Ryan Hablitzel ID #138672 Final Essay Protestant Theological Heritage
“Martin Luther is, like Augustine, one of those thinkers whose theology is so closely bound up with his life that one cannot understand one apart from the other (Gonzalez, 29).”
Objectivity is rare. Theological debates continue to rage because of experientually based bias. Even though Martin Luther uncovered great injustice and heresy as a ma used by God, he tended toward extremes because of the oppression and injustices that he incurred. Reactionary theology can reveal oppressed truth, but is dangerous if it is not handled with balance and discrimination. While Luther uncovered great truth for his time, he tended toward extremes because of his exclusive thinking.
People tend toward an exclusive thinking to fit a belief system. Despite the general acceptance of “sola scriptura” by Protestants, scripture is often interpreted based upon personal preference. Sections of scripture are exalted above others because of they fit a belief system while other sections are ignored because of their apparent contradiction. One must study the Bible with a willingness to be broken by the words of scripture, even if those words challenge one’s belief system.
Personal experience does not have to have a negative effect on Theology. God works through personal experience to emphasize and reveal truth. Personal experience becomes negative when it polarizes itself into exclusive thinking. Personal understanding and experience does not encompass complete wisdom. One purpose of the church is to offer open dialog between like believers. By listening and sharing personal understanding with others, church members might come to a fuller understanding of truth.
Paul warns Timothy, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned into fables (2 Tim 4:3, 4).” There is danger in exclusive thinking. Too often individuals polarize in exclusive groups that share their personal way of thinking. Too often these polarized groups look upon others as apostates if they approach things in a slightly different manner. These groups have become a gospel within themselves - “if you don’t agree with us (me) you are a heretic.” This unbalanced form of thinking causes people to reach unhealthy conclusions.
While I don’t look down upon Luther or his contribution to Christianity, it would be dangerous to think that Luther’s understanding is final truth. Luther’s personal experience caused him to take some extreme positions. Luther might have been able to reach a more balanced understanding if he considered the reasoning of Erasmus, Zwingli, and Calvin without compromising on the principal of “sola scriptura.” To often individuals think that they are the only one who can see truth in it’s true light, but in reality it would do them good to consider the truths of individuals with a different perspective.
As ministers and church leaders let us keep a open dialog with people of diverse perspectives and opinions while remaining firmly rooted in scripture. Let the conservative and liberal agree to disagree on certain points but find commonality in deeper truth that open dialog creates. May we find greater truth in the midst diverse opinion while holding the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice.
Meade Adams THST624-Protestant Theological Heritage 7/2/09 Final Reflection Essay
The sentence I would like to reflect on is taken from my class notes. It is something that was said in class a few weeks back. The sentence is as follows: “Luther’s psychological problems and life circumstances set the stage for him to become a reformer”. With this sentence, I understood Dr. Hanna to mean that it was Luther’s life circumstances and situations that prepared him for the task he was to undertake. I found this statement to be profound and insightful and it reminded me of some important things. It also raises additional questions on the issue of God’s providence. First, it reminded me that the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in, while painful now, may be preparing us for a greater purpose. The biblical examples of Joseph and David come to mind. Joseph was cruelly sold into slavery and unjustly imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. However, Scripture clearly teaches that these things “set the stage” for him ultimately becoming governor. The same is true for David. He was an outlaw on the run for many years before he would ultimately take the throne. But it was precisely those trials in the wilderness and in battle that prepared him for the kingdom. I think the lesson gained from this sentence is that the events in our lives line us up to fulfill God’s purpose. It illustrates the fact that God is in control and that if we love Him all things will work together according to His purpose. However, this brings up some pertinent questions on the issue of God’s providence and free will. To what extent are we really free? If God can and does manipulate and control situations and circumstances in our lives in order to accomplish His purposes then are we really free? We dealt briefly with some of these issues in our discussions on Zwingli’s and Calvin’s doctrines of predestination. However, those discussions were limited to God’s predestination or foreknowledge as it relates to salvation. The statement about Luther implies something more than salvific divine interference. This has been a nagging question in my mind for a while now but I have resolved to trust God by faith. A slew of other implications can be drawn, but I also recognize my own limitations in reflecting on these issues. God’s thoughts and ways are far above my thoughts and ways. In my reflection on the sentence, however, I have come to this conclusion, which seems to be satisfactory for now. The statement says that the circumstances in Luther’s life “set the stage”. It did not say, “forced the stage”. It implies that even thought the stage was set, Luther still had a choice as to the path he would take. Luther could have theoretically chosen not to try to reform the church and God would have accomplished His purposes through some other method. Nevertheless, I am reminded that if I allow God to lead me, He will place me where He wishes me to be. I am encouraged to continue to trust and follow the Spirit in my life and ministry and “all things will work according to His purpose”.
Nathaniel Lyles July 2, 2009 THST 624 – Protestant Theological Heritage Final Exam
The following essay is a summary of my understanding of Martin Luther’s and Ulrich Zwingli’s disagreement pertaining to their interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. In this essay I will review their points of disagreement, discuss how their different views on the sacrament of the eucharist and their ways of interpreting Scripture which were influenced by their social background, and its relevance to Protestant theology and ministry. Although Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were in a some instances in agreement with each other on theological issues such as the priority of Scripture, Justo González in his book A History of Christian Theology mentions how they were in no wise like-minded in their interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. “It was the Lord’s supper that gave rise to the long controversy between Zwingli and Luther first, and later between their followers” (p. 83). Luther believed that Christ was really present in the sacrament of the eucharist. He taught that Christ’s words at the Lord’s Supper, “This is my body,” were literally true and that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the consecrated bread and wine. Zwingli, however, believed that Christ’s words were simply “symbolic” and a demonstration of faith. According to González, Zwingli rejected the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. He acknowledged Christ being spiritually present, not in the bread and wine, but in hearts of the believers. This serious disagreement between these two reformers was influenced by their personal development and understanding of interpreting Scripture. Luther’s theology and understanding of Scripture developed out of spiritual anguish as he studied as a monk in an Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg, Germany. In spite of the fact that Luther was the father of the Protestant Reformation, his theological background was catholic and it is at this point that we must remember that he “rejected only those elements in tradition which could be proven to contradict the clear text.” Zwingli’s theology on the other hand was shaped drawn from his experience as Swiss military solider. According to González, his views were developed by “nationalistic and political overtones” (p. 77). Furthermore, his theology was influenced by humanism, which Luther rejected. In contrast to Luther who interpreted Scripture literally because he understood the Word of God and the sacraments as inseparably linked together, Zwingli interpreted it symbolically because he believed that the Word of God creates the basis of faith and the sacraments only demonstrates our faith publicly. For Zwingli, both Scripture and the Lord’s Supper assert that Jesus is real, alive and now “seated at the right hand of God.” As stated earlier, Zwingli did not reject the idea that Christ is present spiritually in the Lord’s Supper but as it relates to his physical body, it is in heaven. I agree with González that this disagreement between Luther and Zwingli is important as we study our Protestant theological heritage because “one could almost say that, whereas Luther rejected only those elements in tradition which could be proven to contradict the clear text of Scripture, Zwingli took an opposite tack, rejecting everything except that which could be proven by Scripture.” One of the lessons I learned from Luther and Zwingli that is relevant for ministry is of the complexity of interpreting Scripture. We should remember that interpreting Scripture is not an easy task, even for the greatest of theologians. Although these two reformers were searching for the deeper meaning of Scripture, their disagreement over the interpretation of one particular biblical text and who had the authority to interpret Scripture caused a division and the formation of two reformed movements. We must give the Holy Spirit and Scripture the right to guide us in every activity of ministry, including our understanding and interpretation of Scripture.
Nathan Kennedy Essay for Final- Write an essay on one sentence. This indeed was a challenge as there were many such statements in all that has been presented. Much of the discussion was centered on Calvin’s and Zwingli’s view of predestination. Predestination is the gravest threat from Main Stream Protestantism to Seventh-day Adventists in general. Justo Gonzalez, an astute church historian, approached the philosophical and theological aspects in their historical context in his volume, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. III. His bias was simple; he purposed to be ecumenical in presenting the differing views, although the thought that he was being ecumenical was, at first, scandalous to say the least. Gonzalez’s approach made sense. He presented each paradigm without measuring it to another paradigm. This proved to be healthy. He presents each perspective from its own paradigm, based on its own presuppositions. Upon reflection, it was brilliant. So for Luther, he presented him on Luther’s terms, and he did the same for the Swiss and French reformers. Gonzalez presented the Anabaptist movement in a positive light, which also was refreshing. He says, “What leads a person… into the true faith is not predestination. ” Whatever a person’s theological background this statement arrests the attention. Gonzalez is after all, a Methodist. Modern Methodists are more Evangelical in recent times . He takes it further, with the statement, “The doctrine of predestination, especially as taught by Zwingli, is an abomination and a way to excuse us and blame God for our sin.” Reflecting on this, one is reminded of several passages in Scripture that Gonzalez is likely referring to. In the Old Testament, an abomination is a noun which refers to idolaters, unclean things, and various kinds of wickedness . Homosexual acts are an abomination . Dishonesty with money is an abomination . The devious are abomination . Those who eat the flesh of pigs are an abomination . However, the texts that Gonzalez refers to are found in Daniel 11 & 12 , Matthew 24, and Revelation 21. All these are Eschatological passages. The Bible clearly notes that abominations will be destroyed. Ellen White talks of predestination in a way that contradicts Zwingli/Calvinist view. She says, “ No walls are built to keep any living soul from salvation. The predestination, or election, of which God speaks, includes all who will accept Christ as a personal Saviour, who will return to their loyalty, to perfect obedience to all God's commandments. This is the effectual salvation of a peculiar people, chosen by God from among men. All who are willing to be saved by Christ are the elect of God. It is the obedient who are predestinated from the foundation of the world. " Indeed, any view of God’s Salvation that limits God’s abilities to save folks outside of their own will, or causes him to decided salvation for them against their will, is an abomination. The absolute danger of having a god that has planned within his will to destroy and such a fictitious god is not God. God is Merciful and Just.
On the statement about Methodists being Evangelical. This idea deduced from the statement, speaking of the United Methodist Church he states,“… the denomination’s leaders culminates a long tradition of abandoning the teachings and positions of its founder John Wesley… ” in the article by Peter McGuire, John Wesley and Just War, Good News Magazine, May/June 2003, available from http://www.goodnewsmag.org/magazine/mayjune/mj03war.htm, Internet, accessed 24 June 09
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an appendix containing Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. BibleWorks, v.8. תּוֹעֵבָה
Ellen G. White, The Gospel Herald, “The Abiding Trust” (June 11, 1902)
New American Standard Update 1995 Lev. 18:22 Deu. 25:16, Pro. 11:1 Pro. 3:32 ( Isa. 66:14-24
So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
Reflection
One of the issues discussed in class was the weakening of the medieval synthesis, and how this process allowed the strengthening of the protestant reformation. Concerning God’s plan in leading his church there is a theme worthy of reflection: The remnant. Thus, I have chosen Romans 11:5 and 6 because it is one of the texts that seem to suggest what many are redundant to accept. But I want to make clear is that I aim not to solve this issue, just to reflect on it.
From the writing of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome until the weakening of the medieval synthesis there is an apparent gap, concerning the remnant. There are two authors that I would like to mention regarding the issue of this period of time pertaining to the church : Zwingli and Calvin. Both speak about the invisible church and the visible church. One the one hand Zwingli argued that “the church is the company of the elect. And, since those who are going to be saved are not manifested until the last day, the church is invisible.” (Gonzalez’s book p.79). On the other hand Gonzalez’s explains by saying that “Calvin establishes a clear distinction between the visible and the invisible church. Strictly speaking, only the later, this is formed by the elect, living and dead.” (Gonzalez’s book p.161).
Having this in mind, in class was mentioned also that throughout the ages have been two parallel processes (and particularly in the medieval synthesis): Reformation and Apostasy. It is interesting that at the time Paul wrote Romans Christianity was experiencing apostasy and reformation. (Romans 1) Reading Romans 11:5,6 makes me wonder of the identity of the remnant. Could we say that God has “remnant” people within movements of apostasy? Or are they only in movements of reformation? Are they part of “the invisible” part of the remnant? If so, do they harmonize with the biblical definition of remnant? For example, SDA church claims to be the remnant. If exist an invisible remnant out there in different denominations, has SDA church the merit still to claim his role as remnant? (apart from any prophetic interpretation).
The key question in the above passage is concerning the identity of the remnant. Linked to this identity I would say that the verses containing the theme of salvation-election may be related.
• 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
• 10:13 For, Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
• 11:25, 26a. I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved.
These verses tell us characteristics about God’s people, those who are going to be saved. In Paul’s wording, particularly in verse 25 and 26a appears a reference that there is a determined number of Gentiles that are entering into Israel, a group that are destined to salvation, which are remnant chosen by grace according to 11:5. I would suggest that God used the medieval synthesis in the same way as in the time Christianity was spreading around the Roman Empire. God has faithful believers on places that we never have imagined. In here I am saying that the same has happened through the ages, and I am tempted to think that some Christian churches that claim to be God’s remnant have fell in exclusivist interpretation of this doctrine. Perhaps, we need to double check to what Zwingli and Calvin said concerning this issue. In short, God has elected people to be part of the remnant, some visible, and some not.
I base my conclusion in 9:6. Paul states in 9:6 that “It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” So, could we say today that not all SDA members are remnant? Or that not all remnant are SDA members? Going to 11:5 it seems that when Paul uses remnant he makes a strong connection with chosen by grace, I would conclude by saying that the remnant today, even though remains its name as Israel, those composing it are elected by grace, not by denomination membership.
So, to be part of the remnant does not depend on performance, but on God’s grace.
Morgan Kochenower. My sentence comes from a comment that was made in class. “God was trying to reform the Catholic Church during the reformation”
I don’t know why this comment took me off guard, but it did. I had never looked at the reformation in this light because I assumed that God had cast off the church of Rome/Catholic church from day one because I look at Daniel and Revelation and read that the Catholic system is referred to as a beast and set itself up against the Most High. The Bible tells an amazing story about King Manasseh. The King was so involved in idolatry that he would sacrifice his own children on an altar. He had performed so much wickedness that God dragged him off into captivity with hooks. While in prison he repented, the Bible says, “So the LORD brought against them th army commanders of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh prisoner, put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon. In his distress he sought the favor of the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And when he prayed to Him, the LORD was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.” (2 Chron. 33.11,12) There was never a point in Manasseh’s life that God was not working on him and as far as the Catholic Church went during it’s 1260-year reign, there was never a time with God was not reaching out to them. The struggle that I have overcome is this: Just because God was working on the church does not mean it was condoning the church’s theology or it’s practices. There were many things the Catholic church that were a crime against humanity, but when you look at the scope of the Jewish nation, they also committed some pretty heinous crimes as well, going as far as seeking Jesus death on a cross. The problem I have is that Daniel and John had prophesied of this apostate institution long before and said that it would even be a player till the end of time. So, while I believe God was trying to reform the church, He had already prophesied against it. The Prophesies were not conditional. I look at the story of the exodus as an example. God called Pharaoh to his post so that He could show His power. I believe God was trying to save Pharaoh as well, but all along, Pharaoh stood against the Most High. The way I explain this prophesy and God trying to reform is this. I believe that God was trying to reform the Church but was not able to accomplish what He wanted to within the Catholic system. Because of hardness of heart, the system was not going to change so God was going to have to call out His people in order to accomplish his work. This should not come as a surprise. When Jesus came to this earth He was trying to reform the Jewish nation and just as the Catholic Church rejected truth the Jewish nation rejected truth. Each wanted to keep a system that they were in control of. As a result of the Jews rejecting Jesus, Jesus takes the message to the Gentiles and the Christian church is born. As a result of the Catholic Church’s rejection, Protestantism is born. God knows the future and my attempt to explain this aspect of history is not an attempt to explain God or put Him in a box.
Tyler Kraft Protestant Theological Heritage Final Essay 7/2/09
One of the most significant concepts that I learned from class is as follows: In our postmodern era, the quintessential question in terms of religious axiology is, “Is your theology relevant?” This question resonates quite strongly with much of what we have discussed this session. Not only that, but it is of utmost importance to both one’s life and one’s ministry.
The question of theological relevance has permeated this class on Protestant Theological Heritage, as it is at the heart of the beliefs and actions of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin. Luther found that for all of the Roman Catholic Church’s highly developed theology on salvation, it was not relevant to his experience. This is why he was motivated to study righteousness by faith, and thus began the Reformation. The question of relevance also can be found in Zwingli’s experience, as he sought to make Luther’s reforms even more relevant by systematizing how Protestants thought about providence and predestination. Calvin epitomizes the question of theological relevance, as he was reluctant to take on a leadership role, because he saw himself primarily as a scholar. But, he ended up making great contributions to Protestantism, as he sought to make his academic theology relevant to people’s lives. While I realize I have outlined these Reformers in broad strokes, it nevertheless becomes apparent that this question is at the very center of the Reformation and Protestantism itself.
Determining if one’s theology is relevant continues to be an important question to ask one’s self today, as it obviously is a very practical question. It is a question that I must continually ask myself as a student here at the seminary. In terms of theology, seminary students have so many options on which to focus, but one should take time to develop and hone one’s theology so that it is supremely relevant. Thus it is important to my life at this stage, as this question should inform my decisions on which classes to take, what topics to research, and what projects to work on. While we are here, I believe that it behooves seminary students to truly develop our theology to be relevant not only by the time one leaves Andrews, but also in the course of one’s continued study in the ministry.
It is when students leave Andrews that this question becomes vital to one’s ministry, as we now have to minister to people in this postmodern world who intentionally asks this question at the onset of their interest in Christianity and/or Seventh-day Adventism. To offer an extreme example, if I presented the sanctuary doctrine by going into detail about the theological significance behind every single hook that was used to attach the veil to it supporting rod, I would not be surprised if those to whom I was speaking dropped their interest. Even if I were not to go into such depth, but simply presented a basic overview of this doctrine, yet did not explain – and more importantly show – the impact the sanctuary makes on one’s life, I’m fairly certain I would lose their interest as well. I might be labeled a heretic for this, but I believe that a lot of internal theological debates are centered on irrelevant theology. I also think our Church’s focus on these irrelevancies has even become a part of the average member’s life as they have arguments over what will happen to the earth after God cleanses it with fire.
The question “is your theology relevant?” is one that has been asked since the time of the Reformation, and probably earlier, and it is a question that has become louder and more prevalent in today’s society. As our postmodern world asks that question of us, we also must ask it of ourselves – just as the fathers of the Reformation did. I believe it is the search for the answer that is a significant part of our Protestant Theological Heritage, it is an important part of one’s life, especially as a seminary student, and it is a vital part of a person’s ministry.
For this class and for this final we were to choose a sentence that has impacted us in this class. I believe that it is important that we always look back and try to figure out what we have learned. The sentence that I would use that sums up an important insight that I learned or was reminded of during this class is this: The very term Protestant Reformation indicates there were other reformations, there were reformers before the Protestants and there continues to be reformers today.
The reason that I choose this verse is because as Protestants when we look at history we frequently look to the Protestant reformation as the only reformation of the Christian church and that there is no reformation besides that. When Dr. Hanna mentioned this in the first week of class I finally realized that we need to realize that God is continually moving His church closer to Him. God’s church has always been in reformation and will continue to be reformed.
The examples I will use are simplistic because of the lack of space in this paper. However, I want to show that God has been moving His people closer to Him through reformation throughout all of history.
God has been moving His church closer to His ideal continually since the beginning of time. When He chose the Jews to be His people He would send prophets to them to show them where they were going wrong and try to bring them back on course. When it was clear that the Jews seemed to be done reforming Christ came and created a whole new reformation. Christianity was born and the Christians were called to reform the church and become more like Christ.
The disciples and the apostle Paul were called to continue the reform of the Christian church. Paul wrote many letters to different churches training and educating them to become closer to the ideal church that God would want. However, the church would eventually fall into traditions and hold them above the Bible. God still called people to reform the church however, it was not until Luther did the church start to listen and the Protestant Church was born.
The Christian church became more divided as different Protestant church took up the light of reformation through the centuries. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all took up the torch and worked with God’s guidance to come closer to the ideal church that God wants. Reformation continued on into the 19th century with the Adventist church being born to reform the Protestant churches and call to an even further reliance on the Bible and coming closer to God’s ideal.
Does this mean that reformation is finished? Hardly. As we have looked through history God has always been reforming His church and the Adventist church is closer to His ideal than any other Christian church, however we still have a ways to go. God calls each of us to continue to reform to learn and to educate ourselves and others in Biblical truth. Reformation is continual, not stagnant.
Iam commenting on the most interesting and best presentation in our class paper proposal by student X, who gave the best presentation about technology which was one of the best presentations ever. He was arguing that there is need for all churches to pay their tithes and offerings through the web site and internet. Also our professor Dr. Hanna came up with an idea of the magazine he read about the buildings of churches and the Seventh-day Adventist church was identified with a satellite link an excellent idea. When are we going to move into the world of technology! I am looking forward for that day. I also belive that even in heaven there is technology.
May God bless you Dr. Hanna for class presentations and broadening of our minds. I believe that education is to un learn in order to learn and accomadate new ideas. Also thanks to my fellow class students for your determination and zeal to learn. God bless us all and may God bless Andrews.
What is the difference between our God and other gods? Is it only a matter of form, where the other gods have the most various and interesting forms, going from a calf in the Sinai Desert to a being that has the body of man but a head of a jackal like Anubis, the Egyptian god of embalming and the dead? Is it that our God cannot be seen or touched, but can be felt working actively inside and outside of us in favor of our salvation, while the other gods can be seen and touched, but cannot produce any inner feelings of comfort, peace, compassion, and so on? For Calvin, the difference is in the fact that “the true God has been revealed as Creator so that we may distinguish God from the idols” (Justo González, A History of Christian Thought, 140). But if Calvin recognizes God as the creator of all things, how does he harmonize the concept of a timeless God who does not interact with His creatures with God’s major actions and interactions during the creation process as described in Genesis 1:1–2:3? Since it’s not my intention to deal with the issue of “timelessness,” it is important to emphasize that, despite this contradictory concept of the timelessness of God versus a creator God, Calvin makes it clear that God is distinguished from all other gods, “that He may be the exclusive object of worship” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, xii). What does this mean to me as a Christian, a follower of God? What is the relevance for my life? First, I would say that in recognizing God as the true creator God, I reinforce my faith in the entire Bible. When I keep in mind that the first book of the Bible starts with the words “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and accept this teaching, I can immediately identify all the other things that come from the Bible as deriving from this same God. Second, it destroys the idea that God is not a personal God; rather, it emphasizes that He is so personal and friendly that He formed the first man with His own hands in His image and likeness. Finally, it demonstrates that the Bible is written in a logical sequence that has harmony from Genesis to the book of Revelation; Revelation 14:7 calls us all back in the end times to “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.” When it comes to practical ministry, the relevance of this question lies in the application of the three points above. Nowadays, SDAs are somewhat divided concerning the doctrine of creation and how God created the universe and life as we know it. You see, in my understanding, if an individual cannot see the importance of recognizing God as capable of creating the universe and life as described in the Bible, which is in fact the very first teaching of the entire Scripture, how can he accept the other teachings of the Bible that are connected to this first doctrine, such as the Ten Commandments, the Three Angels’ Messages, and even some of the words of Jesus? In conclusion, if an individual is able to recognize, like Calvin, that “the true God has been revealed as Creator so that we may distinguish God from the idols,” the same individual would also benefit from the tranquility and certainty of believing that all the other teachings of the Bible are reliable, because they are a part of the history of God and His people. Therefore, the words of Peter become more vivid and real to all: “So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good” (1 Pet 4:19).
Jeff Walper THST 624 Protestant Theological Heritage FINAL
The Just Shall Live by Faith
Martin Luther’s discovery of “righteousness by faith” in Jesus Christ.
Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Hebrews 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Martin Luther, the famed Protestant Reformer brought to light the wonderful truth found in these texts, that Salvation is availed by no other than Jesus Christ, and this wonderful salvation is received ONLY by faith. As our colleague, John, mentioned in class, Luther was a man who worked and worked and worked exhaustively to save himself. In his own words Luther explains: "Verily I was a devout monk, and followed the rules of my order so strictly that I cannot tell you all. If ever a monk entered into heaven by his monkish merits, certainly I should have obtained an entrance there. The doctors and theologians told me to do good works and thus to satisfy divine justice. But what good works can proceed out of a heart like mine, a heart full of evil thoughts and desires?"
Luther had worked feverishly to do good works in order that he might satisfy divine justice, but he found himself incapable of doing so with such a heart. One day Luther had the opportunity to travel to Rome, Holy Rome it was/is called. It was/is the highlight of any Roman Catholic. He expected to see a city filled with joyful people, full of the Holy Spirit, happy and free in their Saviour’s salvation, but instead he found little other than superstition. His “watershed” moment came as he was visiting what was supposedly Pilate’s Stair or what the Catholic’s call the Scala Sanctum or the Holy Stairs. The twenty-eight marble steps were supposed to be the actual steps that Jesus took as he bore the cross to Pilates court. It was there that Luther found a hoard of people walking up the stair case on their knees, kissing the steps as they went. He got down on his knees and began to humbly crawl up the stair case. What Roman Catholic wouldn’t? If you wished to gain an indulgence from the Pope you had to walk up this flight of stairs on your knees. And so it was, Luther found himself on his knees walking up the staircase, assuming another of his many meritorious acts in hope of gaining favor and merit from God. It was here, that Luther thought that he heard a voice of thunder cry out to him from the bottom of his heart… “The just shall live by faith!” This was the third time that Martin Luther had heard God speak these words to him. It finally sunk into his head…he stood up and fled from the staircase, horrified at himself, and ashamed at his superstitious condition. For the rest of his life, he would boldly proclaim to all the world, the wonderful truth, that “the just shall live by faith”…by faith in Jesus Christ and Him alone!
One of the statements I took from the class which sum up the objective of this course is `God is still using reformers to accomplish his mission on earth.' That statement came across our discussion and I wrote it down as one of the most powerful new points I have discovered in this course. though it may appear controversial to the laymen in our churches,it will also provoke them to study more and change their worldview of what they have been thinking of these reformers . It was quoted by our professor and I took it serious and I thought it that if I was the author of the text book we were using, I could have put it on the introduction part of it for it carried a lot of weight as far as this course is concerned. The reason as to why I took this statement serious is because I was asking myself why should this course be thought in the seventh day Adventist seminary. But my answer flashed very fast in my mind to what I was taught in the first week in the seminary when I was taking my undergrad in theology. We had to define the term theology which means the `study of God ‘.so in the seminary we are studying theology i but not seventh day Adventist believes though they are also part of what we study. Having this concept in mind, then we will not fear to explore what this great theologians and church did in the cause of God. I do support their contribution to the cause of God with the following points. Let’s look at the Catholic Church for the first place. Though most Adventists never associate the catholic church with the body of Christ, I say it because of the sermons which we have always heard about papacy and how the papacy will be involved in the last days or has been involved in the persecution of the saints in the past, they even call it antichrists, It was the same church which preserved Christianity in the dark ages. It is the same church that gave martin Luther the Christian foundation so I could suggest that God used the catholic church to preserve Christianity and give foundation to great reformers. one author mentioned that we should not destroy the bridges we used to cross over. Secondly I believe that reformation is a process and progressive. We progress from less knowledge to agreat knowledge. The theologies of this people has helped most of the present truth we are enjoying as.If it could have not been this reformers, We could have been maybe in darkness in areas like our salvation and even the Sabbath .They stirred the mind of the upcoming protestors to discover by themselves the truth of the sola scriptura which brought to more revelation and reformation. Much protesters immerged after them hence the truth was made more clearer as reformation progressed. Thirdly God used some of these reformers to expose some of the sins which were conducted in the church system and even the church leaders more especially among the catholic church and its priests.So whosoever will be lost it will be his/her decision for they are aware of what is happening .By this every believer must note he/she must continue studying the word of God to understand it more and more than sitting and waiting to be fed by some one else.
While some may argue that this class should not be included in our curriculum I argue it should. How else can we reach the Lutheran if we don’t know what they believe? We need to be knowledgeable in a variety of theological areas. One area in particular comes to my mind, Luther’s view on the Law and the Gospel. In order to effectively preach the Gospel and the Law to a Lutheran we must understand their view of the Gospel and the Law.
Isn’t that how God saves us. He looked at our lives and revealed himself to us according to our lives. He became the substitute for the alcoholic; He filled the void of the one that felt empty after loosing someone close.
I appreciated the class and the reading especially when looking at the Law and Gospel section of the text. I had limited understanding of Luther’s Theology especially in dealing with this subject. I always wondered how the fathers of the protestant movement and just the church in general could view the Law in such a different way that I view it today. When Luther explains his understanding of the Law of God being the will of God, and is also known in the natural law. I don’t agree but I understand why he takes that stance.
I can see how one can view God’s law in that way, not agreeing but understanding. In today’s mind, one that is has changed significantly since the fall of man, the un-natural is natural and the natural is un-natural. God’s Law exists before state and government. When the fall happened mankind changed for the worst. One of my teachers last semester asked the question along the lines of, Is it natural for man to want to fornicate? Many of us in the class including myself said yes, it is natural for man to want to fornicate. The answer was the opposite, it’s natural for man to Love God and to follow him, sin as changed the two.
When Luther states the Law is known in the natural law he makes a difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of God, this takes away from the sanctity of the Law. Moses’ law doesn’t even sound right to me, it should be known as the Law of God given to Gods people by Moses. Creating two different Laws are problematic to a holistic understanding of the Bible.
I don’t hold this against Luther I know can understand where Luther is coming from. I also realize that while Luther did wonderful things He wasn’t exposed to the light that is given to the remnant now, and while He missed the mark in some areas he hit the mark on many, and I myself will be judged on what I know and He on what he knows. So I am no better than he, I just have an appreciation for heritage. In any business, club, conference, or organization, knowing the heritage of a person or organization opens doors.
“We have to be careful to realize that while there is absolute truth, we do not master that truth absolutely.” – Dr. Hanna This statement (thought probably paraphrased) characterizes a very important truth that I was reminded of in this class over the course of this session. There is an important difference between the predominant Christian mindset and the postmodern mindset. While the postmodern mindset believes in the fallacy of absolute truth in the realm of the religious or spiritual, the predominant Christian mindset believes in the existence of absolute truth. At the same time we must also be careful to temper our knowledge of the existence of absolute truth with the realization that we do not understand every facet and dimension of the truths that we know exist. The existence of God is the best example of this principle. We know that God exists. This is the understanding of the existence of an absolute truth. However at the same time we should be careful to explain what we “know” about God because we do not understand every facet and dimension of the existence of God. This would be evidence of the understanding that we do not master absolute truth absolutely. I use the existence of God as a prime example because if we were to understand the existence of God then we would be God Himself and we all know that becoming God is not possible. The principle of this prime example of the existence of God can be reasonably extended to much of what we understand about the Bible, Christianity, Christ and almost every element of our religion. God’s law, the principles by which we live our lives, are extensions of God’s character, and therefore are a part of God Himself. In the same way that we are careful to not say we know the existence of God absolutely, we should also be just as careful when speaking about our understanding of the Bible and the principles contained therein. Christians, Adventists included, have not always been careful to do this. Because of this, we have created animosity towards spirituality and Christianity in particular. We see this throughout our Protestant heritage. Much in the same way that Catholicism drew lines around their at times incorrect understanding of the truth, Protestant denominations drew lines around their somewhat more progressive understanding of the truth and shut out new light. Adventism, repeating the mistakes of the past, seems to be doing the same thing today. Instead of welcoming truths challengers and learning from them, we often ostracize those whose ideas do not fit in with what we already understand. While I am not say we accept every new wind of doctrine, we should allow every doctrine to have a chance to challenge our truth in open forum. The truth (especially God’s truth) does not need our protection. This would have a tremendous effect on our ministry, especially to the postmodern mind. If we would be more honest, more open with the truth that we do not know everything, that honesty would be respected and people would be more open to hearing what we have to say and understanding the truths that we do know. Paradoxically we have done the truth a disservice in our attempts to protect it. It may be that the very thing we need is to present the truth in a truthful way in order to ensure that it is heard and understood.
Visible and invisible church and the remnant of the “remnants”
Looking on the concept of invisible and visible church as argued from the protestant reformers like Luther and Calvin I find very intriguing ideas which seem to correlate with Adventist understanding of Remnant of the remnant. Though I understand that the usage of the term has some implications and connotations attached to it, 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.
As Seventh Day Adventist church we believe to be the remnant church who have remnants within the church whom we believe they are true to God, holding the testimony of Jesus Christ and keeping God’s commandments. It could be wrong if we 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 Seventh Day Adventist church but are not Remnants because there life and beliefs are not in line with the word of God. With this is mind one can easily identify similarities with the visible and invisible church arguments of the reformers. The Seventh Day Adventist church as an organization or body is the “visible” church (the Remnant) but within the Adventist church we have those who are genuine believers in Christ, the “invisible church” (the Remnant of the remnant). The invisible and the visible church overlap in that those who are true believers in Christ (invisible church) are found in the visible church.
Considering Calvin’s teaching on the visible church, he makes very important points which as Seventh Day Adventist we hold and which we can learn from when he says that, “God has placed the visible church in the world to be ‘exterior means’ for the proclamation of the word… the visible church has been ordained by God to be the mother of the faithful” this is what our church should be and this is what being remnant should entail however I do not fully agree with him when he says that, “Preaching the word and administration of the sacraments are the marks of a true church and that, The personal holiness of its members is not a proper mark of the true church”. I believe being a genuine believer calls for personal holiness which is a mark for the elect of God because they are or to be holy as Christ is holy, although I find his argument that, “the holiness of the church is not in the moral purity of its members, but in the holiness of the head (which for me is Christ) and in the promise that the elect have received” to be very insightful.
Having found some of the correlations between the visible and invisible church with the remnant of the remnant, it is with this premise that I suggest that our understanding of who we are and where we have reached has been through the evolving of the theology of our reformers combined with the searching of scriptures and not just by scripture alone or from a vacuum and therefore we should be very tolerant with each other when we find some of our brethren struggling to understand some of the ideas and concepts which seem to be clear to us and allow dialogue in order to shape our theology and our undertsnding of God’s word.
The sentence from the Bible that sums up an important insight I was reminded of during this class is found in Romans 8:29-30: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” The concept that summarizes the doctrine of salvation and fundamental to my life and ministry is sanctification. Sanctification is the heart of true reformation; it is the epitome of Protestants Theological Heritage as it facilitates in the believers’ glorification. The significance of this teaching is that sanctification sums up all the major tenants of the doctrine of salvation that is inheritated from the Reformers. Looking at four major players in the doctrine of justification by faith, Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli and Calvin, most influence in the shaping of the doctrine of sanctification in the process of salvation was Melanchthon who was able to separate justification from sanctification. I have wrestled with this concept and appreciated it to some degree; and my concern with the teaching on sanctification reflects Christ’s prayer in John 17:17-19. Jesus prays to the father that He may sanctify His followers whom He was sending to disciple the world. Etymologically, sanctification means “to reckoning or to render something as holy,” and “to set apart as holy;” that is, to dedicate for holy use in the service of God. In the Jewish economy sanctification had to do with the entire religious-cultural, social and contexts. As a matter of fact, Israel was sanctified by God. The primary intent of sanctification was God’s ownership and dedication to His service in the context of salvation. Thus whatever was dedicated to God therefore belonged to God and was thus considered as holy as God is holy. In the words of Jesus, sanctification has to do with character transformation for the purpose of glorifying God and sacred service in the plan of salvation. Those that are to serve God are to do so in line with His character which is love. Essentially, what has sanctification to do with my life? First and foremost, I believe that I belong to God by having put my faith in Jesus and accepted him as my personal savior in response to the calling by the gospel that was preached to me (John 1:12-13). Because of my belief and trust in Jesus, God reckons me just/righteous based on the merits of Jesus Christ’s blood and priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. By His grace, and through the working of the Holy Spirit, I am empowered to reflect his character being loyal to him through the obedience of faith in Jesus and His grace. Thus I am being transformed into the image of Jesus as predestined by God from time immemorial and patiently and hopefully awaiting the glorification at His second coming. With regards to ministry, first, I believe that Jesus has set me apart (sanctified) and sends me into service, as His disciples, to declare the name of God in the preaching of the gospel. Second, through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I am ordained into the gospel ministry in the Adventist Church (the Remnant movement). As a pastor teacher, I believe that it is my obligation to call and equip others, within the community of my ministry calling, for service, until we shall all come to the “very height of Christ’s full stature” (Eph 4:13). This is my appreciation of the concept of sanctification that this class helped me be reminded of. I feel greatly blesses to be a child of God, reconciled to Him and called in the ministry of reconciliation through his sanctifying love and grace.
Werlei Mello ID #134421 Final Essay Dr. Martin Hanna THST 624 Protestant Theological Heritage
The word of God
In the second chapter of the book “A History of Christian Thought, vol. III”, Gonzáles dealt with Martin Luther’s theology. In the section “the Word of God”, Gonzáles writes the following sentence: “The Word of God is the starting point for theology.” As properly emphasized by professor Dr. Hanna in class, that “the Sacred Scriptures are above experience, reason and tradition,” This phrase, quoted in González’s book, seems to me extremely important, because, as I understand, and as we were reminded during the class, we have to bring the DATA source we received from God and put other sources (DATAS) under that we have received from God: under the rule of the Bible, which is the revelatory source.
In my understanding, when doing theology, it is almost impossible to avoid other resources such as experience, reason and tradition. But we must be careful; otherwise we’ll be in dangerous of doing incorrect theology. The concept of “Sola Scriptura”, used by Luther and other reformers, does not necessarily exclude the use of the other resources, but on the relationship between Scripture and these other resources, we should apply the principle described as “Prima Scriptura” based on the authority that the Scriptures have.
According to González, “by Word of God Luther means the Scriptures; Christ; God’s power manifested in the creation of all things; the incarnated Lord; the Word is the Scriptures, which witness to it; the Word is the proclamation through which the Word in Scripture is actually heard by the believers. Although the term “Word” is obviously used here in various senses, there is a close and important relationship between these different forms of the Word of God.”
If “theology is God’s talking”, to make theology is to interpret what God said. So, this means: that to do theology we should go to the Bible. God’s talking is historical and the Bible is the historical record of God’s acts. So, theology should also be historical. God talks to us by means of Jesus Christ (Jo 1:1); the Bible (2 Tim 3:16); and God talks through His church (2 Co 3:2, 3).
The written Word disclosed the accurate time when the incarnated Word was to come to the world. It is remarkable and important the fact that God disclosed Himself and His plans through the written Word as intentional preparation to save the human race, as described in 1 John 2:1, 2.
“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
This topic seems relevant to me because without salvation, which was revealed through the Word of God, we cannot have the future eternal life. Also, we cannot have quality in our lives on earth. As Christians and, especially as ministers of the Living God, we have to have hope to share with others. “The Word of God is the starting point for theology,” when we are willing to believe in His written Word and willing to receive from the Father Who gave us the Incarnated Word, this marvelous historical salvation.
When I saw Luther's life through this class, I was really impressed by him. God has been leading human being's history and let us understand through that. I know that we can study using history and heritages. Quite apart from the varying hues and shades of their theologies, which owe much to different intellectual and religious formations as well as to temperament, sociopolitical setting, and conviction, the Reformers were not agreed on all issues Whereas for Luther its primary function is to abase the sinner and drive him to the gospel, Calvin saw it chiefly as the guide of the Christian life. Again, while for Luther Scripture spoke everywhere of Christ and the gospel, Calvin handled it in a more disciplined and "modern" manner. Overall, "careful Calvin orchestrated Protestant theology most skillfully, but fertile Martin Luther wrote most of the tunes" Now in these days sometimes, people just follow without thinking which is judgment; what is right and why or what is wrong and why. People want to follow the way many people went to. I could consider through this study. Most Protestants died for what they believed and I saw what they had done. That was the way Jesus walked in this world. But I knew that all Protestants were not perfect. Their ways were not all the way that I should follow. I do not remember exactly but there was a book read about reformers I only remember the key phrase: "Yearning for Grace: Martin Luther"; "Something Bold for God: Huldrych Zwingli"; "Glory unto God: John Calvin"; and "No Other Foundation: Menno Simons". These words headings are tied in with major threads of each of the respective reformer's theologies, and could be used as mnemonics for subsequent reflection. I would like to be a new reformer for these days. History is repeating as same with Luther and Calvin lived. Most people know God but they do not know about real God they do not have interest knowing God. People just go to church just attendance. They see the words of God but they cannot see God from the words. They see but cannot have a good look, they hear but they cannot listen. I would like to a leader for the people who cannot see and listen. Because we have reformers, we could understand God again. I would like to be a reformer today. The important thing is how to preach to people. How can I reach them? I am a pastor what is my duties; In Korea, In America or other the third countries. Even if one is conversant in the language of culture and willing to hear that the North American church doesn't actually have it all figured out, something new can still be learned. A new language is developed as one enters into the thought of the missional church group, a language based on sending. Whereas for centuries the churches of the West thought they were the ones sending people, for example and American congregation sending a missionary to China, missional church thought would say that sending is the action of God because God is by very nature a missionary God. Now, it is also necessary for North American churches to understand that they are not only to send people "out there" into other parts of the world but that the church is sent into whatever context it finds itself. It is for this reason that the church must become conversant in the language of culture, because culture is the context into which it is sent The reign of God breaks down the barriers of autonomy and exposes functional Christendom for the sham that it is. The church must always be aware, even in the midst of transitioning into the missional way, of the threat and very real temptation of idolatry. Things such as image, growth, success, and security can become idols to the visible church. This is the last time we have. God wants us to go out and preach to others who need God. Through this class I could get a now vision for the last days in my life.
Thomas Oyaro Ong’ou THST 624 Protestant Theological Heritage Final essay
I have chosen the book of Psalm 19:1-4 which was discussed in our class presentation by our Professor Dr. Martin Hanna because the book testifies the glory of God who has revealed himself in salvation and history. Because God’s heritage is historical, his glory is a testimony on what He has done to his people in all ages. This gives us a picture of the existence of God. Who is our ruler as He is quoted in the scripture which is our rule of faith. Psalm 19:1-4 says; 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world (NIV).
I understand this passage as a touching central point for what we have discussed during our class interactions in relation to the protestant reformations that have come until our present position as an organized Seventh-day Adventist Christian Church inheriting many biblical doctrines from the reformers. As a Church we have inherited the doctrine of trinity, sacraments, justification by faith, the law and the gospel.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun (sanctuary). God is our heritage and He brings man into his heritage (tent). David personifies the aspects of God's creation, especially things that appear in the heavens. The reason for this is because all of us, before conversion, have had some concept of God. For some of us religious folk, that concept was very fervently, sincerely believed and practiced. But for most of us, the concept of God was vague, maybe even agnostic, doubting. For others, their concept of God was atheistic, that there is no God. Whatever the case, for most, their concept of God is drawn from the creation. David is illustrating this here. God’s creation gives people a picture or an idea that God exists. They may be attracted by the beauty or the vastness they see in what God made, or it may be a combination of factors for their belief. David is showing that creation possesses its own eloquence. In the combination of its vastness, power, beauty, and simplicity within complexity, a person begins to think that there is more to life than himself, more than merely living out a span of time and then dying. As we were discussing during our class interactions we discovered that Christ is not a philosophical principle or an energy diffused throughout the cosmos. Christ is the Creator of the universe. “All things were made by Him” (John 1:3). “In Him all things consist” (Col 1:17).
The course Protestant Theological Heritage is all about our inheritance on where we have come from as a church and where we are heading to because our inheritance is in heaven and hence we a wait for the Second Advent of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ . This selected passage is meaningful and relevant to my life because as a minister of the gospel. I must totally depend upon God who is my salvation, and He has given me the scriptures as the only rule of faith to rely upon in my humble servant-hood ministry to serve his dear beloved people on earth. The glory of God who is the creator of the universe prepares me to stand firm upon Jesus who is my ruler, and depend upon the scriptures alone as my rule of faith. The protestant reformers stood firm on the word of God and finally they succeeded during their time to believe in God amid many challenges such as persecution from the Catholic Church, state, philosophy and science. The glory of God remains being proclaimed in ages until Jesus comes to take us to heaven. This course outlines the above matters and thank you so much my professor Dr. Martin Hanna for the wisdom bestowed upon you by God how I wish that this class was to extend for some more months.
Werlei Mello ID #134421 Final Essay Dr. Martin Hanna THST 624 Protestant Theological Heritage
The word of God
In the second chapter of the book “A History of Christian Thought, vol. III”, Gonzáles dealt with Martin Luther’s theology. In the section “the Word of God”, Gonzáles writes the following sentence: “The Word of God is the starting point for theology.” As properly emphasized by professor Dr. Hanna in class, “the Sacred Scriptures are above experience, reason and tradition,” This phrase, quoted in González’s book, seems to me extremely important, because, as I understand, and as we were reminded during the class, we have to bring the DATA source we received from God and put other sources under that we have received from God: under the rule of the Bible, which is the revelatory source.
In my understanding, when doing theology, it is impossible to avoid other resources such as experience, reason and tradition. But we must be careful; otherwise we’ll be in danger of doing incorrect theology. The concept of “Sola Scriptura”, used by Luther and other reformers, does not necessarilly exclude the use of the other resources, but on the relationship between Scripture and these other resources, we should apply the principle described as “Prima Scriptura” based on the authority that the Scriptures have.
According to González, “by Word of God Luther means the Scriptures; Christ; God’s power manifested in the creation of all things; the incarnated Lord; the Word is the Scriptures, which witness to it; the Word is the proclamation through which the Word in Scripture is actually heard by the believers. Although the term “Word” is obviously used here in various senses, there is a close and important relationship between these different forms of the Word of God.”
If “theology is God’s talking”, to make theology is to interpret what God said. So, this means: that to do theology we should go to the Bible. God’s talking is historical and the Bible is the historical record of God’s acts. So, theology should also be historical. God talks to us by means of Jesus Christ (Jo 1:1); the Bible (2 Tim 3:16); and God talks through His church (2 Co 3:2, 3).
The written Word disclosed the accurate time when the incarnated Word was to come to the world. It is remarkable and important that God disclosed Himself and His plans through the written Word as intentional preparation to save the human race, as described in 1 John 2:1, 2.
“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
This topic seems relevant to me because without salvation, which was revealed through the Word of God, we cannot have the future eternal life. Also, we cannot have quality in our lives on earth. As Christians and, especially as ministers of the Living God, we have to have hope to share with others. “The Word of God is the starting point for theology,” when we are willing to believe in His written Word and willing to receive from the Father Who gave us the Incarnated Word, this marvelous historical salvation.
Garth Dottin Final Essay “All religious ceremonies must be simple and without excessive ritual. They must adhere strictly to the practice of the New Testament. . . There is to be no liturgical singing. The central act of worship is the reading of the word and its exposition" (Justo González, A History of Christian Thought,92). This quote is important because it tells how faithful the Anabaptist were in their quest for spirituality, and demonstrates the passion they exerted to be in line with scripture. They desired simplicity and avoided excessiveness. They wanted to return to the teachings of the New Testament in their worship and practice. Their intent was sincere and passionate, but they became extremely and innately fanatical in their practice. The issues that they experienced present many lessons regarding life and ministry. Firstly, the quote shows the importance of balance in worship. The act of worship in many churches today have become so excessive and areas that they sometimes neglect other vital components. Some churches have based their worship on music alone, and have forgotten Gods word is still able to change the lives of people. While I believe that music is vital to worship, we should not neglect to focus on scripture. My wife and I visited a church a few weeks ago to hear a prominent minister present a message from God, and we waited patiently in anticipation. However, when he finally spoke, we were given a long motivational speech which failed to quote, or even refer to the Bible. In fact, the minister never read from the Bible. The Anabaptist differed in that regard and ventured in the other extreme, because they believed that only the Bible should be read in worship. That aspect of protestant history should teach us the importance of having scripture and singing during worship. Secondly, the issues of the Anabaptist demonstrate the dangers of extremism. They desired to be faithful only to the scriptures, but in their zeal they exhorted to extremism. Their experience teaches that many individuals who are religious extremists are not all horrible people as some believe. However, many are truly seekers of a deeper relationship with Jesus and need to be gently led to return to the right path. It also teaches the importance of treating everyone equally, and highlights the need to remain resilient when working with those that have strayed. Many people would have given up on the Anabaptist who embraced an extremist view of the Bible, but history shows that God had continued to work with them to get them to the place where they could be balanced. Lastly, it teaches that Seventh-day Adventism was not conceived unsystematically or in a vacuum. It shows how the Holy Spirit was working with the reformers and the Anabaptist in leading to the development of many truths which the Seventh-day Adventist church have also affirmed and developed today. Their experience also teaches that everything that is done within the church needs to be Christ centered. Moreover, it proposes that our lifestyle must be balanced, while seeking to allow scripture to be the fundamental basis for all of our beliefs and actions.
The most significant understanding that I have been able to gain from our class in Protestant Theological Heritage is the holistic approach to Missions to Muslims as we discussed it in class the last week of this course. I have been very interested in trying to better understand the issues at hand and to try to find a solution, if only for my own mind, to the disagreements that are so prominent at this time in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. One side of this debate has taken a stance for a very solid contextualization approach, sometimes to the extent that it is accused of over-contextualizing to the point that the opponents to this approach within the church believe it has become non-Biblical altogether. The other side believe that the correct way is to convert Muslims through more traditional evangelistic approaches. They hold firm to the ideal that we must present the truth, and that the sincere seeking Muslim will be able to recognize it as truth and want to follow. In the Protestant Theological Heritage, both of these approaches can be seen to exist. While it is well known that some groups attempted to infiltrate those of different persuasions by secret methods at first, slowly testing the water and introducing more of the message they wish their listeners to hear. It can probably be said that there were some on both sides of reformations that have used this infiltration approach. There is still much anxiety today of Jesuits secretly trying to infiltrate groups. It has been rumored many times that this professor or the other was secretly a Jesuit trying to convert the Adventist Schools where these men were working. While we might think this approach to be improper, the Catholic Church probably views at as a necessary measure. Similarly, you have the history of the Waldensean peoples who would leave home, most often to never return, with the goal of secretly infiltrating the universities and minds of the students with their hidden verses and memorized scriptures of God’s love for mankind. More instances could surely be found if needed. Though the two groups here are not to be considered similar, they were both likely motivated to their actions in sincerity and obedience to what they each understood as the commands of God. In Adventism, this division between evangelism and contextualization seems to be a separation caused by individual convictions as well. Evangelistic efforts are very easy to see in our heritage from both sides of the fence. The interesting thing that I was able to better comprehend is that neither side is completely wrong or right in itself. This Evangelical Camp seems to be holding firm to more traditional Seventh-day Adventist approaches to soul winning while the contextualizers are attempting new methods because they feel the old ones have not been effective enough. It is true that we need to be true to the Holy Scriptures in our missionary ventures. There must be a teaching of what is truth. At the same time, we must not go and try to preach to them out of the Bible only, but we must live among them, win their friendship, care for their needs, and when the door is opened by Divinity, we must marry this approach with the evangelistic teachings that the Lord has called us to do.
There has been one question that has consistently come to my mind since the second week of class. In my reading, Hanna’s lectures, our presentations, and class discussions, the same critical question keeps coming to me. Here is the question: Is it really possible to avoid extremism and have a balanced theology in the Adventist Church? What I mean by extremism is those churches that condemn members to hell for eating cheese, and those churches who totally reject the health message. What I mean by a balanced theology is a theology that avoids extremes. I mean doing theology in such a way that it does not create divisions within our Church. I mean doing theology in such a way that it becomes impossible to have another David Koresh tragedy. The goal of this essay is to answer that critical question and share what I believe to be the way to avoid extremism and achieve balanced theology. The Reformation has taught me that there is nothing new under the sun. Extremism was going on in the 16th century and it still exists today. So does this mean that extremism will always exist? Is it apart of human nature? If so, is it even possible for human beings to be balanced? My answer to these questions is this. Yes, extremism will always exist in the world, but it does not have to among Christians. Yes, it is a part of our fallen nature. And yes, it is possible for us to be balanced, but only within the Christian community. Let me expound on the last point. I believe the way we achieve balance within the Christian community is by being humble. This may seem simplistic but I think it is one of the keys to being balanced. God created us all different, unique, and for community. When we humble ourselves and embrace each other’s differences it can lead to completeness in our lives. We can be more holistic. How does this relate to theology? I believe that one of the reasons we are suffering from division in our church is because we do theology in isolation. I believe there needs to be more conversation between the liberals and conservatives, with humility. All must sit to learn from one another. I’m not suggesting everyone must agree on everything. There should be room for disagreement, but not to the extent of having two camps within the Church. Is Christ divided? Was Jesus a liberal or conservative? No. I suggest that He was balanced. And He calls us to imitate Him in all we do, our theology is no exception. With humility being the first, I think there are two more ways to avoid extremism and achieve balance. The second key is by using resources as resources and not placing them above the Source. The extra-biblical resources of tradition, reason, and experience are too often placed above Scripture, the Source. We must avoid this grave mistake. Wherever the Bible is not given supremacy when doing theology extremism is the consequence. This is made manifest in the teachings of the Spiritualists and Rationalists during the Radical Reformation. The third key to avoid extremism and achieve balanced theology is to utilize the disciplines of contextual theology, biblical theology, and systematic theology as opposed to using only one of the three. In using these three disciplines there must be a Christocentric bias since Christ proposed this bias upon the text. As a pastor, it is necessary to be balanced. In our ministry we will encounter all kinds of people from both extremes and we must be able to help them be more balanced. We must lead them to a position that helps them avoid extremes. I desire not to be a conservative or liberal but in the same place as Jesus – balanced.
After reviewing the history of the Protestant movement the main idea that strikes me the most is the way that God works with and through humanity to convey truth.
John 1:6,7 “There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.”
These verses sum up one of the most important insights that I was reminded of during class. God sends us as men and woman to bear witness to the light, so that all might come to believe in Jesus and be saved. God works with humanity to save humanity. He does not act independently of man. We are co-laborers with Him and as we submit to Him we receive more light.
There were three meanings behind this text that I felt applied to our class.
“God sends”-It is God who continues to initiate the passing of the light from one generation to the next. John was a reformer. He did not speak or go on his own accord. The Bible says, that he was sent by God. This tells me that it is a part of God’s plan to include man in the plan of redemption. God works closely with humanity in the plan of redemption- He is so intimate with us that he knows our name Our job is to point to the light- We are not to be the light. We only need to point to the light. It is God, through the Holy Spirit, that reveals to mankind the truth of the person of Jesus Christ. As we lift up Christ, who is the true light others may look to Him and believe. Light comes from God. It does not come from ourselves. We are to be reflections of the true light.
God’s truth is still being carried by humans to other humans. Even though it may seem more complicated this way. In God’s wisdom He chooses to include man in the process. Our job is not to get in the way of light and cast shadows of doubt on others. Instead we are to be in a position with God so that we are reflections of the “true light” so that others may see. We are to lift up Christ as the true light and speak against what may cause others to not be able to “Behold the Lamb of God.”
Ellen White supports this idea when she said, “No truth is more clearly taught in the Bible than that God by His Holy Spirit especially directs His servants on earth in the great movements for the carrying forward of the work of salvation. Men are instruments in the hand of God, employed by Him to accomplish His purposes of grace and mercy. Each has his part to act; to each is granted a measure of light, adapted to the necessities of his time, and sufficient to enable him to perform the work which God has given him to do.” (GC p. 343)
This Bible verse relates to protestant theological heritage in that it reminds us of the incredible results that can come from one man being a witness for the true light. Each of us has an influence. We have been granted life for the purpose to live for God and to live for an eternity with God. We can see in the life of Martin Luther a demonstration of what God can do through one man who believes in Jesus, who is the light of the world. The world has never been in total darkness because God has always had light bearers to the truth. God can use us in mighty ways when we are submitting to His will. This is relevant to life and ministry because when we are born again we also are called to be witnesses of the Light that enlightens the entire world. Just as one lightening bug can light up an entire room with its glow, so can we as men and woman become lights in this dark world for Him. As we look back at His Story we can see that God’s light has always burned brightly. In fact in the darkness the light can be seen to burn the brightest. Jesus reminds us that we are the light of the world. We not only need to take up our cross, but we need to take up our lamps and hold them up high so that that the world may be pointed to the “true light” and that all may believe.
Protestant Theological Heritage – Final J. Harold Alomia
On June 22, 2009 as we were discussing the Anabaptists, the class went into a side path that caught my attention. The question was posed by our professor: In Reorganizing Structure: do we define ourselves as Biblical in that ‘we do what the BIBLE says’ or BIBLICAL in that ‘we do whatever the Bible does not prohibit’.
This poses an interesting argument in my mind especially in many aspects of our denomination. We claim follow the Bible. And I believe that we do so, no questions asked. However, how much of our daily functioning is ‘biblical’ and how much is it just plain tradition? When we say that we follow the Bible are we trying to be as biblical as possible or are we attempting to use reason in certain areas, as long as we do not contradict principles espoused in Scripture. In that same vein a statement was made in class also “We have one source [the Bible] but we have multiple RESOURCES [EGW, C. S. Lewis, etc].”
I have personally heard more than once in some of our classes that ‘we must go back to the NT model in order to have success as a church’. I have always pondered about this romantic notion of ‘going back to basics’ and the reality is that we cannot go back to basics. The church has grown, it has expanded, it is no longer a small Jewish movement in the I AD, as a matter of fact it is far too great than that. Not speaking of the obvious Greater Christendom, just looking at our own little denomination, we are not the small band of valiant and young pioneers of the late 1800s, we have grown quite exponentially. So, when we make these idyllic comments of returning to the basics, meaning the NT model, I find that that is in someway ignoring an answer to the question posed in class.
Being Biblical has nothing to do with following to the letter what is described in the NT epistles when it comes to church organization and structure, as we are not composed of Jews and Gentiles, and we are not dealing with Romans, nor are our main problems (at least in our hemisphere) eating that which is sacrificed to Idols. Being Biblical has to be greater than just ascribing to the letters and phrases that we find in the sacred book. Being Biblical entails the spirit in which whatever that we defend was written.
It is a matter of careful study, honest research, and candid conclusions regarding the reality and practice of the early church, and what principles we can extract from their experience in order to further the kingdom of God. For the romantic that seeks to entrench himself in a certain form of ‘church governance’ from the pages of Scripture and finds himself extrapolating from the pages of Scripture passages that ‘speak’ of the multi-layered structure of the Church today as we know it, that was invented in the early 20th century, there is a level of incongruence there that cannot be ignored.
We are and will remain Biblical as long as we are willing to look at Scripture and read from its pages not just the words written, but also when we can look at Scripture and understand the principles that are espoused there, and adapt them and make them relevant to the situation of the Church in the 21st AD for the advancement of the kingdom.
“On the basis of this doctrine of predestination Zwingli can easily refute every attempt to base salvation on works” (Gonzalez, p. 76). I picked this sentence because I had never considered the implications of this aspect of free will. Zwingli considered the very choice a work. That is one of the problems solved by believing that God has ultimate control. If humans cannot even turn to God, then that is why there is no reason salvation could be based on works. It does make me wonder why there was such an intense reaction to works and if it is appropriate. I understand that they were reacting against the Catholic system, which many perceived to be based on works and faith. It must have been an intense relief to come to the understanding that grace was a free gift not to be earned. Isn’t this what they were reacting to—earning salvation?
I fail to see that the choice is a way to earn salvation. It might be works strictly speaking, as in it is something that humans do, but it does not take away the free aspect of grace. When I give someone a gift, their acceptance does not mean that they contributed to the gift. It is an acknowledgement. In fact it seems like a pointless argument anyway when the issue is looked at in this way. God has already provided the gift, nothing on my part will change, add, or subtract from that gift. Once accepted, it is mine.
This is assurance of salvation. I do not have to be good enough; I do not have to clean up my act in order to be right with God before I can accept salvation. God loves me as I am. Romans 5:8 states that while I was still a sinner, Christ died for me.
Another dimension is reached when we consider what I must do to keep my salvation. This is another aspect of Zwingli’s belief. When God is the Supreme Cause, nothing I do can influence my election or reprobation, including any good or bad works I do. This is assuring on one hand because salvation is a rock solid guarantee for those who are elected. But that’s the catch. Zwingli says that works can show election, but at the same time, works can be deceiving. So there is really no assurance of salvation.
For those who believe in free will, the assurance of salvation comes from trust in God. Titus 3:5 says “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” Yet once we move past the initial moment of salvation, there is the work of sanctification. Our salvation should change us, so that our motives for good works change. We do good works because we want to, not because we are trying to keep our salvation. Likewise, we do good works because we love God, rather than because we are trying to placate an angry God. The works are the sign of an internal change. They are not the cause of an internal change (which would indicate an attitude of working for salvation).
But going back to the motivation for Zwingli’s belief in predestination, I have to wonder if the reaction was too extreme. I believe that simply choosing God’s gift of salvation is not a compromise of the doctrine of justification by faith. Nor is free will a challenge to God’s supremacy. Our salvation is assured by our choice never to give up on God (because he will never give up on us). We can and will fall into temptation, but as long as we do not give up, God will do the rest. Ultimately though, it is his influence and Spirit that makes the difference.
The statement that really stuck with me in this class is “We study the history (the heritage) in order to not repeat the same mistakes of the past”. This statement sums up the reason and importance for the class. Just by studying the history of the Protestant Church we learn many things to avoid and things that work that we need to also do. For example we look at the reformations and we learn that we need to continue to reform until the return of Christ. So I think it is very important that we study this class in seminary because there is so much we can learn from the early reformers that we are not utilizing in our church today. Through this class semester we learned about our churches roots and what we have out from and what God has called us out of. We study the history (the heritage) in order to not repeat the same mistakes of the past. Another aspect of this statement is that in addition to looking at the mistakes of our past and avoiding them again we also can look back and certain conditions and positions that the world was in and how the church was effected by it. We can also look at how we responded to situations in the past and choose more wisely on how to respond to certain situations in the present. We study the history (the heritage) in order to not repeat the same mistakes of the past. This statement not only sums up this semester but it is also a great text to use for the bible. Many of the chapters and books in the bible are written to give us instruction on what we should do, but also there are many chapters and books that are written strictly in warning that we shouldn’t have to go through some of the things that they went through. For example throughout the entire Old Testament is this ongoing theme of God’s people the Israelites going against God’s instructions and reaping the punishment for their actions. Just by looking at their history we can avoid that route and not have to repeat their mistakes. So in conclusion studying the history of the early church is immensely important and can greatly help us in our individual and communal walk in Christ.
Final Essay of THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage Instructor : Dr. Martin Hanna, Ph.D. By. Ki Seung Jhang (ID# 132705)
“Luther’s problem was one of sin and grace, or of justice and love. How could God, the most holy, the most righteous, be appeased by a man like Luther, who knew himself to be an unrighteous and unholy sinner? His study of the Psalms gave Luther the first glimmers of hope that an answer could be found… When he came to the twenty-second Psalm, which Christ himself had begun to recite from the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” Luther discovered that Christ himself had been subject to the agonies of desolation which he suffered. Christ himself had been as forsaken as the most abject sinner. This he has done for Luther’s sake. He was not only the righteous judge; he had also been willing to sit with the accused. Somehow the righteous God whom Luther felt compelled to hate was also the loving God who in Christ had been utterly forsaken for Luther’s sake.” (p 32-33) Luther said he tried to love Jesus, but he couldn’t make it. Rather he found that he hate Jesus from his bottom heart. He tried to get assurance of salvation with his good works, Sacrament of Penance, and life of monastery. But he found the answer through studying bible. I really was shocked at this point. I has been struggling with this matter. I always have prayed that I like to love you. I want to be changed like him. But I run away from him as I have some unexpected accident or hardship and difficult. I have worst case that I wanted to run away from God. I got too much stress from some woman of my church. There was a worst accident, and after that she made some deaconesses to joint her. After this, I and my wife were excluded from them. I and my wife couldn’t stay with there. It was so stress to me. I couldn’t control this stress. At that time, I was disillusioned with the church. I started to hate them. And I was getting worse, so I didn’t want to attend the church. And finally, I regretted my life of faith. The thought that I hated God was coming from the bottom the mind without consciousness. I told my friend that I don’t want to be an Adventist if I could be born again. But still I always wanted to love him more than before. Sometimes I felt that I had no sense of honor for prayer, and my prayer could be accepted to God. I found that I am not able to love him, rather to hate him. I was in the trouble. Actually, I have really wanted to love him without any effect from all problems. I have struggled with this problem. But I felt alone, and I found me far away from God. I was shouting why you are forsaking me. But at this class, God gave me the answer through Luther’s agony and studying Psalm 22. I was so impressed by that Jesus was forsaken from God because of me, and I found that Jesus who was sitting with me with the accused. He has already loved me even I am far away. I found him to open his arm always even I hate him. I felt free form my duty conscience. I am free from my guilty and regretful mind. I felt like that I can love him even I will be in some hard trouble from now. I like to stay with him in any worst case. I will train me escaping to the God as I meet the problem. And also I become to know the meaning the My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me through this book. This is the greatest understanding. Thank you very much your lectures and choosing this book as the textbook.
Kwon, Hyungkyu ID: 131672 The Works of God (Final exam) Actually I have to write down the homepage but I submit really late so I want to submit also as a paper. I felt much difficulty of understanding lecture. My professor usually uses easy word for lecture, so I can understand the sentence but I cannot catch the main point. But the subjects of the lecture are very philosophical. I haven't ever thought about it before. (God's trinity and predestination and so on) Actually I though that the knowing of God is for meet and the processing of born again. But I need to change order. When we feel the need God, we will be changed, even though we do not know about it. When I read the text book of first chapter, I remembered the intro of "the Steps to Christ". The book start with the question "Do you know God or do you know about God?" Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3). The book brings forth the born again as the way of the knowing God. The processing of salvation is the knowing God and the processing to be His children. We cannot be God, but we can be His children. If we need to know some one, the best way is to be same, or to make relationship. I read a article that “the Monergy and Synergy of Theo and Cosmos: God Works All in All and All Things Work Together.” It is a inter action of God and His creation. When I was second year of the university in Korea, I faced very difficulty on my life. It was my first time that I didn’t do my wish, and couldn’t get my wants. My girlfriend leaved me and my grade was terrible. The bible study group, which was made with my friend, was broken up. It was first absolute fail on my life. I could not study any more in the condition. So I applied for Korean Army that is a duty as a Korean man for 2 years and 2 months. But army cannot help to escape from my worry, when I take a rest, I was thought the question “how can human and God can start cooperation?” I don’t know well, but I think we do not have a life but God is life. So the Bible said, “ Now this is eternal life; that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”(John 17:3 NIV) When we know God, I think we want to be fulled by god. I hope to know Him. It makes me hope to speak about him. The man can be called the gospel worker.
33 comments:
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
Final Essay
Protestant Theological Heritage
“Martin Luther is, like Augustine, one of those thinkers whose theology is so closely bound up with his life that one cannot understand one apart from the other (Gonzalez, 29).”
Objectivity is rare. Theological debates continue to rage because of experientually based bias. Even though Martin Luther uncovered great injustice and heresy as a ma used by God, he tended toward extremes because of the oppression and injustices that he incurred. Reactionary theology can reveal oppressed truth, but is dangerous if it is not handled with balance and discrimination. While Luther uncovered great truth for his time, he tended toward extremes because of his exclusive thinking.
People tend toward an exclusive thinking to fit a belief system. Despite the general acceptance of “sola scriptura” by Protestants, scripture is often interpreted based upon personal preference. Sections of scripture are exalted above others because of they fit a belief system while other sections are ignored because of their apparent contradiction. One must study the Bible with a willingness to be broken by the words of scripture, even if those words challenge one’s belief system.
Personal experience does not have to have a negative effect on Theology. God works through personal experience to emphasize and reveal truth. Personal experience becomes negative when it polarizes itself into exclusive thinking. Personal understanding and experience does not encompass complete wisdom. One purpose of the church is to offer open dialog between like believers. By listening and sharing personal understanding with others, church members might come to a fuller understanding of truth.
Paul warns Timothy, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned into fables (2 Tim 4:3, 4).” There is danger in exclusive thinking. Too often individuals polarize in exclusive groups that share their personal way of thinking. Too often these polarized groups look upon others as apostates if they approach things in a slightly different manner. These groups have become a gospel within themselves - “if you don’t agree with us (me) you are a heretic.” This unbalanced form of thinking causes people to reach unhealthy conclusions.
While I don’t look down upon Luther or his contribution to Christianity, it would be dangerous to think that Luther’s understanding is final truth. Luther’s personal experience caused him to take some extreme positions. Luther might have been able to reach a more balanced understanding if he considered the reasoning of Erasmus, Zwingli, and Calvin without compromising on the principal of “sola scriptura.” To often individuals think that they are the only one who can see truth in it’s true light, but in reality it would do them good to consider the truths of individuals with a different perspective.
As ministers and church leaders let us keep a open dialog with people of diverse perspectives and opinions while remaining firmly rooted in scripture. Let the conservative and liberal agree to disagree on certain points but find commonality in deeper truth that open dialog creates. May we find greater truth in the midst diverse opinion while holding the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice.
Meade Adams
THST624-Protestant Theological Heritage
7/2/09
Final Reflection Essay
The sentence I would like to reflect on is taken from my class notes. It is something that was said in class a few weeks back. The sentence is as follows: “Luther’s psychological problems and life circumstances set the stage for him to become a reformer”. With this sentence, I understood Dr. Hanna to mean that it was Luther’s life circumstances and situations that prepared him for the task he was to undertake. I found this statement to be profound and insightful and it reminded me of some important things. It also raises additional questions on the issue of God’s providence.
First, it reminded me that the situations and circumstances we find ourselves in, while painful now, may be preparing us for a greater purpose. The biblical examples of Joseph and David come to mind. Joseph was cruelly sold into slavery and unjustly imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. However, Scripture clearly teaches that these things “set the stage” for him ultimately becoming governor. The same is true for David. He was an outlaw on the run for many years before he would ultimately take the throne. But it was precisely those trials in the wilderness and in battle that prepared him for the kingdom. I think the lesson gained from this sentence is that the events in our lives line us up to fulfill God’s purpose. It illustrates the fact that God is in control and that if we love Him all things will work together according to His purpose.
However, this brings up some pertinent questions on the issue of God’s providence and free will. To what extent are we really free? If God can and does manipulate and control situations and circumstances in our lives in order to accomplish His purposes then are we really free? We dealt briefly with some of these issues in our discussions on Zwingli’s and Calvin’s doctrines of predestination. However, those discussions were limited to God’s predestination or foreknowledge as it relates to salvation. The statement about Luther implies something more than salvific divine interference. This has been a nagging question in my mind for a while now but I have resolved to trust God by faith. A slew of other implications can be drawn, but I also recognize my own limitations in reflecting on these issues. God’s thoughts and ways are far above my thoughts and ways.
In my reflection on the sentence, however, I have come to this conclusion, which seems to be satisfactory for now. The statement says that the circumstances in Luther’s life “set the stage”. It did not say, “forced the stage”. It implies that even thought the stage was set, Luther still had a choice as to the path he would take. Luther could have theoretically chosen not to try to reform the church and God would have accomplished His purposes through some other method.
Nevertheless, I am reminded that if I allow God to lead me, He will place me where He wishes me to be. I am encouraged to continue to trust and follow the Spirit in my life and ministry and “all things will work according to His purpose”.
Nathaniel Lyles
July 2, 2009
THST 624 – Protestant Theological Heritage
Final Exam
The following essay is a summary of my understanding of Martin Luther’s and Ulrich Zwingli’s disagreement pertaining to their interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. In this essay I will review their points of disagreement, discuss how their different views on the sacrament of the eucharist and their ways of interpreting Scripture which were influenced by their social background, and its relevance to Protestant theology and ministry.
Although Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were in a some instances in agreement with each other on theological issues such as the priority of Scripture, Justo González in his book A History of Christian Theology mentions how they were in no wise like-minded in their interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. “It was the Lord’s supper that gave rise to the long controversy between Zwingli and Luther first, and later between their followers” (p. 83).
Luther believed that Christ was really present in the sacrament of the eucharist. He taught that Christ’s words at the Lord’s Supper, “This is my body,” were literally true and that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the consecrated bread and wine. Zwingli, however, believed that Christ’s words were simply “symbolic” and a demonstration of faith. According to González, Zwingli rejected the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. He acknowledged Christ being spiritually present, not in the bread and wine, but in hearts of the believers.
This serious disagreement between these two reformers was influenced by their personal development and understanding of interpreting Scripture. Luther’s theology and understanding of Scripture developed out of spiritual anguish as he studied as a monk in an Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg, Germany. In spite of the fact that Luther was the father of the Protestant Reformation, his theological background was catholic and it is at this point that we must remember that he “rejected only those elements in tradition which could be proven to contradict the clear text.” Zwingli’s theology on the other hand was shaped drawn from his experience as Swiss military solider. According to González, his views were developed by “nationalistic and political overtones” (p. 77). Furthermore, his theology was influenced by humanism, which Luther rejected.
In contrast to Luther who interpreted Scripture literally because he understood the Word of God and the sacraments as inseparably linked together, Zwingli interpreted it symbolically because he believed that the Word of God creates the basis of faith and the sacraments only demonstrates our faith publicly. For Zwingli, both Scripture and the Lord’s Supper assert that Jesus is real, alive and now “seated at the right hand of God.” As stated earlier, Zwingli did not reject the idea that Christ is present spiritually in the Lord’s Supper but as it relates to his physical body, it is in heaven.
I agree with González that this disagreement between Luther and Zwingli is important as we study our Protestant theological heritage because “one could almost say that, whereas Luther rejected only those elements in tradition which could be proven to contradict the clear text of Scripture, Zwingli took an opposite tack, rejecting everything except that which could be proven by Scripture.” One of the lessons I learned from Luther and Zwingli that is relevant for ministry is of the complexity of interpreting Scripture. We should remember that interpreting Scripture is not an easy task, even for the greatest of theologians. Although these two reformers were searching for the deeper meaning of Scripture, their disagreement over the interpretation of one particular biblical text and who had the authority to interpret Scripture caused a division and the formation of two reformed movements. We must give the Holy Spirit and Scripture the right to guide us in every activity of ministry, including our understanding and interpretation of Scripture.
Nathan Kennedy
Essay for Final-
Write an essay on one sentence. This indeed was a challenge as there were many such statements in all that has been presented. Much of the discussion was centered on Calvin’s and Zwingli’s view of predestination. Predestination is the gravest threat from Main Stream Protestantism to Seventh-day Adventists in general.
Justo Gonzalez, an astute church historian, approached the philosophical and theological aspects in their historical context in his volume, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. III. His bias was simple; he purposed to be ecumenical in presenting the differing views, although the thought that he was being ecumenical was, at first, scandalous to say the least.
Gonzalez’s approach made sense. He presented each paradigm without measuring it to another paradigm. This proved to be healthy. He presents each perspective from its own paradigm, based on its own presuppositions. Upon reflection, it was brilliant. So for Luther, he presented him on Luther’s terms, and he did the same for the Swiss and French reformers.
Gonzalez presented the Anabaptist movement in a positive light, which also was refreshing. He says, “What leads a person… into the true faith is not predestination. ” Whatever a person’s theological background this statement arrests the attention. Gonzalez is after all, a Methodist. Modern Methodists are more Evangelical in recent times . He takes it further, with the statement, “The doctrine of predestination, especially as taught by Zwingli, is an abomination and a way to excuse us and blame God for our sin.”
Reflecting on this, one is reminded of several passages in Scripture that Gonzalez is likely referring to. In the Old Testament, an abomination is a noun which refers to idolaters, unclean things, and various kinds of wickedness . Homosexual acts are an abomination . Dishonesty with money is an abomination . The devious are abomination . Those who eat the flesh of pigs are an abomination . However, the texts that Gonzalez refers to are found in Daniel 11 & 12 , Matthew 24, and Revelation 21. All these are Eschatological passages. The Bible clearly notes that abominations will be destroyed.
Ellen White talks of predestination in a way that contradicts Zwingli/Calvinist view. She says,
“ No walls are built to keep any living soul from salvation. The predestination, or election, of which God speaks, includes all who will accept Christ as a personal Saviour, who will return to their loyalty, to perfect obedience to all God's commandments. This is the effectual salvation of a peculiar people, chosen by God from among men. All who are willing to be saved by Christ are the elect of God. It is the obedient who are predestinated from the foundation of the world. "
Indeed, any view of God’s Salvation that limits God’s abilities to save folks outside of their own will, or causes him to decided salvation for them against their will, is an abomination. The absolute danger of having a god that has planned within his will to destroy and such a fictitious god is not God. God is Merciful and Just.
I had suportive material that did not post-
On the statement about Methodists being Evangelical. This idea deduced from the statement, speaking of the United Methodist Church he states,“… the denomination’s leaders culminates a long tradition of abandoning the teachings and positions of its founder John Wesley… ” in the article by Peter McGuire, John Wesley and Just War, Good News Magazine, May/June 2003, available from http://www.goodnewsmag.org/magazine/mayjune/mj03war.htm, Internet, accessed 24 June 09
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an appendix containing Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. BibleWorks, v.8. תּוֹעֵבָה
Ellen G. White, The Gospel Herald, “The Abiding Trust” (June 11, 1902)
New American Standard Update 1995
Lev. 18:22
Deu. 25:16, Pro. 11:1
Pro. 3:32 (
Isa. 66:14-24
Jahisber Penuela
THST 624 – Protestant Theological Heritage
Final Exam part 1
Romans 11:5, 6.
So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
Reflection
One of the issues discussed in class was the weakening of the medieval synthesis, and how this process allowed the strengthening of the protestant reformation. Concerning God’s plan in leading his church there is a theme worthy of reflection: The remnant. Thus, I have chosen Romans 11:5 and 6 because it is one of the texts that seem to suggest what many are redundant to accept. But I want to make clear is that I aim not to solve this issue, just to reflect on it.
From the writing of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome until the weakening of the medieval synthesis there is an apparent gap, concerning the remnant. There are two authors that I would like to mention regarding the issue of this period of time pertaining to the church : Zwingli and Calvin. Both speak about the invisible church and the visible church. One the one hand Zwingli argued that “the church is the company of the elect. And, since those who are going to be saved are not manifested until the last day, the church is invisible.” (Gonzalez’s book p.79). On the other hand Gonzalez’s explains by saying that “Calvin establishes a clear distinction between the visible and the invisible church. Strictly speaking, only the later, this is formed by the elect, living and dead.” (Gonzalez’s book p.161).
Having this in mind, in class was mentioned also that throughout the ages have been two parallel processes (and particularly in the medieval synthesis): Reformation and Apostasy.
It is interesting that at the time Paul wrote Romans Christianity was experiencing apostasy and reformation. (Romans 1) Reading Romans 11:5,6 makes me wonder of the identity of the remnant. Could we say that God has “remnant” people within movements of apostasy? Or are they only in movements of reformation? Are they part of “the invisible” part of the remnant? If so, do they harmonize with the biblical definition of remnant? For example, SDA church claims to be the remnant. If exist an invisible remnant out there in different denominations, has SDA church the merit still to claim his role as remnant? (apart from any prophetic interpretation).
Let’s consider Romans 11:5,6.
Jahisber Penuela
THST 624 – Protestant Theological Heritage
Final Exam part 2
The key question in the above passage is concerning the identity of the remnant. Linked to this identity I would say that the verses containing the theme of salvation-election may be related.
• 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
• 10:13 For, Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
• 11:25, 26a. I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved.
These verses tell us characteristics about God’s people, those who are going to be saved. In Paul’s wording, particularly in verse 25 and 26a appears a reference that there is a determined number of Gentiles that are entering into Israel, a group that are destined to salvation, which are remnant chosen by grace according to 11:5.
I would suggest that God used the medieval synthesis in the same way as in the time Christianity was spreading around the Roman Empire. God has faithful believers on places that we never have imagined. In here I am saying that the same has happened through the ages, and I am tempted to think that some Christian churches that claim to be God’s remnant have fell in exclusivist interpretation of this doctrine. Perhaps, we need to double check to what Zwingli and Calvin said concerning this issue. In short, God has elected people to be part of the remnant, some visible, and some not.
I base my conclusion in 9:6. Paul states in 9:6 that “It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” So, could we say today that not all SDA members are remnant? Or that not all remnant are SDA members? Going to 11:5 it seems that when Paul uses remnant he makes a strong connection with chosen by grace, I would conclude by saying that the remnant today, even though remains its name as Israel, those composing it are elected by grace, not by denomination membership.
So, to be part of the remnant does not depend on performance, but on God’s grace.
Morgan Kochenower. My sentence comes from a comment that was made in class.
“God was trying to reform the Catholic Church during the reformation”
I don’t know why this comment took me off guard, but it did. I had never looked at the reformation in this light because I assumed that God had cast off the church of Rome/Catholic church from day one because I look at Daniel and Revelation and read that the Catholic system is referred to as a beast and set itself up against the Most High.
The Bible tells an amazing story about King Manasseh. The King was so involved in idolatry that he would sacrifice his own children on an altar. He had performed so much wickedness that God dragged him off into captivity with hooks. While in prison he repented, the Bible says, “So the LORD brought against them th army commanders of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh prisoner, put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon. In his distress he sought the favor of the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And when he prayed to Him, the LORD was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.” (2 Chron. 33.11,12) There was never a point in Manasseh’s life that God was not working on him and as far as the Catholic Church went during it’s 1260-year reign, there was never a time with God was not reaching out to them.
The struggle that I have overcome is this: Just because God was working on the church does not mean it was condoning the church’s theology or it’s practices. There were many things the Catholic church that were a crime against humanity, but when you look at the scope of the Jewish nation, they also committed some pretty heinous crimes as well, going as far as seeking Jesus death on a cross.
The problem I have is that Daniel and John had prophesied of this apostate institution long before and said that it would even be a player till the end of time. So, while I believe God was trying to reform the church, He had already prophesied against it. The Prophesies were not conditional. I look at the story of the exodus as an example. God called Pharaoh to his post so that He could show His power. I believe God was trying to save Pharaoh as well, but all along, Pharaoh stood against the Most High.
The way I explain this prophesy and God trying to reform is this. I believe that God was trying to reform the Church but was not able to accomplish what He wanted to within the Catholic system. Because of hardness of heart, the system was not going to change so God was going to have to call out His people in order to accomplish his work.
This should not come as a surprise. When Jesus came to this earth He was trying to reform the Jewish nation and just as the Catholic Church rejected truth the Jewish nation rejected truth. Each wanted to keep a system that they were in control of. As a result of the Jews rejecting Jesus, Jesus takes the message to the Gentiles and the Christian church is born. As a result of the Catholic Church’s rejection, Protestantism is born.
God knows the future and my attempt to explain this aspect of history is not an attempt to explain God or put Him in a box.
Tyler Kraft
Protestant Theological Heritage
Final Essay
7/2/09
One of the most significant concepts that I learned from class is as follows: In our postmodern era, the quintessential question in terms of religious axiology is, “Is your theology relevant?” This question resonates quite strongly with much of what we have discussed this session. Not only that, but it is of utmost importance to both one’s life and one’s ministry.
The question of theological relevance has permeated this class on Protestant Theological Heritage, as it is at the heart of the beliefs and actions of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin. Luther found that for all of the Roman Catholic Church’s highly developed theology on salvation, it was not relevant to his experience. This is why he was motivated to study righteousness by faith, and thus began the Reformation. The question of relevance also can be found in Zwingli’s experience, as he sought to make Luther’s reforms even more relevant by systematizing how Protestants thought about providence and predestination. Calvin epitomizes the question of theological relevance, as he was reluctant to take on a leadership role, because he saw himself primarily as a scholar. But, he ended up making great contributions to Protestantism, as he sought to make his academic theology relevant to people’s lives. While I realize I have outlined these Reformers in broad strokes, it nevertheless becomes apparent that this question is at the very center of the Reformation and Protestantism itself.
Determining if one’s theology is relevant continues to be an important question to ask one’s self today, as it obviously is a very practical question. It is a question that I must continually ask myself as a student here at the seminary. In terms of theology, seminary students have so many options on which to focus, but one should take time to develop and hone one’s theology so that it is supremely relevant. Thus it is important to my life at this stage, as this question should inform my decisions on which classes to take, what topics to research, and what projects to work on. While we are here, I believe that it behooves seminary students to truly develop our theology to be relevant not only by the time one leaves Andrews, but also in the course of one’s continued study in the ministry.
It is when students leave Andrews that this question becomes vital to one’s ministry, as we now have to minister to people in this postmodern world who intentionally asks this question at the onset of their interest in Christianity and/or Seventh-day Adventism. To offer an extreme example, if I presented the sanctuary doctrine by going into detail about the theological significance behind every single hook that was used to attach the veil to it supporting rod, I would not be surprised if those to whom I was speaking dropped their interest. Even if I were not to go into such depth, but simply presented a basic overview of this doctrine, yet did not explain – and more importantly show – the impact the sanctuary makes on one’s life, I’m fairly certain I would lose their interest as well. I might be labeled a heretic for this, but I believe that a lot of internal theological debates are centered on irrelevant theology. I also think our Church’s focus on these irrelevancies has even become a part of the average member’s life as they have arguments over what will happen to the earth after God cleanses it with fire.
The question “is your theology relevant?” is one that has been asked since the time of the Reformation, and probably earlier, and it is a question that has become louder and more prevalent in today’s society. As our postmodern world asks that question of us, we also must ask it of ourselves – just as the fathers of the Reformation did. I believe it is the search for the answer that is a significant part of our Protestant Theological Heritage, it is an important part of one’s life, especially as a seminary student, and it is a vital part of a person’s ministry.
Nick Jones
THST 624 Final Exam
7/2/09
For this class and for this final we were to choose a sentence that has impacted us in this class. I believe that it is important that we always look back and try to figure out what we have learned. The sentence that I would use that sums up an important insight that I learned or was reminded of during this class is this: The very term Protestant Reformation indicates there were other reformations, there were reformers before the Protestants and there continues to be reformers today.
The reason that I choose this verse is because as Protestants when we look at history we frequently look to the Protestant reformation as the only reformation of the Christian church and that there is no reformation besides that. When Dr. Hanna mentioned this in the first week of class I finally realized that we need to realize that God is continually moving His church closer to Him. God’s church has always been in reformation and will continue to be reformed.
The examples I will use are simplistic because of the lack of space in this paper. However, I want to show that God has been moving His people closer to Him through reformation throughout all of history.
God has been moving His church closer to His ideal continually since the beginning of time. When He chose the Jews to be His people He would send prophets to them to show them where they were going wrong and try to bring them back on course. When it was clear that the Jews seemed to be done reforming Christ came and created a whole new reformation. Christianity was born and the Christians were called to reform the church and become more like Christ.
The disciples and the apostle Paul were called to continue the reform of the Christian church. Paul wrote many letters to different churches training and educating them to become closer to the ideal church that God would want. However, the church would eventually fall into traditions and hold them above the Bible. God still called people to reform the church however, it was not until Luther did the church start to listen and the Protestant Church was born.
The Christian church became more divided as different Protestant church took up the light of reformation through the centuries. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all took up the torch and worked with God’s guidance to come closer to the ideal church that God wants. Reformation continued on into the 19th century with the Adventist church being born to reform the Protestant churches and call to an even further reliance on the Bible and coming closer to God’s ideal.
Does this mean that reformation is finished? Hardly. As we have looked through history God has always been reforming His church and the Adventist church is closer to His ideal than any other Christian church, however we still have a ways to go. God calls each of us to continue to reform to learn and to educate ourselves and others in Biblical truth. Reformation is continual, not stagnant.
Iam commenting on the most interesting and best presentation in our class paper proposal by student X, who gave the best presentation about technology which was one of the best presentations ever. He was arguing that there is need for all churches to pay their tithes and offerings through the web site and internet. Also our professor Dr. Hanna came up with an idea of the magazine he read about the buildings of churches and the Seventh-day Adventist church was identified with a satellite link an excellent idea. When are we going to move into the world of technology! I am looking forward for that day. I also belive that even in heaven there is technology.
May God bless you Dr. Hanna for class presentations and broadening of our minds. I believe that education is to un learn in order to learn and accomadate new ideas. Also thanks to my fellow class students for your determination and zeal to learn. God bless us all and may God bless Andrews.
Sergio Silva - Final
What is the difference between our God and other gods? Is it only a matter of form, where the other gods have the most various and interesting forms, going from a calf in the Sinai Desert to a being that has the body of man but a head of a jackal like Anubis, the Egyptian god of embalming and the dead? Is it that our God cannot be seen or touched, but can be felt working actively inside and outside of us in favor of our salvation, while the other gods can be seen and touched, but cannot produce any inner feelings of comfort, peace, compassion, and so on?
For Calvin, the difference is in the fact that “the true God has been revealed as Creator so that we may distinguish God from the idols” (Justo González, A History of Christian Thought, 140). But if Calvin recognizes God as the creator of all things, how does he harmonize the concept of a timeless God who does not interact with His creatures with God’s major actions and interactions during the creation process as described in Genesis 1:1–2:3? Since it’s not my intention to deal with the issue of “timelessness,” it is important to emphasize that, despite this contradictory concept of the timelessness of God versus a creator God, Calvin makes it clear that God is distinguished from all other gods, “that He may be the exclusive object of worship” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, xii).
What does this mean to me as a Christian, a follower of God? What is the relevance for my life? First, I would say that in recognizing God as the true creator God, I reinforce my faith in the entire Bible. When I keep in mind that the first book of the Bible starts with the words “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and accept this teaching, I can immediately identify all the other things that come from the Bible as deriving from this same God. Second, it destroys the idea that God is not a personal God; rather, it emphasizes that He is so personal and friendly that He formed the first man with His own hands in His image and likeness. Finally, it demonstrates that the Bible is written in a logical sequence that has harmony from Genesis to the book of Revelation; Revelation 14:7 calls us all back in the end times to “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”
When it comes to practical ministry, the relevance of this question lies in the application of the three points above. Nowadays, SDAs are somewhat divided concerning the doctrine of creation and how God created the universe and life as we know it. You see, in my understanding, if an individual cannot see the importance of recognizing God as capable of creating the universe and life as described in the Bible, which is in fact the very first teaching of the entire Scripture, how can he accept the other teachings of the Bible that are connected to this first doctrine, such as the Ten Commandments, the Three Angels’ Messages, and even some of the words of Jesus?
In conclusion, if an individual is able to recognize, like Calvin, that “the true God has been revealed as Creator so that we may distinguish God from the idols,” the same individual would also benefit from the tranquility and certainty of believing that all the other teachings of the Bible are reliable, because they are a part of the history of God and His people. Therefore, the words of Peter become more vivid and real to all: “So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good” (1 Pet 4:19).
Jeff Walper
THST 624
Protestant Theological Heritage FINAL
The Just Shall Live by Faith
Martin Luther’s discovery of “righteousness by faith” in Jesus Christ.
Habakkuk 2:4
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:11
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Hebrews 10:38
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Martin Luther, the famed Protestant Reformer brought to light the wonderful truth found in these texts, that Salvation is availed by no other than Jesus Christ, and this wonderful salvation is received ONLY by faith. As our colleague, John, mentioned in class, Luther was a man who worked and worked and worked exhaustively to save himself. In his own words Luther explains: "Verily I was a devout monk, and followed the rules of my order so strictly that I cannot tell you all. If ever a monk entered into heaven by his monkish merits, certainly I should have obtained an entrance there. The doctors and theologians told me to do good works and thus to satisfy divine justice. But what good works can proceed out of a heart like mine, a heart full of evil thoughts and desires?"
Luther had worked feverishly to do good works in order that he might satisfy divine justice, but he found himself incapable of doing so with such a heart. One day Luther had the opportunity to travel to Rome, Holy Rome it was/is called. It was/is the highlight of any Roman Catholic. He expected to see a city filled with joyful people, full of the Holy Spirit, happy and free in their Saviour’s salvation, but instead he found little other than superstition. His “watershed” moment came as he was visiting what was supposedly Pilate’s Stair or what the Catholic’s call the Scala Sanctum or the Holy Stairs. The twenty-eight marble steps were supposed to be the actual steps that Jesus took as he bore the cross to Pilates court. It was there that Luther found a hoard of people walking up the stair case on their knees, kissing the steps as they went. He got down on his knees and began to humbly crawl up the stair case. What Roman Catholic wouldn’t? If you wished to gain an indulgence from the Pope you had to walk up this flight of stairs on your knees. And so it was, Luther found himself on his knees walking up the staircase, assuming another of his many meritorious acts in hope of gaining favor and merit from God. It was here, that Luther thought that he heard a voice of thunder cry out to him from the bottom of his heart… “The just shall live by faith!” This was the third time that Martin Luther had heard God speak these words to him. It finally sunk into his head…he stood up and fled from the staircase, horrified at himself, and ashamed at his superstitious condition. For the rest of his life, he would boldly proclaim to all the world, the wonderful truth, that “the just shall live by faith”…by faith in Jesus Christ and Him alone!
Final exam essay.
THST 624
Piasi Suleiman.
One of the statements I took from the class which sum up the objective of this course is `God is still using reformers to accomplish his mission on earth.' That statement came across our discussion and I wrote it down as one of the most powerful new points I have discovered in this course. though it may appear controversial to the laymen in our churches,it will also provoke them to study more and change their worldview of what they have been thinking of these reformers . It was quoted by our professor and I took it serious and I thought it that if I was the author of the text book we were using, I could have put it on the introduction part of it for it carried a lot of weight as far as this course is concerned.
The reason as to why I took this statement serious is because I was asking myself why should this course be thought in the seventh day Adventist seminary. But my answer flashed very fast in my mind to what I was taught in the first week in the seminary when I was taking my undergrad in theology. We had to define the term theology which means the `study of God ‘.so in the seminary we are studying theology i but not seventh day Adventist believes though they are also part of what we study. Having this concept in mind, then we will not fear to explore what this great theologians and church did in the cause of God. I do support their contribution to the cause of God with the following points.
Let’s look at the Catholic Church for the first place. Though most Adventists never associate the catholic church with the body of Christ, I say it because of the sermons which we have always heard about papacy and how the papacy will be involved in the last days or has been involved in the persecution of the saints in the past, they even call it antichrists, It was the same church which preserved Christianity in the dark ages. It is the same church that gave martin Luther the Christian foundation so I could suggest that God used the catholic church to preserve Christianity and give foundation to great reformers. one author mentioned that we should not destroy the bridges we used to cross over.
Secondly I believe that reformation is a process and progressive. We progress from less knowledge to agreat knowledge. The theologies of this people has helped most of the present truth we are enjoying as.If it could have not been this reformers, We could have been maybe in darkness in areas like our salvation and even the Sabbath .They stirred the mind of the upcoming protestors to discover by themselves the truth of the sola scriptura which brought to more revelation and reformation. Much protesters immerged after them hence the truth was made more clearer as reformation progressed.
Thirdly God used some of these reformers to expose some of the sins which were conducted in the church system and even the church leaders more especially among the catholic church and its priests.So whosoever will be lost it will be his/her decision for they are aware of what is happening .By this every believer must note he/she must continue studying the word of God to understand it more and more than sitting and waiting to be fed by some one else.
While some may argue that this class should not be included in our curriculum I argue it should. How else can we reach the Lutheran if we don’t know what they believe? We need to be knowledgeable in a variety of theological areas. One area in particular comes to my mind, Luther’s view on the Law and the Gospel. In order to effectively preach the Gospel and the Law to a Lutheran we must understand their view of the Gospel and the Law.
Isn’t that how God saves us. He looked at our lives and revealed himself to us according to our lives. He became the substitute for the alcoholic; He filled the void of the one that felt empty after loosing someone close.
I appreciated the class and the reading especially when looking at the Law and Gospel section of the text. I had limited understanding of Luther’s Theology especially in dealing with this subject. I always wondered how the fathers of the protestant movement and just the church in general could view the Law in such a different way that I view it today. When Luther explains his understanding of the Law of God being the will of God, and is also known in the natural law. I don’t agree but I understand why he takes that stance.
I can see how one can view God’s law in that way, not agreeing but understanding. In today’s mind, one that is has changed significantly since the fall of man, the un-natural is natural and the natural is un-natural. God’s Law exists before state and government. When the fall happened mankind changed for the worst. One of my teachers last semester asked the question along the lines of, Is it natural for man to want to fornicate? Many of us in the class including myself said yes, it is natural for man to want to fornicate. The answer was the opposite, it’s natural for man to Love God and to follow him, sin as changed the two.
When Luther states the Law is known in the natural law he makes a difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of God, this takes away from the sanctity of the Law. Moses’ law doesn’t even sound right to me, it should be known as the Law of God given to Gods people by Moses. Creating two different Laws are problematic to a holistic understanding of the Bible.
I don’t hold this against Luther I know can understand where Luther is coming from. I also realize that while Luther did wonderful things He wasn’t exposed to the light that is given to the remnant now, and while He missed the mark in some areas he hit the mark on many, and I myself will be judged on what I know and He on what he knows. So I am no better than he, I just have an appreciation for heritage. In any business, club, conference, or organization, knowing the heritage of a person or organization opens doors.
“We have to be careful to realize that while there is absolute truth, we do not master that truth absolutely.” – Dr. Hanna
This statement (thought probably paraphrased) characterizes a very important truth that I was reminded of in this class over the course of this session. There is an important difference between the predominant Christian mindset and the postmodern mindset. While the postmodern mindset believes in the fallacy of absolute truth in the realm of the religious or spiritual, the predominant Christian mindset believes in the existence of absolute truth. At the same time we must also be careful to temper our knowledge of the existence of absolute truth with the realization that we do not understand every facet and dimension of the truths that we know exist.
The existence of God is the best example of this principle. We know that God exists. This is the understanding of the existence of an absolute truth. However at the same time we should be careful to explain what we “know” about God because we do not understand every facet and dimension of the existence of God. This would be evidence of the understanding that we do not master absolute truth absolutely. I use the existence of God as a prime example because if we were to understand the existence of God then we would be God Himself and we all know that becoming God is not possible.
The principle of this prime example of the existence of God can be reasonably extended to much of what we understand about the Bible, Christianity, Christ and almost every element of our religion. God’s law, the principles by which we live our lives, are extensions of God’s character, and therefore are a part of God Himself. In the same way that we are careful to not say we know the existence of God absolutely, we should also be just as careful when speaking about our understanding of the Bible and the principles contained therein.
Christians, Adventists included, have not always been careful to do this. Because of this, we have created animosity towards spirituality and Christianity in particular. We see this throughout our Protestant heritage. Much in the same way that Catholicism drew lines around their at times incorrect understanding of the truth, Protestant denominations drew lines around their somewhat more progressive understanding of the truth and shut out new light. Adventism, repeating the mistakes of the past, seems to be doing the same thing today. Instead of welcoming truths challengers and learning from them, we often ostracize those whose ideas do not fit in with what we already understand. While I am not say we accept every new wind of doctrine, we should allow every doctrine to have a chance to challenge our truth in open forum. The truth (especially God’s truth) does not need our protection.
This would have a tremendous effect on our ministry, especially to the postmodern mind. If we would be more honest, more open with the truth that we do not know everything, that honesty would be respected and people would be more open to hearing what we have to say and understanding the truths that we do know. Paradoxically we have done the truth a disservice in our attempts to protect it. It may be that the very thing we need is to present the truth in a truthful way in order to ensure that it is heard and understood.
Final Essay
Visible and invisible church and the remnant of the “remnants”
Looking on the concept of invisible and visible church as argued from the protestant reformers like Luther and Calvin I find very intriguing ideas which seem to correlate with Adventist understanding of Remnant of the remnant. Though I understand that the usage of the term has some implications and connotations attached to it, 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.
As Seventh Day Adventist church we believe to be the remnant church who have remnants within the church whom we believe they are true to God, holding the testimony of Jesus Christ and keeping God’s commandments. It could be wrong if we 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 Seventh Day Adventist church but are not Remnants because there life and beliefs are not in line with the word of God. With this is mind one can easily identify similarities with the visible and invisible church arguments of the reformers. The Seventh Day Adventist church as an organization or body is the “visible” church (the Remnant) but within the Adventist church we have those who are genuine believers in Christ, the “invisible church” (the Remnant of the remnant). The invisible and the visible church overlap in that those who are true believers in Christ (invisible church) are found in the visible church.
Considering Calvin’s teaching on the visible church, he makes very important points which as Seventh Day Adventist we hold and which we can learn from when he says that, “God has placed the visible church in the world to be ‘exterior means’ for the proclamation of the word… the visible church has been ordained by God to be the mother of the faithful” this is what our church should be and this is what being remnant should entail however I do not fully agree with him when he says that, “Preaching the word and administration of the sacraments are the marks of a true church and that, The personal holiness of its members is not a proper mark of the true church”. I believe being a genuine believer calls for personal holiness which is a mark for the elect of God because they are or to be holy as Christ is holy, although I find his argument that, “the holiness of the church is not in the moral purity of its members, but in the holiness of the head (which for me is Christ) and in the promise that the elect have received” to be very insightful.
Having found some of the correlations between the visible and invisible church with the remnant of the remnant, it is with this premise that I suggest that our understanding of who we are and where we have reached has been through the evolving of the theology of our reformers combined with the searching of scriptures and not just by scripture alone or from a vacuum and therefore we should be very tolerant with each other when we find some of our brethren struggling to understand some of the ideas and concepts which seem to be clear to us and allow dialogue in order to shape our theology and our undertsnding of God’s word.
The sentence from the Bible that sums up an important insight I was reminded of during this class is found in Romans 8:29-30: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” The concept that summarizes the doctrine of salvation and fundamental to my life and ministry is sanctification.
Sanctification is the heart of true reformation; it is the epitome of Protestants Theological Heritage as it facilitates in the believers’ glorification. The significance of this teaching is that sanctification sums up all the major tenants of the doctrine of salvation that is inheritated from the Reformers. Looking at four major players in the doctrine of justification by faith, Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli and Calvin, most influence in the shaping of the doctrine of sanctification in the process of salvation was Melanchthon who was able to separate justification from sanctification.
I have wrestled with this concept and appreciated it to some degree; and my concern with the teaching on sanctification reflects Christ’s prayer in John 17:17-19. Jesus prays to the father that He may sanctify His followers whom He was sending to disciple the world. Etymologically, sanctification means “to reckoning or to render something as holy,” and “to set apart as holy;” that is, to dedicate for holy use in the service of God. In the Jewish economy sanctification had to do with the entire religious-cultural, social and contexts. As a matter of fact, Israel was sanctified by God. The primary intent of sanctification was God’s ownership and dedication to His service in the context of salvation. Thus whatever was dedicated to God therefore belonged to God and was thus considered as holy as God is holy.
In the words of Jesus, sanctification has to do with character transformation for the purpose of glorifying God and sacred service in the plan of salvation. Those that are to serve God are to do so in line with His character which is love.
Essentially, what has sanctification to do with my life? First and foremost, I believe that I belong to God by having put my faith in Jesus and accepted him as my personal savior in response to the calling by the gospel that was preached to me (John 1:12-13). Because of my belief and trust in Jesus, God reckons me just/righteous based on the merits of Jesus Christ’s blood and priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. By His grace, and through the working of the Holy Spirit, I am empowered to reflect his character being loyal to him through the obedience of faith in Jesus and His grace. Thus I am being transformed into the image of Jesus as predestined by God from time immemorial and patiently and hopefully awaiting the glorification at His second coming.
With regards to ministry, first, I believe that Jesus has set me apart (sanctified) and sends me into service, as His disciples, to declare the name of God in the preaching of the gospel. Second, through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I am ordained into the gospel ministry in the Adventist Church (the Remnant movement). As a pastor teacher, I believe that it is my obligation to call and equip others, within the community of my ministry calling, for service, until we shall all come to the “very height of Christ’s full stature” (Eph 4:13).
This is my appreciation of the concept of sanctification that this class helped me be reminded of. I feel greatly blesses to be a child of God, reconciled to Him and called in the ministry of reconciliation through his sanctifying love and grace.
Werlei Mello
ID #134421
Final Essay
Dr. Martin Hanna
THST 624 Protestant Theological Heritage
The word of God
In the second chapter of the book “A History of Christian Thought, vol. III”, Gonzáles dealt with Martin Luther’s theology. In the section “the Word of God”, Gonzáles writes the following sentence: “The Word of God is the starting point for theology.” As properly emphasized by professor Dr. Hanna in class, that “the Sacred Scriptures are above experience, reason and tradition,” This phrase, quoted in González’s book, seems to me extremely important, because, as I understand, and as we were reminded during the class, we have to bring the DATA source we received from God and put other sources (DATAS) under that we have received from God: under the rule of the Bible, which is the revelatory source.
In my understanding, when doing theology, it is almost impossible to avoid other resources such as experience, reason and tradition. But we must be careful; otherwise we’ll be in dangerous of doing incorrect theology. The concept of “Sola Scriptura”, used by Luther and other reformers, does not necessarily exclude the use of the other resources, but on the relationship between Scripture and these other resources, we should apply the principle described as “Prima Scriptura” based on the authority that the Scriptures have.
According to González, “by Word of God Luther means the Scriptures; Christ; God’s power manifested in the creation of all things; the incarnated Lord; the Word is the Scriptures, which witness to it; the Word is the proclamation through which the Word in Scripture is actually heard by the believers. Although the term “Word” is obviously used here in various senses, there is a close and important relationship between these different forms of the Word of God.”
If “theology is God’s talking”, to make theology is to interpret what God said. So, this means: that to do theology we should go to the Bible. God’s talking is historical and the Bible is the historical record of God’s acts. So, theology should also be historical. God talks to us by means of Jesus Christ (Jo 1:1); the Bible (2 Tim 3:16); and God talks through His church (2 Co 3:2, 3).
The written Word disclosed the accurate time when the incarnated Word was to come to the world. It is remarkable and important the fact that God disclosed Himself and His plans through the written Word as intentional preparation to save the human race, as described in 1 John 2:1, 2.
“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
This topic seems relevant to me because without salvation, which was revealed through the Word of God, we cannot have the future eternal life. Also, we cannot have quality in our lives on earth. As Christians and, especially as ministers of the Living God, we have to have hope to share with others. “The Word of God is the starting point for theology,” when we are willing to believe in His written Word and willing to receive from the Father Who gave us the Incarnated Word, this marvelous historical salvation.
By Werlei gomide Mello
ID:134421
When I saw Luther's life through this class, I was really impressed by him. God has been leading human being's history and let us understand through that. I know that we can study using history and heritages.
Quite apart from the varying hues and shades of their theologies, which owe much to different intellectual and religious formations as well as to temperament, sociopolitical setting, and conviction, the Reformers were not agreed on all issues
Whereas for Luther its primary function is to abase the sinner and drive him to the gospel, Calvin saw it chiefly as the guide of the Christian life. Again, while for Luther Scripture spoke everywhere of Christ and the gospel, Calvin handled it in a more disciplined and "modern" manner. Overall, "careful Calvin orchestrated Protestant theology most skillfully, but fertile Martin Luther wrote most of the tunes"
Now in these days sometimes, people just follow without thinking which is judgment; what is right and why or what is wrong and why. People want to follow the way many people went to. I could consider through this study.
Most Protestants died for what they believed and I saw what they had done. That was the way Jesus walked in this world. But I knew that all Protestants were not perfect. Their ways were not all the way that I should follow.
I do not remember exactly but there was a book read about reformers I only remember the key phrase: "Yearning for Grace: Martin Luther"; "Something Bold for God: Huldrych Zwingli"; "Glory unto God: John Calvin"; and "No Other Foundation: Menno Simons". These words headings are tied in with major threads of each of the respective reformer's theologies, and could be used as mnemonics for subsequent reflection.
I would like to be a new reformer for these days. History is repeating as same with Luther and Calvin lived. Most people know God but they do not know about real God they do not have interest knowing God. People just go to church just attendance. They see the words of God but they cannot see God from the words. They see but cannot have a good look, they hear but they cannot listen. I would like to a leader for the people who cannot see and listen. Because we have reformers, we could understand God again. I would like to be a reformer today.
The important thing is how to preach to people. How can I reach them? I am a pastor what is my duties; In Korea, In America or other the third countries.
Even if one is conversant in the language of culture and willing to hear that the North American church doesn't actually have it all figured out, something new can still be learned. A new language is developed as one enters into the thought of the missional church group, a language based on sending. Whereas for centuries the churches of the West thought they were the ones sending people, for example and American congregation sending a missionary to China, missional church thought would say that sending is the action of God because God is by very nature a missionary God. Now, it is also necessary for North American churches to understand that they are not only to send people "out there" into other parts of the world but that the church is sent into whatever context it finds itself. It is for this reason that the church must become conversant in the language of culture, because culture is the context into which it is sent
The reign of God breaks down the barriers of autonomy and exposes functional Christendom for the sham that it is. The church must always be aware, even in the midst of transitioning into the missional way, of the threat and very real temptation of idolatry. Things such as image, growth, success, and security can become idols to the visible church.
This is the last time we have. God wants us to go out and preach to others who need God. Through this class I could get a now vision for the last days in my life.
Thomas Oyaro Ong’ou
THST 624 Protestant Theological Heritage
Final essay
I have chosen the book of Psalm 19:1-4 which was discussed in our class presentation by our Professor Dr. Martin Hanna because the book testifies the glory of God who has revealed himself in salvation and history. Because God’s heritage is historical, his glory is a testimony on what He has done to his people in all ages. This gives us a picture of the existence of God. Who is our ruler as He is quoted in the scripture which is our rule of faith.
Psalm 19:1-4 says;
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world (NIV).
I understand this passage as a touching central point for what we have discussed during our class interactions in relation to the protestant reformations that have come until our present position as an organized Seventh-day Adventist Christian Church inheriting many biblical doctrines from the reformers. As a Church we have inherited the doctrine of trinity, sacraments, justification by faith, the law and the gospel.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun (sanctuary). God is our heritage and He brings man into his heritage (tent). David personifies the aspects of God's creation, especially things that appear in the heavens. The reason for this is because all of us, before conversion, have had some concept of God. For some of us religious folk, that concept was very fervently, sincerely believed and practiced. But for most of us, the concept of God was vague, maybe even agnostic, doubting. For others, their concept of God was atheistic, that there is no God. Whatever the case, for most, their concept of God is drawn from the creation. David is illustrating this here. God’s creation gives people a picture or an idea that God exists. They may be attracted by the beauty or the vastness they see in what God made, or it may be a combination of factors for their belief. David is showing that creation possesses its own eloquence. In the combination of its vastness, power, beauty, and simplicity within complexity, a person begins to think that there is more to life than himself, more than merely living out a span of time and then dying. As we were discussing during our class interactions we discovered that Christ is not a philosophical principle or an energy diffused throughout the cosmos. Christ is the Creator of the universe. “All things were made by Him” (John 1:3). “In Him all things consist” (Col 1:17).
The course Protestant Theological Heritage is all about our inheritance on where we have come from as a church and where we are heading to because our inheritance is in heaven and hence we a wait for the Second Advent of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ . This selected passage is meaningful and relevant to my life because as a minister of the gospel. I must totally depend upon God who is my salvation, and He has given me the scriptures as the only rule of faith to rely upon in my humble servant-hood ministry to serve his dear beloved people on earth.
The glory of God who is the creator of the universe prepares me to stand firm upon Jesus who is my ruler, and depend upon the scriptures alone as my rule of faith. The protestant reformers stood firm on the word of God and finally they succeeded during their time to believe in God amid many challenges such as persecution from the Catholic Church, state, philosophy and science. The glory of God remains being proclaimed in ages until Jesus comes to take us to heaven.
This course outlines the above matters and thank you so much my professor Dr. Martin Hanna for the wisdom bestowed upon you by God how I wish that this class was to extend for some more months.
This is the corrected (I posted the wrong one)
Werlei Mello
ID #134421
Final Essay
Dr. Martin Hanna
THST 624 Protestant Theological Heritage
The word of God
In the second chapter of the book “A History of Christian Thought, vol. III”, Gonzáles dealt with Martin Luther’s theology. In the section “the Word of God”, Gonzáles writes the following sentence: “The Word of God is the starting point for theology.” As properly emphasized by professor Dr. Hanna in class, “the Sacred Scriptures are above experience, reason and tradition,” This phrase, quoted in González’s book, seems to me extremely important, because, as I understand, and as we were reminded during the class, we have to bring the DATA source we received from God and put other sources under that we have received from God: under the rule of the Bible, which is the revelatory source.
In my understanding, when doing theology, it is impossible to avoid other resources such as experience, reason and tradition. But we must be careful; otherwise we’ll be in danger of doing incorrect theology. The concept of “Sola Scriptura”, used by Luther and other reformers, does not necessarilly exclude the use of the other resources, but on the relationship between Scripture and these other resources, we should apply the principle described as “Prima Scriptura” based on the authority that the Scriptures have.
According to González, “by Word of God Luther means the Scriptures; Christ; God’s power manifested in the creation of all things; the incarnated Lord; the Word is the Scriptures, which witness to it; the Word is the proclamation through which the Word in Scripture is actually heard by the believers. Although the term “Word” is obviously used here in various senses, there is a close and important relationship between these different forms of the Word of God.”
If “theology is God’s talking”, to make theology is to interpret what God said. So, this means: that to do theology we should go to the Bible. God’s talking is historical and the Bible is the historical record of God’s acts. So, theology should also be historical. God talks to us by means of Jesus Christ (Jo 1:1); the Bible (2 Tim 3:16); and God talks through His church (2 Co 3:2, 3).
The written Word disclosed the accurate time when the incarnated Word was to come to the world. It is remarkable and important that God disclosed Himself and His plans through the written Word as intentional preparation to save the human race, as described in 1 John 2:1, 2.
“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
This topic seems relevant to me because without salvation, which was revealed through the Word of God, we cannot have the future eternal life. Also, we cannot have quality in our lives on earth. As Christians and, especially as ministers of the Living God, we have to have hope to share with others. “The Word of God is the starting point for theology,” when we are willing to believe in His written Word and willing to receive from the Father Who gave us the Incarnated Word, this marvelous historical salvation.
By Werlei Gomide Mello
ID:134421
Garth Dottin
Final Essay
“All religious ceremonies must be simple and without excessive ritual. They must adhere strictly to the practice of the New Testament. . . There is to be no liturgical singing. The central act of worship is the reading of the word and its exposition" (Justo González, A History of Christian Thought,92).
This quote is important because it tells how faithful the Anabaptist were in their quest for spirituality, and demonstrates the passion they exerted to be in line with scripture. They desired simplicity and avoided excessiveness. They wanted to return to the teachings of the New Testament in their worship and practice. Their intent was sincere and passionate, but they became extremely and innately fanatical in their practice. The issues that they experienced present many lessons regarding life and ministry.
Firstly, the quote shows the importance of balance in worship. The act of worship in many churches today have become so excessive and areas that they sometimes neglect other vital components. Some churches have based their worship on music alone, and have forgotten Gods word is still able to change the lives of people. While I believe that music is vital to worship, we should not neglect to focus on scripture. My wife and I visited a church a few weeks ago to hear a prominent minister present a message from God, and we waited patiently in anticipation. However, when he finally spoke, we were given a long motivational speech which failed to quote, or even refer to the Bible. In fact, the minister never read from the Bible. The Anabaptist differed in that regard and ventured in the other extreme, because they believed that only the Bible should be read in worship. That aspect of protestant history should teach us the importance of having scripture and singing during worship.
Secondly, the issues of the Anabaptist demonstrate the dangers of extremism. They desired to be faithful only to the scriptures, but in their zeal they exhorted to extremism. Their experience teaches that many individuals who are religious extremists are not all horrible people as some believe. However, many are truly seekers of a deeper relationship with Jesus and need to be gently led to return to the right path. It also teaches the importance of treating everyone equally, and highlights the need to remain resilient when working with those that have strayed. Many people would have given up on the Anabaptist who embraced an extremist view of the Bible, but history shows that God had continued to work with them to get them to the place where they could be balanced.
Lastly, it teaches that Seventh-day Adventism was not conceived unsystematically or in a vacuum. It shows how the Holy Spirit was working with the reformers and the Anabaptist in leading to the development of many truths which the Seventh-day Adventist church have also affirmed and developed today. Their experience also teaches that everything that is done within the church needs to be Christ centered. Moreover, it proposes that our lifestyle must be balanced, while seeking to allow scripture to be the fundamental basis for all of our beliefs and actions.
The most significant understanding that I have been able to gain from our class in Protestant Theological Heritage is the holistic approach to Missions to Muslims as we discussed it in class the last week of this course. I have been very interested in trying to better understand the issues at hand and to try to find a solution, if only for my own mind, to the disagreements that are so prominent at this time in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
One side of this debate has taken a stance for a very solid contextualization approach, sometimes to the extent that it is accused of over-contextualizing to the point that the opponents to this approach within the church believe it has become non-Biblical altogether.
The other side believe that the correct way is to convert Muslims through more traditional evangelistic approaches. They hold firm to the ideal that we must present the truth, and that the sincere seeking Muslim will be able to recognize it as truth and want to follow.
In the Protestant Theological Heritage, both of these approaches can be seen to exist. While it is well known that some groups attempted to infiltrate those of different persuasions by secret methods at first, slowly testing the water and introducing more of the message they wish their listeners to hear. It can probably be said that there were some on both sides of reformations that have used this infiltration approach. There is still much anxiety today of Jesuits secretly trying to infiltrate groups. It has been rumored many times that this professor or the other was secretly a Jesuit trying to convert the Adventist Schools where these men were working. While we might think this approach to be improper, the Catholic Church probably views at as a necessary measure. Similarly, you have the history of the Waldensean peoples who would leave home, most often to never return, with the goal of secretly infiltrating the universities and minds of the students with their hidden verses and memorized scriptures of God’s love for mankind. More instances could surely be found if needed. Though the two groups here are not to be considered similar, they were both likely motivated to their actions in sincerity and obedience to what they each understood as the commands of God. In Adventism, this division between evangelism and contextualization seems to be a separation caused by individual convictions as well. Evangelistic efforts are very easy to see in our heritage from both sides of the fence.
The interesting thing that I was able to better comprehend is that neither side is completely wrong or right in itself. This Evangelical Camp seems to be holding firm to more traditional Seventh-day Adventist approaches to soul winning while the contextualizers are attempting new methods because they feel the old ones have not been effective enough. It is true that we need to be true to the Holy Scriptures in our missionary ventures. There must be a teaching of what is truth. At the same time, we must not go and try to preach to them out of the Bible only, but we must live among them, win their friendship, care for their needs, and when the door is opened by Divinity, we must marry this approach with the evangelistic teachings that the Lord has called us to do.
Balanced Theology: Is It Really Possible?
There has been one question that has consistently come to my mind since the second week of class. In my reading, Hanna’s lectures, our presentations, and class discussions, the same critical question keeps coming to me. Here is the question: Is it really possible to avoid extremism and have a balanced theology in the Adventist Church? What I mean by extremism is those churches that condemn members to hell for eating cheese, and those churches who totally reject the health message. What I mean by a balanced theology is a theology that avoids extremes. I mean doing theology in such a way that it does not create divisions within our Church. I mean doing theology in such a way that it becomes impossible to have another David Koresh tragedy. The goal of this essay is to answer that critical question and share what I believe to be the way to avoid extremism and achieve balanced theology.
The Reformation has taught me that there is nothing new under the sun. Extremism was going on in the 16th century and it still exists today. So does this mean that extremism will always exist? Is it apart of human nature? If so, is it even possible for human beings to be balanced? My answer to these questions is this. Yes, extremism will always exist in the world, but it does not have to among Christians. Yes, it is a part of our fallen nature. And yes, it is possible for us to be balanced, but only within the Christian community. Let me expound on the last point.
I believe the way we achieve balance within the Christian community is by being humble. This may seem simplistic but I think it is one of the keys to being balanced. God created us all different, unique, and for community. When we humble ourselves and embrace each other’s differences it can lead to completeness in our lives. We can be more holistic. How does this relate to theology? I believe that one of the reasons we are suffering from division in our church is because we do theology in isolation. I believe there needs to be more conversation between the liberals and conservatives, with humility. All must sit to learn from one another. I’m not suggesting everyone must agree on everything. There should be room for disagreement, but not to the extent of having two camps within the Church. Is Christ divided? Was Jesus a liberal or conservative? No. I suggest that He was balanced. And He calls us to imitate Him in all we do, our theology is no exception.
With humility being the first, I think there are two more ways to avoid extremism and achieve balance. The second key is by using resources as resources and not placing them above the Source. The extra-biblical resources of tradition, reason, and experience are too often placed above Scripture, the Source. We must avoid this grave mistake. Wherever the Bible is not given supremacy when doing theology extremism is the consequence. This is made manifest in the teachings of the Spiritualists and Rationalists during the Radical Reformation.
The third key to avoid extremism and achieve balanced theology is to utilize the disciplines of contextual theology, biblical theology, and systematic theology as opposed to using only one of the three. In using these three disciplines there must be a Christocentric bias since Christ proposed this bias upon the text.
As a pastor, it is necessary to be balanced. In our ministry we will encounter all kinds of people from both extremes and we must be able to help them be more balanced. We must lead them to a position that helps them avoid extremes. I desire not to be a conservative or liberal but in the same place as Jesus – balanced.
Patricia Nesbit
After reviewing the history of the Protestant movement the main idea that strikes me the most is the way that God works with and through humanity to convey truth.
John 1:6,7 “There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.”
These verses sum up one of the most important insights that I was reminded of during class. God sends us as men and woman to bear witness to the light, so that all might come to believe in Jesus and be saved. God works with humanity to save humanity. He does not act independently of man. We are co-laborers with Him and as we submit to Him we receive more light.
There were three meanings behind this text that I felt applied to our class.
“God sends”-It is God who continues to initiate the passing of the light from one generation to the next. John was a reformer. He did not speak or go on his own accord. The Bible says, that he was sent by God. This tells me that it is a part of God’s plan to include man in the plan of redemption.
God works closely with humanity in the plan of redemption- He is so intimate with us that he knows our name
Our job is to point to the light- We are not to be the light. We only need to point to the light. It is God, through the Holy Spirit, that reveals to mankind the truth of the person of Jesus Christ. As we lift up Christ, who is the true light others may look to Him and believe. Light comes from God. It does not come from ourselves. We are to be reflections of the true light.
God’s truth is still being carried by humans to other humans. Even though it may seem more complicated this way. In God’s wisdom He chooses to include man in the process. Our job is not to get in the way of light and cast shadows of doubt on others. Instead we are to be in a position with God so that we are reflections of the “true light” so that others may see. We are to lift up Christ as the true light and speak against what may cause others to not be able to “Behold the Lamb of God.”
Ellen White supports this idea when she said, “No truth is more clearly taught in the Bible than that God by His Holy Spirit especially directs His servants on earth in the great movements for the carrying forward of the work of salvation. Men are instruments in the hand of God, employed by Him to accomplish His purposes of grace and mercy. Each has his part to act; to each is granted a measure of light, adapted to the necessities of his time, and sufficient to enable him to perform the work which God has given him to do.” (GC p. 343)
This Bible verse relates to protestant theological heritage in that it reminds us of the incredible results that can come from one man being a witness for the true light. Each of us has an influence. We have been granted life for the purpose to live for God and to live for an eternity with God. We can see in the life of Martin Luther a demonstration of what God can do through one man who believes in Jesus, who is the light of the world. The world has never been in total darkness because God has always had light bearers to the truth. God can use us in mighty ways when we are submitting to His will. This is relevant to life and ministry because when we are born again we also are called to be witnesses of the Light that enlightens the entire world. Just as one lightening bug can light up an entire room with its glow, so can we as men and woman become lights in this dark world for Him.
As we look back at His Story we can see that God’s light has always burned brightly. In fact in the darkness the light can be seen to burn the brightest. Jesus reminds us that we are the light of the world. We not only need to take up our cross, but we need to take up our lamps and hold them up high so that that the world may be pointed to the “true light” and that all may believe.
Protestant Theological Heritage – Final
J. Harold Alomia
On June 22, 2009 as we were discussing the Anabaptists, the class went into a side path that caught my attention. The question was posed by our professor: In Reorganizing Structure: do we define ourselves as Biblical in that ‘we do what the BIBLE says’ or BIBLICAL in that ‘we do whatever the Bible does not prohibit’.
This poses an interesting argument in my mind especially in many aspects of our denomination. We claim follow the Bible. And I believe that we do so, no questions asked. However, how much of our daily functioning is ‘biblical’ and how much is it just plain tradition? When we say that we follow the Bible are we trying to be as biblical as possible or are we attempting to use reason in certain areas, as long as we do not contradict principles espoused in Scripture. In that same vein a statement was made in class also “We have one source [the Bible] but we have multiple RESOURCES [EGW, C. S. Lewis, etc].”
I have personally heard more than once in some of our classes that ‘we must go back to the NT model in order to have success as a church’. I have always pondered about this romantic notion of ‘going back to basics’ and the reality is that we cannot go back to basics. The church has grown, it has expanded, it is no longer a small Jewish movement in the I AD, as a matter of fact it is far too great than that. Not speaking of the obvious Greater Christendom, just looking at our own little denomination, we are not the small band of valiant and young pioneers of the late 1800s, we have grown quite exponentially. So, when we make these idyllic comments of returning to the basics, meaning the NT model, I find that that is in someway ignoring an answer to the question posed in class.
Being Biblical has nothing to do with following to the letter what is described in the NT epistles when it comes to church organization and structure, as we are not composed of Jews and Gentiles, and we are not dealing with Romans, nor are our main problems (at least in our hemisphere) eating that which is sacrificed to Idols. Being Biblical has to be greater than just ascribing to the letters and phrases that we find in the sacred book. Being Biblical entails the spirit in which whatever that we defend was written.
It is a matter of careful study, honest research, and candid conclusions regarding the reality and practice of the early church, and what principles we can extract from their experience in order to further the kingdom of God. For the romantic that seeks to entrench himself in a certain form of ‘church governance’ from the pages of Scripture and finds himself extrapolating from the pages of Scripture passages that ‘speak’ of the multi-layered structure of the Church today as we know it, that was invented in the early 20th century, there is a level of incongruence there that cannot be ignored.
We are and will remain Biblical as long as we are willing to look at Scripture and read from its pages not just the words written, but also when we can look at Scripture and understand the principles that are espoused there, and adapt them and make them relevant to the situation of the Church in the 21st AD for the advancement of the kingdom.
“On the basis of this doctrine of predestination Zwingli can easily refute every attempt to base salvation on works” (Gonzalez, p. 76). I picked this sentence because I had never considered the implications of this aspect of free will. Zwingli considered the very choice a work. That is one of the problems solved by believing that God has ultimate control. If humans cannot even turn to God, then that is why there is no reason salvation could be based on works. It does make me wonder why there was such an intense reaction to works and if it is appropriate. I understand that they were reacting against the Catholic system, which many perceived to be based on works and faith. It must have been an intense relief to come to the understanding that grace was a free gift not to be earned. Isn’t this what they were reacting to—earning salvation?
I fail to see that the choice is a way to earn salvation. It might be works strictly speaking, as in it is something that humans do, but it does not take away the free aspect of grace. When I give someone a gift, their acceptance does not mean that they contributed to the gift. It is an acknowledgement. In fact it seems like a pointless argument anyway when the issue is looked at in this way. God has already provided the gift, nothing on my part will change, add, or subtract from that gift. Once accepted, it is mine.
This is assurance of salvation. I do not have to be good enough; I do not have to clean up my act in order to be right with God before I can accept salvation. God loves me as I am. Romans 5:8 states that while I was still a sinner, Christ died for me.
Another dimension is reached when we consider what I must do to keep my salvation. This is another aspect of Zwingli’s belief. When God is the Supreme Cause, nothing I do can influence my election or reprobation, including any good or bad works I do. This is assuring on one hand because salvation is a rock solid guarantee for those who are elected. But that’s the catch. Zwingli says that works can show election, but at the same time, works can be deceiving. So there is really no assurance of salvation.
For those who believe in free will, the assurance of salvation comes from trust in God. Titus 3:5 says “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” Yet once we move past the initial moment of salvation, there is the work of sanctification. Our salvation should change us, so that our motives for good works change. We do good works because we want to, not because we are trying to keep our salvation. Likewise, we do good works because we love God, rather than because we are trying to placate an angry God. The works are the sign of an internal change. They are not the cause of an internal change (which would indicate an attitude of working for salvation).
But going back to the motivation for Zwingli’s belief in predestination, I have to wonder if the reaction was too extreme. I believe that simply choosing God’s gift of salvation is not a compromise of the doctrine of justification by faith. Nor is free will a challenge to God’s supremacy. Our salvation is assured by our choice never to give up on God (because he will never give up on us). We can and will fall into temptation, but as long as we do not give up, God will do the rest. Ultimately though, it is his influence and Spirit that makes the difference.
The statement that really stuck with me in this class is “We study the history (the heritage) in order to not repeat the same mistakes of the past”. This statement sums up the reason and importance for the class. Just by studying the history of the Protestant Church we learn many things to avoid and things that work that we need to also do. For example we look at the reformations and we learn that we need to continue to reform until the return of Christ. So I think it is very important that we study this class in seminary because there is so much we can learn from the early reformers that we are not utilizing in our church today. Through this class semester we learned about our churches roots and what we have out from and what God has called us out of.
We study the history (the heritage) in order to not repeat the same mistakes of the past. Another aspect of this statement is that in addition to looking at the mistakes of our past and avoiding them again we also can look back and certain conditions and positions that the world was in and how the church was effected by it. We can also look at how we responded to situations in the past and choose more wisely on how to respond to certain situations in the present.
We study the history (the heritage) in order to not repeat the same mistakes of the past. This statement not only sums up this semester but it is also a great text to use for the bible. Many of the chapters and books in the bible are written to give us instruction on what we should do, but also there are many chapters and books that are written strictly in warning that we shouldn’t have to go through some of the things that they went through. For example throughout the entire Old Testament is this ongoing theme of God’s people the Israelites going against God’s instructions and reaping the punishment for their actions. Just by looking at their history we can avoid that route and not have to repeat their mistakes.
So in conclusion studying the history of the early church is immensely important and can greatly help us in our individual and communal walk in Christ.
Final Essay of THST624 Protestant Theological Heritage
Instructor : Dr. Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
By. Ki Seung Jhang (ID# 132705)
“Luther’s problem was one of sin and grace, or of justice and love. How could God, the most holy, the most righteous, be appeased by a man like Luther, who knew himself to be an unrighteous and unholy sinner? His study of the Psalms gave Luther the first glimmers of hope that an answer could be found… When he came to the twenty-second Psalm, which Christ himself had begun to recite from the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” Luther discovered that Christ himself had been subject to the agonies of desolation which he suffered. Christ himself had been as forsaken as the most abject sinner. This he has done for Luther’s sake. He was not only the righteous judge; he had also been willing to sit with the accused. Somehow the righteous God whom Luther felt compelled to hate was also the loving God who in Christ had been utterly forsaken for Luther’s sake.” (p 32-33)
Luther said he tried to love Jesus, but he couldn’t make it. Rather he found that he hate Jesus from his bottom heart. He tried to get assurance of salvation with his good works, Sacrament of Penance, and life of monastery. But he found the answer through studying bible.
I really was shocked at this point. I has been struggling with this matter. I always have prayed that I like to love you. I want to be changed like him. But I run away from him as I have some unexpected accident or hardship and difficult. I have worst case that I wanted to run away from God. I got too much stress from some woman of my church. There was a worst accident, and after that she made some deaconesses to joint her.
After this, I and my wife were excluded from them. I and my wife couldn’t stay with there. It was so stress to me. I couldn’t control this stress. At that time, I was disillusioned with the church. I started to hate them. And I was getting worse, so I didn’t want to attend the church. And finally, I regretted my life of faith. The thought that I hated God was coming from the bottom the mind without consciousness. I told my friend that I don’t want to be an Adventist if I could be born again. But still I always wanted to love him more than before. Sometimes I felt that I had no sense of honor for prayer, and my prayer could be accepted to God.
I found that I am not able to love him, rather to hate him. I was in the trouble. Actually, I have really wanted to love him without any effect from all problems. I have struggled with this problem. But I felt alone, and I found me far away from God. I was shouting why you are forsaking me. But at this class, God gave me the answer through Luther’s agony and studying Psalm 22. I was so impressed by that Jesus was forsaken from God because of me, and I found that Jesus who was sitting with me with the accused. He has already loved me even I am far away. I found him to open his arm always even I hate him. I felt free form my duty conscience. I am free from my guilty and regretful mind.
I felt like that I can love him even I will be in some hard trouble from now. I like to stay with him in any worst case. I will train me escaping to the God as I meet the problem.
And also I become to know the meaning the My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me through this book. This is the greatest understanding.
Thank you very much your lectures and choosing this book as the textbook.
Kwon, Hyungkyu
ID: 131672
The Works of God (Final exam)
Actually I have to write down the homepage but I submit really late so I want to submit also as a paper.
I felt much difficulty of understanding lecture. My professor usually uses easy word for lecture, so I can understand the sentence but I cannot catch the main point. But the subjects of the lecture are very philosophical.
I haven't ever thought about it before. (God's trinity and predestination and so on)
Actually I though that the knowing of God is for meet and the processing of born again. But I need to change order. When we feel the need God, we will be changed, even though we do not know about it.
When I read the text book of first chapter, I remembered the intro of "the Steps to Christ". The book start with the question "Do you know God or do you know about God?"
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3). The book brings forth the born again as the way of the knowing God. The processing of salvation is the knowing God and the processing to be His children.
We cannot be God, but we can be His children. If we need to know some one, the best way is to be same, or to make relationship.
I read a article that “the Monergy and Synergy of Theo and Cosmos: God Works All in All and All Things Work Together.” It is a inter action of God and His creation.
When I was second year of the university in Korea, I faced very difficulty on my life. It was my first time that I didn’t do my wish, and couldn’t get my wants. My girlfriend leaved me and my grade was terrible. The bible study group, which was made with my friend, was broken up. It was first absolute fail on my life.
I could not study any more in the condition. So I applied for Korean Army that is a duty as a Korean man for 2 years and 2 months. But army cannot help to escape from my worry, when I take a rest, I was thought the question “how can human and God can start cooperation?”
I don’t know well, but I think we do not have a life but God is life. So the Bible said, “ Now this is eternal life; that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”(John 17:3 NIV) When we know God, I think we want to be fulled by god. I hope to know Him. It makes me hope to speak about him. The man can be called the gospel worker.
Post a Comment