…or Ultra Conservatives and Radical Liberals…I believe the goal is to create such a tension between two opposites that the pain of being separate becomes so great that the students or whoever the model’s targeting…begs for a middle ground or a “wholistic” solution or a “synthesis”…So unfortunately we have to hear these caricatures, like SDA’s arrogantly think that they are the only remnant…ad nauseam. I consider it completely dishonest and antagonistic in its attempt to manipulate the student to accept another thesis apart from Scripture in the name of being balanced.
If we really thought that we alone were the only ones that comprised the remnant, then why are we called to sound the warning “come out of Babylon?” (Revelation 18:4) I’ve never heard our church teach anything else…well until very recently. So this whole business of labeling us as arrogant…whoever those people really are, must take their argument up with God, who clearly tells all who have an ear to hear… “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Again I’ve never heard one SDA going around scoffing at the rest of the world…haha, we’re the remnant, you’re going to hell. Instead, I’ve met many an SDA who were diligently studying the best strategies of reaching out to others in an effort to bring them into Jesus Christ’s Commandment keeping remnant church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Hang in there with all the exaggerated caricatures…they irritate me as well, but God is in control. Blessings
I feel I have an ally in those who lament, as I do, the proliferation of exaggerated caricatures and extreme statements. Where we differ is on whether or not I or others in the seminary are participating in this. From my point of view, there is no exaggeration or extremity in pointing out the danger of extremes (whether they be liberal or conservative). However, there may be great danger in denying the existence of these extremes.
With regard to trying to force others into whatever wholism one wants to promote, I ask again that we extend the courtesy of rightly representing what each other has said. It is ok for us to disagree. But it is not ok to misrepresent what each other has said.
I have said the following in every lecture, and I will repeat it here. My personal views are not important. My burden as a seminary teacher is to encourage my students not to be so exclusive in their thinking that they reject part of the whole truth revealed in Scripture. This is the wholism I promote and will continue to promote.
Any participant in my classes is free to disagree. However, I will also exercise my freedom to recommend a biblical wholism and to clarify any misunderstanding of my position. There is no improper motivation in participants misunderstanding me. That may be my fault in part. I may also be misunderstanding the participants. If so, I beg your patience and request that we all continue to clarify our concerns so that the misunderstanding can be progressively removed.
Morgan Kochenower this is in response to Helen McClellan Reflection Paper 2.
I could not agree with you more on the extremist aspect of religion, especially in Adventism. We take the bible to extremes and EGW.
That is the challenge I face in my ministry, especially as it relates to the end times. There are going to be crazy things happening and we (God's people) are the ones who are going to need to be balanced. It is almost like we are on the titanic and we have to be calm and collected in passing out life vests while not whipping people into a panic.
After reading the great controversy and what EGW has to say about the grounds Luther gained in the reformation, i too was surprised to read some of Luther's positions. But I believe he all the truth God had for him. I believe that God is going to save Luther despite himself, just as I believe God will save Samson despite himself and save me despite myself. There are issues our class will never be able to agree on but as long as we are following all the light God has given us, then we are in His hands. Amen
What is hard is that people want to be listened to. I agree with what you are saying, but the challenge, at least as I see it, is that we have nurtured a culture (in the US and in our church) in which we all have rights (meaning we can do what we want to do and we don't have to do what you want to do). This is hard too because our society has become so impatient that when it comes to actually sitting down and working at something, we lose our patience. I am guilty of this and will be guilty of this, but you are right, people will just have to learn to bite their tongue or submit to God in order to get through. The church leaders didn't listen to Jesus advice but yet to a certain extent He did things within the system.
People in any position can be arrogant and people in any position can be humble. Was it arrogant for Moses to say he was the humblest man on earth...no. And no one in our church would accuse him of being arrogant. But, it comes down to an issue of the heart. No one has any reason to be arrogant because just as paul said all we have is filthy rags, and if we boast, we boast in the Lord. There is no arrogance in the statement that we are the remnant church, or at least have the remnant message, the arrogance comes in with what we do with that calling. Israel became arrogant and misinterpreted God's calling and God on countless occasions humbled them. If arrogance comes in the way of our mission, then God too will humble us. I do not believe our denomination will last through the end, I believe our message will, it will not be a popular message, but it is the remnant message
This is in response to Harold's comment from 06-18-09. I am in total agreement with what you're saying, especially your point at the end of the article. The problem with the use of the word remnant is that we have not used it in the spirit in which you used it, as a holy responsibility, instead of as a divisive title of superiority.
I personally believe that there is a way in which we are the remnant (the way in which you mentioned), but we are not the remnant if it means what we commonly mean when we say, "we are the remnant." I totally agree that the problem is not the word, but the spirit in which it is used, and that it is the spirit that needs to change. I happen to think that when that spirit changes, we may not be so willing to use the title at all.
This is in response to Jeff's comment from 06-18-09 and 06-12-09. First things first, apology accepted. I look forward to your presentation so I can learn some more about your objections. My understanding, based on class comments and the blog, is that there is a belief that certain models or the use of certain terms will "open the door" to ideologies with which we do not agree. I share your concern. However, I disagree with the idea. The opening of a door to a strange idea does not imply that we will automatically stumble into apostasy. In fact it is only by opening that door that you can get people to walk into your house.
As a lawyer, I understand the power of words. People believe, mistakenly in my opinion, that the battle is over which words to use, as you mentioned recently in class. The battle, in my opinion, is not over the use of terms, but rather, the definitions which we assign to those terms. Sure it's great if you can get someone to use your particular terms. However, it's even better to get someone to agree to your definition of the same terms. I think to often we let people who do nto believe as we do control the definitions, without making any effort to rebut those presumptions because we're busy trying to find different words. If we are really about moving this world back to a better understanding of who Jesus is, it is time for us to truly stand up and say what things really mean and worry about controlling both terms and definitions.
You are right, it is ludicrous for any of to think that any of us are right 100% of the time, and expect for all of us to be able to agree with fellow Adeventists 100% of the time. It is ridicoulous to think any professor is going to get the message 100% correct, 100% of the time as well. That is what reviews are for. If you disagree with them- write a book- and have that person critique it.
In that sense it is the epitome of Free Will which the Spirit allows for us to exercise in a way that we see from our own personal backgrounds.
Simply what I am hearing Pastor Hanna saying, is that it is ok to study anything and everything, but anything and everything is subject to the Bible and guidence from SOP, as well as the Spirit and these three should agree. He is looking at the Big Picture as he sees it, I freely believe that he is a bit to inclusive (not ecumenical by any means) for my taste and that is ok. We still need someone that can take a look at the big picture and relate that to us so we may understand those we are to evangelize in a supposed Christian nation.
Many atheists get hung up on the whole predestination issue- and forknowledge - (God knowing each person's fate and ordaining it anyway)- as the very Definition of Omniescience is fruit of the Reformed movement.
The young Atheists who are searching for answers need us to understand their presuppositions and worldview even if they themselves do not.
I would appreciate the opportunity to learn more of what Pastor Hanna has to say in these matters- I appreciate it if we can let him teach and take up past concerns with him either personally (aside from class) or like I said write a book and spell out his error. We are attempting to cram what some take a lifetime studying, into four weeks- and we may not retain as much as we would like.
I’m here to comment on dr.martin hannah’s comment on the ongoing discussion more especially on the last class of the week.Though the discussion went hot to an extent of some if not one student feeling that our Adventist ethics and standards are compromised more especially in the seminary which acts as a manufacturing factory for Adventist gospel workers,I personally support dr.martin because we have not come to the seminary to go back as the lay people whom we left there he supposed question and challenge our academic curriculum in our seminaries. We are in the seminary to discover the absolute truth of our theology not what has been passed to us ,hence every teaching and every doctrine must be tested by the word of God not the stand of the laymen outside there.By saying this I don’t mean that laymen have no say but I mean that their arguments if they are not biblically sound, then no matter how long they have been thinking is right we are here to challenge the false teachings basing on the solar scritpura alone .Otherwise we are not going to evangelize them but the harvest is outside there and we need to know what do this believe in. On the issue of our stands, I agree with the professor that we are free to disagree but how we do it should be in a civilized way .we don’t need to disagree simply because people disagree but we need to disagree with tangible evidence from the scriptures. God himself doesn’t force us to believe him but he has given us a freedom of choice. Hence we should both agree on one principle, we are free to differ in our opinions but at the end of the day we need to come up with one agreement what does the bible says on this point of argument?
We are Seventh-day Adventists because of our heritage that we have inhrited from Christ, the scriptures and a church of God.Thanks brother for your articulate concern for is good to learn about our heritage in a broader view.
I’m commenting on Jason’s response to the ongoing discussion, Having a law background, he well understands how powerful words can be, words can both heal and kill the way we speak matters a lot to the people we are communicating to, hence our word have a great impact on this generation and the generation to come.people will not respect you on how much you are strong in arguing but on how strong your arguiments are biblically grounded[on this context]. So as scholars of our modern times,let not traditions lead us to base our arguments but the truth on the content.We should not fear to break traditions but be able to support our stands with the true standard which is the word of God.So as we will be ongoing with our discussion let us note that we should not fear to discuss any issue we fill like it is not properly announced.we are in the seminary to study what is tre but not was has been passed to us without testing it with the word of God.
This is in response to Jeff's comment left on this page yesterday (06-18). I think that part of the disconnect here is that we are all speaking from experience and then generalizing that all of reality is that way. For example, you say that remnant example is an extreme caricature being pushed by professors and others to persuade others to find a middle ground of compromise that is not Biblical, and that no one was using this caricature until recently. That may be true - in your experience. As a member of the Adventist church my whole life, and having not been educated in Adventist schools since I was ten up until coming to the seminary, my knowledge of the perception of Adventism comes from two places - interaction with other church members and my non-Adventist friends who challenge me about things that they've heard other Adventists say. It has been my experience that our membership uses the title of "remnant" as a divisive and exclusive title that somehow makes us better than other Christians. I've had people say it to me, and heard people say it to non-SDAs. It's not a made up issue. It's happening in some of our churches, even if it isn't happening in yours.
The same goes for your example yesterday about how some feel the seminary is falling into apostasy. And while your conjecture that half of the students in our class had members say that to them may be true, by nature it implies that the other half didn't have that said to them. When I decided to come to the seminary, all the SDAs I knew supported and applauded by decision and said the seminary was a good place to go study and warned me more about the ultra-conservative people I would find, and not the other way around.
So my point is simply that we would do better not to generalize and make broad accusations, realizing that our own particular experience does not dictate what is real and what is not real. That's a little too post-modern, even for me. :-)
I appreciate your words Jeff, though I do not require an apology. What I do request is that you examine your own words are carefully as you examine the words of others. Even in your latest post, possibly without intending to do so, you seem to imply my model is connected with apostate, eccumenical, cosmic Christology and with a Catholic view on prima Scriptura. Thus you seem to imply that my model is inconsistent with biblical Christology and with sola Scriptura.
If this is what you imply, you may have overlooked my statement, in the first chapter (page 16; and note 2) of my book, which indicates that my model is a biblical alternative to stoic, humanistic, and pantheistic versions of cosmic Christology. You may have overlooked my recent posting on this blog that in my model: only Scripture (sola Scriptura), and all of Scripture (tota Scriptura), is the rule (prima Scriptura) of faith and practice.
If you have concerns about this model, I welcome your comments. At the same time, I request that you respond to what I have actually said and written. If you are not responding to what I have said and written, then it is counter-productive to mention my name in connection with other models with which you have a problem.
Again, for all participants in class, and even visitors to this blog, you are encouraged to share your views. At the same time, we request that your comments be carefully considered for accuracy and that your criticisms be constructively framed.
On the one hand, our dialectic, the way we use language (dialektos; 6 times in the book of Acts), is important. Let us use dialectic like Paul who “reasoned (dialegomai) with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2).
On the other hand, let us avoid “vain imaginations/dialectic (dialogismos)” (Rom 1:21) and “doubtful disputation/dialectic (dialogismos)" (Rom 14:1).
My advice on dialog/dialectic is influenced by Paul [not Hegel's dialectic]: “Of these things remind them, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to show yourself approved to God, a worker who needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:14-15).
I would like to comment on Nathan Kennedy's second reflection. I apprecitae what your point about Zwingli and the way they tried to avoid the problem of evil. As Christians we have to be aware that we are indeed evil at our core and only the grace of God is what saves us. Amen to your paper brother.
I am commenting on Nick Jones 2nd reflection about humanism. Dr. Hanna's distinction between secluar and Christian humanism was important for me as well because I always saw it as bad. I never even knew there was a difference. I appreciate your further elaboration on the subject, as well as your desire to reach those who can be reached through it.
This is in response to Meade Adams’s post regarding predestination. I enjoyed the story you shared about the man and the taxi cab. I have given a lot of thought to predestination lately and the best way of thinking I have come up with is God’s self-limitation. I believe that God has the power to see our ends from our beginnings, but just because He can, doesn’t mean He does. Just like God was capable of eradicating sin in the instant when it first occurred, He did not, because of the Great Controversy theme that needed to play out. Similarly, I speculate that He limits Himself on His foreknowledge for the same reason – He needs to show that He contends with everyone the same, so that when all is said and done, no one can accuse Him of being unfair.
This is in response to Morgan Kochenower’s post on Luther. I agree that Luther continued to live up to the light that he had been given. But, it makes me wonder why the Holy Spirit did not lead him into more truth. I guess it just seems frustrating that fewer and fewer people are willing to take the next step in line of present truth, and I sometimes think that maybe if Luther were to have presented a more complete reformed theology at that time when it was the Reformation spirit was burning bright, that we could have skipped a few steps ahead. (At the same time, I think that the Reformation might not have happened at all if people realized how much of their Christianity they had to change.)
Garth Dottin Response to Jason Hines I agree with this statements completely Jason. It seems as if anyone who presents any statement that requires us to think outside our traditional ideas is deemed a heretic. (Clearly I am not stating that all traditional ideas are terrible). I agree with you again in your point that the seminary is not a place to be indoctrinated. How would we know how to handle the various questions and concerns of all members regarding philosophy or other schools of thought, if all we study is Adventist Theology?
Garth Dottin Response to Nathan I agree with you completely that everything we study is subject to the bible. Many of our classmates voiced the similar sentiments. I found it disturbing that some render the Pope or even a Cardinal as incapable of being saved by God. We must remember that they are men and sinners like anyone else. Only God is judge (Matt 7:1). I affirm that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant and is Gods last day church in case anyone may be questioning. However, some people are so caught up on being the remnant then they lose sight of the mission of the church and Gods proclivity to save.
I agree with what he talked about how Zwingli reacted to reformation and nationalism. Adventists usually try to stay away from politics but I want to say they are involved in each nation's politics. Some countries' conferences don't allow lay people to baptize people and others allow them. But in GC's policy, elders can baptize like pastors. This difference comes from different cultures and politics and power game. So we shouldn't say that we should be away from all politics rather we should think how we can harmonize with them.
I agree with what you said, "What God has done for man on the cross of calvary is not an issue of discussion but acceptance." The gospel is very simple and people should get that as it is but because of their knowledge, they make it hard.
I would agree in some aspects of Jason’s commentary. I would even stress on the idea that we cannot be “either-or” in any aspect concerning the individuals that compose the Catholic Church, and their sincerity in follow Christ. Nonetheless, I think we should look differently at the Catholic system, which became a corrupt system of teachings and biblical interpretation. Our SDA Seminaries should be willing to discuss other types of literature that comes from outside of Adventism, but we need to make sure that with the examination of such material, doesn’t come a high volume of erroneous information’s and doctrines which are completely outside of the boundaries of the 28 SDA fundamental beliefs.
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.”
Comments on the reflection by Jung Yoo Kim I am attempting to understand how God is working through our freedom. Is not this implying that God controls our freedom? If so, it is not freedom any more. In addition, your example is helpful to me, to distinguish how God may intervene in human affairs and how humans decisions may take a different course.
I must say that I agree with Nathan Kennedy, and note that not only the young atheist, but most importantly we need to understand the presuppositions by which some reformers and many churches today structure their predestination argument. We must study more and more and be acquainted with all this details in order to succeed when explaining it. As far as the second part of your comment, I must say: WELL DONE!
I think it is interesting that you mention the 1888 issue when discussing fragmentation of a movement. I think that much of 1888 had to do with the ego's of the particular individuals spear heading the debate. I think that divisions within the Adventist church today are often the result of personality/ego clash and if we were more humble in our approach to one another, then maybe we could come to a mutual understanding without ostracizing someone to the point of division.
Great point. I agree that a demonstration of God's absolute power is His willingness to submit to inferior beings. That character quality is an assertion of the free will that man has been given.
It was good to touch the words ‘wasting” time. I agree 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. I do not want to waste time especially in terms of mission. I would like to be ready to do mission in order to save God's time.
It was interesting to read his thought. I was interested to know about Luther. Everything he did to help his chuuch, His initial move was not to cause a split and start his own church but to improve his own church. When I saw Luther again through Morgan's reflection, I would like to be chosen by God like Luther.
Kim, I we surely must to return to Scriptures as the guidance of our theologizing, and it is true that Zwingli was influenced by Erasmus and Humanist framework of thought, yet we need to remember that nobody is free from presuppositions, and every theologian is a captive of its own time. However, we are called to be theologians of exodus, and not to conform with this philosophical captivity. So, the romantic notion of Sola Scriptura, indeed, it should be more than a motto, and it would prevent us from the acceptance of multiplicity of sources in doing theology, which is an idea so popular nowadays.
Response to Joubghan Kim (reflection #2) By Elmer Guzman
Kim, regarding your comment on predestination, you correctly said that predestination cannot be understood unless this divine act respects the human free-will. Despite the fact that this affirmation makes sense, how would you explain the case of Cyrus, who was predestined by name? Isaiah prophesied that Cyrus would come in the future. He was even called my anointed. Do you think that the fact that God already had predestined him to execute his plans would interfere in his free-will?
This is a response to Nathan Krause’s post on 6/21/2009 8:44 PM. I appreciate the challenge. It’s too easy to just do homework to pass the class and just memorizing for the test. We are incredibly privileged to be studying at this level with so many great minds. Our church has our ministers get their masters so that they are educated and can reach all sorts of people. Thanks for the wake up call.
This is a comment for Anonymous. I agree him. I have heard from some people that SDA is like old Israel who were arrogant because they were selected by God. SDA is selected as a messenger of three angels’ messenger to the last age by God. We have special truth which no one has. But we are not guaranteed to be saved. We have to re member the message that Moses said to Israel in Deut 7:7. Deut 7:7 "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,” 1 Cor 1:27-29 “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, 29 that no man should boast before God.”
This is response of Jeff’s words. I believe that SDA is remnant church. But it was very hard that I couldn’t see people who are really like remnant. God said “But to the others He said in my hearing, "Go through the city after him and strike; do not let your eye have pity, and do not spare. "Utterly slay old men, young men, maidens, little children, and women, but do not touch any man on whom is the mark; and you shall start from My sanctuary." So they started with the elders who [were] before the temple.” (Ezek 9:6-7). God judge first the people his sanctuary. This message gives us that we can be cut from remnant. We must be the people who have the mark of God. God call us to come out of Babylon. We must become that people who fear God, and give Him glory with all our hearts. I really want the members of SDA become remnant.
I’m responding to Harold Alomia’s post “Arrogance.” It’s true that our postmodernism has affected the way we think about evangelism, even to the point that we are embarrassed to say “We have the truth” or too afraid to. Or the other extreme where we use truth like a sword, cutting people down left and right. I agree with you though that “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.” The challenge is to find a way to communicate the truth to a postmodern mind.
A response to Tyer Kraft: To reach the postmodern mind, I would suggest a Biblical model that Jesus gave us. In John 17: 19 Jesus praying to His father says: “just as you have sent me into the world, even so have I sent them into the world.” In other words Jesus is sending the believers (literary I have apostle you into the world) to the postmodern in the manner that the Father sent (apostle) Him into the world. But the question is, in what manner did the father send Jesus into the world?
First and foremost the Word of God had to establish a common ground with humanity; therefore He (the Word of God - John 1:3-4) became human, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
Jesus could not meet us in His divinity; therefore He veiled his divinity and accommodated (in the words of Calvin) himself to the human level, and took the human form, so that humanity could relate to Him and hear his message. The incarnate Word of God spoke and communicated the truth from God in the human language. By the way, Jesus spoke Aramaic the language spoken by the common people in His time, shared in the core values, norms and beliefs of the Hebrew religion (the Torah) and was conversant with the religious and social customs of the Middle Eastern cultures. Through the incarnation, Jesus was able to effectively and directly meet the human needs and reconcile humanity to God. Jesus did not become incarnate in order to understand humanity; on the contrary, He became human so that humans could understand Him.
The starting point to witness to the postmodern could be to develop a common understanding and creating the avenues in which the postmodern shall hear the word—truth of God and understand it. One way of developing a common understanding is becoming familiar with the postmodern mindset or worldview.
When the word of God incarnated, He became the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus, Jesus’s mindset had both the divine perspective and the human worldview (implied in John 3:12: “if I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you belief if I tell you heavenly things?”). Essentially, in Jesus’s ministry is seen the blend of the divine and human contexts of reality forming a unique context for proclaiming the Truth from God: contextualization.
It is interesting to note how Jesus uses illustration and symbols from the nature and social system to communicate the truth. For example he uses a seed to speak of the word of God, God is called our father, banquets and talents to respectively illustrate the kingdom of God and its subjects. The salvation process is equated to sowing and reaping.
Thus from the known and earthly, Jesus leads his hearers to the unknown and heavenly. Could it be that in the thirty years of silence, Jesus learnt from both God and creation (including human social dynamics) how to effectively serve and do ministry?
One of the barriers to effective ministry could be that the minister does adequately know the mindset of people being ministered to and the inability to speak their language.
This is a response to the first post by Helen McClellan. She said that Erasmus believed “that knowledge comes from the diligent study of scripture”; she followed by saying that William Miller endorsed that idea as well. It is true. It is only the light from heaven that will get us to heaven; any other knowledge is of temporary utilitarian value. Helen also asks why we do not teach the Bible with the idea of transformation. I would say that we do but only in a limited way. I would also speculate that the reason that we do not push it to its logical conclusion is that then the Spirit would be in control and that means that we would not be in control. In addition, we have had fanaticism among us and that is what we fear greatly. A third reason is that we do not know what the plan of salvation is. It is not just the Luthern doctrine of “justification by faith alone”; it is not enough to add sanctification and glorification either.
This response is to the post of Ryan Hablitzel on 6/16/2009. He discussed the enmity between faith and works that many Protestants have between faith and works and how Adventists have a better more integrated, more balanced, approach that includes more of what Scripture says. Ryan rightly points out that the concept of law in integrated into this as well. I agree with this; I just wish more Adventists believed this. Ryan also brings up the pre fall, post fall nature of Christ debate; he wonders if a compromise position might be the right answer might be the right position; I have been told that such is the position of many of the leaders of the church at this time. This argument is based on a fallacy. It is said to be important because which ever position we take on the nature of Christ leads to a compatible position on salvation; this is the way theology is frequently done, but it is wrong. There are several reasons for this. First, the Bible and Ellen White both have much more to say on the subject of salvation than on the nature of Christ. Second, the reason for the first is that Christ came to save us from our sins ( see Mat 1:21 and many other passages ), not to describe his nature. When salvation is reduced to the Lutheran position of justification by faith alone, there is not much to say about salvation. If we let the Bible tell us what all is involved in salvation, I think that we will not reduce salvation like we have. I think that we would not argue about the nature of Christ the way that we do either. We have built our models of the nature of Christ on a few facts from Scripture and many implications. There are nothing like clear, unambiguous proof texts that tell us what the nature of Christ is. The Chalcedonian statement that Christ was a hypostatic union of His divine nature and his human nature is no where stated in the Bible. There is not statement that Christ had a pre fall human nature or a post fall human nature in the Bible. Some (Roman Catholics) believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are attached, after all how could they be one otherwise? There is no Biblical statement that says that. There is also no statement that says that Christ has always existed in the Bible, like Adventist say. Much of these conclusion are arrived at by implication from what is said, but other people come to different conclusions. We should study diligently the whole revealed plan of salvation (not just justification), and leave what has not been revealed alone. We should study the whole plan of salvation first and then use the implications from the plan of salvation to help us decide what the fine points of the nature of Christ are if we have the time; I think that we will not have the time. Getting the nature of Christ right is not a salvation issue unless we insist on coming to a conclusion on it before we have studied salvation thoroughly first.
I wanted to respond to Crockett post. I agree with a lot of what you are saying before we decide to point the finger at other religions we need to look within our own selves’ right here and fix the things of within us that aren’t portraying the vision and mission of God.
I wanted to respond to the post by Taurus I really appreciated the text u used in response to our studying of the reformers. This text is as true today as it was back then and it shows that God will continue to show us light until He returns. Just like he gave light to the reformers he is giving us light today to reform ourselves.
this response is to Ron Smith's post on last week. I agree, I too enjoyed understanding more about Luther and Zwingli. Im beginning to see more and more the importance of this class. While we are here to understand and absorb bible knowledge, we must also understand history and also have some knowledge of things like philosophy and science so that we can reach those who believe and use these.
This response is to the post of Garth Dottin on 6/12/2009. Garth pointed out that Luther was willing to die for his beliefs and that some would consider it extreme. He also approved of Luther’s stand. I, also, agree; if our beliefs are not worth dying for, are they worth living for? And will they get us to heaven? This is also a response to Meade Adams on 6/12/2009. Meade stated that reactionary movements tend to go to the other extreme. I think that this is true. I think that Protestantism did that also. Roman Catholicism emphasized the church’s role in salvation, and works of the individual; so the Protestants emphasized that salvation is strictly a divine gift in predestination of the determinist variety.
This is a response to the Elvis Veles post of 6/15/2009. Elvis stated that “God is above culture and traditions”; I agree with this. If this is not so, then we are just creatures of culture. God is training us for the culture of heaven. The question is do we like the culture of heaven or do we prefer our current culture? If we choose the latter, God will honor our choice and we will be excluded from heaven. If we choose the culture of heaven, then we are safe to take to heaven. Elvis also asserted that “The knowledge of the Word of God and truth are progressive”; if he is discussing the personal level, then we might need to give up certain beliefs to move forward with God. If he is discussing this on the level of divine revelation and means that later knowledge cancels older knowledge I disagree. If he means that God fills in more of the details, but keeps what has already been revealed, then I agree.
This is a response to Joubghan Kim’s entry on Zwingli. I believe Zwingli was led by patriotic considerations as well. I admire Zwingli’s willingness to admit that he was wrong on the issue of mercenary service and stand up against the practice of killing in the name of God. It’s difficult for us not to approach the Bible with our own preconceived notions, but by the grace of God, I believe that the Holy Spirit will correct us with the Word of God, (2 Timothy 3:16) if we are humble to accept His correction. Humility of course is the challenge. I like the quote from Desire of Ages 661… “Pride and self-worship cannot flourish in the heart that keeps fresh in memory the scenes of Calvary." The gospel is so amazingly simple…I don’t know why we make so many inventions that seem to detract our attention away from Jesus…but I suppose this is easy to do in our desperate attempt to put SELF in there. Back to the Word! Blessings!
Hi Jason, I appreciate your responses. Point taken on the idea of making broad statements based on experience about the Seminary falling into apostasy. It’s just challenging to remain quiet in the face of so much language that’s both foreign and seems to negate our Adventist Identity and Mission. Let’s see I’ve studied spiritual exercises that have their roots in Monasticism, learned leadership models based on Greenleaf’s Ecumenical Model, a Revelation class that didn’t mention anything about the Roman Catholic Church, Hermeneutics that subverts sola scriptura to some sort of prima scriptura hybrid, Catholic Missiologists lecturing on the Jesuit Missionary Mateo Ricci (the Chinese threw the Jesuits out of China, because they found out that they were plotting to assassinate the Emperor, and I’m supposed to learn from them? We might have a billion plus members if we held guns to peoples heads or knives to their throats, but it was my understanding that wasn’t Christ-like), an embracing of Preterism and Futurism, a mocking of our Historicist method of Interpretation, and then to top it off listening to a professor call another professor a Heretic because of his solid Adventist “Spirit of the Pioneers” views. So all that to say, I hear what your saying about not being limited to my own experience, but at the same time these individual occurrences didn’t happen in a vacuum. I’m not advocating any sort of witch hunt, I just wish there was a greater awareness as to what was going on. But with 96 credit hours being pumped into our minds like a fire hydrant full on, it doesn’t allow for much time for good independent study. Anyhow, I hear what your saying about not being overly general in my experiential indictments of the seminary, but sometimes you just got to speak up. I’ve included some quotes that drive some of my tensions with what I’ve ran across here in Berrien…
“The Roman Church is far-reaching in her plans and modes of operation. She is employing every device to extend her influence and increase her power in preparation for a fierce and determined conflict to regain control of the world, to re-establish persecution, and to undo all that Protestantism has done.”(The Great Controversy, pages 565 & 566)
“And there are some who, having secured this worldly education, think that they can introduce it into our schools. But let me tell you that you must not take what the world calls the higher education and bring it into our schools and sanitariums and churches. We need to understand these things. I speak to you definitely. This must not be done.”(Counsels to Teachers, Fundamentals of Christian Education, pages 535 & 536)
Ephesians 5:11 seems clear in its counsel “Have no fellowship with the works of darkness, but rather expose them.” We on the other hand seem to give them the “right hand” of fellowship and then lynch anyone that speaks up in opposition.
My comments shouldn't be misunderstood to say that I am calling the SDA church or the SDA Seminary Babylon...Instead I am trying to stand up and contend for the faith that our pioneers gave their lives for. God help us all to put away our idols and put our whole heart into the work of proclaiming the simple and clear THREE ANGEL'S MESSAGE. Blessings, Jeff
Dr. Hanna, Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura are an "either - or" issue for me. There simply is no "wholistic" model that I'm going to deem necessary or legitimate in combining these two camps that head Protestantism and Catholicism. The terms are well established and have been for some time now. One is pushed by the Divine Revelation of Scripture through the working of the Holy Spirit, the other by Science and man's reasoning abilities or lack thereof... this is my, albeit simplistic understanding of the issue. While I may be interested in hearing about some scientific discovery, I'm not willing to place my faculties of "reason" or anyone else on par with the authority of the Divine Word of God as taught by His Holy Spirit. To do so would seem to negate the simple counsel in Proverbs 3:5,6 "TRUST in the Lord with your heart, and lean not on your own understandings...in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your path straight." Simple, clear, this is what people want...this is what they need. This is what Protestant Theological Heritage was/is all about...Sola Scriptura.
Dear Jeff. I think that you and I agree that Scripture is to be the judge of every model of sola, tota, and prima Scriptura. It seems that you prefer settled traditional definitions rather than the definitions which I propose. I am willing to have a discussion of which definitions are more faithful to Scripture. But I can’t see how our discussion can proceed productively if you continue to describe my position as a placing something on par with the divine word.
I have no intention of placing anything on par with the divine word and I am not sure where you see that in what I have said or written. I repeat again for clarity: only Scripture (sola), and all of Scripture (tota), is the rule (prima) of faith and practice. You are welcome to disagree with this and to show why it is not biblical. However, it is simply not correct to suggest that this involves placing anything on par with the word of God.
In addition, I have no interest in combining Protestantism and Catholicism. What I have indicated is that apostasy has manifested itself in both traditions and that we should come out of apostasy where ever it appears. Scripture is the basis for this kind of reformation. We should not reject biblical truth because it was discovered by Catholic theologians. Neither should we accept everything Protestant as though it must necessarily be biblical. Every aspect of our testing truths must be based on the teachings of Scripture.
I agree that “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.” It is important that we do not let ourselves become lazy in our study of the Scripture and in our preparation for sermons/bible studies/etc... We must always be aware that any type of Bible study or preparation is scholarship. So even when we leave the Seminary we will still be learning through our personal devotions and Bible study.
I too am impressed that the reformation was built on those in the academia realm. It is important for us to remember how much our professors and teachers do in preparation for classes. There is much study of the Bible done in preparation. While we must still compare what they say to what the Bible says, we still must be open to what they have to say.
I see your point. I agree that we must confront the problems in our church and that we need to bring about more unity. It is important that as a world church that we make sure that we practice what we preach. We should not, and can not appear as hypocrites to the world. We must show ourselves united in our cause and united in spreading the Gospel.
What I am concerned about is that many times we think of the Seminary here at Andrews as the only place where Seventh-day Adventist ministers are trained. We have other universities were ministers are trained. Not every minister comes to the United States, to Berrien Springs to get their ministerial training. We also must remember that no church here on Earth will ever be perfect. We must try to attain perfection and work towards unity, but we also must be aware of the reality.
Name Joel Response On Fenades' I positively agree with what Fenades call the power of transformation. What led the Catholic Church to be aggressive to the protestant is because they never allowed to be transformed. The idea of the invisible and visible church as elaborated in his reflection is of good to all Christian of this century who are more judgmental in their views and forgets that they cannot be able to know the inside and that is what Zwingli talks about the invisible church.
Name Rosana Joel Response on Elvis His four deductions are so powerful in the sense of who God’s to mankind. The idea that God always has been in the history leading us is of real encouragement to the Christian world. His second proposition of God is able to use anyone he want to, brings out the attribute of his all loving God. To know that God is above all culture as given by Elvis is a certainty that in my culture he prevails too. And lastly God is word is ever progressive, is a clear indication that we should be student of His word.
I just want to make a comment on Jose Alomia’s presentation concerning the ordination of women. This is a huge debate and I think is worthy to dedicate time to clarify it, particularly for the sake of the God’s truth and Church unity. I appreciate your objective approach to this topic. Just I would like to suggest a possible small subdivision of the paper. (If by chance I did not miss it yesterday).
But first, I have to admit that I have not made a serious research concerning this issue, so the authoritative part of the following hypothesis rests on my assumption as student.
One of the points in this debate that usually gets fussy is to take an extreme position on one side. And perhaps I am guilty of the same thing, but my “assumption” is this: I am not entirely convinced of the ordination of women, not because of the arguments against it, but because I am not completely convinced of the ordination of men either. What I have learned in classes (maybe I am wrong) is that the ordination as it is practiced today in the SDA has not biblical support. It sounds like “heretical,” but the issue is that ordination should be practiced on all believers. Is it not so? (Role of the "pastor" and the priesthood of all believers… etc..) If the above is accurate, what if is included in the paper a small section of how the heritage of the protestant reformation came to the SDA concerning ordination, (which is not biblical, but that it is still practiced in SDA.) I mean, the bias of the ordination of men, or the inclusion of the ordination of women would probably not make sense at all, if the ordination (as it is being practiced) itself is baseless. Once again, it is just an assumption.
I thought that was an excellent point made. I think many scholars try to systematize Paul's letter to the Romans because they try to avoid the fact that Paul was writing to a divided church. Very key point
This is a response to Nick's response to Shea's comment (mouthful, lol)
I hear what you're saying, but i still do not think that exempts us from responsibility here at Andrews to make changes. We cannot simply say that there are other universities therefore we don't have to deal with the discrepancies here. I think that would be irresponsible of us.
This is a response to Morgan Kochenower's first comment. I liked your first paragraph regarding the "Declining Authority of Hierarchy." A lust for power has always been a problem that has plagued the church. It would do us well to consider the Biblical principal of - "those who exalt themselves will be humbled" and "those who humble themselves will be exalted." Only a few know the popes name at the time of the reformation, but a majority would recognize the name of Martin Luther (who was not all together humble, but had moments of humility).
This is a response to Meade Adams. I liked that you brought the idea of "edge" issues to the surface. I have also considered the abrasive approach that SDA's can have on people who violate "edge" issues. Perhaps these debates stem from a misunderstanding of salvation (or Christian maturation). We need to be more accepting of new Christians who dont meet our expectations. At the same time, I would be concerned if a 20 year member started wearing earrings to church out of the blue. This would make me think that there was greater issues in this individuals life that would need my attention (not discipline).
Name: Rosana Joel Response on Nathaniel Lyles Nathaniel in his reflection has made it clearly that the fifteen century thinking in theology had to change in order to have the new perspective of viewing God, which is the system of understanding life and what is true in a more biblical manner. The quote from Mrs. White sums up what we human being can do and where our limitation level is and hence be able to rely on the power of God to understand what is spiritual.
Name: Joel Rosana Response on Taurus The learning process is linear and as Taurus said; there were some things that Luther had a wrong interpretation and this does not make him a heretic but makes him a learner. In his presentation he makes it clearly that down the road of history other reformers came up with a more clear and authentic interpretation of many doctrines that early protestants had misfired.
Comment on Tyler Kraft 1st reflection I gree with you that grappling with the issue of 'Obsolute truth' is not easy and i face the same dilemma of; 1. Negating the fact that truth is obsolute which opens way for relative truth 2. Not having boundaries or setting parameters to define what truth is and is not. Personally i believe there are things which are clearly defined as truth and others as not. I wish we could find a healthy discussion in this area
Thank you for your comment and I truly hear what you’re saying. I can say that I agree with the majority of the things you said. I would like to suggest though, that we as pastor and professors spend a little more time preparing and preaching messages that could reflect the importance of focus on the CENTRAL issues, without forgetting that this “edge” issues my cause others, and even ourselves, to stumble on the CENTRAL issues. It’s just a thought.
I greatly appreciate your comments about the use of Ellen White's writings need not to be neglected. I think it only makes sense for us as Adventists ministers to utilize what God has given us through her work. The area in your reflection where you said you would discount and publication by an Adventist where they did not consult Ellen White, in my opinion, is a little extreme. Just becuase someone doesn't quote Ellen White doesn't mean they didn't consult her in their study. I respect your position. I just hope that it doesn't lead you into closemindedness.
I appreciate the connection you pointed out between the Osiandrian Controversy and the New Age movement. Your thoughts reminded me that there is nothing new under the sun. I think it is very important that we remain in open dialogue about our faith, less we stunt our growth.
I understand and appreciate your views on the importance of addressing the central issues. I believe the difference is in the distinction between doctrines and teachings. Are you suggesting that we only deal with our positions of doctrine and forget discussing general teachings? I agree that we need to be Christian in our approach. However, I also believe that we all could agree that the lifestyle of a Christian should be different from someone in the world and those differences should be clearly indicated by their actions.
Response to Jahisber I really appreciate your thoughts on the issue of ordination. You stated that you did not believe the idea was even Biblical because of the priesthood of all believers. I disagree and argue that the ordination ceremony does not grant special powers regarding ministry. Neither is it opposing the priesthood of all believers. It is recognition of God’s choice of leadership. I believe that God has always appointed leaders for His church, which is clearly indicated in the life of Saul and David. Moreover, there are numerous New Testament texts that point to God ordaining His leaders (Acts 6:6). It is sad that we have female leaders and are reluctant to ordain them. We have forgotten that there were many strong leaders who were called by God for service.
This is in response to Meade's comment from 06-25-09. I totally agree with what you're saying Meade. I think at times we force our understanding about certain things on other people when there is freedom for difference in some of the standards you mentioned. However, while my experience is the same as yours (more emphasis on these non-central issues), by coming to the seminary I have learned that some of these Christological and central issues are dividing other SDA churches.
In response to Garth from 06-26-09. I totally agree Garth. I think whenever we become unbalanced in oour search for truth we actually move away from our very goal. I think the problem is that while we see that in everyone else, we refuse to see it in ourselves as well.
This is a response to Garth’s post on Anabaptists and Adventists.
I agree with you how there are many interesting similarities between these two belief systems. And I do think that there are many important lessons to be learned from the decay of the Anabaptist movement. But, I am curious as to if radicalism really only leads to nonbelievers being turned off and the apostasy of believers. Now this might not be the best comparison, but look at Islam today. For the most part (at least in the West) the extremist/fundamentalist factions are the ones that get the most attention and thus are the most widely known parts of Islam. Yet even with all of the negative material out there about Muslims, it is growing much, much faster than Christianity. I whole-heartedly agree with you that as a church, Adventists should not be all crazy radical, but I just don’t know if there isn’t some benefit to such a stance in some form or another.
This is a response to Ryan’s post on the nature of Christ.
I appreciate how you voiced your opinion on this matter. I appreciate how Dr. Hanna said that we might just be asking the wrong question though. Your mention of the “fully human” and “fully Divine” aspects makes me wonder (due to previous class discussions), if we are not completely forgetting about the “fully Divine” part of the equation when we argue over the human nature of Christ. We see that this has been an issue for some time with the statement of the Formula of Concord saying that God is man and man is God, but maybe as Adventist we have been splitting too fine of a hair when we omit His Divine nature from the discussion.
I feel you completely, as it has been a struggle my whole adult life. As a U.S. Soldier, having served over four years in Special Operations, this issue is most likely the most difnitive of my expieirience of Adventism. Having been raised as an Adventist, and rather than rejecting my roots, my roots rejected me. I have come to terms with that, and forgiven them as well as myself, and receieved God's forgiveness. What it came down to is three things:
1) The Bible is very clear that since we live in a fallen world, there are evils present- such as widows and orphans, greed, and hate. It is also clear that the Child of God's duty is to Protect and Guard those widows and orphans from the greed and hate. There are those that are called to Feed them, others to clothe them, others to bring them the news of Salvation, still others- to Protect them.
2) The Holy Spirit does as He wishes. He calls upon the people He needs to work through in whatever way He needs them to do it. Be it a temporay 5 minute task of helping a homeless person find food, or a lifetime of mission work among some people group. I beleive that people are called to be soldiers- men and women who will die for a brother/sister so that they might live- others are called to be police- the serve and protect (imagine a world with rules, but no one to enforce them) some to be civil servants (like an inner city social worker).
3) God is a JUST God- not a Disney fariytale character all warm and fuzzies declawed and docile. Our God is Grace, all warm and fuzzy, but He has claws and teeth, and He will use them (flood, sodom and gomorah), and I can't imagine the inner termoil He would have over such a thing-
Very interesting analogy Tyler; your questions are well taken and deserve our consideration as pastors in a fallen world, in very challenging times. As a of matter fact, just to add to the final point where you point to EGW’s, Luke 18:8 says: “And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” How can we contribute significantly to make sure that when He comes, faith can be found on earth?
You raised an excellent issue that has little treatment in class. Extremeism and Fanaticism. When you said that it brought to mind several places where Ellen White denounces such far polarizing issues. An example of this fanaticism is the Total Onslaught series- where Veith makes extreme statements that are not supported factually. There seems to be a following of this guy in many of our youth. Even some here in the Seminary- which is astounding to say the least.
reformers who have made the history in the reformation world like for instance martin luther and the lest we have been discussing this week all had one characteristics[they] didn’t have it all right.But the bold steps they took to step away from what they believed was not true from their mainstream churches led to another more productive scenario ……searching and searching for what is true and what is true must be tested I’m commenting on fenades’s refrection #3 by agreeing with him that though all this so far called great with the regal acceptable standard of measurement and in this context we call it the bible. We can all accept that their efforts led to our present freedom in Christ. Our deeper search for what is true makes our salvation easy and make us free from all bondages whether from sin or religion.we should accept room for discussion.It is very vital for us for it is through discussion people tend to get solutions and more truth. when we limit ourselves by relying on what has been passed to us is not enough otherwise by doing this we stop the more revelation that God wants to reveal to us.So issues like , oh,this is what we have been knowing to be true for many years or our church has been holding to for ages should not exist in scholarly discussion like in among the bible scholars,we have to prove every doctrine or believe in the sola scriptura a alone.
I’m commenting on john’s reflection #3 I do accept his concept of Ellen g.white as one of the concepts he depicted from the week’s discussion.So where should we categorize her as part of the process of reformation ?obviously we cant call her as one of the scholars, But her contribution in the process of reformation is inevitable more especially in Adventism. God used her so much to shed more light to areas where this reformers never even mentioned for instance the issue of the Sabbath. The Sabbath issue is one of the most neglected concepts which I fail to understand even at the moment that why did they always escape it?.The great reformers dint even dare to mention it, if they mentioned it then I have to be honest that I have not come across it .we as Adventists are not ashamed to call her a prophet of God, her writings have been proven by the larger light which is the bible and has been proved right. Every prophet must be proved with the Bible, their message and their fruits as the bible clearly states. So as we will continuing with our discussion on this course let us not forget that there are other means or people God has used to reveal his a mong us.let not give credit to these reformers alone but even to the others who are behind the scenes but have played a great role in reformation. I do believe also that God is using other people in our present time to reveal his will among us.
I'm responding to Nathan Kennedy's 3rd reflection.
I'm doing research on Zwingli and predestination, so I appreciate your thoughts regarding the importance of the predestination issue. I'm going to check out the sites you listed because I didn't realize the allegations resolved around predestination.
This is a response to the post of Jason Hines on 6/26/2009. Jason well summarized religious break away movements as having a radical stage in the beginning and a consolidated conservative stage later. This latter stage tends to rest newer ideas. If the universal church accepted new light as God was please to give it, the whole church could be save together, but that has not happened; the result has been new break away churches frequently. I do think that these new churches do not necessarily get it right even on the issues that they push the hardest on. I think that there is a tendency to over shoot the mark. In pushing hard against one wrong idea they tend to go to the opposite extreme. We should be ready to give up ideas that can be proved to be in error from the word of God. I must disagree with brother Jason concerning his statement that “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”; in chapter 2 of Selected Messages Book 2 Ellen White said that some try “to remove the old landmarks,” but that this should not be so.
This is a response to Reflection #3 by Taurus. I agree that “Calvin’s view of predestination is faulty.” Calvin had a legitimate concern that people not take credit for their salvation, but in trying to solve that problem, he created much larger problems. Part of his problem was that he looked to the earlier church fathers to help solve the problem. He should have looked at the Bible for the solution. The Bible as a whole does not make sense if predestination is assumed, there is no reason for the Bible, history, sin, sinners, or a Savior. If God has already decide who will be saved and who will burn forever, what need is there fore a Savior, especially one to die on a cross? The second part of the reflection was on the subject of passivism verses war; he portrayed an opposition between the Old Testament ( war ) and the New Testament ( turn the other cheek ). I think that there is an underlying harmony. God commanded us to love our neighbor in both Testaments. There was divine judgment resulting in death in both Testaments, ( in 2 Samuel 15 God orders Saul to destroy the Amalekites, and in Revelation 19-21 God will destroy all sinners ). The “just shall live by faith” (Habakkuk 2:4 and Romans 1:17). Paul wrote that “whatever is not from faith is sin” ( Romans 14:23 ). Paul also wrote that faith come from the “word of God” ( Romans 10:17 ). We need to be operating on what we know is according to the word of God not on what we think is not wrong, after all what a man thinks is right leads to death ( Proverbs 14:12; 16:25. God has commanded us not to kill ( Exodus 20 ), so unless He orders us to kill, I think that we are going against the commandment not to kill if we kill the enemy of our country. We are told to love our enemies not kill them. We are suppose to obey the government of the land of our residence, but only as far as it does not go against the law of God ( Acts 4:19 ). Consider that our government is telling us to kill the soldiers of the enemy; is not the enemy government telling their soldiers to do the same? Where is God in that?
Response to Fenades 6/25/2009 1:43 PM I have really interesting the comparison you made between the New Age movement and the Osiandrian controversy. Actually, it clarified that I have written in my notes. I fully agree when you said that “by creating the atmosphere of openness to debate and challenging of each others views… … where we can question why we believe what we believe and have healthy debates then out theology will never grow and be reformed.” I also appreciate the way how Dr Hanna has conducted the class; it is precisely, as you said, this environment that produces “thinking.” Unfortunately, some students take too personally the debate and the usefulness of it is lost. There are few classes conducted in this way.
I’m responding to Christy Parfet. I agree with your idea that “our postmodernism has affected the way we think about evangelism , even to the point that we are embarrassed to say “We have the truth” or too afraid to.” But I think the main reason that we deny we have it is that many SDA people don’t know well our truth. They don’t know how to show non SDA people our truth. Many SDA people don’t have the knowledge of truth and the way to show people it. When I was a child in 1970’s, our parents had heard that other church prohibited their members to debate the bible because our parents knew the bible well. Their priority was the reading and studying the bible. Lay people preached well, but now we don’t. I believe we don’t study bible as much as our parents. It is the time to go back the bible.
This response is to Byron Shea Crockett. I agree your idea. I had the thought why we need to study history. I didn’t want to learn history of doctrines. I just wanted to know the bible well. But I am learning the importance of the history. I was so impressed reformers’ struggle for the truth, especially Martin Luther’s. I am becoming to know meaning more of many verses through this class than before. Then I became to know their arrogance is mine. Now I like this class. And research also help me to understand it more.
I agree with you 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. We, Adventists, deny predestination in public but we accept it inside thinking I am Adventist so I will be saved. This thought is not different from Calvin's predestination. We can't be sure about our salvation even if we are in Adventism.
I thought in the same way regarding comparing Anabaptists and Adventists. YOu said "it was interesting to see the doctrinal similarities and differences between the Anabaptist and Seventh-day Adventists." I thought so too. We have both extreme and modest sides in us. but radical sides have sometimes brought up serious problems. We need to be moderate.
Thomas Oyaro Ong'ou commenting to Ryan Hablitzel said "Thanks Ryan the only truth which we cannot doubt is the truth of Christ who is our ruler, The Bible which our rule and the church where Christ rules.Truth is Jesus himself who in John 14:6 says that "Iam the way, the truth and the life.
Commenting on Jung Yoo Kim on his comparison of the Anabaptists and the Seventh Day Adventist Anabaptists are more extremists as the Seventh day Adventists however in the 21st century we need to change our methods and approaches in dealing with the past prophecy of daniel and revelation, the 1888 message of righteousness by faith and health reform. Christ equals to salvation. Not that Christ+ health=salvation.
My comment is for anonymous commenting on John's post regarding Ellen G. White and the Sabbath.
I strongly agree with your comment that we should not forget of those people that God used to bring worth truth. They might not be as mention as Luther, Ellen White, etc. however, God used them to bring the puzzle of his truth together. I also agree with you that God is still using people out there as well and he will use them when the appointed time comes.
I'm responding to Kiseung's comment to Christy Parfet
Kinseung, I believe you have a very good point about most SDA don't share the truth because in most cases the members are not well knowledgeable about what they have believe in. I would dare to take it a step further and say that the reason why most SDA don't share the truth with others is because they don't really know the person who is the truth; Jesus Christ. We have become so busy trying to teach others about the truth that we have, that we have neglected to have that special relationship with the truth (Jesus). Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore, we should work out to know Him, the truth and others will automatically, by testimony will see the truth in us and we will not have to worry as of which method to use. He will do it in us and through us! Let the light shine!
I strongly agree with him. Especially, born adventists, they usaully don't know what they have believed. They don't know how to mission other poeple. They do not care about the people who do not know about Sabbath. Not all born adventist but most of them. SDA church is not the last group. we should concentrate what we believe and how we believe in Jesus every moment.
This response is to Byron Shea Crockett. I agree with what you wrote. We need to learn history if doctrines.I think we should know about doctrines well. Doctrines are really important I would like to question myself. If someday, somebody ask about one of our SDA doctrines I should answer them right one. That is what God wants me to do.
By Elmer Guzman I would like to clarify that it is well debated the Trinitarian issues in Brazil in our seminaries, and also in some churches. Yet, it is true that there is a movement in some SDA Brazilian churches (but also in other countries, as Australia) about the nature of the Trinity, because of the dubious language of our pioneers in some cases, and also by the anti-Trinitarian notion in our beginnings. Maybe this is so because of the fact that most of our pioneers received some influence from Methodism, which is a modification of Anglicanism from UK (the place where Unitarianism flourished). A good material to read is the MA dissertation of Erwin Gane (1963) about the topic.
Comment on Patricia’s reflection by Elmer GUzman In this debate about truth, the formulation [Jesus = truth] is quite correct, and unfortunately sometimes it is necessary to confront people regarding the beliefs (but in a godly way as Calvin says). A quote from Gonzalez is elucidative, “Any supposedly divine spirit that does not lead to Scripture, and through it to Christ, must be rejected.”
Interesting point you make Elmer about calvinism, predestination and state; I agree with your observations. I add that in this process of reviewing our thoughts on the relationship church and state, we should consider that one of the challenges we face as SDAs today is, how to relate with the state without open the door for a compromise in our principles?
This is a response to Elmer Guzman's post on the Adventist tendency to follow the Anabaptist tradition of the separation of church and state.
I think that you made an interesting point. I have lately been trying to reconcile the traditional Adventist stance with the ringing endorsements given by Ellen White to vote for Prohibition. Now, I'm probably not looking at this issue in a holistic manner, but it does seem that this might possibly be one issue where one cannot be in both camps.
This is a response to Nathan Kennedy's post on the "Emergent Church" and the "Rules of the Game."
I appreciated your post and your (brief) dealing with some of the various anti-Seventh-day Adventist websites out there. I agree that people who stumble upon them are in danger of just leaving the Church and that we should be more proactive in presenting information on predestination. Do you think we should be more proactive about these websites in general? I think we need to find a way to publicly address the controversial material presented by these sites, but in a way that wouldn't promote more of our members going down that "rabbit hole."
Your thoughts on the underlying motivation one "should" have while conducting oneself in a day to day manner. Love is key, I would add that an intentional redemptive love is the purpose. You noted 1 Cor 13. But I did not understand how that is "mushy" as you put it. Paul is speaking of an intentional good will attitude towards others.
But you are right, at least as I interpreted your message, that love is not the sweet, charmin soft stuff that Disney and Hollywood would have us beleive it is. It is a purposed and deliberate attitude. Thank you for the reminder, I need that, I am one of those that get exasperated with too much fluff and need bullet points. :)
RE: Tyler Kraft's Comparison on EGW and Jn Calvin.
Thanks for the reflection. I myself get so tied up in the frustration of his version of Predestination and TULIP that I often neglect to enjoy the positives that Calvin contributed such as his commentaries. Thanks.
I appreciate the connection that you made. It is very interesting that there are so many similarities between Calvin and White.
I understand many of the problems that people who are turned off by EGW have. I have a few family members who because of statements like the bicycle statement have given up on her completely. It is important for us as ministers and teachers that we educate our fellow Adventist and Christians to look not only at the immediate text context, but also the cultural context of the time.
I too have struggled with many classes here at the seminary and struggled trying to find how they would benefit me in my ministry. However, you have hit the target in your conclusion that without the study of many of these other classes, we would not have the wisdom or knowledge that can help many people earnestly searching for Christ.
In your second paragraph I am assuming you are talking about Luther. The testimony of others is always a good example of God working in the lives of people. We should always be looking for our own testimony and how God is working in our lives. That gives us courage.
I agree with you that we have a unique name that is full of meaning. I am glad our forefathers took the time to come up with a name that expressed what we believe. I hadn't though much about the implications of shortening the name though. But when I come across church people who don't want to identify themselves as Seventh-day Adventist or even Adventists (because they don't want to scare people away before they hear the message or because they are afraid of prejudice), I think it's wrong. We should be open about who we are and what we believe.
EG thank you for your clarification on Gonzalez’s approach to Calvin’s concept of predestination as well as the eventual emphasis on Calvinistic school. Particularly in the emphasis of church and state relations. What made me wonder was you final remark when you said that “because the state is not hell, neither heaven…” So, How should we define it? Depending on our answer we should take a stand.
Thank you for your initial “provocative” words. It made me think of the importance of the study of such writings. I agree with you on your reflection. And I would say that God may have inspired some writers throughout the centuries. Why not? Was the Holy Spirit present in the reformer’s minds? I believe so.
I appreciated your reflection on the issue of adiaphora. So often we see people ready to stone each other because of differences of opinion on "edge" issues. Even if it WAS a central issue, we should still be brothers and sisters in Christ.
While I agree that there has been a over emphasis on coming apart almost to the exclusion of ourselves from society, we should not freely place ourselves in a place that will be destructive to our faith.
Evangelism should be done "among the people," but there should also be programs or places where people doing ministry in secular or foreign cultures can build up and retain their faith.
I am known for mingling and having friends in both secular and religious settings, My experience has made me realize that I need a faith building community to compliment my work "among the people," otherwise I have noticed that it would be easy to loose faith and be absorbed into the beliefs of the people you are trying to reach.
It is up to us as future church leaders to not only retain the Seventh-day Adventist identity, but to move the Seventh-day Adventist message forward.
There is a grass roots movement of young people that are returning to practical Godliness and Bible study. I often feel like these individuals will do more for the Seventh-day Adventist message than the educated individuals who often control things now. We have the opportunity to make a difference.
This is a response to Ryan's response to Patricia's reflection #2. Amen Ryan! We must retain our Seventh-day Adventist Identity that is constantly under attack both within and without...only then will we maintain our mission. David Asscherick has a great sermon on this called "Mission and Identity"...you've probably already heard it. It's exciting to see God raising up the grassroots movement that you mentioned. With the currency crisis growing worse and worse, it won't be much longer before the "paid gospel workers" will be laid off. Those who continue to go forward in lifting up the banner of Jesus...without receiving a paycheck...they will prove to be the true Gospel Workers in the end. May we be diligent to develop a strong faith in the Word of God alone...as we face the trying times ahead. Blessings jjw
You made a very important point in suggesting that we should look for EGW input about a theme in her major works first. I strongly believe that if all of us adopted such careful approach to her writings, many misunderstanding would be avoided; very good observation.
This is a response to Jung Yoo Kim’s 3rd reflection. Thanks for finding and quoting the quote from Mrs. White. I think there is a lot of prejudice regarding her writings and that if people would read her for themselves, then their negative views might be changed. They react against the misuse of her work and neglect to read the message itself. She is much more balanced and kind then some portray. Thanks for your post!
This is a comment on Nick Jones' 4th reflection. I appreciated your post because you made a good point that I hadn't thought much about. It is true that most history classes seem preoccupied with comparing and contrasting. It's like comparing the gospels with each other but we lose their individual theology when we ONLY look at how they differ from each other. I hope with you that we can have balance.
Am Commenting on Nathan Krause in regard to Wednesday’s presentation on the use of technology in the reformation. There is no doubt that we cannot continue using “the reformation” techniques to reach the post-modern mind but I think we should make a distinction between “the message” and how we disseminate that message. God’s word is timeless, unchanging through the ages but it should be presented in a way palatable to the people it is intended to reach which means taking into consideration the target group or audience. To large extent the target group or audience determines the way you present the message however I do agree that we should not be left behind in terms of how we present our message that we become irrelevant and disagreeable to the community.
Am Commenting on J. Harold AlomÃa reflection entitled “Arrogance”. I do agree with you that some have inappropriately used the term Remnant and that being Remnant is a responsibility, a mission title that is bestowed to the group of faithful that are commissioned to share and proclaim the truth but we cannot negate the fact that we have the Remnant and I don’t think it is arrogance to say that we are ‘the remnant’ or among those who are the remnant. Just by the simple definition of the word Remnant which is, “A small surviving group of people” and if I can use Calvin’s definition of a church as the Elect of God, that is who we are or rather who we are supposed to be as Seventh Day Adventist Church. The faithful ones (The bible doesn’t talk of many but few) who are true to His word. I think the arrogance comes in explicitly cutting out others as not “eligible” to belong in the “Remnant” other than the Seventh Day Adventist church. There are definitely some in the SDA church but are not Remnants because there life and beliefs are not in line with the word of God.
Comment on Christy Parfet ‘s reflection 4 I appreciate your concern and I think it is a valid concern grappling between the essential and non essentials or adiaphora. It reminds me of Calvin’s fundamentals and non-fundamentals. The questions that I struggle with are; where do we draw the line and who determines that line? Can we really settle the issue of Adiaphora once and for all? Even in the New Testament I find examples of adiaphora often cited from Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Some of this epistle was written in response to a question from the Corinthian Christians regarding whether it was permissible for a Christian to eat food offered to idols. In response, Paul replied: ... food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (1 Corinthians 8:8-9). I believe we can win an argument but loose a brother or a sister or offend others and a brother/sister who is offended is hard to win.
This is a comment regarding Ryan Hablitzel’s post on the church’s needs vs. the individual’s needs.
I appreciated what you had to say on this topic. I certainly believe that we should hold Christ up as our example in ministering to people. My question is simply – shouldn’t the church’s needs be the same as the individual’s needs? I know there will be some practical differences, but if an individual needs food for example, shouldn’t the church need to provide it? I think that when Christ saw sickness, hunger, theological confusion, or whatever malady the case might have been – He felt a NEED to provide for that person.
(Note: This is a “bonus” post, since it seems as one of my first week’s comments did not get sent through.)
This is a response to the Reflection titled Calvinism, predestination and state By Elmer Guzman. I agree with Elmer that we should be like the wary of involvement with the state. It is obvious that the people of the governments of the world frequently run these governments contrary to the plan of God. I do think that the Bible is clear that the governments of this world are ordained by God. This does not mean that we should obey them in all things; we are required to obey them when it does not conflict with what God has said like when Peter and John was before the Sanhedrin; Peter questioned the authorities whether he and John should obey God or man. I am inclined to think that since God prescribed the death penalty in the Old Testament that governments of this world are allowed to have the death penalty.
This is a response to the Reflection titled Adiaphora Reflection #4 by Christy Parfet. I agree with Christy that sometime in our history he have had bitter disagreements over small matters. I am reminded of the 1888 general Conference, where they discussed the Law in Galatians; Ellen White called it such a small matter she used the word mote. I do think that we ought to teach that tolerance on some of these smaller issues should be allowed, and we should do it from the Word of God, not just to accommodate the current political climate. I think that we have also had the opposite problem: refusing to discuss problems because they are issues that are too important like salvation. We often discourage discussion of salvation with the full recognition that it is very important, even essential.
Garth Dottin Response to Kiseung I appreciate your reflection on the issue of the gospel commission and leadership. However, you raised the issues as if they are only unique to Korean Seventh-day Adventist Churches. I believe that all the issues that you presented can easily be found in many other churches. Firstly, many Christians seem to have lost their zeal to see souls accept Christ. This is why so many have developed a laissez-faire mentality concerning leadership and service. Lastly, I believe that all ministers need to understand that our role is not to be in control of everything that occurs within the church. We need to develop a ministry that seeks to empower individuals to lead and move Gods church in preparation for the second coming of Jesus.
Garth Dottin Response to Patricia Nesbit I agree with you that our name Seventh-day Adventist is extremely important. It certainly sets us apart as Gods people, and contains strong Biblical teaching within it. However, your comment gives the impression that the church has formally advocated for this change, or advocated for the names abbreviation. The truth is that the church is now promoting the use of our full name rather than the abbreviated form. The problem is that there are many other denominations which share nothing in common with the Seventh- day Adventist church that use similar abbreviations. It seems that God is allowing this to happen to allow the remnant church to maintain its uniqueness and identity.
This is my response to Meade's 4th Reflection. Thanks for your comment Meade. I think that this point needed to be made. I am in totally agreement with what you said Meade. I have also found in my experience that Adventists (and Christians of other stripes for that matter) want to "not get their hands dirty" in dealing with sinners. Not only is this almost an impoosibility, but it goes against the example of Christ.
This is in Response to Ryan's post from 07-01. Thanks for your comment Ryan. I think that both the points you make are worth considering. There certainly needs to be a balance between intellectual and practical Christianity. Both of those ways reach people and we should be adept at both.
I also agree with what you said about EGW. I think that we should be careful when quoting her.
I wanted to respond to John's 06-28 critique of my comment. Here's what John said:
I must disagree with brother Jason concerning his statement that “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”; in chapter 2 of Selected Messages Book 2 Ellen White said that some try “to remove the old landmarks,” but that this should not be so.
- John here's the full quote that I was alluding to (which I actually got from Hanna's book)
"We should not allow a day to pass without gaining an increase in knowledge in temporal and spiritual things. We are to plant no stakes that we are not willing to take up and plant farther on, nearer the heights we hope to ascend." Letter 164, 1903
While I certainly paraphrased, I think I was faithful to the spirit of what she was trying to say. But I say that to say this - the quote I cited and the quote you cited are not actually in conflict. In the quote I cited EGW was talking about our willingness to examine what we believe to be truth. In the quote you cited, she seems to be talking about whether the stake should actually be moved. I am willing to examine every truth, and willing to test the truth against every challenge. That does not imply that I want to move every truth that is firmly planted. Those are two different things and so our points were not in conflict.
If you're interested in any sources regarding my presentation on "Protesting for the Word of God in an Age of Silent Synthesis"... send me an email at jjwalper@yahoo May God help the following text and quote to be the commentary of our lives as we fast approach the Second Coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Blessings jjw
1 Corinthians 2:1,2 "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
"Pride and self-worship cannot flourish in the heart that keeps fresh in memory the scenes of Calvary." (Desire of Ages 661)
Piasi Suleiman, Week 4 comment. I’m commenting on Terraces’s last representation on the research paper he wrote. He researched in one aspect f reformation we need in our contemporary church [technology and the gospel].Earlier I had a mixed filling that yes I believe that God has been using reformation process to accomplish his will on us and even in the class discussion we had accepted that even today we need more reformation, But I was in dilemma on how this will happen. Terrace gave a representation that will provoke our traditional way of doing the Gods work, our traditional methods of returning our tithes and evangelism are not bad but sometimes they are not effective. Let me Point to an example like we have church members who get insufficient salary. For example they gets the salary say on Tuesday, by the time they reach on Sabbath to return their tithe you get that all that salary has been exhausted on the unavoidable bills what should you advise this church members. Terrace gave us an effective method of returning our tithes and offering through online [electronic transfer] this will enable church members to return their tithes faithfully on time and avoid the temptation of spending due to waiting up to the Sabbath day to return it. When I was also thinking on how we will apply this technology in evangelism, I found that it will be very much easier and effective to evangelize the Muslims community through the internet and other modern technology than using the traditional ways of sending evangelist to more dangerous Muslim dominated zones. By saying this I don’t mean to condemn the traditional method but I suggest how effective will it be by using this methods .I picked another comment of Dr Hannah on having some Bible discussion classes online, this was not on class discussion but later on when some students remained behind after class to ask him some questions I was among them, I do support his wonderful i dea because we will be able to reach many souls and share with them what we believe in.
Piasi Suleiman Week 4 comment. I’m commenting on mike’s reflection on our last week of discussion. First I want to congratulate him by selecting this section as his part of reflection for this week. Knowledge on Calvin, Luther nor Zwingli and the others is not important if we can forget our focus on the author and finisher of our salvation who is Jesus christ.we need to be assured of our salvation. Sometimes most of us focus on what did these theologian say. For example most theology students spend more time to study on other theologians than studying on the author of our salvation [Jesus] We need to always remember that it is only by entirely relying on Jesus Christ, the father and the holy spirit that our salvation is assured. Learning more of this other theologians should help us to learn more of his dynamics of salvation but not how great their theologies impacted the nations.
Piasi Suleiman Week 4 comment. I’m commenting on mike’s reflection on our last week of discussion. First I want to congratulate him by selecting this section as his part of reflection for this week. Knowledge on Calvin, Luther nor Zwingli and the others is not important if we can forget our focus on the author and finisher of our salvation who is Jesus christ.we need to be assured of our salvation. Sometimes most of us focus on what did these theologian say. For example most theology students spend more time to study on other theologians than studying on the author of our salvation [Jesus] We need to always remember that it is only by entirely relying on Jesus Christ, the father and the holy spirit that our salvation is assured. Learning more of this other theologians should help us to learn more of his dynamics of salvation but not how great their theologies impacted the nations.
This is a comment for Helen McClellan about memorizing Scripture.
Step by step. I know this idea seems to simple, but if you try to memorize everything in one single step, will be difficult for you. Try two or three verses per week. Your capacity to memorize will expanded.
Helen, I agree with you about “We all have faults, make mistakes, and sometimes we can even disagree with our beliefs”, Luther was used by God, not as a perfect man to do reformation. God called the man Luther with many imperfections, but a man with a heart compromised with the Word of God. Luther in my understanding had many wrong philosophical views that he received from Catholic church. But he was captive by the Word of God and, he was used by God.
This comment is in response Garth Dottin's comment. I found the doctrinal similarities and differences between the Anabaptist and Seventh-day Adventists interesting as well. I agree and believe that Adventist Christians must remain faithful the Word of God and avoid extreme practices and views which cannot and will not help people to know Christ and accept His gift of salvation. So often we preach everything but Christ and claim to have done something radical for God, when all that we have done is confused people by emphasizing the do's and don'ts rather than truth of God's grace.
I agree with him that "tradition is subject to scripture, but we must not reject elements of tradition all together. We can learn a lot from tradition." All tradition is not bad and God has led in his providence so far and it means we can find God's wisdom in tradition.
Comment on Piasi Suleiman's fourth Reflection paper.
I think you brought up a good issue saying, "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." Because we are limited human beings, we have different opinions on Bible verses. But none of us is perfect and has all knowledge so we should not hate others and think only we have the truth.
This comment is in response to Elvis who wrote a few weeks back about God calling the Protestant reformers to reform the practices and ideas of the church. I totally agree with Elvis (and with our professor) that we draw lessons that can essentially help us learn about our present religious standing be reviewing our Protestant Reformation history. We can see from the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anabaptist movements of the Protestant Reformation times in which when they were following God's truth and other times when they abandoned it in favor of their ideas. It is my hope that God will help us remain off the path of apostasy but always on the path of truth.
This is to response to Meade Adam. I agree your point. We need a flexibility in our interpretation. But we need a order for that. There is a internet site for Korea in America. Many people write their opinions on that. This is good. But many people write their opinion without verification about their interpretation. So many confusion has been made.
This is to response to Helen Mclellan. My problem is the same with you. I am trying to memorize some verses, but it is very hard. I remember a pastor who was called walking Bible. He explained his secrete to memorize verse. His secret was teaching bible repeatedly so many times. He said that he never tried to memorize them. He just teached the bible repeatedly, then he became to memorize them.
This comment is in response to Meade Adams' reflection on mission as it related to the Reformation. I agree with you (and Dr. Hanna) about sharing the gospel with our Muslim brothers and sisters with the hope of them accepting it only to become "Fishers of Men", returning to evangelize their Muslim friends and neighbors. The early Reformers were preoccupied with this same mission because the Bible mandated it. Meade, Adventists can only keep themselves “pure” and "faithful" to God not by keeping themselves separate from other non-Adventists, but by reclaiming returning to Scripture. It's time for us to reverse our selfish thinking and undo the corruption that is going on today and really grasp what Christianity really is - love. Jesus says: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one for another" - Jn 13:35.
I strongly agree with her. Step by step is really important. Every day, it is good to try to memorize scripture even one verse. And after some time for example, the time when we can not read the Bible, we can use our memory verses.
I agree the issue of the gospel commission and leadership.
Many people forgot how to meet Jesus and His heart. We need to prepare them to learn about our salvation.
It is not enough just they listen sermon once a week. They need bible study to preach others. So, we need leader who has mission statements for God and for people.
It is God's plan for the people who live in last time of the world.
230 comments:
1 – 200 of 230 Newer› Newest»Nick Jones
I am commenting on Helen McClellan's post on the Mass Production of Manuscripts and the Creation of Schools.
I too find it interesting how hard the early reformers worked on getting the Bible mass produced for the general population. It is sad that many Christians today take the Bible for granted and do not take the time to read its words. Could we as ministers (this includes teachers as well as pastors) impress upon the minds of Christians the importance of this book?
As for classes on Adventist Heritage, I never had any such class while in elementary or high school. It was not until I reached college that I actually had a class about our Adventist Heritage, and then at that, this class was not required for all students. I believe that it is up to us to change that. We need to make sure that we are presenting our heritage to our youth and our fellow Adventists so that they understand where we have come from.
Helen McClellan
Thanks Nick for your comments! I too believe that it is up to each of us to make changes not only in our schools, but in our churches. There are so many youth and adults alike who really do not understand the church doctrines, much less how we becae SDA's.
I must say I did not know what this course would be like, but thus far I am enjoying and learning so much. What I enjoy the most is how the teacher uses the Bible and expounds on an idea or text and not just recites what is already in the textbook. I like classes that use the scripture as its main textbook.
What did you think about chapter 3? I had never heard of Zwingli until now! What a differnce between him and Luther and other reformers.
This is a comment for Hellen McClellan.
As I was reading your paper, I found that it helped to highlight the sacredness of the Bible for me. Here were people so totally committed to getting this supremely important text out to the general public that they were willing to die for it. Yet, I wonder if the fact that they were able to mass produce the Bible led to people eventually thinking of it as less sacred. I find it interesting that in a day where words can be typed and distributed to the masses without even using real paper or ink, that we have come to think less and less of the importance of the printed Bible. I myself am an avid Biblegateway.com user, and often take having the Bible just a few clicks away for granted.
For another class, I have been studying about Muslims. During my studies, I have seen first hand how important the Qu’ran is to them. They treat it with reverence and awe, and I am pretty sure that they would be offended to see how many of us Christians treat our holy text. While the Qu’ran has experienced the same amount of technological breakthroughs that the Bible has – has been mass produced on the printing presses and can be found on the internet – Muslims have not really “forgotten” about the history, importance and holiness of their text as much as Christians have.
This is a comment for Tyler Kraft.
I too understand a little bit from where you are coming from. I agree that absolute truth is hard to come by. We can claim to have the truth, but I know that the truth that we have is only as close as we are humanly possible to get. God has not revealed everything to us and probably will not until He comes again. Therefore we cannot claim to have absolute truth, we can only claim to have truth.
Post moderns are definitely a hard group to pin down and have a similar regard for intellectual honesty that you do. The question is, how do we reach these postmoderns in a way that shows that we have intellectually studied the Bible? The answer I believe is to look in our past and how diligently our Adventist church founders focused much of their energy on finding what the Bible truly had to say. And I think instead of looking for Absolute truth, they looked for present truth.
Just a couple thoughts.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
This is a response to Nick's comments:
Good point about Luther having much more to say than "Justification by Faith." It seems that Luther had a comment for every aspect of religious thought in his time. Besides he was a respected Doctor of Theology at Whittenberg with a wealth of experience and study.
While Luther did challenge the church on many issues, we should not think that he was against the church. Luther was not against the church and never intended to break apart the church. His intentions were to reform the church from within. This gives us insight into what happened with Adventism. Adventist never wanted to start a new denomination, but rather wanted to reform the church to understand present truth. Unfortunately it became necessary to form a new organization in order to facilitate the spreading of present truth.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
This is a response to Tyler Kraft's comments.
I liked your point about intellectual honesty. I think it is necessary for us to step back and continually reevaluate the other side of an argument. I had come to the conclusion that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of an argument (much like Dr. Hanna is teaching us). It is important to acknowledge truth from a opponent in order to gain a greater understanding of truth.
While the Bible does not offer absolute truth, it does offer truth. I would argue that the majority of religions outside of Christianity are devoid of truth. My assumption is based on the fact that most religions outside of Christianity are based on the goal of become as God or a God yourself. This is the origonal sin in Christianity (Lucifer purposed to become like, equal to, God). Might I argue that people in other religions might understand truth through the leading of the Holy Spirit or Creation but typically not through the teachings of their religion. Since the Bible has consistently proven itself (prophecy) where all others have failed, it is a valid source of truth and a revelation from God containing truth, but not offering absolute truth.
I have been enjoying the discussion on absolute truth. And I agree in spirit with all that has been said. This comment is just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my position. I do believe that we have access to absolute truth since we have access to Jesus who is the incarnate Truth. We also have access to Absolute Truth through Scripture which is inspired truth. At the same time, because we are not absolute, we should not claim to possess or to understand all truth. Only God who is absolute can possess or understand Truth absolutely.
As the introduction to the SDA fundamental belief statements indicates: “ Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.”
This is a response to Ryan's comment. I totally agree with everything that you said. It does seem as we move throughout history that the standard for truth has shifted. And while all of the standards that have been proposed throughout the eras have been valid, only the Bible should be the real standard for truth.
Furthermore, your comment sparked a thought in me that we do have to mindful of the time that we are living in and adjust our style (not our truth) to meet it.
This is a response to Tyler's comment. I swear I didn't read your before I wrote mine! :-D There were a lot of similarities in what we said and so I appreciated what you had to say. The other thing that I appreciated (that I did not mention) was this idea that the either/or dichotomoy, (as seen in the divinity of Christ example) is not a mode of thought that lends itself to true biblical understanding.
Response to Nick’s comment.
I agree with you in the fact that much of Luther’s life is omitted except for the fact that he presented justification by faith. The only thing I knew about Luther growing up was that he nailed a document on the door of some church. He was willing to die for what he believed. You presented the statement at the end of your post which says that “we as Seventh-day Adventist have inherited the purpose of studying scripture and dying for our beliefs.” While I understand the basis of your comment, I questioned whether someone could really inherit that trait of martyrdom. It seems to be something that comes out of a belief in truth, and faith in God. Not everyone could be a martyr, and some people will give up their faith and recant like many before did when facing death.
Garth Dottin
Garth Dottin
Response to Jason’s post .
I agree with you Jason in the fact that we should not present truth rigidly. It does a disservice to the mission of the church in spreading the gospel of Jesus, and we cannot afford to be dogmatic. I must admit that I was in agreement with your position of being able to sit down and listen to everyone and examined their ideas biblically in order to formulate truth. Luther says that truth is formed by listening to the Holy Spirit and by searching the Scriptures. I began to wander if the idea that you presented is not advocating for ecumenism rather than truth. It appears that there is more of a compromise of ideas than the formation of what can be deemed as truth. Truth cannot be changed in spite of what anyone may think, feel or discuss. It is only then that I would be willing to die to defend it like Luther.
I'm commenting on Tyler Kraft's entry. Hey Tyler, I hear you... trying to grasp the postmodern concept that is often tossed around in the classroom is difficult. I guess sociologist and philosophers will always attempt to compartmentalize history into overly simplistic terms such as modernity, post-modernity, etc...in their effort to tell the story of history. But I think we've got to be careful how much we buy into all these man made theories. Over the past few years I've heard that Seventh-day Adventists need to come up with another way of evangelizing to accommodate the post-modern era we live in...I've also heard that the only reason that so many are giving their hearts to Jesus in India is because our evangelistic model is based in modernity and it matches up well with India, as it is 100 years or so behind the West. GWF Hegel tried to compartmentalize history by assigning philosophic labels to a timeline. He did this in an effort to tell the story of history. But Hegel wasn't what you and I would call a Christian. I believe there is a danger in leaning too heavily on these philosophic labels that attempt to tell us where people are at and what we need to do in light of this supposed classification.
Let's say we are living in a "post-modern" age...where no one believes in black or white... either/or...or Absolute Truth. I believe the Bible has the answer to us even in this type of a climate. The book of Judges repeats a phrase over and over in its pages. "The children of Israel had no king, every man did what was right in his own eyes." The vacuum created by this, was Israel's hunger for a National Monarchy. So if we are living in a time where people are struggling with accepting Absolute Reality, I believe the hunger that's in their hearts is for something SOLID that they can turn to and lean on. I think we still must present Jesus in all His charms as a Saviour of all mankind, unmovable, unshakable in any modern current.
I think if we make the gospel messy and complicated in an effort to reach people...it will only perpetuate their desperation. Revivals have never been accomplished through apologetics or philosophical arguments. Paul tried to match wits with the Pagan Philosophers in Rome, to which he had little success. So when he got to Corinth, his new strategy was to "know nothing among you, except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:1,2) Paul was much more successful by simply lifting up Jesus and Him crucified. Blessings brother!
Jeff
and then attempting to teach an Absolute reality in Jesus Christ to someone who doesn't believe in anything Absolute is challenging
Hey Jason (Jason Hines),
I agree with you. Christians have made some maxims over the years in regard to science and revelation that we've been embarrassed by. (i.e. the world is flat)
And yes I've seen the same thing, people are looking for honesty, and I would add transparency as well. But I get wary when we start talking about opening up the door to allow philosophy and even some denominations to help us discern Biblical Truth. It's been my experience in my study...to find many embracing a philosophy that calls for ecumenism at all costs. Ecumenism was one of the main tenants of Vatican II in 1965, and it has been building steam for the last 40 years plus. I believe that God is calling His people together in a "ecumenical" sense, but that "ecumenical church" will be based on sola scriptura...and the call is "to come out of her My people." Unfortunately we find in Catholicism, the UN, and even in our own persuasion a message of prima scriptura that opens the door to other norms of revelation or truth to enter in...creating a hermeneutic that places us in a position of recopitualating to Rome and its view of prima scriptura. May God give us the discernment we need in the often muddy waters of higher learning. Blessings!
Jeff
This is a response to Jason's comment. I agree completely with your point. We need to be more flexible in our interpretations; or at least understand that we don't have ALL absolute truth, but partial absolute truth.
I am responding to Ryan's comment. I like your thought process about the reformation's shift in the source of truth. I think it is necessary to understand what it was the reformation actually did as opposed to what it did not do.
I am commenting on Nick Jones reflections. I appreciate the connection you made with Martin Luther's devotion to study the Bible and his willingness to die for it with the Adventist movement. I wish it were true that all Adventist are die-hard "Sola Scripturist", but I believe that by and large we are.
I am commenting on Tyler Kraft's paper. Tyler your reflections on your struggle with presenting the Bible to post-moderns really inspire me to study the Word more diligently. In my early Christian experience I used "proof-texts" to win arguments but it never won people to a relationship with Christ. Thanks for your struggle. Keep wrestling!
A comment on Ryan Hablitzel
Would be plausible to suggest that there was a time when there was no such a discussion about where the truth lies, because God was the only truth to be known? I wonder though if the Bible, which tells us the history of God as the creator of all things, the Guide, Redeemer is not the absolute truth, what would be (John 8:32; 14:6; 17:17, 19)? I completely agree with Dr. Hanna when he says that we do not have full understanding of the absolute truth, but the Bible, in my opinion, does have ABSOLUTE TRUTH… after all, it does have Jesus. “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).
Sergio Silva
I appreciate very much the concerns of those who warn about the dangers of non-biblical philosophy, including the philosophy of Hegel. I share this concern. This is why I present the biblical revelation as the key to discerning the mixture of truth and error in extra-biblical philosophical systems. Biblical revelation also is the key to discerning the value of wholistic biblical philosophy. Scripture illuminates our understanding of the Creator and His creation throughout the various stages of history.
The concept of God’s leading in a progressive understanding of truth during various periods of history is a biblical concept. “The path of the just is as a shining light that shines more and more until the perfect day” (Prov 4:18). “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his. And He changes the times and the seasons. He removes kings, and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan 2:20-21).
The knowledge for which Daniel gives thanks includes the knowledge the he and his friends gained in the university of Babylon. “God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days . . . the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. . . . and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. . . . And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm” (Dan 1:17-20).
My main concern, however, is that we understand that it is not enough to profess a commitment to sola Scriptura. We must also practice a commitment to sola Scriptura which causes us to respect all of Scripture (tota Scriptura). This is what I mean by a wholistic biblical perspective. So if Scripture teaches that God has revealed Himself in creation and in human history, then we should believe what Scripture teaches.
This is a comment concerning Helen McClellan’s “The Mass Production of Manuscripts and the Creation of Schools.” I became an Adventist when I was in 6th grade, so I don’t have the background of many Adventist who remember the way things used to be. I attended a ministry workshop regarding children’s Sabbath school and found out that there used to be themes each quarter that highlighted Adventist doctrine. I had never encountered this before, but realize the lack in my own church and have found an old theme lesson on Ellen White that I am now using. My point is that I think many other people don’t know how it used to be, which is why I agree that we should be teaching our history more than we do. And each of us can do our part in our corner of the world.
This is a comment concerning Jason Hines's post on 6/11/2009 2:43 PM. I appreciated your addition to the discussion concerning postmodern's search for honesty. When we are honest with others and ourselves, that is when we become authentic, which is what the world is looking for. I also agree that we need some humility in realizing that the remnant church doesn’t have a hold of the total absolute truth. We have much to offer though and need to find ways to communicate it.
This is a comment concerning Meade Adam's post. "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." I agree with this point you brought out 100% and just to add on to that statement reaction movement rarely bring something new to the table most of the time they come from a desire to undo what was previously done.
This is a comment concerning jjwalper's post. "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." This is a great point you brought out and i just want to state that no reformer has or will have it 100% right but God uses people as much as He according to where they are, and even though Luther didn't have it all right he made huge strides considering the time he lived in.
Commenting on Christy Parfet reflection 1
Who am I to question everything, or anyone? I’m just an ordinary man with limited vision and understanding of the Most High. Nonetheless, while I recognize my limitations and shortcomings, I am also able to figure out that free will is a gift granted to me by God; thus, I can make use of this gift to accept, or not the TRUTH (John 14:6) revealed to me in the Bible (Prima, Tota, Sola Scriptura). As a result I’ll have to deal with the consequences of my choices, for better or worse.
So I wonder: “is it to respect people’s choices the same as to “leave them to the hyenas?”” And my conclusion is NO, after all when Christ returns, those who choose to accept Him will go to heaven with Him, but those that didn’t will be really left to the hyenas. Conclusively, I believe that my “job” as a Christian, is to present the TRUTH, which is Jesus Christ; it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convince the people from their sins, and finally it is their “job” is to accept… or not.
Sergio Silva
Helen McClellan
My husband is always trying to get me to join facebook and I'm like, I don't have time to talk to anyone. And now I find myself enjoying reading your insights and sharing mine. I just wanted to thank Mr. Hanna for encouraging us to share our thoughts, ideas, and even questions.
I am currently reading chapter 10 in our text book about Calvin and have enjoyed his insight on education. I truly believe we need not model his view on education, but we need to teach more from the bible. I'm working on the paper (15 page project) and would enjoy hearing about your view on Christian education.
Perhaps you haven't gotten to that chapter yet, but I would still like to hear your ideas.
I too ejoyed learning about the absolute truth. However I get a little confussed when everyone presents their views. I understood where Mr. Hanna was going but then someone said something in class and I was confussed. It wasn't until Mr. Hanna explained the nature of Christ 100% human and divine that I understood.
I also enjoyed listening about the sanctuary. I havn't had the opportunity of studying the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, but I look forward to taking tha course in the future.
Helen
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.
Comment on jjwalper's reflection.
I agree with that Luther didn't have all the truths. But he just was honest to what he knew and believed. That's what we should learn from him.
Comment on Christy Parfet' first reflection
You talked about different perspectives. The same incident can be translated differently depending on where you are standing and who you are. We usually think that we are right when others don't agree with them. But in many cases, we are wrong. So I agree with that we need to be more tolerant.
This is a comment for Tyler Kraft.
Thanks for your comments. Today, many christians doesn't take bibles at their hand as they are going to churchs because most church are showing them all tests fo the bibles and hymnals during their worship. Nobody feel to come the church with the bible and hymnal. I don't like this. We have read the bible with our eyes, ears, and feeling with hand. I believe that it is very important that we read the bible with our eyes even during the worship.
I didn't know that Muslim have not really "forgotten" about the history, importance and holiness of their thext as much as christian have. Christian history has been changed.So many truths has been changed.I believe that we remnant must keep the history of the truth.
Comments on the Reflections by Taurus Montgomery
Thank you for your posting. I appreciate when you said that “we must appreciate the Protestant Reformation and acknowledge that the majority of our teachings are not that unique.” I fully agree since our heritage has been the Scriptures itself. Specifically, it is true because SDA church was the result of an awakening among several churches. However, it made me wonder when you pointed out that “the main difference we have is and the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, “ well it is true, but I would see a bigger picture regarding the nature the Bible, nature of God, those issues I would argue were not the entirely for the protestant reformation.
Comments on the reflection by Jung Yoo Kim
Thank you for your posting. Well, yes!! I fully agree with your perception of Luther’s role in the history of protestant reformation. God really led him to face the challenges of that period of time. However, I would ask you, maybe I am wrong, Would you say that everything in tradition is incorrect? I mean, Is to be rejected all the tradition?
Comments on the reflection by Jung Yoo Kim
I totally agree with your perception of what we stand.
people like to talk about their situation. The situation always change according to where they stand. That is funny. And also I agree that all tradition is not right.
Comments on the reflection by jwalper.
Martin Luther did not all right but God used him for Godself. I agree with that point. When we want to live for God, God will use us to work his salvation. I really thank God that He uses person who is not perfect the most important thing is God makes us perfect. God never fails.
This is a comment for Ryan Hablitzel.
I agree with his opinion.
I saw many people who are Adventist attending at Sunday churches for a few reasons which has lost interest in SDA. I also feel that SDA needs a reformation, not new denomination. We need to be reformed on the spirit of the truth.
I as an individual benefited a lot from the discussions we had in this week with dr.hannah what impressed me most was his unique approach on some of the most delicate discussions which for sure are so sensitive to discuss more especially in our orthodox Adventism .some of the professors can evade this topics because they can think that they are contradicting the doctrines of their church and not only that ,they will jeopardize their employment.
For instance issues which we all understand for instance the divine nature of Christ and the human nature of Christ.Jesus was one hundred percent God and one hundred percent human, how do we now reconcile the absolute truth because for sure the nature of man is totally different from that of God.how was it possible for Christ to bear the two natures and yet dint collide with his two natures?.The professor tackled with this question by clearly saying that our human reasoning should not be part of finding the answer for this problem but the scriptures .
The second issue I discovered in the process of the discussions within the week was that God has been with both ages and ensuring that his truth has been made clearer and clearer in every aspect of reformation that has happened and even that which will happen in future[pre-modern to post modern.]our study this week prepared me to see the protestant reformation from a different angle i.e how did it contribute towards our present truth,what were the causes of this protests and does our modern systems of church administrations save from any criticism.
Lastly during my personal study on this topics I had mentioned above I discovered that the discussions we had in class were quite relevant to the authors of the books which were handling the same topic.
Im commenting on ron smith's comment on supporting his argument that though martin luther dint have what we can call absolute truth,But god used him to bring about major reformations which were neccessarly for the advancement of his work.
Im commenting on mcclellan's first reaction to the discussions in the class.In her article she was tranparent to her feelings hence her feeling led her to be so attentive to where the profesor will lead us to .but later on her confussion ceased and she wa able to on the track.that is how we react when we encounter new truths.my question is this do we real take our time to undrestand what the representers of that message real meant or we just rush to conclusions from the first time they open their mouth to speak.and hence at long land we miss what God intendent us to know.we need to giove people time to speak what they believe and challenge it after they have finnished not by our own integrity but with what the scriptures say.
Comment on Christy's reflection...
Good points. I agree that truth loses its truth if we run over people. A message of truth should never be abusive to others, but that is not to say that people will not accept that truth. Truth presented in love is necessary, which is Christ's method.
Comment on Meade's reflection...
Interesting what you point out, and I agree that reactionary movements generally tend to be subversive. I would suggest that this tends to be in reactions to the extremes only. And in the case of extreme positions, Gonzalez is right that little is offered in place of the original position.
This in response to E.A. Guzman's thoughts:
I totally agree, Erasmus and Luther were separate entities. And each had a different mission at hand. As they divereged as their separate paths became apparent after their brief discussion, Luther's dominating personality, and Erasmus, I beleive, was inclined not to continue to challenge Luther. He would have likely caused more harm had he persued the debate further.
in response to Ki Seung Jhang: (also Christy Parafet said something similar)
Ki, you are on to something here when you said, "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."
This generation is very much one that bases its truth on individual expeiriences. Presenting them the facts does little good, as they can dig up 10 other contradictory facts for the one. They have to see to beleive, I know this is true. I am living it now. I have three step children, one of which does not live with us. The one that does not live with us has a totally different perspective on Christianity than the other two, as they have had it modeled (both good and regrettfully bad as well) to them and they more readily accept the facts- because they have seen God working in their lives through us and their schools.
I hope that you can develop this thought more, there is not enough modeling going on out there :)
Be a Blessing
Nathan Kennedy
While reading the different reflections posted, it called my attention what Ki Seung Jhang wrote about our heritage. It is good to know that it does not matter how poor or rich our parents are, we all have a heritage, which is our God. At the same time, it is also good to know that we are of an inmensable value because God considers us His heritage (Exodus 33:3; 19:6; 15:17
It was nice to read the reflection of Nathan Krause concerning the way how we should bring changes to the church. I do agree with what Krause said about looking back the life of Luther and Erasmus. I agree that we should be patient with our leaders. Moreover, I agree that reform should be done within the church and in the way not judge anybody. I will add to Nathan's comment that God gives different light to people, therefore le tus be patient, educate our members, and praise the Holy Spirit for His guidance.
Martin Luther gave the German people a great translation of the Bible. He made it available to everyone. So did John Wycliff.
These men began something remarkable in their time and sometimes I wonder if we have lost the importance or value of the Bible. There are times when I hear a sermon and I wonder if the preacher has really spend time studying. Of-course, I am not here to judge, I just wish we (myself included) could go back to what Martin and others did.
What I mean is that Luther recommended that a passage from scripture should always be used as a text. He studied his personal devotional and then preached it to the audience. Zwingli, preached continuously through the whole books of the Bible. He became a strond and positive expository peacher.
His successor at Zurich, Bullinger, did alsmost as much preaching as Calvin. For the first ten years of his life he preached through the whole Bible.
These men devoted themself to the Word. And the Word alone gave them the answers they needed. Naturally at times their conclusions were wrong, but their determination to study the Word is what I see as crucial in our time.
I strongly believe that we need to spend more time in the Word and less time trying to prepare a quick sermon fo Sabbath.
Prasie the Lord for those ministers and teachers that are studying God's Word and sharing it with others. Let's do the same!
Commenting on piasi concerning my confussion in class.
There are many things that I find interesting in class. And when I am in doubt I write in down and look it up in the Bible.
I am convinced that we need to listen and then study for ourselves.
Recently I went to a Teacher's convention and the speaker was speaking on a topic that I had done much reaserch aout and preached for my final expository sermon at Southern. I knew immediately that the preacher was wrong. When I looked around the room most of the teachers and pastors there were shaking their heads in agreement. Was I mistaken with my studies? I went home after that long week and restudied the subject and was happy to see that I was right.
So many times we hear something and it sounds good, but then we forget to study it for ourselves. We are hear to learn from Hanna and each other. However, as he himself mentions in class, be sure that what we belive goes with the Bible.
On another note, the Bible alone should be our guide. But we also need to be aware of what the world believes so that we can share what God is really like.
In response to Christy Parfet's 1st Reflection posted.
"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?"
I think you have brought up a very important question. We are all training to lead the church in the future, and I hope we can learn this lesson well, for many have come before us, and we have still ended up being so ineffective in many churches in North America at actually increasing the Kingdom of God because we do not have enough respect for the person we are trying to reach to be sensitive to their current understandings or convictions. We may have some of the truth, but it is most likely that none of us have the complete truth. And so often, the truth that we do have ends up only revealing itself as knowledge devoid of compassion and understanding, which in itself can win no one to Christ.
In response to the 1st Reflection of Jung Yoo Kim (hope I spelled that correctly!)
Though I understand it is not the primary point you were trying to make, I wanted to express to you how I like the way you are thinking. You have stated that you think Martin Luther is a hero, but that your thinking is directly related to the fact that you are a Protestant. We Adventists have a hard time being kind and considerate to the Catholics sometimes, but it is an interesting exercise to sit and think about how things would look if you were a Catholic Priest instead of an Adventist Minister. For us, the Protestant Reformation is one of the greatest movements in the history of the world. But can you imagine what a sad thing it is to a Catholic? Many are sincere in their belief, and they watch half of their church fall away into error and damnation. The Protestant Reformation therefor becomes one of the sadest periods in History to them!
Nick Jones
This is in Response to Elvis Velez: Reflection
I agree with your four conclusions from the first three chapters. I believe it is a good summarization of these chapters. I find it always amazing to see how God has worked in history and who He has used to do this work. These are four good conclusions.
As to Martin Luther rejecting the ten commandments I am unsure what you mean by this. I wish you had included the reference in Gonzalez to that point, because I do not remember reading that point.
Nick Jones
This is in response to Elder Rosana Joel
I agree that education is not a point but a linear progression. That is a good thought. We never stop learning, we never stop being educated. Through reading, preaching, and teaching we are always learning. This is human nature. We cannot help but learn things. I am glad that you brought this up in this conversation.
You mention that we as Adventists have this spirit of standing for truth. I agree that we have this spirit, but I fail to see it lived out in many Adventists lives. Many are comfortable with the “status quo” and it could be said that those with new progressive views are taken care of in one way or another. I believe that we need to remember that Biblical truth is progressive and not stagnant and that even in our own church we need to be open to change.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
This is a response to Nick Jones. I was happy that you brought the issue humanism as it relates to the church. Maybe the solution to the difficulties that we have with humanism was suggested in class - that even though some aspects of humanism are wrong, there are also aspects of truth within humanism.
I always had a negative perception of humanism because it is presented as humanism = bad. While some humanism is bad, not all humanism is false. Can we find aspects of humanism in the Bible?
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
This is a reaction to Meade Adams. I liked your discussion of extremes. I think you nailed the discussion that one extreme leads to another and that it is difficult to find the medium (where in my opinion the truth usually lies).
A response to Ryan Hablitzel:
I agree it is frustrating to find in the debate on the nature of Christ, individuals using the Bible and SOP as a cudgel to beat each other over the head. Many times there are statements taken out of its context, be it a letter Mrs. White wrote to a specific person or situation or a "proof" text of Scripture with a misleading heading before it. All this makes it difficult to sift through as each side has polarized into catch phrases, where one word can land another into a predetermined box and cornered there.
This tendency to drive each other into an extreme- as you mentioned Luther and the RCC, or I would add the Arminian VS Reformed controversy
Be a Blessing
Nathan Kennedy
I would like to respond to Ryan's 2nd post about Luther's theological positions. I too was taken aback a few years ago when i really became acquainted with Luther's views. He is so often presented as a hero to us and we never hear about these issues. Furthermore, i hear he was a real jerk at that. He was not a nice person
This is a response to Nick Jones' second post. I think we all have aspects of humanism in us and it is definitely in our church and doctrinal positions. None of us are humanistically pure.
It is true that Luther had a lot of problems, but he did begin amovement that was carried further with other important men like Zwingli and Calvin. We all have faults, make mistakes, and someimes we can even disagree with our beliefs, but all-in-all we need to see the truth in every situation.
My uncle is a Nazarene Minister and even though we do not always agree with our theology, I have learned much by him. He believes in sola scriptura and if it were not for his wife I believe he would be an adventist today.
What I am trying to say is, "Don't judge a book by its cover," listen, study, so that you can take the good from every situation.
When I lost my four children I thought nothing good can come from it, I was wrong. For five years God used me to minister to women who were going through similar dificulties in their lives.
God had a plan for Luther and what is remarkable is that he allowed himself to be used (even with the errors).
One of my problems has always been memorizing scripture. I like to study the Bible, but I can never momeorize it. I want to be able to lead people to Christ without having "notes". How do you all memorize your BIble? I really would like some ideas.
Helen,
Tape a scripture next to your speedometer in your car and take moments to memorize it every time you drive. Exposure is key to memorization.
Response to J. Harold Alomia’s “Reforming” Entry…
By Jeff Walper
I couldn’t agree with you more Harold. The Papal System has the blood of untold millions on its hands…men and women who attempted to “choose” to allow the Holy Spirit to teach them how to study the Bible and/or worship God. The label assigned to them for thus “choosing” to do so was “heretic” (the original definition from the Greek hairetikos meant “able to choose”)…Could God reform such a system? Only if that system was willing to cooperate with God…and history clearly tells us, no matter how aggressive “Catholic Historical Revisionists” have been…history tells me and all who want to study the Holy Bible, that the Papal System is/was/and always will be the Antichrist system. Now can I say that and comfortably sit back in some preverbal “Remnant” easy chair? Of course not! God is calling His people together based on ONE NORM…His Word…sola scriptura. After all there is only one thing that God cannot do…God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2) So Truth is the Absolute Authority in this world…and God, of course, is that Truth, as is the Holy Bible. It’s the word of God that has the power to change lives, to purify lives, to fight back the devil, to create new life…etc. So any system of belief that is based on Tradition or Human Philosophy, such as the Roman Catholic Church, be it ever so cleverly devised, is simply incapable of preparing man’s heart for an eternal dwelling in the presence of a Holy God. God worked a new movement because His Word was finally freed from both the Latin language and the chains of the monasteries. Its interesting that one of the first measures that the Catholic church took in their Counter Reformation efforts was to claim their Bible, the Vulgate, infallible and then announce Erasmus’ Received Text Heretical. At the heart of Catholicism, as you know, is the demand that they alone are the “Arbiters and Interpreters” of the Scriptures. One clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted William Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”. To which Tyndale responded, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!” This is what Protestant Theological Heritage was all about! We are to PROTEST against any measure that attempts to remove the Scriptures as the Ultimate Authority in our church. So that means that sola scriptura is the only Latin we need to know. Where side issues like tota scriptura and prima scriptura originated from, I have not the time nor the inclination to chase that one down, but what I do know is that the Roman Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura and so God has to reject them. So I suppose that places the impetus on us to go and sound the warning, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities'" (Revelation 18:4,5). May God help us not to get sidetracked in ambiguous dialectic musings that do little other than confuse minds. (Ecclesiastes 7:29) "God made us plain and simple, but we make ourselves very complicated." (John 8:31,32)
"Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, 'If you abide in My word (not philosophy), you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'"
Blessings
I value and agree with the doctrinal points made by our participants where they are in harmony with the Bible as interpreted in the fundamental beliefs of our Church. I also value your points if they are not specifically required by the fundamental belief statements. However, in these cases, I sometimes find myself in partial agreement and partial disagreement.
I have in mind comments made in class and on our blog about the SDA teaching on God’s Remnant, Apostate Babylon, wholistic thinking, the usage of the English words cosmic and dialectic, and the usage of the terms sola, tota, and prima Scriptura.
It is very important that we affirm what our Church teaches based on the inspired word of God in Scripture. It is also important to avoid extreme statements that are simply not part of Scripture teaching or our statements of belief.
In addition, we must avoid even implying that someone else is not faithful to the biblical teaching unless they clearly indicate this. We must give each other the benefit of Christian courtesy by listening carefully before we jump to conclusions about the positions of others.
Unless I missed something, neither the teacher nor any of the students have suggested that any biblical teachings or any part of our Adventist doctrine in incorrect. I did not sense any implication that the Remnant is not remnant or that Babylon is not apostate.
We simply suggested that there were reform attempts manifested in apostate Babylon and that there were degrees of apostasy manifested in God’s Remnant. Israel was God’s Remnant among the nations. Yet because of their apostasy, God allowed them to go into Babylonian captivity.
At the same time, Daniel represented a spiritual remnant within the visible remnant of Israel, Through his witness, the king of Ancient Babylon initiated some religious reforms in that nation. These dynamics can be traced in spiritual Babylon and spiritual Israel until today.
With regard to the word “cosmic”: it is derived from the Greek word kosmos, which is used more than 150 times in the New Testament.
With regard to the word “dialectic”: it is derived from the word dialog–the idea being that persons who disagree can find points of agreement which can lead to settling their disagreements. The Greek word dialogismos is used 14 times in the New Testament.
With regard to “sola, tota, and prima Scriptura,” it is important to pay attention to how they are used and not to react to the words themselves. For example, I believe that the Bible alone (sola), and all of it (tota), is the rule (prima) of faith and practice.
These words (cosmic, dialectic, sola, tota, prima) may have taken on meanings that may make them less than ideal in some contexts. They may cause a stumbling block to some, as might be the case with any biblical or non-biblical term. Therefore, if and when we use these terms we must take care to be faithful to the biblical message. Where misunderstandings arise, suggestions for alternate terms should be welcome. However, it is unwise to jump to the conclusion that someone who uses these words is necessarily being unbiblical or unfaithful to Adventism.
Response to J. Harold Alomia’s “Arrogance” Entry…
By Jeff Walper
Yeah, I’ve heard the same thing Harold…that it’s arrogant to consider the Seventh-day Adventist church as the remnant. I suppose it is arrogant to think that God does not have people in other persuasions that He’s calling to come out of their “Babylon Religions”…But I know you’re not denying that. I’ve noticed that the wholistic philosophy that pervades our Seminary attempts to use caricatures in dialectic arguments that motivate or drive the students to accept whatever “wholism” or “synthesis” the teacher has in mind…in the name of not being unbalanced. I’ve seen it time and time again the exaggeration is on both sides of the dialectic, both the thesis and anti-thesis…(i.e.) so its not enough to talk about Christians and Muslims…you have to label them as Fundamental Christians and Radical Muslims…or Ultra Conservatives and Radical Liberals…I believe the goal is to create such a tension between two opposites that the pain of being separate becomes so great that the students or whoever the model’s targeting…begs for a middle ground or a “wholistic” solution or a “synthesis”…So unfortunately we have to hear these caricatures, like SDA’s arrogantly think that they are the only remnant…ad nauseam. I consider it completely dishonest and antagonistic in its attempt to manipulate the student to accept another thesis apart from Scripture in the name of being balanced.
If we really thought that we alone were the only ones that comprised the remnant, then why are we called to sound the warning “come out of Babylon?” (Revelation 18:4) I’ve never heard our church teach anything else…well until very recently. So this whole business of labeling us as arrogant…whoever those people really are, must take their argument up with God, who clearly tells all who have an ear to hear… “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Again I’ve never heard one SDA going around scoffing at the rest of the world…haha, we’re the remnant, you’re going to hell. Instead, I’ve met many an SDA who were diligently studying the best strategies of reaching out to others in an effort to bring them into Jesus Christ’s Commandment keeping remnant church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Hang in there with all the exaggerated caricatures…they irritate me as well, but God is in control.
Blessings
I feel I have an ally in those who lament, as I do, the proliferation of exaggerated caricatures and extreme statements. Where we differ is on whether or not I or others in the seminary are participating in this. From my point of view, there is no exaggeration or extremity in pointing out the danger of extremes (whether they be liberal or conservative). However, there may be great danger in denying the existence of these extremes.
With regard to trying to force others into whatever wholism one wants to promote, I ask again that we extend the courtesy of rightly representing what each other has said. It is ok for us to disagree. But it is not ok to misrepresent what each other has said.
I have said the following in every lecture, and I will repeat it here. My personal views are not important. My burden as a seminary teacher is to encourage my students not to be so exclusive in their thinking that they reject part of the whole truth revealed in Scripture. This is the wholism I promote and will continue to promote.
Any participant in my classes is free to disagree. However, I will also exercise my freedom to recommend a biblical wholism and to clarify any misunderstanding of my position. There is no improper motivation in participants misunderstanding me. That may be my fault in part. I may also be misunderstanding the participants. If so, I beg your patience and request that we all continue to clarify our concerns so that the misunderstanding can be progressively removed.
Morgan Kochenower
this is in response to Helen McClellan
Reflection Paper 2.
I could not agree with you more on the extremist aspect of religion, especially in Adventism. We take the bible to extremes and EGW.
That is the challenge I face in my ministry, especially as it relates to the end times. There are going to be crazy things happening and we (God's people) are the ones who are going to need to be balanced. It is almost like we are on the titanic and we have to be calm and collected in passing out life vests while not whipping people into a panic.
Morgan Kochenower in response to Ryan Hablitzel.
After reading the great controversy and what EGW has to say about the grounds Luther gained in the reformation, i too was surprised to
read some of Luther's positions. But I believe he all the truth God had for him. I believe that God is going to save Luther despite himself, just as I believe God will save Samson despite himself and save me despite myself. There are issues our class will never be able to agree on but as long as we are following all the light God has given us, then we are in His hands. Amen
Morgan K. in response to Nathan K.
What is hard is that people want to be listened to. I agree with what you are saying, but the challenge, at least as I see it, is that we have nurtured a culture (in the US and in our church) in which we all have rights (meaning we can do what we want to do and we don't have to do what you want to do). This is hard too because our society has become so impatient that when it comes to actually sitting down and working at something, we lose our patience. I am guilty of this and will be guilty of this, but you are right, people will just have to learn to bite their tongue or submit to God in order to get through. The church leaders didn't listen to Jesus advice but yet to a certain extent He did things within the system.
Morgan K. in response to Walper's comment
People in any position can be arrogant and people in any position can be humble. Was it arrogant for Moses to say he was the humblest man on earth...no. And no one in our church would accuse him of being arrogant. But, it comes down to an issue of the heart. No one has any reason to be arrogant because just as paul said all we have is filthy rags, and if we boast, we boast in the Lord. There is no arrogance in the statement that we are the remnant church, or at least have the remnant message, the arrogance comes in with what we do with that calling. Israel became arrogant and misinterpreted God's calling and God on countless occasions humbled them. If arrogance comes in the way of our mission, then God too will humble us. I do not believe our denomination will last through the end, I believe our message will, it will not be a popular message, but it is the remnant message
This is in response to Harold's comment from 06-18-09. I am in total agreement with what you're saying, especially your point at the end of the article. The problem with the use of the word remnant is that we have not used it in the spirit in which you used it, as a holy responsibility, instead of as a divisive title of superiority.
I personally believe that there is a way in which we are the remnant (the way in which you mentioned), but we are not the remnant if it means what we commonly mean when we say, "we are the remnant." I totally agree that the problem is not the word, but the spirit in which it is used, and that it is the spirit that needs to change. I happen to think that when that spirit changes, we may not be so willing to use the title at all.
This is in response to Jeff's comment from 06-18-09 and 06-12-09. First things first, apology accepted. I look forward to your presentation so I can learn some more about your objections. My understanding, based on class comments and the blog, is that there is a belief that certain models or the use of certain terms will "open the door" to ideologies with which we do not agree. I share your concern. However, I disagree with the idea. The opening of a door to a strange idea does not imply that we will automatically stumble into apostasy. In fact it is only by opening that door that you can get people to walk into your house.
As a lawyer, I understand the power of words. People believe, mistakenly in my opinion, that the battle is over which words to use, as you mentioned recently in class. The battle, in my opinion, is not over the use of terms, but rather, the definitions which we assign to those terms. Sure it's great if you can get someone to use your particular terms. However, it's even better to get someone to agree to your definition of the same terms. I think to often we let people who do nto believe as we do control the definitions, without making any effort to rebut those presumptions because we're busy trying to find different words. If we are really about moving this world back to a better understanding of who Jesus is, it is time for us to truly stand up and say what things really mean and worry about controlling both terms and definitions.
In response to Jason Hines:
You are right, it is ludicrous for any of to think that any of us are right 100% of the time, and expect for all of us to be able to agree with fellow Adeventists 100% of the time. It is ridicoulous to think any professor is going to get the message 100% correct, 100% of the time as well. That is what reviews are for. If you disagree with them- write a book- and have that person critique it.
In that sense it is the epitome of Free Will which the Spirit allows for us to exercise in a way that we see from our own personal backgrounds.
Simply what I am hearing Pastor Hanna saying, is that it is ok to study anything and everything, but anything and everything is subject to the Bible and guidence from SOP, as well as the Spirit and these three should agree. He is looking at the Big Picture as he sees it, I freely believe that he is a bit to inclusive (not ecumenical by any means) for my taste and that is ok. We still need someone that can take a look at the big picture and relate that to us so we may understand those we are to evangelize in a supposed Christian nation.
In general:
Many atheists get hung up on the whole predestination issue- and forknowledge - (God knowing each person's fate and ordaining it anyway)- as the very Definition of Omniescience is fruit of the Reformed movement.
The young Atheists who are searching for answers need us to understand their presuppositions and worldview even if they themselves do not.
I would appreciate the opportunity to learn more of what Pastor Hanna has to say in these matters- I appreciate it if we can let him teach and take up past concerns with him either personally (aside from class) or like I said write a book and spell out his error. We are attempting to cram what some take a lifetime studying, into four weeks- and we may not retain as much as we would like.
Be a Blessing
Nathan Kennedy
I’m here to comment on dr.martin hannah’s comment on the ongoing discussion more especially on the last class of the week.Though the discussion went hot to an extent of some if not one student feeling that our Adventist ethics and standards are compromised more especially in the seminary which acts as a manufacturing factory for Adventist gospel workers,I personally support dr.martin because we have not come to the seminary to go back as the lay people whom we left there he supposed question and challenge our academic curriculum in our seminaries. We are in the seminary to discover the absolute truth of our theology not what has been passed to us ,hence every teaching and every doctrine must be tested by the word of God not the stand of the laymen outside there.By saying this I don’t mean that laymen have no say but I mean that their arguments if they are not biblically sound, then no matter how long they have been thinking is right we are here to challenge the false teachings basing on the solar scritpura alone .Otherwise we are not going to evangelize them but the harvest is outside there and we need to know what do this believe in.
On the issue of our stands, I agree with the professor that we are free to disagree but how we do it should be in a civilized way .we don’t need to disagree simply because people disagree but we need to disagree with tangible evidence from the scriptures. God himself doesn’t force us to believe him but he has given us a freedom of choice. Hence we should both agree on one principle, we are free to differ in our opinions but at the end of the day we need to come up with one agreement what does the bible says on this point of argument?
We are Seventh-day Adventists because of our heritage that we have inhrited from Christ, the scriptures and a church of God.Thanks brother for your articulate concern for is good to learn about our heritage in a broader view.
I’m commenting on Jason’s response to the ongoing discussion, Having a law background, he well understands how powerful words can be, words can both heal and kill the way we speak matters a lot to the people we are communicating to, hence our word have a great impact on this generation and the generation to come.people will not respect you on how much you are strong in arguing but on how strong your arguiments are biblically grounded[on this context].
So as scholars of our modern times,let not traditions lead us to base our arguments but the truth on the content.We should not fear to break traditions but be able to support our stands with the true standard which is the word of God.So as we will be ongoing with our discussion let us note that we should not fear to discuss any issue we fill like it is not properly announced.we are in the seminary to study what is tre but not was has been passed to us without testing it with the word of God.
This is in response to Jeff's comment left on this page yesterday (06-18). I think that part of the disconnect here is that we are all speaking from experience and then generalizing that all of reality is that way. For example, you say that remnant example is an extreme caricature being pushed by professors and others to persuade others to find a middle ground of compromise that is not Biblical, and that no one was using this caricature until recently. That may be true - in your experience. As a member of the Adventist church my whole life, and having not been educated in Adventist schools since I was ten up until coming to the seminary, my knowledge of the perception of Adventism comes from two places - interaction with other church members and my non-Adventist friends who challenge me about things that they've heard other Adventists say. It has been my experience that our membership uses the title of "remnant" as a divisive and exclusive title that somehow makes us better than other Christians. I've had people say it to me, and heard people say it to non-SDAs. It's not a made up issue. It's happening in some of our churches, even if it isn't happening in yours.
The same goes for your example yesterday about how some feel the seminary is falling into apostasy. And while your conjecture that half of the students in our class had members say that to them may be true, by nature it implies that the other half didn't have that said to them. When I decided to come to the seminary, all the SDAs I knew supported and applauded by decision and said the seminary was a good place to go study and warned me more about the ultra-conservative people I would find, and not the other way around.
So my point is simply that we would do better not to generalize and make broad accusations, realizing that our own particular experience does not dictate what is real and what is not real. That's a little too post-modern, even for me. :-)
I appreciate your words Jeff, though I do not require an apology. What I do request is that you examine your own words are carefully as you examine the words of others. Even in your latest post, possibly without intending to do so, you seem to imply my model is connected with apostate, eccumenical, cosmic Christology and with a Catholic view on prima Scriptura. Thus you seem to imply that my model is inconsistent with biblical Christology and with sola Scriptura.
If this is what you imply, you may have overlooked my statement, in the first chapter (page 16; and note 2) of my book, which indicates that my model is a biblical alternative to stoic, humanistic, and pantheistic versions of cosmic Christology. You may have overlooked my recent posting on this blog that in my model: only Scripture (sola Scriptura), and all of Scripture (tota Scriptura), is the rule (prima Scriptura) of faith and practice.
If you have concerns about this model, I welcome your comments. At the same time, I request that you respond to what I have actually said and written. If you are not responding to what I have said and written, then it is counter-productive to mention my name in connection with other models with which you have a problem.
Again, for all participants in class, and even visitors to this blog, you are encouraged to share your views. At the same time, we request that your comments be carefully considered for accuracy and that your criticisms be constructively framed.
On the one hand, our dialectic, the way we use language (dialektos; 6 times in the book of Acts), is important. Let us use dialectic like Paul who “reasoned (dialegomai) with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2).
On the other hand, let us avoid “vain imaginations/dialectic (dialogismos)” (Rom 1:21) and “doubtful disputation/dialectic (dialogismos)" (Rom 14:1).
My advice on dialog/dialectic is influenced by Paul [not Hegel's dialectic]: “Of these things remind them, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to show yourself approved to God, a worker who needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:14-15).
I would like to comment on Nathan Kennedy's second reflection. I apprecitae what your point about Zwingli and the way they tried to avoid the problem of evil. As Christians we have to be aware that we are indeed evil at our core and only the grace of God is what saves us. Amen to your paper brother.
I am commenting on Nick Jones 2nd reflection about humanism. Dr. Hanna's distinction between secluar and Christian humanism was important for me as well because I always saw it as bad. I never even knew there was a difference. I appreciate your further elaboration on the subject, as well as your desire to reach those who can be reached through it.
This is in response to Meade Adams’s post regarding predestination. I enjoyed the story you shared about the man and the taxi cab. I have given a lot of thought to predestination lately and the best way of thinking I have come up with is God’s self-limitation. I believe that God has the power to see our ends from our beginnings, but just because He can, doesn’t mean He does. Just like God was capable of eradicating sin in the instant when it first occurred, He did not, because of the Great Controversy theme that needed to play out. Similarly, I speculate that He limits Himself on His foreknowledge for the same reason – He needs to show that He contends with everyone the same, so that when all is said and done, no one can accuse Him of being unfair.
This is in response to Morgan Kochenower’s post on Luther. I agree that Luther continued to live up to the light that he had been given. But, it makes me wonder why the Holy Spirit did not lead him into more truth. I guess it just seems frustrating that fewer and fewer people are willing to take the next step in line of present truth, and I sometimes think that maybe if Luther were to have presented a more complete reformed theology at that time when it was the Reformation spirit was burning bright, that we could have skipped a few steps ahead. (At the same time, I think that the Reformation might not have happened at all if people realized how much of their Christianity they had to change.)
Garth Dottin
Response to Jason Hines
I agree with this statements completely Jason. It seems as if anyone who presents any statement that requires us to think outside our traditional ideas is deemed a heretic. (Clearly I am not stating that all traditional ideas are terrible). I agree with you again in your point that the seminary is not a place to be indoctrinated. How would we know how to handle the various questions and concerns of all members regarding philosophy or other schools of thought, if all we study is Adventist Theology?
Garth Dottin
Response to Nathan
I agree with you completely that everything we study is subject to the bible. Many of our classmates voiced the similar sentiments. I found it disturbing that some render the Pope or even a Cardinal as incapable of being saved by God. We must remember that they are men and sinners like anyone else. Only God is judge (Matt 7:1). I affirm that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant and is Gods last day church in case anyone may be questioning. However, some people are so caught up on being the remnant then they lose sight of the mission of the church and Gods proclivity to save.
Comment on Garth Dottin's reflection
I agree with what he talked about how Zwingli reacted to reformation and nationalism.
Adventists usually try to stay away from politics but I want to say they are involved in each nation's politics. Some countries' conferences don't allow lay people to baptize people and others allow them. But in GC's policy, elders can baptize like pastors. This difference comes from different cultures and politics and power game. So we shouldn't say that we should be away from all politics rather we should think how we can harmonize with them.
Comment on Thomas Oyaro Ong'ou's reflection
I agree with what you said, "What God has done for man on the cross of calvary is not an issue of discussion but acceptance."
The gospel is very simple and people should get that as it is but because of their knowledge, they make it hard.
I would agree in some aspects of Jason’s commentary. I would even stress on the idea that we cannot be “either-or” in any aspect concerning the individuals that compose the Catholic Church, and their sincerity in follow Christ. Nonetheless, I think we should look differently at the Catholic system, which became a corrupt system of teachings and biblical interpretation.
Our SDA Seminaries should be willing to discuss other types of literature that comes from outside of Adventism, but we need to make sure that with the examination of such material, doesn’t come a high volume of erroneous information’s and doctrines which are completely outside of the boundaries of the 28 SDA fundamental beliefs.
Sergio Silva
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.”
Comments on the reflection by Jung Yoo Kim
I am attempting to understand how God is working through our freedom. Is not this implying that God controls our freedom? If so, it is not freedom any more. In addition, your example is helpful to me, to distinguish how God may intervene in human affairs and how humans decisions may take a different course.
I must say that I agree with Nathan Kennedy, and note that not only the young atheist, but most importantly we need to understand the presuppositions by which some reformers and many churches today structure their predestination argument. We must study more and more and be acquainted with all this details in order to succeed when explaining it. As far as the second part of your comment, I must say: WELL DONE!
Sergio Silva
In response to Jahisber...
I think it is interesting that you mention the 1888 issue when discussing fragmentation of a movement. I think that much of 1888 had to do with the ego's of the particular individuals spear heading the debate. I think that divisions within the Adventist church today are often the result of personality/ego clash and if we were more humble in our approach to one another, then maybe we could come to a mutual understanding without ostracizing someone to the point of division.
In response to Tyler...
Great point. I agree that a demonstration of God's absolute power is His willingness to submit to inferior beings. That character quality is an assertion of the free will that man has been given.
Comments on the reflection by Piasi Suleiman
It was good to touch the words ‘wasting” time. I agree 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. I do not want to waste time especially in terms of mission. I would like to be ready to do mission in order to save God's time.
Comments on the reflection by Morgan Kochenower
It was interesting to read his thought. I was interested to know about Luther. Everything he did to help his chuuch, His initial move was not to cause a split and start his own church but to improve his own church. When I saw Luther again through Morgan's reflection, I would like to be chosen by God like Luther.
Response to Joubghan Kim
By Elmer Guzman
Kim, I we surely must to return to Scriptures as the guidance of our theologizing, and it is true that Zwingli was influenced by Erasmus and Humanist framework of thought, yet we need to remember that nobody is free from presuppositions, and every theologian is a captive of its own time. However, we are called to be theologians of exodus, and not to conform with this philosophical captivity. So, the romantic notion of Sola Scriptura, indeed, it should be more than a motto, and it would prevent us from the acceptance of multiplicity of sources in doing theology, which is an idea so popular nowadays.
Response to Joubghan Kim (reflection #2)
By Elmer Guzman
Kim, regarding your comment on predestination, you correctly said that predestination cannot be understood unless this divine act respects the human free-will. Despite the fact that this affirmation makes sense, how would you explain the case of Cyrus, who was predestined by name? Isaiah prophesied that Cyrus would come in the future. He was even called my anointed. Do you think that the fact that God already had predestined him to execute his plans would interfere in his free-will?
This is a response to Nathan Krause’s post on 6/21/2009 8:44 PM. I appreciate the challenge. It’s too easy to just do homework to pass the class and just memorizing for the test. We are incredibly privileged to be studying at this level with so many great minds. Our church has our ministers get their masters so that they are educated and can reach all sorts of people. Thanks for the wake up call.
This is a comment for Anonymous.
I agree him. I have heard from some people that SDA is like old Israel who were arrogant because they were selected by God. SDA is selected as a messenger of three angels’ messenger to the last age by God.
We have special truth which no one has. But we are not guaranteed to be saved. We have to re member the message that Moses said to Israel in Deut 7:7.
Deut 7:7 "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,”
1 Cor 1:27-29 “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, 29 that no man should boast before God.”
This is response of Jeff’s words.
I believe that SDA is remnant church.
But it was very hard that I couldn’t see people who are really like remnant.
God said “But to the others He said in my hearing, "Go through the city after him and strike; do not let your eye have pity, and do not spare. "Utterly slay old men, young men, maidens, little children, and women, but do not touch any man on whom is the mark; and you shall start from My sanctuary." So they started with the elders who [were] before the temple.” (Ezek 9:6-7). God judge first the people his sanctuary. This message gives us that we can be cut from remnant.
We must be the people who have the mark of God. God call us to come out of Babylon. We must become that people who fear God, and give Him glory with all our hearts. I really want the members of SDA become remnant.
I’m responding to Harold Alomia’s post “Arrogance.” It’s true that our postmodernism has affected the way we think about evangelism, even to the point that we are embarrassed to say “We have the truth” or too afraid to. Or the other extreme where we use truth like a sword, cutting people down left and right. I agree with you though that “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.” The challenge is to find a way to communicate the truth to a postmodern mind.
A response to Tyer Kraft:
To reach the postmodern mind, I would suggest a Biblical model that Jesus gave us. In John 17: 19 Jesus praying to His father says: “just as you have sent me into the world, even so have I sent them into the world.” In other words Jesus is sending the believers (literary I have apostle you into the world) to the postmodern in the manner that the Father sent (apostle) Him into the world. But the question is, in what manner did the father send Jesus into the world?
First and foremost the Word of God had to establish a common ground with humanity; therefore He (the Word of God - John 1:3-4) became human, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
Jesus could not meet us in His divinity; therefore He veiled his divinity and accommodated (in the words of Calvin) himself to the human level, and took the human form, so that humanity could relate to Him and hear his message. The incarnate Word of God spoke and communicated the truth from God in the human language. By the way, Jesus spoke Aramaic the language spoken by the common people in His time, shared in the core values, norms and beliefs of the Hebrew religion (the Torah) and was conversant with the religious and social customs of the Middle Eastern cultures. Through the incarnation, Jesus was able to effectively and directly meet the human needs and reconcile humanity to God. Jesus did not become incarnate in order to understand humanity; on the contrary, He became human so that humans could understand Him.
The starting point to witness to the postmodern could be to develop a common understanding and creating the avenues in which the postmodern shall hear the word—truth of God and understand it. One way of developing a common understanding is becoming familiar with the postmodern mindset or worldview.
When the word of God incarnated, He became the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus, Jesus’s mindset had both the divine perspective and the human worldview (implied in John 3:12: “if I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you belief if I tell you heavenly things?”). Essentially, in Jesus’s ministry is seen the blend of the divine and human contexts of reality forming a unique context for proclaiming the Truth from God: contextualization.
It is interesting to note how Jesus uses illustration and symbols from the nature and social system to communicate the truth. For example he uses a seed to speak of the word of God, God is called our father, banquets and talents to respectively illustrate the kingdom of God and its subjects. The salvation process is equated to sowing and reaping.
Thus from the known and earthly, Jesus leads his hearers to the unknown and heavenly. Could it be that in the thirty years of silence, Jesus learnt from both God and creation (including human social dynamics) how to effectively serve and do ministry?
One of the barriers to effective ministry could be that the minister does adequately know the mindset of people being ministered to and the inability to speak their language.
Response of Week 1 #1
This is a response to the first post by Helen McClellan. She said that Erasmus believed “that knowledge comes from the diligent study of scripture”; she followed by saying that William Miller endorsed that idea as well. It is true. It is only the light from heaven that will get us to heaven; any other knowledge is of temporary utilitarian value.
Helen also asks why we do not teach the Bible with the idea of transformation. I would say that we do but only in a limited way. I would also speculate that the reason that we do not push it to its logical conclusion is that then the Spirit would be in control and that means that we would not be in control. In addition, we have had fanaticism among us and that is what we fear greatly. A third reason is that we do not know what the plan of salvation is. It is not just the Luthern doctrine of “justification by faith alone”; it is not enough to add sanctification and glorification either.
Response of Week 2 #1
This response is to the post of Ryan Hablitzel on 6/16/2009. He discussed the enmity between faith and works that many Protestants have between faith and works and how Adventists have a better more integrated, more balanced, approach that includes more of what Scripture says. Ryan rightly points out that the concept of law in integrated into this as well. I agree with this; I just wish more Adventists believed this.
Ryan also brings up the pre fall, post fall nature of Christ debate; he wonders if a compromise position might be the right answer might be the right position; I have been told that such is the position of many of the leaders of the church at this time. This argument is based on a fallacy. It is said to be important because which ever position we take on the nature of Christ leads to a compatible position on salvation; this is the way theology is frequently done, but it is wrong. There are several reasons for this. First, the Bible and Ellen White both have much more to say on the subject of salvation than on the nature of Christ. Second, the reason for the first is that Christ came to save us from our sins ( see Mat 1:21 and many other passages ), not to describe his nature. When salvation is reduced to the Lutheran position of justification by faith alone, there is not much to say about salvation. If we let the Bible tell us what all is involved in salvation, I think that we will not reduce salvation like we have. I think that we would not argue about the nature of Christ the way that we do either. We have built our models of the nature of Christ on a few facts from Scripture and many implications. There are nothing like clear, unambiguous proof texts that tell us what the nature of Christ is. The Chalcedonian statement that Christ was a hypostatic union of His divine nature and his human nature is no where stated in the Bible. There is not statement that Christ had a pre fall human nature or a post fall human nature in the Bible. Some (Roman Catholics) believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are attached, after all how could they be one otherwise? There is no Biblical statement that says that. There is also no statement that says that Christ has always existed in the Bible, like Adventist say. Much of these conclusion are arrived at by implication from what is said, but other people come to different conclusions. We should study diligently the whole revealed plan of salvation (not just justification), and leave what has not been revealed alone. We should study the whole plan of salvation first and then use the implications from the plan of salvation to help us decide what the fine points of the nature of Christ are if we have the time; I think that we will not have the time. Getting the nature of Christ right is not a salvation issue unless we insist on coming to a conclusion on it before we have studied salvation thoroughly first.
I wanted to respond to Crockett post. I agree with a lot of what you are saying before we decide to point the finger at other religions we need to look within our own selves’ right here and fix the things of within us that aren’t portraying the vision and mission of God.
I wanted to respond to the post by Taurus I really appreciated the text u used in response to our studying of the reformers. This text is as true today as it was back then and it shows that God will continue to show us light until He returns. Just like he gave light to the reformers he is giving us light today to reform ourselves.
this response is to Ron Smith's post on last week. I agree, I too enjoyed understanding more about Luther and Zwingli. Im beginning to see more and more the importance of this class. While we are here to understand and absorb bible knowledge, we must also understand history and also have some knowledge of things like philosophy and science so that we can reach those who believe and use these.
Response of Week 1 #2
This response is to the post of Garth Dottin on 6/12/2009. Garth pointed out that Luther was willing to die for his beliefs and that some would consider it extreme. He also approved of Luther’s stand. I, also, agree; if our beliefs are not worth dying for, are they worth living for? And will they get us to heaven?
This is also a response to Meade Adams on 6/12/2009. Meade stated that reactionary movements tend to go to the other extreme. I think that this is true. I think that Protestantism did that also. Roman Catholicism emphasized the church’s role in salvation, and works of the individual; so the Protestants emphasized that salvation is strictly a divine gift in predestination of the determinist variety.
Response of Week 2 #2
This is a response to the Elvis Veles post of 6/15/2009. Elvis stated that “God is above culture and traditions”; I agree with this. If this is not so, then we are just creatures of culture. God is training us for the culture of heaven. The question is do we like the culture of heaven or do we prefer our current culture? If we choose the latter, God will honor our choice and we will be excluded from heaven. If we choose the culture of heaven, then we are safe to take to heaven.
Elvis also asserted that “The knowledge of the Word of God and truth are progressive”; if he is discussing the personal level, then we might need to give up certain beliefs to move forward with God. If he is discussing this on the level of divine revelation and means that later knowledge cancels older knowledge I disagree. If he means that God fills in more of the details, but keeps what has already been revealed, then I agree.
This is a response to Joubghan Kim’s entry on Zwingli. I believe Zwingli was led by patriotic considerations as well. I admire Zwingli’s willingness to admit that he was wrong on the issue of mercenary service and stand up against the practice of killing in the name of God. It’s difficult for us not to approach the Bible with our own preconceived notions, but by the grace of God, I believe that the Holy Spirit will correct us with the Word of God, (2 Timothy 3:16) if we are humble to accept His correction. Humility of course is the challenge. I like the quote from Desire of Ages 661… “Pride and self-worship cannot flourish in the heart that keeps fresh in memory the scenes of Calvary." The gospel is so amazingly simple…I don’t know why we make so many inventions that seem to detract our attention away from Jesus…but I suppose this is easy to do in our desperate attempt to put SELF in there. Back to the Word! Blessings!
Hi Jason, I appreciate your responses. Point taken on the idea of making broad statements based on experience about the Seminary falling into apostasy. It’s just challenging to remain quiet in the face of so much language that’s both foreign and seems to negate our Adventist Identity and Mission. Let’s see I’ve studied spiritual exercises that have their roots in Monasticism, learned leadership models based on Greenleaf’s Ecumenical Model, a Revelation class that didn’t mention anything about the Roman Catholic Church, Hermeneutics that subverts sola scriptura to some sort of prima scriptura hybrid, Catholic Missiologists lecturing on the Jesuit Missionary Mateo Ricci (the Chinese threw the Jesuits out of China, because they found out that they were plotting to assassinate the Emperor, and I’m supposed to learn from them? We might have a billion plus members if we held guns to peoples heads or knives to their throats, but it was my understanding that wasn’t Christ-like), an embracing of Preterism and Futurism, a mocking of our Historicist method of Interpretation, and then to top it off listening to a professor call another professor a Heretic because of his solid Adventist “Spirit of the Pioneers” views. So all that to say, I hear what your saying about not being limited to my own experience, but at the same time these individual occurrences didn’t happen in a vacuum. I’m not advocating any sort of witch hunt, I just wish there was a greater awareness as to what was going on. But with 96 credit hours being pumped into our minds like a fire hydrant full on, it doesn’t allow for much time for good independent study. Anyhow, I hear what your saying about not being overly general in my experiential indictments of the seminary, but sometimes you just got to speak up. I’ve included some quotes that drive some of my tensions with what I’ve ran across here in Berrien…
“The Roman Church is far-reaching in her plans and modes of operation. She is employing every device to extend her influence and increase her power in preparation for a fierce and determined conflict to regain control of the world, to re-establish persecution, and to undo all that Protestantism has done.”(The Great Controversy, pages 565 & 566)
“And there are some who, having secured this worldly education, think that they can introduce it into our schools. But let me tell you that you must not take what the world calls the higher education and bring it into our schools and sanitariums and churches. We need to understand these things. I speak to you definitely. This must not be done.”(Counsels to Teachers, Fundamentals of Christian Education, pages 535 & 536)
Ephesians 5:11 seems clear in its counsel “Have no fellowship with the works of darkness, but rather expose them.” We on the other hand seem to give them the “right hand” of fellowship and then lynch anyone that speaks up in opposition.
My comments shouldn't be misunderstood to say that I am calling the SDA church or the SDA Seminary Babylon...Instead I am trying to stand up and contend for the faith that our pioneers gave their lives for. God help us all to put away our idols and put our whole heart into the work of proclaiming the simple and clear THREE ANGEL'S MESSAGE.
Blessings,
Jeff
Dr. Hanna,
Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura are an "either - or" issue for me. There simply is no "wholistic" model that I'm going to deem necessary or legitimate in combining these two camps that head Protestantism and Catholicism. The terms are well established and have been for some time now. One is pushed by the Divine Revelation of Scripture through the working of the Holy Spirit, the other by Science and man's reasoning abilities or lack thereof... this is my, albeit simplistic understanding of the issue. While I may be interested in hearing about some scientific discovery, I'm not willing to place my faculties of "reason" or anyone else on par with the authority of the Divine Word of God as taught by His Holy Spirit. To do so would seem to negate the simple counsel in Proverbs 3:5,6 "TRUST in the Lord with your heart, and lean not on your own understandings...in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your path straight." Simple, clear, this is what people want...this is what they need. This is what Protestant Theological Heritage was/is all about...Sola Scriptura.
Dear Jeff. I think that you and I agree that Scripture is to be the judge of every model of sola, tota, and prima Scriptura. It seems that you prefer settled traditional definitions rather than the definitions which I propose. I am willing to have a discussion of which definitions are more faithful to Scripture. But I can’t see how our discussion can proceed productively if you continue to describe my position as a placing something on par with the divine word.
I have no intention of placing anything on par with the divine word and I am not sure where you see that in what I have said or written. I repeat again for clarity: only Scripture (sola), and all of Scripture (tota), is the rule (prima) of faith and practice. You are welcome to disagree with this and to show why it is not biblical. However, it is simply not correct to suggest that this involves placing anything on par with the word of God.
In addition, I have no interest in combining Protestantism and Catholicism. What I have indicated is that apostasy has manifested itself in both traditions and that we should come out of apostasy where ever it appears. Scripture is the basis for this kind of reformation. We should not reject biblical truth because it was discovered by Catholic theologians. Neither should we accept everything Protestant as though it must necessarily be biblical. Every aspect of our testing truths must be based on the teachings of Scripture.
This is in Response to Nathan Krause
I agree that “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.” It is important that we do not let ourselves become lazy in our study of the Scripture and in our preparation for sermons/bible studies/etc... We must always be aware that any type of Bible study or preparation is scholarship. So even when we leave the Seminary we will still be learning through our personal devotions and Bible study.
I too am impressed that the reformation was built on those in the academia realm. It is important for us to remember how much our professors and teachers do in preparation for classes. There is much study of the Bible done in preparation. While we must still compare what they say to what the Bible says, we still must be open to what they have to say.
This is in response to Byron Shea Crokett
I see your point. I agree that we must confront the problems in our church and that we need to bring about more unity. It is important that as a world church that we make sure that we practice what we preach. We should not, and can not appear as hypocrites to the world. We must show ourselves united in our cause and united in spreading the Gospel.
What I am concerned about is that many times we think of the Seminary here at Andrews as the only place where Seventh-day Adventist ministers are trained. We have other universities were ministers are trained. Not every minister comes to the United States, to Berrien Springs to get their ministerial training. We also must remember that no church here on Earth will ever be perfect. We must try to attain perfection and work towards unity, but we also must be aware of the reality.
Name Joel
Response On Fenades'
I positively agree with what Fenades call the power of transformation. What led the Catholic Church to be aggressive to the protestant is because they never allowed to be transformed. The idea of the invisible and visible church as elaborated in his reflection is of good to all Christian of this century who are more judgmental in their views and forgets that they cannot be able to know the inside and that is what Zwingli talks about the invisible church.
Name Rosana Joel
Response on Elvis
His four deductions are so powerful in the sense of who God’s to mankind. The idea that God always has been in the history leading us is of real encouragement to the Christian world. His second proposition of God is able to use anyone he want to, brings out the attribute of his all loving God. To know that God is above all culture as given by Elvis is a certainty that in my culture he prevails too. And lastly God is word is ever progressive, is a clear indication that we should be student of His word.
I just want to make a comment on Jose Alomia’s presentation concerning the ordination of women.
This is a huge debate and I think is worthy to dedicate time to clarify it, particularly for the sake of the God’s truth and Church unity. I appreciate your objective approach to this topic. Just I would like to suggest a possible small subdivision of the paper. (If by chance I did not miss it yesterday).
But first, I have to admit that I have not made a serious research concerning this issue, so the authoritative part of the following hypothesis rests on my assumption as student.
One of the points in this debate that usually gets fussy is to take an extreme position on one side. And perhaps I am guilty of the same thing, but my “assumption” is this: I am not entirely convinced of the ordination of women, not because of the arguments against it, but because I am not completely convinced of the ordination of men either. What I have learned in classes (maybe I am wrong) is that the ordination as it is practiced today in the SDA has not biblical support. It sounds like “heretical,” but the issue is that ordination should be practiced on all believers. Is it not so? (Role of the "pastor" and the priesthood of all believers… etc..)
If the above is accurate, what if is included in the paper a small section of how the heritage of the protestant reformation came to the SDA concerning ordination, (which is not biblical, but that it is still practiced in SDA.) I mean, the bias of the ordination of men, or the inclusion of the ordination of women would probably not make sense at all, if the ordination (as it is being practiced) itself is baseless.
Once again, it is just an assumption.
To Shea,
I thought that was an excellent point made. I think many scholars try to systematize Paul's letter to the Romans because they try to avoid the fact that Paul was writing to a divided church. Very key point
This is a response to Nick's response to Shea's comment (mouthful, lol)
I hear what you're saying, but i still do not think that exempts us from responsibility here at Andrews to make changes. We cannot simply say that there are other universities therefore we don't have to deal with the discrepancies here. I think that would be irresponsible of us.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
This is a response to Morgan Kochenower's first comment. I liked your first paragraph regarding the "Declining Authority of Hierarchy." A lust for power has always been a problem that has plagued the church. It would do us well to consider the Biblical principal of - "those who exalt themselves will be humbled" and "those who humble themselves will be exalted." Only a few know the popes name at the time of the reformation, but a majority would recognize the name of Martin Luther (who was not all together humble, but had moments of humility).
Ryan Halbitzel
ID #138672
This is a response to Meade Adams. I liked that you brought the idea of "edge" issues to the surface. I have also considered the abrasive approach that SDA's can have on people who violate "edge" issues. Perhaps these debates stem from a misunderstanding of salvation (or Christian maturation). We need to be more accepting of new Christians who dont meet our expectations. At the same time, I would be concerned if a 20 year member started wearing earrings to church out of the blue. This would make me think that there was greater issues in this individuals life that would need my attention (not discipline).
Name: Rosana Joel
Response on Nathaniel Lyles
Nathaniel in his reflection has made it clearly that the fifteen century thinking in theology had to change in order to have the new perspective of viewing God, which is the system of understanding life and what is true in a more biblical manner. The quote from Mrs. White sums up what we human being can do and where our limitation level is and hence be able to rely on the power of God to understand what is spiritual.
Name: Joel Rosana
Response on Taurus
The learning process is linear and as Taurus said; there were some things that Luther had a wrong interpretation and this does not make him a heretic but makes him a learner. In his presentation he makes it clearly that down the road of history other reformers came up with a more clear and authentic interpretation of many doctrines that early protestants had misfired.
Comment on Tyler Kraft 1st reflection
I gree with you that grappling with the issue of 'Obsolute truth' is not easy and i face the same dilemma of; 1. Negating the fact that truth is obsolute which opens way for relative truth 2. Not having boundaries or setting parameters to define what truth is and is not. Personally i believe there are things which are clearly defined as truth and others as not. I wish we could find a healthy discussion in this area
Comment on Meade Adams' last reflection.
Thank you for your comment and I truly hear what you’re saying. I can say that I agree with the majority of the things you said. I would like to suggest though, that we as pastor and professors spend a little more time preparing and preaching messages that could reflect the importance of focus on the CENTRAL issues, without forgetting that this “edge” issues my cause others, and even ourselves, to stumble on the CENTRAL issues. It’s just a thought.
Sergio Silva
To John,
I greatly appreciate your comments about the use of Ellen White's writings need not to be neglected. I think it only makes sense for us as Adventists ministers to utilize what God has given us through her work. The area in your reflection where you said you would discount and publication by an Adventist where they did not consult Ellen White, in my opinion, is a little extreme. Just becuase someone doesn't quote Ellen White doesn't mean they didn't consult her in their study. I respect your position. I just hope that it doesn't lead you into closemindedness.
To Fenades,
I appreciate the connection you pointed out between the Osiandrian Controversy and the New Age movement. Your thoughts reminded me that there is nothing new under the sun. I think it is very important that we remain in open dialogue about our faith, less we stunt our growth.
Garth Dottin
Response to Meade:
I understand and appreciate your views on the importance of addressing the central issues. I believe the difference is in the distinction between doctrines and teachings. Are you suggesting that we only deal with our positions of doctrine and forget discussing general teachings? I agree that we need to be Christian in our approach. However, I also believe that we all could agree that the lifestyle of a Christian should be different from someone in the world and those differences should be clearly indicated by their actions.
Garth Dottin
Response to Jahisber
I really appreciate your thoughts on the issue of ordination. You stated that you did not believe the idea was even Biblical because of the priesthood of all believers. I disagree and argue that the ordination ceremony does not grant special powers regarding ministry. Neither is it opposing the priesthood of all believers. It is recognition of God’s choice of leadership. I believe that God has always appointed leaders for His church, which is clearly indicated in the life of Saul and David. Moreover, there are numerous New Testament texts that point to God ordaining His leaders (Acts 6:6). It is sad that we have female leaders and are reluctant to ordain them. We have forgotten that there were many strong leaders who were called by God for service.
This is in response to Meade's comment from 06-25-09. I totally agree with what you're saying Meade. I think at times we force our understanding about certain things on other people when there is freedom for difference in some of the standards you mentioned. However, while my experience is the same as yours (more emphasis on these non-central issues), by coming to the seminary I have learned that some of these Christological and central issues are dividing other SDA churches.
In response to Garth from 06-26-09. I totally agree Garth. I think whenever we become unbalanced in oour search for truth we actually move away from our very goal. I think the problem is that while we see that in everyone else, we refuse to see it in ourselves as well.
This is a response to Garth’s post on Anabaptists and Adventists.
I agree with you how there are many interesting similarities between these two belief systems. And I do think that there are many important lessons to be learned from the decay of the Anabaptist movement. But, I am curious as to if radicalism really only leads to nonbelievers being turned off and the apostasy of believers. Now this might not be the best comparison, but look at Islam today. For the most part (at least in the West) the extremist/fundamentalist factions are the ones that get the most attention and thus are the most widely known parts of Islam. Yet even with all of the negative material out there about Muslims, it is growing much, much faster than Christianity. I whole-heartedly agree with you that as a church, Adventists should not be all crazy radical, but I just don’t know if there isn’t some benefit to such a stance in some form or another.
This is a response to Ryan’s post on the nature of Christ.
I appreciate how you voiced your opinion on this matter. I appreciate how Dr. Hanna said that we might just be asking the wrong question though. Your mention of the “fully human” and “fully Divine” aspects makes me wonder (due to previous class discussions), if we are not completely forgetting about the “fully Divine” part of the equation when we argue over the human nature of Christ. We see that this has been an issue for some time with the statement of the Formula of Concord saying that God is man and man is God, but maybe as Adventist we have been splitting too fine of a hair when we omit His Divine nature from the discussion.
Nathan Kennedy in Response to Taurus:
I feel you completely, as it has been a struggle my whole adult life. As a U.S. Soldier, having served over four years in Special Operations, this issue is most likely the most difnitive of my expieirience of Adventism. Having been raised as an Adventist, and rather than rejecting my roots, my roots rejected me. I have come to terms with that, and forgiven them as well as myself, and receieved God's forgiveness.
What it came down to is three things:
1) The Bible is very clear that since we live in a fallen world, there are evils present- such as widows and orphans, greed, and hate. It is also clear that the Child of God's duty is to Protect and Guard those widows and orphans from the greed and hate. There are those that are called to Feed them, others to clothe them, others to bring them the news of Salvation, still others- to Protect them.
2) The Holy Spirit does as He wishes. He calls upon the people He needs to work through in whatever way He needs them to do it. Be it a temporay 5 minute task of helping a homeless person find food, or a lifetime of mission work among some people group. I beleive that people are called to be soldiers- men and women who will die for a brother/sister so that they might live- others are called to be police- the serve and protect (imagine a world with rules, but no one to enforce them)
some to be civil servants (like an inner city social worker).
3) God is a JUST God- not a Disney fariytale character all warm and fuzzies declawed and docile. Our God is Grace, all warm and fuzzy, but He has claws and teeth, and He will use them (flood, sodom and gomorah), and I can't imagine the inner termoil He would have over such a thing-
Be a Blessing
Pastor Nathan
A comment on Tyler Kraft 3RD reflection
Very interesting analogy Tyler; your questions are well taken and deserve our consideration as pastors in a fallen world, in very challenging times. As a of matter fact, just to add to the final point where you point to EGW’s, Luke 18:8 says: “And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” How can we contribute significantly to make sure that when He comes, faith can be found on earth?
Sergio Silva
Response to Garth Dottin:
You raised an excellent issue that has little treatment in class. Extremeism and Fanaticism. When you said that it brought to mind several places where Ellen White denounces such far polarizing issues. An example of this fanaticism is the Total Onslaught series- where Veith makes extreme statements that are not supported factually. There seems to be a following of this guy in many of our youth. Even some here in the Seminary- which is astounding to say the least.
Be a Blessing
Nathan Kennedy
reformers who have made the history in the reformation world like for instance martin luther and the lest we have been discussing this week all had one characteristics[they] didn’t have it all right.But the bold steps they took to step away from what they believed was not true from their mainstream churches led to another more productive scenario ……searching and searching for what is true and what is true must be tested I’m commenting on fenades’s refrection #3 by agreeing with him that though all this so far called great with the regal acceptable standard of measurement and in this context we call it the bible.
We can all accept that their efforts led to our present freedom in Christ. Our deeper search for what is true makes our salvation easy and make us free from all bondages whether from sin or religion.we should accept room for discussion.It is very vital for us for it is through discussion people tend to get solutions and more truth. when we limit ourselves by relying on what has been passed to us is not enough otherwise by doing this we stop the more revelation that God wants to reveal to us.So issues like , oh,this is what we have been knowing to be true for many years or our church has been holding to for ages should not exist in scholarly discussion like in among the bible scholars,we have to prove every doctrine or believe in the sola scriptura a alone.
I’m commenting on john’s reflection #3 I do accept his concept of Ellen g.white as one of the concepts he depicted from the week’s discussion.So where should we categorize her as part of the process of reformation ?obviously we cant call her as one of the scholars, But her contribution in the process of reformation is inevitable more especially in Adventism. God used her so much to shed more light to areas where this reformers never even mentioned for instance the issue of the Sabbath.
The Sabbath issue is one of the most neglected concepts which I fail to understand even at the moment that why did they always escape it?.The great reformers dint even dare to mention it, if they mentioned it then I have to be honest that I have not come across it .we as Adventists are not ashamed to call her a prophet of God, her writings have been proven by the larger light which is the bible and has been proved right. Every prophet must be proved with the Bible, their message and their fruits as the bible clearly states.
So as we will continuing with our discussion on this course let us not forget that there are other means or people God has used to reveal his a mong us.let not give credit to these reformers alone but even to the others who are behind the scenes but have played a great role in reformation. I do believe also that God is using other people in our present time to reveal his will among us.
I'm responding to Nathan Kennedy's 3rd reflection.
I'm doing research on Zwingli and predestination, so I appreciate your thoughts regarding the importance of the predestination issue. I'm going to check out the sites you listed because I didn't realize the allegations resolved around predestination.
Response of Week 3 #2 by John R. Treat
This is a response to the post of Jason Hines on 6/26/2009. Jason well summarized religious break away movements as having a radical stage in the beginning and a consolidated conservative stage later. This latter stage tends to rest newer ideas. If the universal church accepted new light as God was please to give it, the whole church could be save together, but that has not happened; the result has been new break away churches frequently. I do think that these new churches do not necessarily get it right even on the issues that they push the hardest on. I think that there is a tendency to over shoot the mark. In pushing hard against one wrong idea they tend to go to the opposite extreme. We should be ready to give up ideas that can be proved to be in error from the word of God. I must disagree with brother Jason concerning his statement that “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”; in chapter 2 of Selected Messages Book 2 Ellen White said that some try “to remove the old landmarks,” but that this should not be so.
Response of Week 3 #1 by John R. Treat
This is a response to Reflection #3 by Taurus. I agree that “Calvin’s view of predestination is faulty.” Calvin had a legitimate concern that people not take credit for their salvation, but in trying to solve that problem, he created much larger problems. Part of his problem was that he looked to the earlier church fathers to help solve the problem. He should have looked at the Bible for the solution. The Bible as a whole does not make sense if predestination is assumed, there is no reason for the Bible, history, sin, sinners, or a Savior. If God has already decide who will be saved and who will burn forever, what need is there fore a Savior, especially one to die on a cross?
The second part of the reflection was on the subject of passivism verses war; he portrayed an opposition between the Old Testament ( war ) and the New Testament ( turn the other cheek ). I think that there is an underlying harmony. God commanded us to love our neighbor in both Testaments. There was divine judgment resulting in death in both Testaments, ( in 2 Samuel 15 God orders Saul to destroy the Amalekites, and in Revelation 19-21 God will destroy all sinners ). The “just shall live by faith” (Habakkuk 2:4 and Romans 1:17). Paul wrote that “whatever is not from faith is sin” ( Romans 14:23 ). Paul also wrote that faith come from the “word of God” ( Romans 10:17 ). We need to be operating on what we know is according to the word of God not on what we think is not wrong, after all what a man thinks is right leads to death ( Proverbs 14:12; 16:25. God has commanded us not to kill ( Exodus 20 ), so unless He orders us to kill, I think that we are going against the commandment not to kill if we kill the enemy of our country. We are told to love our enemies not kill them. We are suppose to obey the government of the land of our residence, but only as far as it does not go against the law of God ( Acts 4:19 ). Consider that our government is telling us to kill the soldiers of the enemy; is not the enemy government telling their soldiers to do the same? Where is God in that?
Response to Fenades 6/25/2009 1:43 PM
I have really interesting the comparison you made between the New Age movement and the Osiandrian controversy. Actually, it clarified that I have written in my notes. I fully agree when you said that “by creating the atmosphere of openness to debate and challenging of each others views… … where we can question why we believe what we believe and have healthy debates then out theology will never grow and be reformed.” I also appreciate the way how Dr Hanna has conducted the class; it is precisely, as you said, this environment that produces “thinking.” Unfortunately, some students take too personally the debate and the usefulness of it is lost. There are few classes conducted in this way.
I’m responding to Christy Parfet.
I agree with your idea that “our postmodernism has affected the way we think about evangelism , even to the point that we are embarrassed to say “We have the truth” or too afraid to.”
But I think the main reason that we deny we have it is that many SDA people don’t know well our truth. They don’t know how to show non SDA people our truth. Many SDA people don’t have the knowledge of truth and the way to show people it.
When I was a child in 1970’s, our parents had heard that other church prohibited their members to debate the bible because our parents knew the bible well. Their priority was the reading and studying the bible. Lay people preached well, but now we don’t. I believe we don’t study bible as much as our parents. It is the time to go back the bible.
This response is to Byron Shea Crockett.
I agree your idea. I had the thought why we need to study history. I didn’t want to learn history of doctrines. I just wanted to know the bible well. But I am learning the importance of the history. I was so impressed reformers’ struggle for the truth, especially Martin Luther’s. I am becoming to know meaning more of many verses through this class than before. Then I became to know their arrogance is mine. Now I like this class. And research also help me to understand it more.
Comment on Fenades's refelction
I agree with you 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.
We, Adventists, deny predestination in public but we accept it inside thinking I am Adventist so I will be saved. This thought is not different from Calvin's predestination. We can't be sure about our salvation even if we are in Adventism.
Comment on Garth Dottin's reflection
I thought in the same way regarding comparing Anabaptists and Adventists. YOu said "it was interesting to see the doctrinal similarities and differences between the Anabaptist and Seventh-day Adventists." I thought so too. We have both extreme and modest sides in us. but radical sides have sometimes brought up serious problems. We need to be moderate.
Thomas Oyaro Ong'ou commenting to Ryan Hablitzel said "Thanks Ryan the only truth which we cannot doubt is the truth of Christ who is our ruler, The Bible which our rule and the church where Christ rules.Truth is Jesus himself who in John 14:6 says that "Iam the way, the truth and the life.
Commenting on Jung Yoo Kim on his comparison of the Anabaptists and the Seventh Day Adventist Anabaptists are more extremists as the Seventh day Adventists however in the 21st century we need to change our methods and approaches in dealing with the past prophecy of daniel and revelation, the 1888 message of righteousness by faith and health reform. Christ equals to salvation. Not that Christ+ health=salvation.
My comment is for anonymous commenting on John's post regarding Ellen G. White and the Sabbath.
I strongly agree with your comment that we should not forget of those people that God used to bring worth truth. They might not be as mention as Luther, Ellen White, etc. however, God used them to bring the puzzle of his truth together. I also agree with you that God is still using people out there as well and he will use them when the appointed time comes.
I'm responding to Kiseung's comment to Christy Parfet
Kinseung, I believe you have a very good point about most SDA don't share the truth because in most cases the members are not well knowledgeable about what they have believe in. I would dare to take it a step further and say that the reason why most SDA don't share the truth with others is because they don't really know the person who is the truth; Jesus Christ. We have become so busy trying to teach others about the truth that we have, that we have neglected to have that special relationship with the truth (Jesus). Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore, we should work out to know Him, the truth and others will automatically, by testimony will see the truth in us and we will not have to worry as of which method to use. He will do it in us and through us! Let the light shine!
Comments by Ki Seung Jhang.
I strongly agree with him. Especially, born adventists, they usaully don't know what they have believed. They don't know how to mission other poeple. They do not care about the people who do not know about Sabbath. Not all born adventist but most of them.
SDA church is not the last group. we should concentrate what we believe and how we believe in Jesus every moment.
This response is to Byron Shea Crockett.
I agree with what you wrote. We need to learn history if doctrines.I think we should know about doctrines well. Doctrines are really important I would like to question myself. If someday, somebody ask about one of our SDA doctrines I should answer them right one. That is what God wants me to do.
Answer to reflection 4 Nathan Kennedy
By Elmer Guzman
I would like to clarify that it is well debated the Trinitarian issues in Brazil in our seminaries, and also in some churches. Yet, it is true that there is a movement in some SDA Brazilian churches (but also in other countries, as Australia) about the nature of the Trinity, because of the dubious language of our pioneers in some cases, and also by the anti-Trinitarian notion in our beginnings. Maybe this is so because of the fact that most of our pioneers received some influence from Methodism, which is a modification of Anglicanism from UK (the place where Unitarianism flourished).
A good material to read is the MA dissertation of Erwin Gane (1963) about the topic.
Comment on Patricia’s reflection
by Elmer GUzman
In this debate about truth, the formulation [Jesus = truth] is quite correct, and unfortunately sometimes it is necessary to confront people regarding the beliefs (but in a godly way as Calvin says). A quote from Gonzalez is elucidative, “Any supposedly divine spirit that does not lead to Scripture, and through it to Christ, must be rejected.”
Comment on Elmer’s 4th reaction
Interesting point you make Elmer about calvinism, predestination and state; I agree with your observations. I add that in this process of reviewing our thoughts on the relationship church and state, we should consider that one of the challenges we face as SDAs today is, how to relate with the state without open the door for a compromise in our principles?
Sergio Silva
This is a response to Elmer Guzman's post on the Adventist tendency to follow the Anabaptist tradition of the separation of church and state.
I think that you made an interesting point. I have lately been trying to reconcile the traditional Adventist stance with the ringing endorsements given by Ellen White to vote for Prohibition. Now, I'm probably not looking at this issue in a holistic manner, but it does seem that this might possibly be one issue where one cannot be in both camps.
This is a response to Nathan Kennedy's post on the "Emergent Church" and the "Rules of the Game."
I appreciated your post and your (brief) dealing with some of the various anti-Seventh-day Adventist websites out there. I agree that people who stumble upon them are in danger of just leaving the Church and that we should be more proactive in presenting information on predestination. Do you think we should be more proactive about these websites in general? I think we need to find a way to publicly address the controversial material presented by these sites, but in a way that wouldn't promote more of our members going down that "rabbit hole."
RE: Patricia Nesbit's reflection #1
Your thoughts on the underlying motivation one "should" have while conducting oneself in a day to day manner. Love is key, I would add that an intentional redemptive love is the purpose. You noted 1 Cor 13. But I did not understand how that is "mushy" as you put it. Paul is speaking of an intentional good will attitude towards others.
But you are right, at least as I interpreted your message, that love is not the sweet, charmin soft stuff that Disney and Hollywood would have us beleive it is. It is a purposed and deliberate attitude. Thank you for the reminder, I need that, I am one of those that get exasperated with too much fluff and need bullet points. :)
Be a Blessing
RE: Tyler Kraft's Comparison on EGW and Jn Calvin.
Thanks for the reflection. I myself get so tied up in the frustration of his version of Predestination and TULIP that I often neglect to enjoy the positives that Calvin contributed such as his commentaries. Thanks.
Be a Blessing
This is in response to Tyler Kraft reflection #4
I appreciate the connection that you made. It is very interesting that there are so many similarities between Calvin and White.
I understand many of the problems that people who are turned off by EGW have. I have a few family members who because of statements like the bicycle statement have given up on her completely. It is important for us as ministers and teachers that we educate our fellow Adventist and Christians to look not only at the immediate text context, but also the cultural context of the time.
This is in response to Kiseung
I too have struggled with many classes here at the seminary and struggled trying to find how they would benefit me in my ministry. However, you have hit the target in your conclusion that without the study of many of these other classes, we would not have the wisdom or knowledge that can help many people earnestly searching for Christ.
In your second paragraph I am assuming you are talking about Luther. The testimony of others is always a good example of God working in the lives of people. We should always be looking for our own testimony and how God is working in our lives. That gives us courage.
This is a response to Patricia's reflection #2.
I agree with you that we have a unique name that is full of meaning. I am glad our forefathers took the time to come up with a name that expressed what we believe. I hadn't though much about the implications of shortening the name though. But when I come across church people who don't want to identify themselves as Seventh-day Adventist or even Adventists (because they don't want to scare people away before they hear the message or because they are afraid of prejudice), I think it's wrong. We should be open about who we are and what we believe.
Response to Elmer Guzman.
EG thank you for your clarification on Gonzalez’s approach to Calvin’s concept of predestination as well as the eventual emphasis on Calvinistic school. Particularly in the emphasis of church and state relations. What made me wonder was you final remark when you said that “because the state is not hell, neither heaven…” So, How should we define it? Depending on our answer we should take a stand.
Response to Tyler Kraft
Thank you for your initial “provocative” words. It made me think of the importance of the study of such writings. I agree with you on your reflection. And I would say that God may have inspired some writers throughout the centuries. Why not? Was the Holy Spirit present in the reformer’s minds? I believe so.
This is a comment for Nick's post:
I appreciated your thoughts on the nature of history and how it is largely a compare/contrast work. I found it insightful and well balanced.
This is a response to Christy's comment.
I appreciated your reflection on the issue of adiaphora. So often we see people ready to stone each other because of differences of opinion on "edge" issues. Even if it WAS a central issue, we should still be brothers and sisters in Christ.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138673
This is a response to Meade Adams-Reflection 4.
While I agree that there has been a over emphasis on coming apart almost to the exclusion of ourselves from society, we should not freely place ourselves in a place that will be destructive to our faith.
Evangelism should be done "among the people," but there should also be programs or places where people doing ministry in secular or foreign cultures can build up and retain their faith.
I am known for mingling and having friends in both secular and religious settings, My experience has made me realize that I need a faith building community to compliment my work "among the people," otherwise I have noticed that it would be easy to loose faith and be absorbed into the beliefs of the people you are trying to reach.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
This is a response to Patricia's reflection # 2.
It is up to us as future church leaders to not only retain the Seventh-day Adventist identity, but to move the Seventh-day Adventist message forward.
There is a grass roots movement of young people that are returning to practical Godliness and Bible study. I often feel like these individuals will do more for the Seventh-day Adventist message than the educated individuals who often control things now. We have the opportunity to make a difference.
This is a response to Ryan's response to Patricia's reflection #2. Amen Ryan! We must retain our Seventh-day Adventist Identity that is constantly under attack both within and without...only then will we maintain our mission. David Asscherick has a great sermon on this called "Mission and Identity"...you've probably already heard it. It's exciting to see God raising up the grassroots movement that you mentioned. With the currency crisis growing worse and worse, it won't be much longer before the "paid gospel workers" will be laid off. Those who continue to go forward in lifting up the banner of Jesus...without receiving a paycheck...they will prove to be the true Gospel Workers in the end. May we be diligent to develop a strong faith in the Word of God alone...as we face the trying times ahead. Blessings
jjw
Comment on Ryan reflection on EGW inspiration.
You made a very important point in suggesting that we should look for EGW input about a theme in her major works first. I strongly believe that if all of us adopted such careful approach to her writings, many misunderstanding would be avoided; very good observation.
Sergio Silva
This is a response to Jung Yoo Kim’s 3rd reflection. Thanks for finding and quoting the quote from Mrs. White. I think there is a lot of prejudice regarding her writings and that if people would read her for themselves, then their negative views might be changed. They react against the misuse of her work and neglect to read the message itself. She is much more balanced and kind then some portray. Thanks for your post!
This is a comment on Nick Jones' 4th reflection. I appreciated your post because you made a good point that I hadn't thought much about. It is true that most history classes seem preoccupied with comparing and contrasting. It's like comparing the gospels with each other but we lose their individual theology when we ONLY look at how they differ from each other. I hope with you that we can have balance.
Am Commenting on Nathan Krause in regard to Wednesday’s presentation on the use of technology in the reformation.
There is no doubt that we cannot continue using “the reformation” techniques to reach the post-modern mind but I think we should make a distinction between “the message” and how we disseminate that message. God’s word is timeless, unchanging through the ages but it should be presented in a way palatable to the people it is intended to reach which means taking into consideration the target group or audience. To large extent the target group or audience determines the way you present the message however I do agree that we should not be left behind in terms of how we present our message that we become irrelevant and disagreeable to the community.
Am Commenting on J. Harold AlomÃa reflection entitled “Arrogance”.
I do agree with you that some have inappropriately used the term Remnant and that being Remnant is a responsibility, a mission title that is bestowed to the group of faithful that are commissioned to share and proclaim the truth but we cannot negate the fact that we have the Remnant and I don’t think it is arrogance to say that we are ‘the remnant’ or among those who are the remnant. Just by the simple definition of the word Remnant which is, “A small surviving group of people” and if I can use Calvin’s definition of a church as the Elect of God, that is who we are or rather who we are supposed to be as Seventh Day Adventist Church. The faithful ones (The bible doesn’t talk of many but few) who are true to His word.
I think the arrogance comes in explicitly cutting out others as not “eligible” to belong in the “Remnant” other than the Seventh Day Adventist church. There are definitely some in the SDA church but are not Remnants because there life and beliefs are not in line with the word of God.
Comment on Christy Parfet ‘s reflection 4
I appreciate your concern and I think it is a valid concern grappling between the essential and non essentials or adiaphora. It reminds me of Calvin’s fundamentals and non-fundamentals. The questions that I struggle with are; where do we draw the line and who determines that line? Can we really settle the issue of Adiaphora once and for all? Even in the New Testament I find examples of adiaphora often cited from Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Some of this epistle was written in response to a question from the Corinthian Christians regarding whether it was permissible for a Christian to eat food offered to idols. In response, Paul replied: ... food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (1 Corinthians 8:8-9). I believe we can win an argument but loose a brother or a sister or offend others and a brother/sister who is offended is hard to win.
This is a comment regarding Ryan Hablitzel’s post on the church’s needs vs. the individual’s needs.
I appreciated what you had to say on this topic. I certainly believe that we should hold Christ up as our example in ministering to people. My question is simply – shouldn’t the church’s needs be the same as the individual’s needs? I know there will be some practical differences, but if an individual needs food for example, shouldn’t the church need to provide it? I think that when Christ saw sickness, hunger, theological confusion, or whatever malady the case might have been – He felt a NEED to provide for that person.
(Note: This is a “bonus” post, since it seems as one of my first week’s comments did not get sent through.)
Response of Week 4 #1 by John R. Treat
This is a response to the Reflection titled Calvinism, predestination and state By Elmer Guzman. I agree with Elmer that we should be like the wary of involvement with the state. It is obvious that the people of the governments of the world frequently run these governments contrary to the plan of God. I do think that the Bible is clear that the governments of this world are ordained by God. This does not mean that we should obey them in all things; we are required to obey them when it does not conflict with what God has said like when Peter and John was before the Sanhedrin; Peter questioned the authorities whether he and John should obey God or man.
I am inclined to think that since God prescribed the death penalty in the Old Testament that governments of this world are allowed to have the death penalty.
Response of Week 4 #2 by John R. Treat
This is a response to the Reflection titled Adiaphora Reflection #4 by Christy Parfet. I agree with Christy that sometime in our history he have had bitter disagreements over small matters. I am reminded of the 1888 general Conference, where they discussed the Law in Galatians; Ellen White called it such a small matter she used the word mote. I do think that we ought to teach that tolerance on some of these smaller issues should be allowed, and we should do it from the Word of God, not just to accommodate the current political climate. I think that we have also had the opposite problem: refusing to discuss problems because they are issues that are too important like salvation. We often discourage discussion of salvation with the full recognition that it is very important, even essential.
Garth Dottin
Response to Kiseung
I appreciate your reflection on the issue of the gospel commission and leadership. However, you raised the issues as if they are only unique to Korean Seventh-day Adventist Churches. I believe that all the issues that you presented can easily be found in many other churches. Firstly, many Christians seem to have lost their zeal to see souls accept Christ. This is why so many have developed a laissez-faire mentality concerning leadership and service. Lastly, I believe that all ministers need to understand that our role is not to be in control of everything that occurs within the church. We need to develop a ministry that seeks to empower individuals to lead and move Gods church in preparation for the second coming of Jesus.
Garth Dottin
Response to Patricia Nesbit
I agree with you that our name Seventh-day Adventist is extremely important. It certainly sets us apart as Gods people, and contains strong Biblical teaching within it. However, your comment gives the impression that the church has formally advocated for this change, or advocated for the names abbreviation. The truth is that the church is now promoting the use of our full name rather than the abbreviated form. The problem is that there are many other denominations which share nothing in common with the Seventh- day Adventist church that use similar abbreviations. It seems that God is allowing this to happen to allow the remnant church to maintain its uniqueness and identity.
This is my response to Meade's 4th Reflection. Thanks for your comment Meade. I think that this point needed to be made. I am in totally agreement with what you said Meade. I have also found in my experience that Adventists (and Christians of other stripes for that matter) want to "not get their hands dirty" in dealing with sinners. Not only is this almost an impoosibility, but it goes against the example of Christ.
This is in Response to Ryan's post from 07-01. Thanks for your comment Ryan. I think that both the points you make are worth considering. There certainly needs to be a balance between intellectual and practical Christianity. Both of those ways reach people and we should be adept at both.
I also agree with what you said about EGW. I think that we should be careful when quoting her.
I wanted to respond to John's 06-28 critique of my comment. Here's what John said:
I must disagree with brother Jason concerning his statement that “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”; in chapter 2 of Selected Messages Book 2 Ellen White said that some try “to remove the old landmarks,” but that this should not be so.
- John here's the full quote that I was alluding to (which I actually got from Hanna's book)
"We should not allow a day to pass without gaining an increase in knowledge in temporal and spiritual things. We are to plant no stakes that we are not willing to take up and plant farther on, nearer the heights we hope to ascend." Letter 164, 1903
While I certainly paraphrased, I think I was faithful to the spirit of what she was trying to say. But I say that to say this - the quote I cited and the quote you cited are not actually in conflict. In the quote I cited EGW was talking about our willingness to examine what we believe to be truth. In the quote you cited, she seems to be talking about whether the stake should actually be moved. I am willing to examine every truth, and willing to test the truth against every challenge. That does not imply that I want to move every truth that is firmly planted. Those are two different things and so our points were not in conflict.
If you're interested in any sources regarding my presentation on "Protesting for the Word of God in an Age of Silent Synthesis"... send me an email at jjwalper@yahoo
May God help the following text and quote to be the commentary of our lives as we fast approach the Second Coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Blessings
jjw
1 Corinthians 2:1,2
"And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
"Pride and self-worship cannot flourish in the heart that keeps fresh in memory the scenes of Calvary." (Desire of Ages 661)
Piasi Suleiman,
Week 4 comment.
I’m commenting on Terraces’s last representation on the research paper he wrote. He researched in one aspect f reformation we need in our contemporary church [technology and the gospel].Earlier I had a mixed filling that yes I believe that God has been using reformation process to accomplish his will on us and even in the class discussion we had accepted that even today we need more reformation, But I was in dilemma on how this will happen. Terrace gave a representation that will provoke our traditional way of doing the Gods work, our traditional methods of returning our tithes and evangelism are not bad but sometimes they are not effective.
Let me Point to an example like we have church members who get insufficient salary. For example they gets the salary say on Tuesday, by the time they reach on Sabbath to return their tithe you get that all that salary has been exhausted on the unavoidable bills what should you advise this church members. Terrace gave us an effective method of returning our tithes and offering through online [electronic transfer] this will enable church members to return their tithes faithfully on time and avoid the temptation of spending due to waiting up to the Sabbath day to return it.
When I was also thinking on how we will apply this technology in evangelism, I found that it will be very much easier and effective to evangelize the Muslims community through the internet and other modern technology than using the traditional ways of sending evangelist to more dangerous Muslim dominated zones. By saying this I don’t mean to condemn the traditional method but I suggest how effective will it be by using this methods .I picked another comment of Dr Hannah on having some Bible discussion classes online, this was not on class discussion but later on when some students remained behind after class to ask him some questions I was among them, I do support his wonderful i dea because we will be able to reach many souls and share with them what we believe in.
Piasi Suleiman
Week 4 comment.
I’m commenting on mike’s reflection on our last week of discussion. First I want to congratulate him by selecting this section as his part of reflection for this week. Knowledge on Calvin, Luther nor Zwingli and the others is not important if we can forget our focus on the author and finisher of our salvation who is Jesus christ.we need to be assured of our salvation. Sometimes most of us focus on what did these theologian say. For example most theology students spend more time to study on other theologians than studying on the author of our salvation [Jesus]
We need to always remember that it is only by entirely relying on Jesus Christ, the father and the holy spirit that our salvation is assured. Learning more of this other theologians should help us to learn more of his dynamics of salvation but not how great their theologies impacted the nations.
Piasi Suleiman
Week 4 comment.
I’m commenting on mike’s reflection on our last week of discussion. First I want to congratulate him by selecting this section as his part of reflection for this week. Knowledge on Calvin, Luther nor Zwingli and the others is not important if we can forget our focus on the author and finisher of our salvation who is Jesus christ.we need to be assured of our salvation. Sometimes most of us focus on what did these theologian say. For example most theology students spend more time to study on other theologians than studying on the author of our salvation [Jesus]
We need to always remember that it is only by entirely relying on Jesus Christ, the father and the holy spirit that our salvation is assured. Learning more of this other theologians should help us to learn more of his dynamics of salvation but not how great their theologies impacted the nations.
This is a comment for Helen McClellan about memorizing Scripture.
Step by step. I know this idea seems to simple, but if you try to memorize everything in one single step, will be difficult for you. Try two or three verses per week. Your capacity to memorize will expanded.
This is a comment for Helen McClellan.
Helen, I agree with you about “We all have faults, make mistakes, and sometimes we can even disagree with our beliefs”, Luther was used by God, not as a perfect man to do reformation. God called the man Luther with many imperfections, but a man with a heart compromised with the Word of God. Luther in my understanding had many wrong philosophical views that he received from Catholic church. But he was captive by the Word of God and, he was used by God.
This comment is in response Garth Dottin's comment. I found the doctrinal similarities and differences between the Anabaptist and Seventh-day Adventists interesting as well. I agree and believe that Adventist Christians must remain faithful the Word of God and avoid extreme practices and views which cannot and will not help people to know Christ and accept His gift of salvation. So often we preach everything but Christ and claim to have done something radical for God, when all that we have done is confused people by emphasizing the do's and don'ts rather than truth of God's grace.
Comment on Garth Dottin's 4th reflection.
I agree with him that "tradition is subject to scripture, but we must not reject elements of tradition all together. We can learn a lot from tradition." All tradition is not bad and God has led in his providence so far and it means we can find God's wisdom in tradition.
Comment on Piasi Suleiman's fourth
Reflection paper.
I think you brought up a good issue saying, "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." Because we are limited human beings, we have different opinions on Bible verses. But none of us is perfect and has all knowledge so we should not hate others and think only we have the truth.
This comment is in response to Elvis who wrote a few weeks back about God calling the Protestant reformers to reform the practices and ideas of the church. I totally agree with Elvis (and with our professor) that we draw lessons that can essentially help us learn about our present religious standing be reviewing our Protestant Reformation history. We can see from the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anabaptist movements of the Protestant Reformation times in which when they were following God's truth and other times when they abandoned it in favor of their ideas. It is my hope that God will help us remain off the path of apostasy but always on the path of truth.
This is to response to Meade Adam.
I agree your point. We need a flexibility in our interpretation. But we need a order for that. There is a internet site for Korea in America. Many people write their opinions on that. This is good. But many people write their opinion without verification about their interpretation. So many confusion has been made.
This is to response to Helen Mclellan.
My problem is the same with you. I am trying to memorize some verses, but it is very hard. I remember a pastor who was called walking Bible. He explained his secrete to memorize verse. His secret was teaching bible repeatedly so many times. He said that he never tried to memorize them. He just teached the bible repeatedly, then he became to memorize them.
This comment is in response to Meade Adams' reflection on mission as it related to the Reformation. I agree with you (and Dr. Hanna) about sharing the gospel with our Muslim brothers and sisters with the hope of them accepting it only to become "Fishers of Men", returning to evangelize their Muslim friends and neighbors. The early Reformers were preoccupied with this same mission because the Bible mandated it. Meade, Adventists can only keep themselves “pure” and "faithful" to God not by keeping themselves separate from other non-Adventists, but by reclaiming returning to Scripture. It's time for us to reverse our selfish thinking and undo the corruption that is going on today and really grasp what Christianity really is - love. Jesus says: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one for another" - Jn 13:35.
comment for Helen McClellan
I strongly agree with her. Step by step is really important. Every day, it is good to try to memorize scripture even one verse. And after some time for example, the time when we can not read the Bible, we can use our memory verses.
Comment for Kiseung
I agree the issue of the gospel commission and leadership.
Many people forgot how to meet Jesus and His heart. We need to prepare them to learn about our salvation.
It is not enough just they listen sermon once a week.
They need bible study to preach others. So, we need leader who has mission statements for God and for people.
It is God's plan for the people who live in last time of the world.
Post a Comment