Comment regarding John’s 4th reflection on Calvin By Elmer Guzman
Thanks John for your comments on this important issue of predestination. The sad point in Calvin’s theology is the concept that the history is closed, therefore we, as humans don’t have free-will. Because God already elected and reproved humanity from past eternity. This is so, because according to Calvin, God’s foreknowledge is grounded upon his predestination, so God only knows because he already decided. Maybe in Calvin’s mind this was the only way to attest the sovereignty of God. It is interesting that when man try to defend God, he usually mess things up. In class, professor Hanna said that we are predestined to be free. So, this is a via media to try to harmonized God’s predestination with our freedom, which is still hard to understand. Because how could God know what is still not yet? In other words, some one could ask a question, “can God be in a place that don’t exist? If the answer is no, then how can God know something that still is to come? Well, this rational would lead to open theism, nonetheless, the testimony of Scripture is clear about that! God knows the future, now the way that he does, the dimensions of His knowledge, the possibilities of the high complex human decisions is some aspect of theology that we can speculate, but hardly we will reach a bold conclusion.
By Elmer Guzman Thanks John for your comments on this important issue of predestination. The sad point in Calvin’s theology is the concept that the history is closed, therefore we, as humans don’t have free-will. Because God already elected and reproved humanity from past eternity. This is so, because according to Calvin, God’s foreknowledge is grounded upon his predestination, so God only knows because he already decided. Maybe in Calvin’s mind this was the only way to attest the sovereignty of God. It is interesting that when man try to defend God, he usually mess things up. In class, professor Hanna said that we are predestined to be free. So, this is a via media to try to harmonized God’s predestination with our freedom, which is still hard to understand. Because how could God know what is still not yet? In other words, some one could ask a question, “can God be in a place that don’t exist? If the answer is no, then how can God know something that still is to come? Well, this rational would lead to open theism, nonetheless, the testimony of Scripture is clear about that! God knows the future, now the way that he does, the dimensions of His knowledge, the possibilities of the high complex human decisions is some aspect of theology that we can speculate, but hardly we will reach a bold conclusion.
Comment of Sanctuary lessons 1st and last lecture by professor Hanna By Elmer Guzman
The first and last lecture of this course pointed to the “inclusio” factor that unifies the heritage that we received. The classes were organized in the envelop model, with a specific focus in mind, that is to show that the sanctuary is the central all-inclusive (if not all, almost all), high complex structure that points to salvation history with clarity and broadened our notion of God in relation with his creature. Therefore, the professor could affirm that our history is His story. This phrase out of context could suggest a limited sense of freedom (calvinistic), when the reality down here is a duplication of timeless realities, because if is God’s history it cannot be ours, but if the history belongs to both, so our freedom is not quite 100%. However, with the holistic sanctuary concept in view, and with a proper understanding of freewill, we see the sanctuary pointing to the interaction of beings. This holistic understanding points to the seriousness of the rituals, which should be performed not only by the building structure (cf. Leviticus), but also great attention should be given to the living sanctuary, that is my body. This is a powerful argument in favor of reformation, because even before than the existence of protestant reformation (collective), it happened the individual reformation in the lives of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, why not Erasmus, and Ellen White. While Jesus cleans the house in heaven, we should clean ours on earth!
Comment for Elmer Guzman on Continuation and rupture
I agree with Elmer about development of the religious movements. Adventism is part or continuation of the broad Protestant Heritage. We really can find many motivations to start a new movement. Adventism movement was based in the Sola Scriptura principal.
Comment for Elmer Guzman on Continuation and rupture
I agree with Elmer about development of the religious movements. Adventism is part or continuation of the broad Protestant Heritage. We really can find many motivations to start a new movement. Adventism movement was based in the Sola Scriptura principal.
Commenting on Jounghan Kim's Last It is the Quest for the reformers to be true to what the scriptures say, there untiring effort to search the scripture in order to understand and do what they say that i believe was at the core of the reformation and so i agree with you that there is alot we can learn from them and we should be grateful of there work, though it may seem imperfect.
Commenting on Jung Yoo Kim's last to reflection I agree with you that the term Tradition has been attached with different conotations and most of them have been negative but we all have Traditions and some of them are good because they remind us of who we are or where we have come from thus to some extent help us know how to approach the future. As per our church, our tradition should be the tradition of Jesus. I like your statement, "The important thing is that church tradition should be based on God." Tradition which contradicts God's word should be discarded. One rhetorical question which i feel concerned about is; what about those traditions we have and still hold in our church but the bible doesn't explicitly speak about them? should we continue holding them ?
Comment regarding John’s 4th reflection on Calvin By Elmer Guzman
Thanks John for your comments on this important issue of predestination. The sad point in Calvin’s theology is the concept that the history is closed, therefore we, as humans don’t have free-will. Because God already elected and reproved humanity from past eternity. This is so, because according to Calvin, God’s foreknowledge is grounded upon his predestination, so God only knows because he already decided. Maybe in Calvin’s mind this was the only way to attest the sovereignty of God. It is interesting that when man try to defend God, he usually mess things up. In class, professor Hanna said that we are predestined to be free. So, this is a via media to try to harmonized God’s predestination with our freedom, which is still hard to understand. Because how could God know what is still not yet? In other words, some one could ask a question, “can God be in a place that don’t exist? If the answer is no, then how can God know something that still is to come? Well, this rational would lead to open theism, nonetheless, the testimony of Scripture is clear about that! God knows the future, now the way that he does, the dimensions of His knowledge, the possibilities of the high complex human decisions is some aspect of theology that we can speculate, but hardly we will reach a bold conclusion.
Response to Elmer I appreciated Elmer’s observation that as Adventists we owe our doctrinal heritage from other denominations. What I observed also is the fact that almost all other doctrines that we have, except the doctrine of the sanctuary and the pre-Advent judgment had their origins with individuals who were none Adventists. It was interesting to note that one of the contributors to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul in the early Second Adventist movement was George Storrs. He also was influence by the writings of Henry Grew a Baptism preacher on the same subject. Grew also wrote against the doctrine of literal eternal torment of hellfire.
I have no doubt that both the sanctuary and pre-advent doctrine which had their origins in the William Miller did not develop from a vacuum either. William Miller also had someone to look to for the origins of the 2300 day prophecy of the cleansing of the sanctuary to arrive at 1844 as the day of the Lord’s return, which after the great disappointment gave birth to the present pre-advent judgment.
I was surprised about 9yrs ago to know that out of the Second Advent 2300 days prophecy came the Bahai Faith. I learnt this from one of their members who left the Seventh-day Adventist to join them. The Bahais believe that their founding father Bahaullah, meaning the glory of the lord, is the Christ himself who actually came in 1844 in fulfillment of Daniel’s 2300 days prophecy and establishes the spiritual kingdom of God.
I believe the Remnant motif in Revelation 12 has more to do with doctrinal heritage than institutional heritage. As an institution, we owe most of our doctrinal heritage from the humble instruments of God who comprised the Woman of Revelation 12. We need to appreciate the privilege God has extended to us to compassionately call our brothers and sisters in faith from Babylon.
It seems that you are stating that Martin Luther did not compromise his beliefs when it came to the Bible. While we do see a great stance against the Catholic church on certain issues, I am thinking about when we spoke in class about his rejection of the book of James because it didn't seem to fit right. To me, this would appear to be a definite compromise on the scriptures. I do understand that he was a great reformer, but without understanding where he came from, he could not have re-formed anything, for he would not know the original "form". You are right that we are to preach the 3 angels messages, but I would like to say that I think this study of the Protestant Theological Heritage is very important in helping us to develop a more holistic mission ourselves, for if we do not understand our own Protestant Theological Heritage, how could we possibly begin to preach the 3 angel's messages?
I agree with you about what you have said about how a heritic is defined by the majority church. I would like to add to what you said that I think we, the Seventh-day Adventists, are even considered heretical by some! And I agree that we are reformers. I am curious though, how radical should we consider ourselves, and just how radical we should be?
I agree with you about the relativism in our own experiences with God. None of us have come from the same place, and none of us have the same understandings. Truth to me might be error to you, even if the real truth is something that neither of us know. Though many may not agree with me, I have taken the stance of teaching that music is relative to the indevidual in my ministry. There seems to be great controversy about which music is ok and not ok. But what is "ok" is always what the speaker believes. We simply don't have the ability to understand the relationship God has with each other, and where God might have us, and what God is using and doing to reach us. I therefore don't have a problem with my members who appreciate diffferent types of music, and I am not worried either about what others think about my interest, though I do keep it private as a minister as not to cause a stumbling block to those who think differently.
I am not certain that we have to have the debate you are speaking of. I don't think we have to make a decision between having either unity or truth. while one will think he has the truth and another will think that he has the truth, both truth's can be opposing, and we can still have unity. It is not only truth that we need, but it is also tolerance that we need, for non of us have complete understanding, and there is sure to be falicy in each of our conceptions of what is truth. Just my thoughts.
I think the picture you portray of the American Korean churches is not that much different than many of the Anglo churches in North America as well. In my experience, all the descriptions of a pastor you gave are similar to expectations that my churches have had upon me. One time my elder assigned me to be the cleaner of the church for the week, without notifying me or asking me of course. When I saw the list of who was to clean the list, I decided to use it as a lesson, and simply did not do the work. The Elder was angry at me. I had to inform her that I was not there to clean their church for them. I am not opposed to working on the church, but a lot of our churches just want to be babby sat. While we understand this, I think we must be fair to the situation by accepting the fact that we (not you and me, but we as the Pastors and the church) have had a very serious role in contributing to the way the church in North America currently is. Though it is tough, the change very well may have to start with the way we perform the role of Pastoring and Administrating.
I agree, that was a very important passage from Ellen White that we discussed in class about not being so quick to speak negative words about Catholicism. I think that we have a very easy time becoming very negative in our proclamation of the Gospel, and often times we may not even realize how sour our messages come across. We certainly have the potential to get lost in the preaching of the prophecies and the beast and so forth, while we at the same time neglect to keep Christ at the center of each message. I think if we discipline ourselves to keep a Christocentric message, we will find there is little room for ill speaking of others, and we will have even greater conversions from Catholicism than by preaching the Pope is the Antichrist.
I am commenting on Sergio Silva's paper. I agree with you on the clarification of the Cosmic Christ issue. We must be clear about that and know how to refute the false teachings around it. I believe tha Dr. Hanna has a great way to explain his point about the Cosmic Christ but I still believe he should change the name because of the controversy surrounding it.
RESPONSE TO Ryan Hablitzel: The Scriptures without doubts are and must be our only rule of faith. Although the reformers had sustained the Sola-scriptura, they had not been successful to breach completely with Catholic tradition. I believe that protestant heritage it must be interpreted in a holistic way. But I also believe that is dangerous the possibility that “truth can stem” from multiple sources such as “from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The truth, I believe, must be stemmed from the Word of God, and the reason is because this word is inspired by God. Therefore God’s word must be our only rule of faith and truth, conducting all aspects of the life. Although I agree with you in regarding what you said: “I suspect that this trend of using personal experience as a source of truth will continue to gain strength in our generation leading to a movement away from scriptural authority and compromise based on personal intellect”, I cannot agree in what you suggest “that truth can stem from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The church, for example is not the source of truth, but the instrument to apply the truth that was revealed to it. Science today, for example, it is based in atheism and evolutionism. Experience of many Christians today it is based only in the flesh’s passions, not in what God said in the Scripture. To have a better idea regarding this topic, is just to look at the condition of the matrimony today. I believe that we can use many sources, but these sources have to be measured by the Word of God. But in my way of thinking, many sources cannot be considered source of truth.
RESPONSE TO JASON: Hi Jason, I really appreciated your comment about the discussion that we had in class regarding the truth. I personally too believe in the absolute truth. I believe too that many denominations have discovered elements of the absolute truth, but not the absolute truth. I also believe that we don’t have the complete truth. Only God has all truth. But I also believe that God have just one church on the face of the earth. Therefore I believe that God gave us more truth to share with others. If we have more about truth, much more responsibility. Also, I believe that we have to investigate more and more to grow in the absolute truth.
RESPONSE TO Anonymous: I agree to each word that you wrote. I really believe that we live in the final days. Jesus gave us signals and we can be prepared for these final days. I agree with you that we have to live without contradictions to the principles we profess. Our lifestyle must be in accord we believe.
RESPONSE TO Taurus Montgomery: I liked the way you wrote about protestant heritage in regarding Dr. Hanna teachings. God’s inheritance it is much more broad and deep than we can understand. History is His Story, as Dr. Hanna teaches us in the class. I agree with you that we are “We are indeed standing on the shoulders” of others. We don’t have isolated history. This understanding of protestant heritage gives us security. Security to preach the gospel believing that we are not isolated in the work of God.
RESPONSE TO Christy Parfet: I do not believe that truth is more important than people or people more important than truth. For me, God love people and His truth. Jesus said “I am the truth”. If God gave His only Son to save the world, and He gave us the truth that is Jesus, both are important. One cannot be more important than other, and contradict each other. I believe that we have to preach the truth with our lifestyle and words, but the power to convert lives belong to the Holy Spirit.
RESPONSE TO Ron Smith II: I agree with you! I enjoyed the class with Dr. Hanna. I learned a lot about heritage/inheritance of God. Also, I loved the way that Dr. Hanna teaches us in the three ways that God talks to us: Jesus, the live word of God; the Bible, the written word of God; the church, the instrument of God to reach people. God bless you my brother, and God continue to bless Dr. Hanna in his teachings.
IN RESPONSE TO Ryan Hablitzel: The Scriptures without doubts are and must be our only rule of faith. Although the reformers had sustained the Sola-scriptura, they had not been successful to breach completely with Catholic tradition. I believe that protestant heritage it must be interpreted in a holistic way. But I also believe that is dangerous the possibility that “truth can stem” from multiple sources such as “from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The truth, I believe, must be stemmed from the Word of God, and the reason is because this word is inspired by God. Therefore God’s word must be our only rule of faith and truth, conducting all aspects of the life. Although I agree with you in regarding what you said: “I suspect that this trend of using personal experience as a source of truth will continue to gain strength in our generation leading to a movement away from scriptural authority and compromise based on personal intellect”, I cannot agree in what you suggest “that truth can stem from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The church, for example is not the source of truth, but the instrument to apply the truth that was revealed to it. Science today, for example, it is based in atheism and evolutionism. Experience of many Christians today it is based only in the flesh’s passions, not in what God said in the Scripture. To have a better idea regarding this topic, is just to look at the condition of the matrimony today. I believe that we can use many sources, but these sources have to be measured by the Word of God. But in my way of thinking, many sources cannot be considered source of truth.
Byron Shea Crockett This Comment is on Jeff Walper’s apology
I must admit I was one of the individuals that was offended by the argument with Dr. Hanna, so much so that I left the class. But I can truly appreciate your apology. I didn’t see this earlier in the semester. I would like to make mention while I didn’t agree with your view and at the end of the semester when you gave your presentation to me, it didn’t exactly go against what Hanna was getting across to me. Nevertheless It is important that you know, if you had truth in your arguments many would have ignored it because of the confusion that was in the room, the aggressive tone in the arguments. I can tell this is something that you are passionate about, I pray for continued success in Christ. In addition much needs to be said about an individual who will publicly apologize when he or she offends others!
Byron Shea Crockett This Comment is to Fred’s on the discussion in class on 06/18/2009 I like how you look at the situation. As I think back to that day I can remember it like it was yesterday. It to me didn’t have many positive outcomes it to me seemed like a dark day in class. But I can appreciate how you look at it and see positives. I also agree that there is a responsibility placed on each of us to be faithful with the light that God has given to us. God is amazing in his ability to judge the hearts of man. My faith lies in Christ being the perfect Judge, I concentrate on making myself available for this light. Light that the Holy Spirit shares with me. There are a lot of movements in the church now, many of which I fill are not lead by the Holy Spirit. I am not closed minded with these. I welcome any movement to the table of scripture, measure it with The Word of God
Byron Shea Crockett This Comment is on the PTH Class as a whole. I am now appreciating what I learned in this class more and more. I am a person who makes it a habit to keep in touch with what is going on behind the scenes. From masonry to Jesuits to the Papacy movements to bring all nations together, I realize that I don’t know everything there is to know but I am very open when it comes to what is going on behind the scenes. I am now beginning to see more and more movements from within the Church. Maybe I lived I sheltered life, living in the south and growing up Adventist and being educated in an Adventist school in the south. I had my fare share of run in with shepherd Rods but never have I came into contact with so many Adventist who have problems with our fundamental beliefs. What this class did for me is point out that there is a need for individuals inside the church who are willing to change as the Holy Spirit reveals more light. The beautiful thing is that God only judges us on our faithfulness to the light He shares to us.
This Comment is on Christy Parfet’s comment on Salvation (week 2)
I believe there is healing in having faith that you are saved! Paul in Romans let the saints know that if they confessed the Lord Jesus Christ and believed in your heart that God raised Christ from the grave and you are saved. This Church was surrounded by wickedness and in the midst of it many of the churches leaders had doubt in their Salvation. Paul lets the people know your alright. Salvation is obtainable!
Byron Shea Crockett This Comment is to Jason Hines standpoint on absolute truth Jason I could not agree more with you on this subject. I believe if we as a church would have previously just told the saints, “were not sure” in some cases wrather than saying the bible definatley says this when we weren’t sure. Many today would not look at the church as if it is a den of mistakes. As a church we don’t have to know everything. All we are required to do is to be faithful with the light given to us. When we come to an issue that we are not sure of, instead of siding with science we should side with the Bible. Pride has forced us to feel as if we have to have every answer. Its time we are honest God’s people. Some things are preferences and are not Sins!
This Comment is in response to E.A Guzmans response to Sergio's reflection 1. I totally agree with the importance of the emphasis on the historical aspect of the heritigae. Guzman continues and says that it shows that God works in time and space. this is especially important in the time we live in now. We have to realize and share with individuals that God is not a God who cannot work among us. He is not out of touch with his creations. He can, will and does work with us. He cares for us and in the mist of the storms of our lives God is here with us!
This comment is on Dr. Hanna's comment on absolute truth. I think it is correct in that Absolute truth is in Christ and we have access to Christ but we ourselves are not Absolute so to believe that we have absolute truth is a far far stretch. As humans there is an undrying well that we can draw from but we are not the well! God will continue to reveal truth as He sees fit.
230 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 230 of 230Comment regarding John’s 4th reflection on Calvin
By Elmer Guzman
Thanks John for your comments on this important issue of predestination. The sad point in Calvin’s theology is the concept that the history is closed, therefore we, as humans don’t have free-will. Because God already elected and reproved humanity from past eternity. This is so, because according to Calvin, God’s foreknowledge is grounded upon his predestination, so God only knows because he already decided. Maybe in Calvin’s mind this was the only way to attest the sovereignty of God. It is interesting that when man try to defend God, he usually mess things up. In class, professor Hanna said that we are predestined to be free. So, this is a via media to try to harmonized God’s predestination with our freedom, which is still hard to understand. Because how could God know what is still not yet? In other words, some one could ask a question, “can God be in a place that don’t exist? If the answer is no, then how can God know something that still is to come? Well, this rational would lead to open theism, nonetheless, the testimony of Scripture is clear about that! God knows the future, now the way that he does, the dimensions of His knowledge, the possibilities of the high complex human decisions is some aspect of theology that we can speculate, but hardly we will reach a bold conclusion.
Comment regarding John’s 4th reflection on Calvin
By Elmer Guzman
Thanks John for your comments on this important issue of predestination. The sad point in Calvin’s theology is the concept that the history is closed, therefore we, as humans don’t have free-will. Because God already elected and reproved humanity from past eternity. This is so, because according to Calvin, God’s foreknowledge is grounded upon his predestination, so God only knows because he already decided. Maybe in Calvin’s mind this was the only way to attest the sovereignty of God. It is interesting that when man try to defend God, he usually mess things up. In class, professor Hanna said that we are predestined to be free. So, this is a via media to try to harmonized God’s predestination with our freedom, which is still hard to understand. Because how could God know what is still not yet? In other words, some one could ask a question, “can God be in a place that don’t exist? If the answer is no, then how can God know something that still is to come? Well, this rational would lead to open theism, nonetheless, the testimony of Scripture is clear about that! God knows the future, now the way that he does, the dimensions of His knowledge, the possibilities of the high complex human decisions is some aspect of theology that we can speculate, but hardly we will reach a bold conclusion.
Comment of Sanctuary lessons 1st and last lecture by professor Hanna
By Elmer Guzman
The first and last lecture of this course pointed to the “inclusio” factor that unifies the heritage that we received. The classes were organized in the envelop model, with a specific focus in mind, that is to show that the sanctuary is the central all-inclusive (if not all, almost all), high complex structure that points to salvation history with clarity and broadened our notion of God in relation with his creature. Therefore, the professor could affirm that our history is His story. This phrase out of context could suggest a limited sense of freedom (calvinistic), when the reality down here is a duplication of timeless realities, because if is God’s history it cannot be ours, but if the history belongs to both, so our freedom is not quite 100%.
However, with the holistic sanctuary concept in view, and with a proper understanding of freewill, we see the sanctuary pointing to the interaction of beings.
This holistic understanding points to the seriousness of the rituals, which should be performed not only by the building structure (cf. Leviticus), but also great attention should be given to the living sanctuary, that is my body. This is a powerful argument in favor of reformation, because even before than the existence of protestant reformation (collective), it happened the individual reformation in the lives of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, why not Erasmus, and Ellen White.
While Jesus cleans the house in heaven, we should clean ours on earth!
Comment for Elmer Guzman on Continuation and rupture
I agree with Elmer about development of the religious movements. Adventism is part or continuation of the broad Protestant Heritage. We really can find many motivations to start a new movement. Adventism movement was based in the Sola Scriptura principal.
Comment for Elmer Guzman
on Continuation and rupture
I agree with Elmer about development of the religious movements. Adventism is part or continuation of the broad Protestant Heritage. We really can find many motivations to start a new movement. Adventism movement was based in the Sola Scriptura principal.
Commenting on Jounghan Kim's Last
It is the Quest for the reformers to be true to what the scriptures say, there untiring effort to search the scripture in order to understand and do what they say that i believe was at the core of the reformation and so i agree with you that there is alot we can learn from them and we should be grateful of there work, though it may seem imperfect.
Commenting on Jung Yoo Kim's last to reflection
I agree with you that the term Tradition has been attached with different conotations and most of them have been negative but we all have Traditions and some of them are good because they remind us of who we are or where we have come from thus to some extent help us know how to approach the future. As per our church, our tradition should be the tradition of Jesus. I like your statement, "The important thing is that church tradition should be based on God." Tradition which contradicts God's word should be discarded. One rhetorical question which i feel concerned about is; what about those traditions we have and still hold in our church but the bible doesn't explicitly speak about them? should we continue holding them ?
Comment regarding John’s 4th reflection on Calvin
By Elmer Guzman
Thanks John for your comments on this important issue of predestination. The sad point in Calvin’s theology is the concept that the history is closed, therefore we, as humans don’t have free-will. Because God already elected and reproved humanity from past eternity. This is so, because according to Calvin, God’s foreknowledge is grounded upon his predestination, so God only knows because he already decided. Maybe in Calvin’s mind this was the only way to attest the sovereignty of God. It is interesting that when man try to defend God, he usually mess things up. In class, professor Hanna said that we are predestined to be free. So, this is a via media to try to harmonized God’s predestination with our freedom, which is still hard to understand. Because how could God know what is still not yet? In other words, some one could ask a question, “can God be in a place that don’t exist? If the answer is no, then how can God know something that still is to come? Well, this rational would lead to open theism, nonetheless, the testimony of Scripture is clear about that! God knows the future, now the way that he does, the dimensions of His knowledge, the possibilities of the high complex human decisions is some aspect of theology that we can speculate, but hardly we will reach a bold conclusion.
Response to Elmer
I appreciated Elmer’s observation that as Adventists we owe our doctrinal heritage from other denominations. What I observed also is the fact that almost all other doctrines that we have, except the doctrine of the sanctuary and the pre-Advent judgment had their origins with individuals who were none Adventists. It was interesting to note that one of the contributors to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul in the early Second Adventist movement was George Storrs. He also was influence by the writings of Henry Grew a Baptism preacher on the same subject. Grew also wrote against the doctrine of literal eternal torment of hellfire.
I have no doubt that both the sanctuary and pre-advent doctrine which had their origins in the William Miller did not develop from a vacuum either. William Miller also had someone to look to for the origins of the 2300 day prophecy of the cleansing of the sanctuary to arrive at 1844 as the day of the Lord’s return, which after the great disappointment gave birth to the present pre-advent judgment.
I was surprised about 9yrs ago to know that out of the Second Advent 2300 days prophecy came the Bahai Faith. I learnt this from one of their members who left the Seventh-day Adventist to join them. The Bahais believe that their founding father Bahaullah, meaning the glory of the lord, is the Christ himself who actually came in 1844 in fulfillment of Daniel’s 2300 days prophecy and establishes the spiritual kingdom of God.
I believe the Remnant motif in Revelation 12 has more to do with doctrinal heritage than institutional heritage. As an institution, we owe most of our doctrinal heritage from the humble instruments of God who comprised the Woman of Revelation 12. We need to appreciate the privilege God has extended to us to compassionately call our brothers and sisters in faith from Babylon.
In response to Jeff Walpers comment on 6/23.
It seems that you are stating that Martin Luther did not compromise his beliefs when it came to the Bible. While we do see a great stance against the Catholic church on certain issues, I am thinking about when we spoke in class about his rejection of the book of James because it didn't seem to fit right. To me, this would appear to be a definite compromise on the scriptures. I do understand that he was a great reformer, but without understanding where he came from, he could not have re-formed anything, for he would not know the original "form". You are right that we are to preach the 3 angels messages, but I would like to say that I think this study of the Protestant Theological Heritage is very important in helping us to develop a more holistic mission ourselves, for if we do not understand our own Protestant Theological Heritage, how could we possibly begin to preach the 3 angel's messages?
In reflection to Nick Jones' 3rd reflection...
I agree with you about what you have said about how a heritic is defined by the majority church. I would like to add to what you said that I think we, the Seventh-day Adventists, are even considered heretical by some! And I agree that we are reformers. I am curious though, how radical should we consider ourselves, and just how radical we should be?
In reflection to Fenades Reflection 2...
I agree with you about the relativism in our own experiences with God. None of us have come from the same place, and none of us have the same understandings. Truth to me might be error to you, even if the real truth is something that neither of us know. Though many may not agree with me, I have taken the stance of teaching that music is relative to the indevidual in my ministry. There seems to be great controversy about which music is ok and not ok. But what is "ok" is always what the speaker believes. We simply don't have the ability to understand the relationship God has with each other, and where God might have us, and what God is using and doing to reach us. I therefore don't have a problem with my members who appreciate diffferent types of music, and I am not worried either about what others think about my interest, though I do keep it private as a minister as not to cause a stumbling block to those who think differently.
In reflection to Jahisber's 3rd posting.
I am not certain that we have to have the debate you are speaking of. I don't think we have to make a decision between having either unity or truth. while one will think he has the truth and another will think that he has the truth, both truth's can be opposing, and we can still have unity. It is not only truth that we need, but it is also tolerance that we need, for non of us have complete understanding, and there is sure to be falicy in each of our conceptions of what is truth. Just my thoughts.
In reflection to Kiseung's 3rd post...
I think the picture you portray of the American Korean churches is not that much different than many of the Anglo churches in North America as well. In my experience, all the descriptions of a pastor you gave are similar to expectations that my churches have had upon me. One time my elder assigned me to be the cleaner of the church for the week, without notifying me or asking me of course. When I saw the list of who was to clean the list, I decided to use it as a lesson, and simply did not do the work. The Elder was angry at me. I had to inform her that I was not there to clean their church for them. I am not opposed to working on the church, but a lot of our churches just want to be babby sat. While we understand this, I think we must be fair to the situation by accepting the fact that we (not you and me, but we as the Pastors and the church) have had a very serious role in contributing to the way the church in North America currently is. Though it is tough, the change very well may have to start with the way we perform the role of Pastoring and Administrating.
In response to Jung Yoo Kim...
I agree, that was a very important passage from Ellen White that we discussed in class about not being so quick to speak negative words about Catholicism. I think that we have a very easy time becoming very negative in our proclamation of the Gospel, and often times we may not even realize how sour our messages come across. We certainly have the potential to get lost in the preaching of the prophecies and the beast and so forth, while we at the same time neglect to keep Christ at the center of each message. I think if we discipline ourselves to keep a Christocentric message, we will find there is little room for ill speaking of others, and we will have even greater conversions from Catholicism than by preaching the Pope is the Antichrist.
I am commenting on Sergio Silva's paper. I agree with you on the clarification of the Cosmic Christ issue. We must be clear about that and know how to refute the false teachings around it. I believe tha Dr. Hanna has a great way to explain his point about the Cosmic Christ but I still believe he should change the name because of the controversy surrounding it.
RESPONSE TO Ryan Hablitzel: The Scriptures without doubts are and must be our only rule of faith. Although the reformers had sustained the Sola-scriptura, they had not been successful to breach completely with Catholic tradition. I believe that protestant heritage it must be interpreted in a holistic way. But I also believe that is dangerous the possibility that “truth can stem” from multiple sources such as “from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The truth, I believe, must be stemmed from the Word of God, and the reason is because this word is inspired by God. Therefore God’s word must be our only rule of faith and truth, conducting all aspects of the life. Although I agree with you in regarding what you said: “I suspect that this trend of using personal experience as a source of truth will continue to gain strength in our generation leading to a movement away from scriptural authority and compromise based on personal intellect”, I cannot agree in what you suggest “that truth can stem from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The church, for example is not the source of truth, but the instrument to apply the truth that was revealed to it. Science today, for example, it is based in atheism and evolutionism. Experience of many Christians today it is based only in the flesh’s passions, not in what God said in the Scripture. To have a better idea regarding this topic, is just to look at the condition of the matrimony today. I believe that we can use many sources, but these sources have to be measured by the Word of God. But in my way of thinking, many sources cannot be considered source of truth.
RESPONSE TO JASON: Hi Jason, I really appreciated your comment about the discussion that we had in class regarding the truth. I personally too believe in the absolute truth. I believe too that many denominations have discovered elements of the absolute truth, but not the absolute truth. I also believe that we don’t have the complete truth. Only God has all truth. But I also believe that God have just one church on the face of the earth. Therefore I believe that God gave us more truth to share with others. If we have more about truth, much more responsibility. Also, I believe that we have to investigate more and more to grow in the absolute truth.
RESPONSE TO Anonymous: I agree to each word that you wrote. I really believe that we live in the final days. Jesus gave us signals and we can be prepared for these final days. I agree with you that we have to live without contradictions to the principles we profess. Our lifestyle must be in accord we believe.
RESPONSE TO Taurus Montgomery: I liked the way you wrote about protestant heritage in regarding Dr. Hanna teachings. God’s inheritance it is much more broad and deep than we can understand. History is His Story, as Dr. Hanna teaches us in the class. I agree with you that we are “We are indeed standing on the shoulders” of others. We don’t have isolated history. This understanding of protestant heritage gives us security. Security to preach the gospel believing that we are not isolated in the work of God.
RESPONSE TO Christy Parfet: I do not believe that truth is more important than people or people more important than truth. For me, God love people and His truth. Jesus said “I am the truth”. If God gave His only Son to save the world, and He gave us the truth that is Jesus, both are important. One cannot be more important than other, and contradict each other. I believe that we have to preach the truth with our lifestyle and words, but the power to convert lives belong to the Holy Spirit.
RESPONSE TO Ron Smith II: I agree with you! I enjoyed the class with Dr. Hanna. I learned a lot about heritage/inheritance of God. Also, I loved the way that Dr. Hanna teaches us in the three ways that God talks to us: Jesus, the live word of God; the Bible, the written word of God; the church, the instrument of God to reach people. God bless you my brother, and God continue to bless Dr. Hanna in his teachings.
IN RESPONSE TO Ryan Hablitzel: The Scriptures without doubts are and must be our only rule of faith. Although the reformers had sustained the Sola-scriptura, they had not been successful to breach completely with Catholic tradition. I believe that protestant heritage it must be interpreted in a holistic way. But I also believe that is dangerous the possibility that “truth can stem” from multiple sources such as “from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The truth, I believe, must be stemmed from the Word of God, and the reason is because this word is inspired by God. Therefore God’s word must be our only rule of faith and truth, conducting all aspects of the life. Although I agree with you in regarding what you said: “I suspect that this trend of using personal experience as a source of truth will continue to gain strength in our generation leading to a movement away from scriptural authority and compromise based on personal intellect”, I cannot agree in what you suggest “that truth can stem from the church, scripture, science, and personal experience”. The church, for example is not the source of truth, but the instrument to apply the truth that was revealed to it. Science today, for example, it is based in atheism and evolutionism. Experience of many Christians today it is based only in the flesh’s passions, not in what God said in the Scripture. To have a better idea regarding this topic, is just to look at the condition of the matrimony today. I believe that we can use many sources, but these sources have to be measured by the Word of God. But in my way of thinking, many sources cannot be considered source of truth.
Byron Shea Crockett
This Comment is on Jeff Walper’s apology
I must admit I was one of the individuals that was offended by the argument with Dr. Hanna, so much so that I left the class. But I can truly appreciate your apology. I didn’t see this earlier in the semester. I would like to make mention while I didn’t agree with your view and at the end of the semester when you gave your presentation to me, it didn’t exactly go against what Hanna was getting across to me. Nevertheless It is important that you know, if you had truth in your arguments many would have ignored it because of the confusion that was in the room, the aggressive tone in the arguments. I can tell this is something that you are passionate about, I pray for continued success in Christ. In addition much needs to be said about an individual who will publicly apologize when he or she offends others!
Byron Shea Crockett
This Comment is to Fred’s on the discussion in class on 06/18/2009
I like how you look at the situation. As I think back to that day I can remember it like it was yesterday. It to me didn’t have many positive outcomes it to me seemed like a dark day in class. But I can appreciate how you look at it and see positives. I also agree that there is a responsibility placed on each of us to be faithful with the light that God has given to us. God is amazing in his ability to judge the hearts of man. My faith lies in Christ being the perfect Judge, I concentrate on making myself available for this light. Light that the Holy Spirit shares with me. There are a lot of movements in the church now, many of which I fill are not lead by the Holy Spirit. I am not closed minded with these. I welcome any movement to the table of scripture, measure it with The Word of God
Byron Shea Crockett
This Comment is on the PTH Class as a whole.
I am now appreciating what I learned in this class more and more. I am a person who makes it a habit to keep in touch with what is going on behind the scenes. From masonry to Jesuits to the Papacy movements to bring all nations together, I realize that I don’t know everything there is to know but I am very open when it comes to what is going on behind the scenes. I am now beginning to see more and more movements from within the Church. Maybe I lived I sheltered life, living in the south and growing up Adventist and being educated in an Adventist school in the south. I had my fare share of run in with shepherd Rods but never have I came into contact with so many Adventist who have problems with our fundamental beliefs.
What this class did for me is point out that there is a need for individuals inside the church who are willing to change as the Holy Spirit reveals more light. The beautiful thing is that God only judges us on our faithfulness to the light He shares to us.
This Comment is on Christy Parfet’s comment on Salvation (week 2)
I believe there is healing in having faith that you are saved! Paul in Romans let the saints know that if they confessed the Lord Jesus Christ and believed in your heart that God raised Christ from the grave and you are saved. This Church was surrounded by wickedness and in the midst of it many of the churches leaders had doubt in their Salvation. Paul lets the people know your alright. Salvation is obtainable!
Byron Shea Crockett
This Comment is to Jason Hines standpoint on absolute truth
Jason I could not agree more with you on this subject. I believe if we as a church would have previously just told the saints, “were not sure” in some cases wrather than saying the bible definatley says this when we weren’t sure. Many today would not look at the church as if it is a den of mistakes. As a church we don’t have to know everything. All we are required to do is to be faithful with the light given to us. When we come to an issue that we are not sure of, instead of siding with science we should side with the Bible. Pride has forced us to feel as if we have to have every answer. Its time we are honest God’s people. Some things are preferences and are not Sins!
This Comment is in response to E.A Guzmans response to Sergio's reflection 1. I totally agree with the importance of the emphasis on the historical aspect of the heritigae. Guzman continues and says that it shows that God works in time and space. this is especially important in the time we live in now. We have to realize and share with individuals that God is not a God who cannot work among us. He is not out of touch with his creations. He can, will and does work with us. He cares for us and in the mist of the storms of our lives God is here with us!
Byron Shea Crockett
This comment is on Dr. Hanna's comment on absolute truth. I think it is correct in that Absolute truth is in Christ and we have access to Christ but we ourselves are not Absolute so to believe that we have absolute truth is a far far stretch. As humans there is an undrying well that we can draw from but we are not the well! God will continue to reveal truth as He sees fit.
Post a Comment