Please place headings on your assignments (eg., Assignment 1). Headings are not required for your other comments and discussions.
64 comments:
James W. Dieujuste
said...
PTH – Posting 1–“Ritschl’s View of the Kingdom of God”
In my weekly reflection papers, I plan to discuss the views of four theologians discussed in our textbook as they relate to the area of eschatology. Each week I will focus on the thought and teachings of one of these theologians. I also plan to discuss the views of these individuals in my term paper. Hence, there will be some overlap between the blog postings and my research project.
This week, I am starting with Albrecht Ritschl, a German theologian, who lived from 1822 to 1889. Ritschl’s writings on eschatology, the kingdom of God, in particular, continue to impact Christian thought today. For Ritschl, the kingdom of God is not a “supernatural order that will come about through an intervention from on high at some future time” (A History of Christian Thought – p. 376). Rather, the kingdom is the new order that Jesus Himself started (ibid., 376). In his view, Jesus’ personal vocation and ministry constitutes the dawn of the kingdom (ibid., 376). In essence, the kingdom can be described as a “corporate state of life” in which people express loving and free mutual service toward one another (ibid., 376).
In Ritschl’s thought, the kingdom of God is to be understood as the achievement of a moral ethic in this world. The kingdom centers on “vocational ethic, on the need to live in a world which can be changed by the activity of love” (Kingdom of God and Human Society –p. 148). This ethic, in turns, allows for world-transforming possibilities (ibid., 148). This view allows for a transformation of the present world centered on morality. (ibid., 148). Thus, his theology is in contrast to the other-worldly “ascetic ethic” pietists who cut themselves off from the rest of the world (ibid., 148).
The Enlightenment’s view of the superiority and purity of Christian ethic has largely influenced his thinking on what constitutes the coming kingdom (An Introduction to Theology of Albrecht Ritschl – p. 177). It, thus, can be argued that his theology follow the Enlightenment’s humanistic and evolutionary concepts of the kingdom of God (ibid., 176). He regards the kingdom of God as independent of authoritative forms (The Ritschlian Theology p. 335). He, thus, rejects the Roman Catholic view that identifies God’s kingdom with the papal church (ibid., 335). A collective and mutual act of love by individuals who rightly engage in their personal vocation brings about the establishment of the kingdom. Thus, in explaining how the kingdom of God is manifested, he points to the idea of individual fidelity in the area of vocation. For him, the kingdom of God is realized as a moral ideal that comes about through faithfulness in one’s personal vocation (ibid., 366). Given this line of thought, he makes the following statement:“those who believe in Christ are the kingdom of God, in so far as they, regardless of the differences of sex, calling, or people, act mutually from love, and so produce the community of moral dispositions and moral goods which extends in all possible degrees to the limits of the human race” (The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation – p. 271).
In sum, the idea of the kingdom of God is to be viewed as an achieved moral ideal in this world stands in contrast with Scripture. Though Scripture points to the in-breaking of God’s kingdom in this world as a present reality, it doesn’t speak of it being established or consummated in same the manner espoused by Ritschl. For instance, on one occasion, Jesus says "the kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:20-21). On another occasion, He declares, “for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:17:18). A holistic approach helps us understand how Jesus can speak of the in-breaking of the kingdom and at the same time not say that it has already been established. – James W. Dieujuste
Over the last week we have elaborated upon the meanings of each of the words in our course title: Protestant Theological Heritage. We are Protestant because we hold fast to the ‘solas’. We looked at the term ‘theology’ and discovered within the word the term ‘God talk’. We are considering the ways that Protestants have talked of God over the course of history. Finally, we considered the term ‘heritage’ where we find the importance that God’s people are considered His heritage, and God is considered our heritage. With all this discussion of history, theology, the ‘God talk’ in the past, and the way that God has lead in the past, we considered a timeline of the growth of God’s people which ‘shines forth greater and greater’ though the future. It was really helpful to put the growth of the church throughout history into perspective, and to consider that the SDA church is continuing the reformation which has progressed throughout history up until our present. This lead us into a fascinating discussion on remnant theology. We must be careful though, to assume that just because we are the SDA church, we are in and of ourselves automatically the remnant. The remnant really depends on those who are keeping the ‘commandments of God, and their faith in Jesus Christ.’ With the recent General Conference session, the remnant topic has been the ‘God talk’ in our church lately. I am comfortable with the idea of the Seventh-day Adventist Church being the remnant church, but I have never been comfortable with the exclusive and elitist attitude which sometimes garnishes our perspective. It was very helpful for us to discuss the nature of the remnant. In doing so, this was the first time that I had heard of the terms ‘institutional remnant’ and ‘spiritual remnant’. It makes sense that there are both throughout history. Right now the Seventh-day Adventist church is the only church which is holding fast to God’s commandments and the faith in Jesus. We have a particular prophetic message which is our calling in these last days. Yet for those who comprise our congregations within this ‘institutional remnant’, there is a choice as to whether or not they are of the ‘spiritual remnant’. To be a part of the spiritual remnant, a person must individually be one who keeps the commandments and their faith in Jesus. It was beneficial to be reminded that Israel was an institutional remnant comprised of both the faithful and the unfaithful. We can be humble about the way that we preach the gospel, and the way that we consider ourselves the remnant if we realize that our practices are just as important as our theology. As mentioned earlier, sometimes the faithful Adventists can be full of pride and self-righteousness at the notion of being in the remnant church. We can even be aggressive and demeaning in our actions, while doing it all in the name of good theology. We have seen the importance of this in our Adventist history, and in our Protestant history. ---CONTINUED IN THE FOLLOWING POST----
In 1888, Ellen White rebuked those who were not being Christlike in the way that they presented and endorsed proper theology on righteousness by faith. In her perspective, which I believe is a biblical one, the attitudes and spirit in which one presents theology is just as important as the theology itself. If only everyone throughout Christian history held fast to the greatest commandment and practiced it as they communicated their theology. In our reading, we have been considering some of the popular figures in reformation history. Luther is a name that if probably the most popular of reformation history. Though he is considered a champion of protestantism, sometimes the way that he communicated his theology and perspectives was quite harsh and volatile. This however, is not to say that he shouldn’t have been as firm as he was in standing up for what is right and appealing to the papacy for a change in practice. Luther was a prophetic change agent in that he promoted the Bible over tradition. Without him who knows how might have progressed. Erasmus was another reformer but refused to break away from the Catholic church. His desire was to see reform happen within the church. Yet his emphasis was not on reforming the theology of the church, but the ‘praxis’–the ethics and practices of Christians within the church. Our reading pointed out that to him, theology was secondary to correct practices. This is quite obvious when you consider Erasmus’ views on the authority of scripture and Biblical interpretation. Despite seeing and frowning upon his support of backing away from a literal interpretation of scripture, I believe that we can consider his perspectives on the practices of Christians ‘God talk’ just as well. In Erasmus there is much that Seventh-day Adventists can contend with, yet I am curious to know just what it is that he promoted in his Christian ethics. Going back to the remnant discussion, I believe that those of the remnant are holding on to both solid Biblical theology and proper hermeneutics, as well as good practices as obedient Christians. And to add, what is theology if it is not applied? If someone in the institutional remnant abandons applied theology, they may hear ‘I never knew you’. If they abandon Christian ethics and practice, they may hear ‘In as much as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ The remnant of God applies their theology, and communicates it in a way which blesses others.
Response to Assignment # 1 posted by Nathan Hellman
I enjoyed reading your posting for assignment 1. I liked the balanced approach that you took in explaining the remnant church. Similar to you, I liked the presentation regarding “institutional” and “spiritual” remnant. I gained a better understanding of what we are really saying when we talk about "remnant" and how this plays out in a practical sense. Thanks for raising the question about the remnant church that eventually led to the class discussion on the subject. Also, I think that you did well summarizing and synthesizing the class lectures and discussions. - James W Dieujuste
James, your first posting entitled Posting 1–“Ritschl’s View of the Kingdom of God” is really simple and clear. I partially concur with Ritschl’s view of the Kingdom of God as “corporate state of life.” The Kingdom of God has really started with the first coming of Christ. However, if we support this view what would we tell some experimental theologians who believe that our love relationship with God is all matter for Christian life?
Response #1 Nathan Hellman"s comment. I do agree with you that as of now the Adventist church solely remains the "institutional remnant" due to the nature of our beginnings and the kind of message we carry to the whole world. Its a message that is wholistic and timely. I appreciate your connection to the recent concluded GC session in your comment whoose deliberations had an implication on "remnantism". I guess the challenge we have as a church is how to be the "Spiritual remnant"
Response #2 on James W's comment. I have enjoyed your discussion of the 'Kingdom of God'according to Albrecht. I was wondering what he thought about the 'physical kingdom'becasue he seems to imply that the kingdom of God is solely spiritual i.e moral excellency of God's people. Are we not waiting for the destruction of the present system and final reign of God? Your discussion is quite deep and enjoyable to follow. Look forward for more from you.
The perception of God in current trends theology How Christians perceive God has a profound influence on their daily lives. Our perceptions of God come mostly from our parents and our religious teachers who are devoted Christians. Their perceptions of God also reflect on how they treat us and others. For example, a fatherless child will never emotionally have a full picture of God as father. This child’s grand children will inherit the fatherless spirit of their grandparents. Therefore God’s perception may remain the same or change throughout the history an unprecedented scale of events. As far as history is concerned, human beings always want to comprehend God’s perceptions of reality. This desire gives impetus to the cause of several philosophical religious movements such as syllogisms, renaissance humanism, nomalism, and so on. Each of this movement had been handed down from generation to generation and had been received in faith by sincere true-seekers of God. The political subtext of syllogisms, renaissance humanism and nomalism had also risen up the ecclesiastical rank of catholic Christendom in history. Every nation wanted to profess catholic faith. As the syllogism argument makes it clear, if Rome was dubbed the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore, being a catholic nation will eventually count a nation as part of the Holy Roman Empire. Justo L. Gonzalez (1975) helps us to see that the ostensible goal of Spain joining the rank of catholic Christendom was to preserve the Catholicism but its real arm was to conserve its cultural roots. This kind of syllogism has been rooted to the Platonic philosophy. The real life or ideal life cannot be comprehended by concrete arguments in our materials world. Since we cannot comprehend it through our fragmented intelligence, we must rely to the established institution of God, Catholicism, for divine revelation. Every attempt is being made by the papacy to ensure that the works of syllogism are preserved for posterity. From syllogisms which basically advocated for mere pragmatic approach where the emphasis was on science studies, the renaissance humanism advanced that eloquence and clarity in writing will equip citizens to positively participate in the civic life of their community. In order to make the Catholicism viable, it was unfortunately necessary by the popes to spend money in it, “ The popes of the Renaissance felt compelled to bring together as much of the monetary resources of Europe as possible, in order to finance their patronage of the arts and their frequent wars and intrigues” (Gonzalez,1976, 17). The renaissance humanism contributed to the detriment of the Holy Roman Empire. The Popes began to lose prestige, honor, and respect in Europe, because they have been involved in nefarious activities such as taxations and indulgences which gave birth to nationalism-the sweeping force of Europe. The situation then is this now. The syllogisms under the premise of ultimate unity of things proclaimed that “the entire universe was a logical hierarchy of which the ecclesiastical and civil hierarchies were reflections” (ibid., 20). The renaissance humanism introduced the idea that the real world can live on through arts, life community, or experimental. The latter is a good augury for nomalism. The nomalism swept away the fundamental principle of the platonic view that separated the object from its form. For example, the Platonians would never say a bed. They would prefer talk about the form of bed, for what you see it is the real bed. The nomalisms went further to declare that the universals also cannot be understood through synthesis. They suggested new premises that created a complex logic for theological debate.
The perception of God in current trends theology How Christians perceive God has a profound influence on their daily lives. Our perceptions of God come mostly from our parents and our religious teachers who are devoted Christians. Their perceptions of God also reflect on how they treat us and others. For example, a fatherless child will never emotionally have a full picture of God as father. This child’s grand children will inherit the fatherless spirit of their grandparents. Therefore God’s perception may remain the same or change throughout the history an unprecedented scale of events. As far as history is concerned, human beings always want to comprehend God’s perceptions of reality. This desire gives impetus to the cause of several philosophical religious movements such as syllogisms, renaissance humanism, nomalism, and so on. Each of this movement had been handed down from generation to generation and had been received in faith by sincere true-seekers of God. The political subtext of syllogisms, renaissance humanism and nomalism had also risen up the ecclesiastical rank of catholic Christendom in history. Every nation wanted to profess catholic faith. As the syllogism argument makes it clear, if Rome was dubbed the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore, being a catholic nation will eventually count a nation as part of the Holy Roman Empire. Justo L. Gonzalez (1975) helps us to see that the ostensible goal of Spain joining the rank of catholic Christendom was to preserve the Catholicism but its real arm was to conserve its cultural roots. This kind of syllogism has been rooted to the Platonic philosophy. The real life or ideal life cannot be comprehended by concrete arguments in our materials world. Since we cannot comprehend it through our fragmented intelligence, we must rely to the established institution of God, Catholicism, for divine revelation. Every attempt is being made by the papacy to ensure that the works of syllogism are preserved for posterity. From syllogisms which basically advocated for mere pragmatic approach where the emphasis was on science studies, the renaissance humanism advanced that eloquence and clarity in writing will equip citizens to positively participate in the civic life of their community. In order to make the Catholicism viable, it was unfortunately necessary by the popes to spend money in it, “ The popes of the Renaissance felt compelled to bring together as much of the monetary resources of Europe as possible, in order to finance their patronage of the arts and their frequent wars and intrigues” (Gonzalez,1976, 17). The renaissance humanism contributed to the detriment of the Holy Roman Empire. The Popes began to lose prestige, honor, and respect in Europe, because they have been involved in nefarious activities such as taxations and indulgences which gave birth to nationalism-the sweeping force of Europe. The situation then is this now. The syllogisms under the premise of ultimate unity of things proclaimed that “the entire universe was a logical hierarchy of which the ecclesiastical and civil hierarchies were reflections” (ibid., 20). The renaissance humanism introduced the idea that the real world can live on through arts, life community, or experimental. The latter is a good augury for nomalism. The nomalism swept away the fundamental principle of the platonic view that separated the object from its form. For example, the Platonians would never say a bed. They would prefer talk about the form of bed, for what you see it is the real bed. The nomalisms went further to declare that the universals also cannot be understood through synthesis. They suggested new premises that created a complex logic for theological debate.
comment#1 History: Linear or Cyclical? In last week's class sessions on how history is percieved, I got interested on how important this topic is in the course of witnessing Jesus to people of other religions. A correct understanding of how people of other religions view history will automatically influence mission strategies and dynamics so as to be relevant. Its clear that the two views of history- cyclical and linear, are represented by the two major religions of the world. the cyclical view is represented by Hinduism from which other religions like Daoism, Shintoism and Buddhism spring out. The linear perspective is held by Christianity and Islam including the minor sects within them. Hinduism being a religion of reason, views everything as cyclical because we have winter-Spring-summer and back again to the same cycle. The sun rises from the East and sets to the West and back again. However the cutting point of the cycle nature of history for these religions is the belief in the transmigration of the soul which is the recycle of life from one nature to another depending on how one has lived in the previous life. And since there is no God in Hinduism because everything is god, life is continous until one reaches a state of nothingness- Nirvana. Its not by mistake then that the teaching of resurrection of the dead will be readilly accepted by these religions as a form of Nirvana and not a process in salvation. Could this be the reason why the Sadducees rejected the resurrection teaching? On the part of christianity, history is linear on the greater part because humans have a beginning when they come into existence. There is no pre-existence as the Eastern religions teach. The point of consideration is that there will not be a time one will never exist because of Jesus and His resurrection. For the believers there will be a resurrection which is not reincarnation because there will not be death again. For the unbelivers there will be death and no resurrection again. The Holy writings of these religions also emphasize the eschatological message when everything will be consumated and the end come. Its therefore vital for one to understand what people think of history before they witness.
Comment #1 Mercidieu Barionnette Pastor Ernst I really like the way you've elaborated on the perception of God in current trends theology as your project.
Parents play in an important role in the lives of the children. Getting them acquainted with God will highly protect their future. And also I agree with you when you've shown that church as the Representative of God can easily lose prestige and honor when getting in politics and compromise such as pope in Europe. Good job
Mercidieu Barionnette This first week has been a blessing and a wonderful experience by learning some key biblical principles that will help me to understand the Protestant Theological Heritage. The lecture and readings have facilitated me to comprehend God’s desire to communicate with human beings. He talks with us through revelation and prayer. In order to witness for Him, His revelation is indispensable. I learned that the Protestant Theology is a legacy and a work that the remnant church must keep on doing until the path of the righteous becomes brighter and brighter until the full light of the day.
In every generation God has men and women who represent Him. And not all of them understand God’s truth the same way. But each one of them was called to fulfill His mission. For instance, the work of the reformation did not happen by accident. Even centuries before it took place, God has worked through church, governments, leaders, politicians, philosophers and theologians to make them know that He is the sovereign God. Therefore, He is in charge of the history. He is watching the course of the events. Each one of the representatives was called to fulfill God’s plan in the field they were assigned to do so. In some extent, all of them are called God’s ministers. I discovered that the remnant church is a visible Church and a spiritual entity as well. This spiritual entity represents all believers who know God and have some relationship with Him but yet do not know all truth. God, in His mercy and His plan, has called this visible church (SDA Church) to represent the truth of His word so that all those who are out as the other sheep can become part of this fold, which is longing to be one flock, One Lord and one day. I also learned about different concepts such as the Sola scriptura, Sola Christus, Sola Fide and Sola Gracia that have ingrained in the work of reformation. But those concepts have not been developed and understood well by theologians. Tradition has impacted them greatly. Therefore, it is essential that one goes deeply in the scriptures to help God’s people understand them in a better way. It is a mission that needs to rely on the work of the Holy Spirit so that the interpretation may not be impregnated of our own philosophical understanding and reasoning. The concept heritage has a significant meaning for us as a remnant church. Yet, we must recognize also that we can not be exclusivist when it comes to the search of the truth. In the bible, God is the source of all truth; and He is our heritage. And the understanding of this concept can not be restricted, it must be extended as to have application to all God’s people of whom God speaks as follows” you will be unto me a kingdom of priest.”(Exod. 19: 6). Therefore, God has used other believers to share His truth. When it comes to the interpretation and understanding of His word, we do not have the monopoly of truth, wisdom and humility must cover us so that we can resemble like Jesus which is the chief cornerstone of the Church in whom all truth rotates. By doing so, the Holy Spirit will use us and will become more effective and efficient. Whatever we are doing and saying must be rooted in the God’s word. In sum, God does not change regardless time. His word does neither change nor history. History is the story that is dealing and leading God’s people through the past. There is nothing new under the sun. But yet, the Bible says for those who are in Christ, He will make all things new. That newness is not a new thing perse; but a new way of understanding truth when it comes to interpret the Bible. God is in control of the events in history. And He can take advantage of them to fulfill His purpose.
Thank you for your thoughtful review of what was learned last week. I appreciate the emphasis you placed upon the careful search of the scriptures and prayer for all of those who are God's people throughout history. We cannot rely solely on what was done in the past, but we must study and grow in our time. I also appreciated the notion of being humble as we do not have a monopoly of truth. Yes, Christ indeed is the one whom is the source of truth, so we must seek Him and find Him in the time that we have.
On Haron's post. Wow! Thank you Haron for tying these perspectives of history with mission. It is so important that we consider everything we learn in light of our mission! I appreciate your insights into the Eastern religions and the various challenges and benefits there are for those who witness to these people. We can be like Paul ministering to the Greeks by understanding the conceptions of epistemology and metaphysics within these cultures.
You stated it clearly that in every generation God has men and women to represent Him. I do concur with that statement. However, few of us believe that God only acts in the good side of history and we are dubbed the darkness moments,"The evil attack and the absence of God's presence." Therefore i would declare that God acts with dysfunctional and functional people to accomplish His prophetic mission in history.
"Right now the Seventh-day Adventist church is the only church which is holding fast to God’s commandments and the faith in Jesus."
I have observed other churches that love God and live according to his commandments as they understand them; they live fully according to what they know. How can we affirm the SDA understanding in a way that can't be misunderstood as elitism?
"The remnant of God applies their theology, and communicates it in a way which blesses others."
Nathan, I can't think of a more aptly stated way than your summation of the SDA church's mission. Oh, that we could learn to communicate in a way that blesses.
Ritschlian theology, by your description is not in agreement with the Catholic understanding of God's kingdom being the papal church. Would Ritschl disagree with the Adventist majority who say those who honor a 7th day Sabbath to be God's church?
I appreciate your careful, systematic approach (the internet is crowded with blogs that tend to allow underdeveloped thoughts to be instantaneously published, your post shows deliberate consideration).
What causes division for Christians, and more specifically, Adventists? Christ has called Christians to be separate from the world (Don’t be conformed to the world…Romans 12:2). A further layer of separation for Adventists is their interpretation of scripture which differs from the rest of Christendom. I would propose that neither of the aforementioned are the cause of division. The most salient idea for me was a statement made by Dr. Hanna on the first day of class. “Exclusive thinking leads to division.” How does exclusive thinking bring division? Adventists by written statement and by common practice identify themselves as the remnant, God’s specially chosen people. However within this remnant are multiple groups, perhaps better termed factions. These factions separate themselves from the larger Adventist community by their unique understandings. The validity of their formation is not diminished by criticism or critique but in actuality bolstered by this perceived “persecution” which is interpreted by their adherents as a sign of their correctness. Longevity is an issue for these factions as historically they unite not by common belief but their unity is generally the result of a shared disbelief of what the larger community of Adventists as a whole believes/does. They band, pseudo-bond, then after a short time begin to crumble. There is no end to the endless redaction of groups. These groups require a byzantine-type devotion that does not allow for variance. Uniformity is equated with unity. Moderation is seen as compromise, and duality is seen as “straddling the fence.” Exclusive thinking often takes the form of cultural bias, engendered stereotypes, and preconceived ideation that scripture has been maligned to match. Whereas God continues to enlarge his reach, scope, and kingdom, exclusivists tend to shrink, reduce, and constrict their groups. In the final part of chapter one, Gonzalez identifies Erasmus as being one of the last balanced and moderate reformers-thusly effective. The cause for this evaluation- he was conciliatory toward Protestants and Catholics, something that was rare in that time. These two groups are historically reactionary toward each other. This causes them to discount and ignore the valid points of their respective doctrines as a result of being intensely focused on what they view as errant theology. Again, exclusive thinking comes into play. The lack of consideration of God’s work in another group people leads to a loss of understanding. Exclusivists feel that by embracing the “wrong” group, they will embrace “wrong” thinking. Yet Augustine teaches the idea of semini verdi-seed of truth. God as the creator resides in all things as the creator of all things. So if we were to consider that Protestants and Catholics both have some correct thinking and embrace each other, it would not result in compromise but in a fuller understanding of God. I am not proposing that we adopt an incorrect picture, rather to obtain pieces of a picture of God and add them to the pieces we already posses to gain a better understanding. To cite an opposing individual as completely wrong does not presuppose you to be completely right.
If Adventist could move away from exclusive thinking it would allow them to express and exclusive message. The two have been confused. Adventists have confused the call to Christ with the call to serve him. They assume the latter means the former. This creates a false sense of superiority which only reinforces exclusive thinking.
PTH– Posting 2 –“Harnack’s Views of the Kingdom of God”
In my first posting, I discussed Albrecht Ritschl’s views on the kingdom of God. This week, I am writing on Adolf von Harnack, a Protestant theologian, who was influenced by Ritschl’s eschatological views on the kingdom of God. Harnack was a late nineteenth and early twentieth century German theologian who lived from 1851 to 1930. He wrote lectures published in 1900 under the title Wesen des Christentums (translated in English as What Is Christianity?). Harnack was a keen follower of Ritschl and held him in high esteem (A History of Christian Thought, p. 380-381). It is evident that Ritschl’s views lived on in the writings of Harnack although the latter adopted a more individualistic interpretation concerning the kingdom of God (The Kingdom of God in the Teachings Jesus in 20th Century Theology – p. 8).
In Harnack’s view, Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God has two poles (ibid., 11). On one hand, the coming kingdom is discussed as a purely future event and one that would bring about outwardly the dominion of God (ibid., 11). On the other hand, it is something operating inwardly in the individual and has its mark already in the present (ibid., 11). In Harnack’s estimation, the pole that highlights the point that the kingdom of God does not come with outward manifestations and is already present in the heart of the believer is the true position of Jesus (ibid., 11). For Harnack, “the kingdom of God comes by coming to the individual, by entering into his soul and laying hold of it” (What Is Christianity? – p. 56) God’s kingdom is the “rule of the holy God in the hearts of individuals” (What Is Christianity – p. 56). According to him, when one considers the parables discussing the kingdom of God, the conclusion must be made that it is not a “question of angels and devils, thrones and principalities, but of God and the soul, the soul and its God” (What Is Christianity p.56).
Harnack became concerned that the history of Christian thought had turned out to be a “process of increased Hellenization” in which the attention shifted from Jesus’ teachings to His person (A History of Christian Thought, p. 381). Consequently, he felt impelled to call Protestants away from the “dogmatic, liturgical, and ecclesiastical result of that process” and to, instead, return to Jesus’ original teaching (ibid., p. 381). He proposed the idea that Jesus’ teachings could be summed up in three main areas – the kingdom of God and its coming, God the Father and the infinite value of the human soul, and the higher righteousness and the commandment of love (ibid., p. 381). It becomes evident then that Ritschl’s influence and his own interpretation of Jesus’ teaching have both contributed to his espousal of some form of “realized eschatology.”
Harnack’s view of the infinite value of the human soul has made a significant impact on the modern day understanding of the concept of realized eschatology. It is one of the reasons why he maintained that the kingdom of God can penetrate and be realized in the life of the individual believer. C.H. Dodd is arguably the most well-known theologian who popularized the view of realized eschatology stemming from this individualistic interpretation of the kingdom of God. Dodd, a Welsh New Testament theologian, who lived from 1884 to 1973, was evidently influenced by Harnack. For Dodd, the kingdom of God, “in its full reality is not something which will happen after other things have happened. It is to which that men awake when this order of time and space no longer limits their vision” (The Parables of the Kingdom – p. 108). This teaching on realized eschatology being passed on from one theologian to the next continues to be a subject of debate and contention among scholars and biblical interpreters. The relationship between the in-breaking and consummation of the kingdom presents itself as a major challenge that needs to be studied under the leading of the Holy Spirit using a holistic approach to biblical hermeneutics. – James W. Dieujuste
Was Luther a voice of dissent in Catholic Church teaching about forgiveness of sins?
The progression of history provides us with good insights on how human perception of God influences the reality of lives. The worldview that we live at a certain time in history defines the way we live, talk, and act towards another. However, Erasmus teaches us though we might live in two disparate worldviews we have ourselves that God can raise us as model or agent of change for the sake of history. Contrary to Erasmus, Luther actively wants to jog the Catholic Church to a new Biblical principle of forgiveness that goes against the indulgence system. Erasmus and Luther fought for the same existed issue with different epistemological approaches. Erasmus adopted an ethical approach to tackle the political and social parameters that gave impetus to the spiritual abuse of indulgences. Luther himself precisely stated to Erasmus that ethic is only called for the good that exists inside of human, but ethic cannot resurrect our lives that are wrapped up in sin and worldliness. After posting his ninety five theses on the door of Wittenberg Castle Church, Luther was not worthy to live for the Catholic Church. His understanding of human condition provoked animosity towards the proponents of indulgences. He firmly believed that the just must only live by faith and no other beings hold the key of salvation except God.
This justification by faith teaching was not in favor of Johann Tetzel, Pope Leo X, Emperor Maximilain and other who enriched themselves from selling indulgences. In response to Luther, Johann Tetzel wrote two set of counter theses to address Luther’s ninety five theses. Now, Luther was forced to attend the disputation at Heidelberg at a meeting of the Augustinian chapter to defend his view. Though, his argument on justification by faith seemed to be pure sophistry several brothers accepted his view of attacking the indulgences. Perhaps, they saw more lights in it for nationalism. If the Roman Catholic authority is declined, Germany can also liberate from the authority of the church. As the Lutheran teaching about justification by faith began to spread, the Catholic Church still wanted Luther to recant and return to the heart of the church. Luther was not easy man that could be placated by promises. He stood up for what he believed though he cost him his life.
The issue of my posting is not about if he was right or wrong. I believe that Luther did what was best to bring that change to happen. He certainly could have done it other ways; perhaps he was trying to add some theological insight on the platonic view of God. God is up there, we cannot ascend to heaven (Plato). Luther’s response might follow this logic: I do accept that; He also did come to me through Jesus by sharing my sorrows, fear, pain, and anger. (Theology of the cross). Therefore, through the reality of cross I am powerless and sinful. I conclude from the history of his time that Luther understanding was to suggest a new Biblical- philosophical approach of justification by faith that exposed the nakedness of human being.
Response to Assignment # 1 Posted by Barionette Mercidieu
I liked how you described God’s providential work in bring about the Reformation. God indeed used a variety of individuals and circumstances to direct the path of His church. You make a good point in that we need to continue to study Scripture in order to properly understand the different “sola” phrases and how to explain them. Also, thanks for reminding us that we need to be humble about the truth we have and not be arrogant in our thinking. – James W. Dieujuste
Response to Assignment # 2 Posted by Zachary Juniper
You took a balanced approach in explaining the dangers of upholding an exclusivist mindset. I liked your statement noting that “exclusivists feel that by embracing the ‘wrong’ group, they will embrace ‘wrong’ thinking.” You make a good point in that we ought not to adopt or embrace false teachings but that we should integrate truths held by other groups and denominations as we allow God to work to increase our understanding. It is important that we move forward avoiding the types of mindsets that will be sure to create divisions in our midst. – James W. Dieujuste
Response to Assignment # 2 Posted by Ernst Jacques
You provided a good analysis of Luther’s position and what he sought to accomplish. You also contrasted well the different methods used by Luther and Erasmus in confronting the problems of their day. I liked how you compared Erasmus’ push for ethics in light of Luther’s view of the human condition. You provided a good synthesis in contrasting their respective approaches and theological views. – James W. Dieujuste
Mercidieu Barionnette Response to Assignment# 2 posted by James Dieujuste Dieujuste You've made some key points related to Albrecht Ritschl’s views on the "infinite value of the human soul, which has made a significant impact on the modern day understanding of the concept of realized eschatology." I believe his points on the importance of the eschatology can help us better to improve our relationship with God. I pray that God will continue to lead you while working hardly on your research. Mercidieu Barionnette
Response #1 on Ernst's comment on Luther I have read your comment and do appreciate your view of Luther's contribution to the debate of forgiveness of sins. You said at one point that his contribution towards the dabate of justification by faith was "pure sophistry". I think he was sincere.
Response 2# on Zachary's comment on Adventist. Your comment on 'factions within Adventism is good. As you elaborated our class discussions on the problem of exclusive thinking, i agree that it is one of those errors that we have carried all along which have built a barrier between us and those we are meant to reach. My suggestion is that we need a new wave of thinking and approach in our transactions as a church in order for us to be relevant. We seminarians probably need to be the first ones to bring such a change as we go out to be involved with the business of the church.
Mercidieu Barionnette Response to Zachary posting on" What causes division for Christians, and more specifically, Adventists?
Zachary I believe that your points are really right.Because "exclusive thinking leads to division" and it can even cause damage to souls who are looking for light for a better understanding of God's word. I believe that based on points our church needs a spiritual revolution which can help to understand its mission in this confused world. As you said " we are called to serve him,"which is Jesus.And by sharing with others and learning from them can help us to be more effective in presenting God's to this last generation.And I would add to it " not to be proud of what we have without living it because it may surprise us with our exclusive thinking." Good job Zachary, may God continue to lead you through your studies and research Mercidieu
Mercidieu Barionnette Response to Zachary posting on" What causes division for Christians, and more specifically, Adventists?
Zachary I believe that your points are really right.Because "exclusive thinking leads to division" and it can even cause damage to souls who are looking for light for a better understanding of God's word. I believe that based on points our church needs a spiritual revolution which can help to understand its mission in this confused world. As you said " we are called to serve him,"which is Jesus.And by sharing with others and learning from them can help us to be more effective in presenting God's to this last generation.And I would add to it " not to be proud of what we have without living it because it may surprise us with our exclusive thinking." Good job Zachary, may God continue to lead you through your studies and research Mercidieu
Mercidieu Barionnette Comment#1 Response to Haron Matwetwe on History of Cyclical or linear You've proved the understanding of the both concepts well. You are able to trace different religions such"as Hinduism from which other religions like Daoism, Shintoism and Buddhism spring out to the Christianity where the linear perspective is held and Islam including the minor sects within them in order to show the importance of both concepts." Besides professor Hanna's lectures, you've added something more which is really helpful. You've done a wonderful job. May God continue to shine your path through your studies Mercidieu
Comment#2Adventist and Anabaptist Liturgy contrasted In our weekly readings, I have come to realize that one of the tasks of the reformers and the reform movement theologians was to take the Church in a direction diametrically opposed to the Church of the middle Ages. The work of the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli completely altered the liturgy, abolished most of the church year, did away with the lectionary concept of Scripture reading, replacing it with a continuous reading of whole books of the Bible, destroyed the images and vestments in the churches, and kept as little ceremony as possible .The liturgical forms observed by the Anabaptists were an outcome of Zwingli’s reformations that rejected the excesses of the Roman catholic church. They were always simple and with a great deal of exhortation. As the text shows, more time in worship was dedicated to the reading of the word followed by a discussion of it by the congregation. There was less time of preaching or lecturing people as is the case in many worship services of today. The Adventist worship service theoretically follows this version of the Anabaptist where the reading and expounding of the word is the climax of the service. There however has been an infiltration of excessive activities prior to the reading of the word that makes the service full of activities and less of meditation as it were in the Anabaptist experience. For instance one observes a long list of announcements given followed by a humorous introduction of the platform managers before colorful and sarcastic elevation of the speaker. Then the speaker will take several minutes of responding, giving details of how the week was spent before preaching the word. By the time the sermon begins, in most cases people are tired and filled up with these activities that all that is remembered of the service is not what was preached but what happened. Ellen white gives a counsel similar to what the Anabaptist worship service looked like with its positive impact on the worshippers “There is much more preaching than there should be at our camp-meetings. This brings a heavy burden upon the ministers, and as a consequence much that requires attention is neglected. Many little things that open the door to serious evils are passed by unnoticed. The minister is robbed of physical strength, and deprived of the time he needs for meditation and prayer, in order to keep his own soul in the love of God. And when so many discourses are crowded in, one after another, the people have no time to appropriate what they hear. Their minds become confused, and the services seem to them tedious and wearisome”. {GW 407.2} “There should be less preaching, and more teaching. There are those who want more definite light than they receive from hearing the sermons. Some need a longer time than do others to understand the points presented. If the truth presented could be made a little plainer, they would see it and take hold of it, and it would be like a nail fastened in a sure place” [GW 407.3. “As we approach the end, I have seen that in these meetings there will be less preaching, and more Bible study. There will be little groups all over the grounds, with their Bibles in their hands, and different ones leading out in a free, conversational study of the Scriptures. [GW 407.488]. Are these counsels not worthy of consideration if we are to make our model of worship as simple as possible?
Mercidieu Barionnette Posting#2 This week has been a wonderful and blessed week in the process of learning and studying from past history in order to better represent God in a more positive way in this present generation. I learned a lot about the doctrine of predestination which is a complex and difficult subject. The reformers such as Calvin, Luther and Calvin and Zwingli were different lightly in their approach when it comes to the doctrine of predestination in some extent. They denied the freewill of man. God did not create us with the possibility and potentiality of free choice. As Calvin believed" Predestination is God's eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed to become of each man"( Christian thought, p.159). Luther, on his side, which is the focus of my research on" Luther's teachings on predestination: An Adventist Evaluation," who said that” freewill is downright lie"(A Study of Zwingli's Views on Predestination as Compared with Those Held by Luther and Calvin p.26). He believes that whatever we may do, it will be the result of God's decision. For he said "... we cannot in and of ourselves ignite in our hearts a firm belief in God. Therefore, we cannot of ourselves attain the faith that justifies, we can- and must- govern our various deeds according to the strength of the will that still remains in us"( Christian Thought, p108). The reformation in the sixtieth Century was supposed to be a legacy that leads to break out with the past not completely but by bringing some new light for the present history. However,Luther's understanding or teaching on predestination was deeply immersed in the Angustine's Theology, which was a heritage from platonic Philosophy. Someone said of Augustine "“It was through Platonism, or rather Neo-Platonism that he (Augustine) was led to more just and satisfying views, and through Platonism, along other influences, he was enabled at last to find peace in the bosom of the Catholic Church"( Samuel William Stovall, “ Predestination and Platonism,p 27). Or Luther was one of the admirers of Augustine in his theology like Calvin and Zwingli. His views on predestination are but a heritage received from Augustine. Both of them denied the freewill or liberty of action(Ibid). Luther used some example's in the bible to show that man does not possess freewill. He demonstrated that" God hardens pharaoh's heart to show His power and His strength." For him,He has mercy upon whomever he wills, in whomever He is well pleased from eternity and He hardens the heart of whomever he wills, which also was pleasing to him…(Hilton C. Oswald, ed. Luther's Work's Works: Lecture,p.82,83). Based on these sayings from Luther, I will examine them from biblical standpoints and the context of other texts such as Judas, Jacob and Esau to show that God's action to them was not arbitrary. In sum, Pharaoh was free to make a reasonable decision for himself and to avoid the ten plagues but he chose to do otherwise. The hardness of his heart was not a sequence of God's action but a consequence of his decision. An attempt of an Adventist evaluation based on the biblical principles will help us to determine whether Luther's teachings on predestination were based on the determinism or on biblical foundations. Mercidieu
I have found the chapter on the Anabaptists to be very fascinating. There are quite a few parallels between Anabaptists and Adventism, though one might not be able to draw a straight line connecting the two. I see the Anabaptists as a group of people who challenged the status quo of Christianity. This caused them to be largely unpopular. Infant baptism was the norm, and they challenged this because people needed to be able to make an honest decision for baptism and commitment to Christ. This idea is strongly connected to their rejecting of predestination, which had become a popular Protestant buzz word. I appreciate the notion of God yielding to us, and therefore we are presented with a choice to yield to Him if we are to become true Christians. Anabaptism can be related to Adventism on the basis of these fronts. Adventists have rejected the status quo of Sunday worship, and call for the observing of the Sabbath. Like the Anabaptist’s rejection of infant baptism, this has drawn a distinct line between Adventists and the Christian world at large. On top of this, Adventists take the Arminian view of conditional election. Like the Anabaptists, Adventists take their theology seriously, and to have God predestine sin is contrary to the benevolence of God. We held a discussion in class about the nature of God’s predestination in relationship to sin. God permits sin because he gives us free will. Yet he predestines all to election, an election we must choose to enter. If God brought sin into the world, if he was the causer of sin, then he no longer is seen as a loving God, but a malevolent creator. As I am studying Erasmus this term, I see a strong connection between the Anabaptists and Erasmus as well. Erasmus was largely concerned with the practicality of the Christian life over theology. Though the Anabaptists were thoughtful in their theology, they focused largely in the arena of Christian practice. I believe this is seen in their promotion of pacifism–a trait which Christ upheld as well. Adventism used to promote pacifism and conscientious objection just a decade or two ago, and it seems that these ideals are fading away with the North American cultural norm of combatancy. I admire the Anabaptists for their convictions and their courage to stick to them. It was because of this that they fell under such persecution. It seems that it is common today to avoid persecution; we are told to be careful, don’t stir up anything, and in turn we might see that we are lacking in courage. This of course is a generalization. There is one more parallel I would like to highlight in comparing Anabaptists to Adventism. It seems that after both movements got off the ground and became established, there were some off-shoot radicals whose extremism stained the reputations of these movements. Anabaptism had to deal with the ‘spiritualizing’ movement of it’s time, just as was found in early Adventism. Both of these movements had extremists spring out of them, largely due to those extremists finding a priority above scripture and Christian practice. May we be like the early Anabaptists– strong in our theology, yet gentle and meek like our Savior.
I think that Dr. Hanna's holistic model has been verry helpful to accurately approaching the myriad issues which spring out of PTH and Adventism. I appreciate your breakdown of what causes exclusive thinking among the adherents of our denomination. Your statement 'To cite an opposing individual as completely wrong does not presuppose you to be completely right', is really helpful and is one which teaches humility and a teachable spirit–two qualities which are poison to exclusivity.
Response to Haron Matwetwe from my posting on Luther's justification by faith
Haron, you have done an excellent job. I should not have said that Luther's theology on doctrine of justification was pure sophistry. I glad that you are helping me to think inclusive. What i really meant was that His view on doctrine justification was not fully developped. Though, his view was not well balanced some people bid to it for the sake of social reform. Thanks.
Response to PTH– James'Posting 2 –“Harnack’s Views of the Kingdom of God”
James, I like C.H Dodd. I even bought one of his book that cost $100 and it only has 144 pages. The book entitled, "C.H. Dodd according to the scriptures." He has done a fabulous on this book. He is comparing the Greek and Hebrews to see the full picture of scriptures. However, if you do not follow his logic he may deceive on the road. Reading your posting tells me that you really took time to examine his concept of the kingdom which is timeless thing. We only have to live on the story of the kingdom.
PTH– Posting # 3 “Heritage Received and Heritage Passed on”
The Roots of Dodd’s Views
C.H. Dodd popularized the view of realized eschatology stemming from an individualistic interpretation of the kingdom of God. Dodd, a Welsh New Testament theologian, who lived from 1884 to 1973, was evidently influenced by both Ritschl and Harnack. Their teachings infiltrated Dodd’s writings on the kingdom of God. Similar to Ritschl, Dodd places much emphasis on the work of the individual human being in building the kingdom. Similar to Harnack, Dodd argued that human beings can experience the joys of the promised kingdom by waking up to the realization of its reality in the individual life. Also, Harnack’s view of the infinite value of the human soul has made a significant impact on the modern day understanding of the concept of realized eschatology. It is one of the reasons why Dodd maintained that the kingdom of God can be realized in the life of the individual believer. For Dodd, the kingdom of God, “in its full reality is not something which will happen after other things have happened. It is to which that men awake when this order of time and space no longer limits their vision” (Parables of the Kingdom – p. 108). This teaching on realized eschatology being passed on from one theologian to the next continues to be a subject of debate and contention among scholars and biblical interpreters. The relationship between the in-breaking and consummation of the kingdom presents itself as a major challenge to scholars and needs to be studied using holistic approach to biblical hermeneutics.
Dodd’s Positive Contributions
In terms of positive contribution, Dodd has done well highlighting the significance of Jesus’ work on earth establishing the kingdom of God. Dodd is widely known for having coined the term “realized eschatology” to promulgate the idea that Jesus’ ministry on earth served as evidence that God’s kingdom had already come. Dodd declares that “history is henceforth qualitatively different from what it was before Christ’s coming” (Apostolic Preaching – p. 88). He places great emphasis on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (A Theological Analysis and Evaluation of the Realized Eschatology of C.H. Dodd – p. 340). In that sense, it can be said that Jesus, through His incarnational ministry, has inaugurated the kingdom of God. Though Dodd’s assessments about the consummation of the kingdom are contradictory to Scripture, he does contribute to our understanding in that Jesus’ work on earth has “realized” a monumental step in the establishment process of the kingdom. Though his teachings on “realized eschatology” are controversial and on many levels stand opposite to the biblical picture of salvation, there is an element of truth in them. When the term “realized eschatology” is used to point to the in-breaking of the kingdom that had already taken place through Jesus, then its definition would be in harmony with biblical teachings. It would then be accurate to say that the promise to establish the kingdom was in the process of being “realized” in Jesus during His First Advent. As the King of kings, Jesus has already paved the way for the in-breaking of the promised kingdom. Thus, in the “already but not yet” aspect of the kingdom, Dodd has made a positive contribution in emphasizing the “already” portion of the biblical picture of salvation. Hence, only in that sense, it can be accurately said that interpreters cannot “read the Gospels without recognizing the amount of realized eschatology present in them” (Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology – p. 340). However, when the term “realized eschatology” is used to deny the future consummation of the kingdom and the glorious events associated with it, then it its use becomes incongruent with Scripture. – James W. Dieujuste
Lutheranism and Adventism view on justification by faith
George Santayana in dialogues in limbo (1926) states that “Religion in its humility restores man to his only dignity, the courage to live by grace.” If Georges is right, we need a religion that promotes the value of humility in the believers. The Lutheranism tried to establish such religion through the doctrine of justification by faith. They undermined the Catholic indulgence doctrine in supporting the biblical view that the just shall live by faith (Ro. 1:17, Hab. 2: 4). They protested that only God has the power to forgive sins. Therefore, the obedient saving-faith of Jesus-Christ is more powerful than the catholically priesthood system. Hence, the great reformer Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church and became heretic. At his time, his view was right because there was a need of ethical-spiritual reform within the church. Erasmus felt the need, but he was more moderate than Luther. The question is do we always need a Luther to begin a reform or do we need an Erasmus to start it and a Luther to finish it? Or do we need an activist and pacifist to have a complete reform?
We may not want to answer these questions. The fact is our Seventh-day movement started the same way. We have William Miller and others who were devoted men to scriptures. Suddenly, they felt the need to start a spiritual reform to pave the way for the second coming of Jesus. They sold all of their belongings. Unfortunately, they experienced a spiritual disappointment. When Snow and others like Joseph bates began to re-examine the scriptures, they found that there was a mistake in the interpretation. William Miller did not understand that Christ will have to move from Holy Place to the Most Holy Place. They corrected William’s Miller view. Now Ellen G. White came into the picture and encouraged them to still have faith of Christ, but also to faith in His teaching, Rev. 14:12 “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” This word of encouragement strengthened the faith of the early Sabbath keeping church. They saw the need to live their Christian faith in Jesus. In order words, we are not given the task to finish the work. We only have to cooperate with Christ to finish it.
What do Lutheranism and Adventism teach us about reform? I think that reform should not be based on personal interpretation of the Bible. A balanced reform will take into the consideration the people lives and the biblical point of view. We might have some excitement points that can contribute to spiritual reform, but your points do not give you the authority to create confusion. Furthermore, the true reformer should overcome the spirit of anger and frustration that were built in his heart by the existence regime.
I think that you made some great points in your last posting on Adventist and Anabaptist liturgy. I agree that we need to dedicate more time in our worship services reading Scripture. Oftentimes, we don’t place sufficient emphasis on reading the Word of God. Our reading of Scripture, sometimes, becomes a routine activity in the midst of a flurry of other activities. You are right in that more “conversational study of the Scriptures” is needed in our churches. It also true that we need to establish small groups whereby people can fellowship and further study the Word. As you pointed out, unless we move in this direction, we will end up missing the real reason why we worship. - James W. Dieujuste
As Adventists we look forward to the literal and soon return of Jesus Christ. Given this hope, we look forward to the “Day of the Lord.” However, the false teachings of “realized eschatology” have denied this Second Advent hope in describing the Day of the Lord as “timeless.” In the writings of Dodd, the description of the Day of the Lord stands in contrast with the true biblical teaching. In reference to the Day of the Lord, Dodd says “that which cannot be experienced in history is symbolized by the picture of a coming event, and its timeless quality is expressed as pure simultaneity in time-‘as the lightning flashes’” (The Parables of the Kingdom, p. 108). As seen in this statement, Dodd describes the Day of the Lord in symbolic terms. He categorizes it as timeless and argues that it cannot be experienced in history. Hence, he spiritualizes it and classifies it as an activity belonging to the “eternal order.” However, in looking at the biblical description, a different picture emerges. In Scripture, the “Day of the Lord” concept refers to eschatological events that can be traced back to Old Testament authors. In several instances in the Old Testament, this term is used to refer to a distant future, which, in essence, will mark the last chapter of earth’s history. For instance, the prophet Zechariah makes reference to the Day of the Lord alluding to the atmosphere of celebration that will accompany it. Zechariah writes about the day of the Lord in glorious terms proclaiming that “the Lord shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be— ‘The Lord is one,’ and His name one” (Zech 14:9). It is evident that the day of the Lord in Zechariah has implications about salvation and points forward to a future time of blessing (The Day of the Lord in Zephaniah,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 152, no. 605 (Ja-Mr 1995): 16).
Similar to the Old Testament, the New Testament points to the Day of the Lord as an entirely future event when those who are redeemed will inherit God’s kingdom. For instance, Paul says “now I trust you will understand, even to the end as also you have understood us in part, that we are your boast as you also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus” (2 Cor. 1:13-14). Here, Paul mirrors the writings of Zechariah in proclaiming the eschatological Day of the Lord as a particular time when the redeemed will rejoice. Hence, the Day of the Lord is not described as timeless but as a specific event that will take place at a particular point in time.
The Need for the Created Cosmos to give way to the Coming Kingdom
In Matthew 24:35, Jesus says “heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” Jesus uses the term “pass away” to indicate that the created cosmos (both heaven and earth) will indeed come to a definite end. Hence, the created cosmos will necessarily suffer death. When Paul, in Romans 6:23, declares that “the wages of sin is death,” he is not simply referring to sin’s deadly consequence for the individual, but he is also showing the implications that sin has on the entire created cosmos. In the same way that sin necessarily results in the death of the individual, it must also warrant the death of the created cosmos. That’s why, in Revelation 21:1, John says “then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.” Thus, the popular concept of “realized eschatology” is misguided in that it incorrectly spiritualizes the meaning of the coming kingdom. The full establishment of the promised kingdom will only come about after the created cosmos passes away. Hence, kingdom of God will not be fully realized until after the present created cosmos experiences death. After this takes place, then, the redeemed will go on living with God for all eternity – James W. Dieujuste
I enjoyed reading your evaluation of Luther’s views on freewill and predestination. I also liked how you compared his views with those of Augustine. It’s useful to make connections when studying history. You have shown well how the Protestant theological heritage was passed on from one theologian to another. This means that as we adopt a particular heritage we need to be careful that it’s one that’s in line with Scripture. – James W. Dieujuste
A response to Ernst on Luther. I really appreciate your succinct perspective on the issues Luther and Erasmus faced regarding their frustration with the church. I am curious as to what you meant by 'it cost him his life'. From what I understand, Luther died in his bed in his later years. I really like your perspective on Luther advocating a new Biblical-philosophical approach. It was one that was greatly needed and brought the realization that we all are judged equally at the cross.
Response to Haron on Adventist and Anabaptist Liturgy. I think that your points and observations are accurate, and worthy of our assessment. I appreciate the accurate depiction of our worship service. It does seem that our announcements and humorizing take up quite a bit of time that could be used in other ways. I think that we need to take a serious look at the way we do things and consider other constructive means of communicating our announcements and our message. I think joking around has to do with being 'real' and light-hearted. I don't have an answer or solution to this, but that we do take EGW's counsel to heart, and employ the body in creating effective means of communication.
It's very helpful to consider the hellenized heritage that was passed down even through the reformation. I appreciate you giving the accurate perspectives of Luther's predestinarian theology. I also like how you responded to his conclusions in a Biblically oriented way, without the Platonic influence in the hermeneutics. Thinking of Dr. Hanna's holistic approach, we might consider there being deterministic elements in the Pharaoh story. He hardened his own heart, which determined his actions and judgement.
Ernst on Lutheranism and Adventism view on justification by faith.
Thank you for making those parallels between the Adventist movement, and the Reformation. I really appreciate your perspectives and wise counsel on reform. I think that we are all reformers in this movement, and you put it well when you aptly said "the true reformer should overcome the spirit of anger and frustration that were built in his heart by the existence regime". This is so important. It seems that there is a bitterness at the polar ends, and that we need to consider working toward reform in harmony, rather than in disarray. But what do we do when someone comes in the spirit of Luther? Do we kick them out of the church, or work with them toward finding a Biblical perspective?
Thank you for wrestling with these issues on timelessness! What kind of hope would we have if we spiritualized our eschatology? What kind of hope would we offer this sin-burdened world? I appreciate your thorough research and Biblical exegesis on these issues.
You made several good points in your posting on the Anabaptists. You highlighted well some of the parallels that exist between Adventists and Anabaptists. You are right that Adventists reject the status quo when it is called for us to do so. It is true we take our theology seriously. Also, you make a good point in that our view on predestination affects our view of God. I rejoice knowing that God does not predestine anyone to perish but that He has instead made it possible for all to have eternal life. – James W. Dieujuste
Your posting on Lutheranism and Adventism was very clear. I like how you compared and contrasted Luther’s role in the Reformation with that of Erasmus. Your question on whether we always "need a Luther to begin a reform or do we need an Erasmus to start it and a Luther to finish it” is a good one. Thinking holistically, my response is that we may need both. In some instances, we need a Luther when a radical shift needs to happen. In other instances, we could use an Erasmus when a more moderate voice will prove to be more effective. Also, I enjoyed the parallel that you made between some of the Reformers and the early Adventists. I agree with you that reforms are also needed in our day. We definitely need God's Spirit in order for them to take place. – James W. Dieujuste
Response #1 on James' comment on 'blessed Assurance' your topic is one of my favourite themes of the Bible. Yes the day of the Lord will be literal and the present has to give way for the Kingdom of God to be established. You traced the Old and New Testament picture of that day and just like you, i do agree that its a blessed assurance.
Response #2 on Nathan's comment on Anabaptist and Adventism. Your comparions on the two religious movement is excellent. You have been able to connect the beginnings and strong positions against the status quo of these two in a very clear way. As for the off shoots which stemmed out, I take the words of E.White that whenever God has done His work, the evil one also gets in to bring counterworks. Good job Nathan.
comment #3 Liberal or Conservative Adventism: what do you think? The terms 'liberal' and ‘conservative’ are words that are continually used within our culture and have taken on meanings that can't be ignored even within our church. Following the class discussions we have had regarding protestant reformation and its development, I tend to believe that the conservative and liberal perspectives are worldviews that arise unintentionally. I think a healthy society needs both. I don't think they can be combined into one viewpoint that makes everyone happy. I don't think that was God's intention. He created us with diversity. I think a truly useful education introduces students to alternative perspectives so that even when the 'other' is not their own, they can respect it as honest. Most denominations cater for either a liberal or conservative frame of mind. Unless a denomination is very intentionally vocal about why both ways of 'seeing' are biblically and spiritually essential and consistently work to provide space and voice to both, eventually sometimes denominations naturally grow towards one pole or the other, filtering out the 'opposition'. In my opinion, a denomination that does not actively work to accept folks from both sides of the worldviews ceases to be a healthfully balanced place for spiritual development. Though such denominations will prosper simply because there will continually be folks of similar feathers to appeal to, these will be denominations that will unceasingly lose their adherents. Regardless of parental and denominational leanings, people are born with alternative frames of mind that don't fit in. A conservative perspective tends to hold on to what has been and is. They tend to be gate-keepers. That doesn't mean change doesn't occur, but the changes are accepted only as they conform to a clear set of founding notions. A liberal mind is usually not limited to only the past set of beliefs, being open to new ways of thinking about just anything. If a denomination was built on the Bible and the Bible only, reform movements can at least speak from and appeal to a similarly cherished language and set of guiding principles. Unfortunately, even thus, we are interpretive beings and a common book doesn't guarantee a common interpretation. If a denomination was formed on the beliefs of a person or group of people with an agenda, any attempts to reform beliefs either result in the demise of the whole denomination or will be rendered ineffective. Appeals for change can only appeal to the most cherished voices within that denomination. As for Adventism, the reality is we will always view things differently. Diversity is not only limited to dressing, food or geography. It includes thinking. We just have to accept the other side and learn to cope up.
Mercidieu Barionnette Response 3# on Haron Matwetwe on Liberal or conservative Adventism. I really like the way you've made the difference between liberal and conservative thoughts. Any society needs both as you said. As christian believers, we need to learn from them in order to embellish our thinking and be able to make a good judgment Mercidieu
Past. Hellman Your few parallels between Anabaptists and Adventists are really interesting. They are clear stated. They enlightened my thoughts in a more positive way.
Response to Haron: Liberal and Conservative adventists.
"I think a healthy society needs both. I don't think they can be combined into one viewpoint that makes everyone happy." That is a powerful model for holistic thinking. Back in the days, the modern world used knowledge to manipulate or scare people. One example, people used big words to impress their listeners. Now, this informative age tells us that all human beings have reason whether educated or so-called ignorant.
Therefore, knowledge is to stimulate deep thinking not to humiliate. The bible supports that model in the book of Isaiah, "come and reason with me.." In other words, come with you reasoning argument to convince my Divine power. This also tells us that the Bible is in favor of constructive dialogue rather divisive dialogue. God wants us to seek agreement in the midst of disagreeable issues.
Therefore Haron i agree with you that we need liberal and conservative Adventists in the church to glimpse at the functional model of trinity.
"Therefore, we cannot of ourselves attain the faith that justifies, we can- and must- govern our various deeds according to the strength of the will that still remains in us( Christian Thought, p108)."
That is strong statement. If we cannot attain the faith that is justified, how can we be justified? The answer of this question would be from Lutheranism we are justified by faith. But what is faith? Is it a gift for humanity or a gift for a group of selected people?
Mercidieu, thank you for opening my eyes on this statement.
Nathan, i meant that Luther lost his prestigious academic position in the Catholic church for the sake of this reform. He was excommunicated or his teaching credential was removed from the church. Why did Luther never think of his social and religious standard in the catholic church?
I am not saying that a good reformer must neglect the reality of life.
However, Luther taught me that it is hard to keep silence when God is moving you in a direction. The question is how do you move? Some people move with the speed of a car and others with the speed of light.
Throughout this session, in my studies I see a recurring theme in the reformers of emphasizing Christian practice over theology. Certain groups and individuals grew tired of the coldness of theologizing and called for a revitalization in the Christian life–the tangible, day to day practices of those who hold to Christian truth. I can’t help but see this struggle today in Adventism. It seems that we have done very well to emphasize right belief and proper hermeneutical principals and exegesis, but we haven’t done well at communicating and embodying a ‘Christian piety’ that can be demonstrated in a day to day, moment by moment basis. Thinking again back to Erasmus of Rotterdam, here was an individual who had grown tired of the bland, external, liturgical practices of the Catholic church, and called for a renewal in the personal life of the Christian. Yet in his emphasis, we see his clear communication of the ‘both...and...’ which we have learned about this session. He doesn’t call for us to do away with proper theology, in fact he emphasizes it. He does, however, emphasize the practicality of the Christian life springing from the transformed heart. The basis of his faith ethic is grounded in the belief that Christ is redeemer, and that the external actions of our lives should reflect the inner presence of God. If they are not reflective of God (which happens because of our sinfulness), then we need to strive (yes, even work) toward cultivating our intimacy with God so that the deeds we do accurately emphasize and lift up Christ. It is where orthodoxy and liturgy conflict with, or become ends to the Christian life that he claims is the source of many problems. Looking at the chapter on ‘New Awakenings in Personal Piety’, we find quite a few groups who react to the fact that they received the cold orthodoxy of those before them, and wanted more than just objective truth, but rather a subjective, vibrant Christian experience. Philipp Jacob Spener’s six ‘pious desires’ are a contribution in this direction. In them he communicated the importance of a personal faith, which also contributes to how we handle theological disputes when they arise. Currently, we talk much about our ‘relationship with God’, and how we need it, but it seems that we would do well to provide opportunities and teachings on how we can cultivate that relationship even beyond the Sabbath hours. In the 17th century, many of the groups which emphasized personal piety also endorsed the meeting together on a regular basis for the purpose of studying scripture and applying it to the daily life. Methodism sprung from this ideal, and John Wesley communicated his ‘methods’ of personal piety to the masses. It seems that as we consider our roots in Methodism, we can look over the course of recent Adventist history and see how we have drifted from providing ample opportunities for discipleship and personal piety to that of theologizing. Once again, this does not mean we should abandon theology, but we truly need to think about whether or not this legacy carries the ‘coldness’ of the orthodoxies of the past. Perhaps all of this is due to the theological crises which have arisen over the past few decades. Due to these crises we have come out of them with stronger theology, but I wonder about our ecclesiology. How can our church provide the masses of this generation with a vibrant, living faith reminiscent of the piety of the past?
Is it possible for tradition to stay unchanged within a culture? This was a question raised in our last class together, and has been a source of my pondering over the past few days. Is there anything that is unchanged when it passes through a culture? Theology? Tradition? Practice? Through the observations I have made in my Christian experience and in the lectures and readings in this class, I have to respond with a resounding NO. The chapter that stands out in embodying this response of mine is the chapter on the reformation in Great Britain. Here is a culture which has a legacy of it’s own, and we see the incredible changes which happen to theology, tradition, and practice within the turbulent days of it’s reformation. It seems that the responses of those in influence and the responses of the laity are key factors in these changes within a culture. The reformation came at a time when King Henri VIII (perhaps one of the most influential man in England, this due to his rule of course) was dealing with personal problems. We see theology in England take as much of a turbulent ride as the King himself. With his reactions against the pope, Henry produced his own ‘rule of faith’ for the land of England. Politics and dysfunction play a part in theology, tradition, and practice, when Christianity functions at the governmental level. It is amazing to see how the faith of a nation changes from one regime to another in England. Henry got rid of monasteries to support and enforce his Act of Supremacy. Henry reacted against both Catholics and Protestants alike in establishing the Anglican religion of the kingdom. After his death we see the shifts go to and fro trying to articulate the Anglican religion amongst Catholic and Protestant beliefs as well. The supremacy of England’s church had to deal with the supremacy of the Roman Catholic church during the inquisition, yet it still came away establishing itself in distinction. Here we find the theology, traditions, and practices of 3 distinct movements taking different routes as they pass through a particular culture. This even happens within these traditions with different radical movements sprouting up articulating themselves in the micro-cultures within a culture. How far does the rabbit hole go? Think of the theology, traditions, and practices that you inherit from either your family or your church. What are we doing with these things? It seems that the proper thing to do when it comes to these 3 realms is not assertion for assertion’s sake, but rather we test and try these things against the word of God and the practices of Jesus Christ. Is there anything about our inherited personal traditions and practices which are in conflict to God’s will as communicated through scripture? How much of our traditions are emphasized above and beyond practices outlined in scripture that are not taking place? What changes are we bringing to the landscape of our traditions? Are we promoting an entrenchment just for the sake of establishing self, or are we communicating the love of Christ in the way we employ our theology, tradition, and practices? Are there traditions we cling to which we would be better off without? Are there traditions which we need to adopt? These I believe are the questions we need to ask ourselves.
Response #4 Hellman's comment on Traditions. I have followed your comment on whether anything remain the same once it passes through traditions. As we discussed in class, i agree that ideas become distorted with time and cultural impacts issues. Its the very reason probably why we study ancient languages to understand what biblical writers meant because traditions or cultures have changed. Your comment is deep with research and quite clear.
Response #4 Nathan's comment on practice over theology. Here is your other wonderful insight on what really matters- practice over religion. I have enjoyed your comment as you began from where the class started. This is real what matters though we cannot downplay the importance of correct theology. We can have great piety just as the catholic church was before reformation, based on wrong theology and that does not make things okay. I do agree that Religion has to be practical. otherwise it would be like a gong making noise!You made me remember the sermon on the mountain Thanks Nathan
Mercidieu Barionnette Posting # 4 This is the last part of my research paper on Luther's teachings: An Adventist Evaluation. This section is about the Luther's view on Jacob and Esau whom He considered that God chose to love Jacob and to hate Esau when He says”… yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau... (Mal. 1:3)" Luther believed that God has preference over them. He also believed that Jacob was predestined to be loved before he was born (Romans 9:11-13). By considering the context of those texts God did not predestine to love Jacob and to hate Esau. Luther recognized that “to interpret any given text is to place it under the light of its context so that we might discover what the author’s intention is. The bible must be its own interpreter and the exegesis of the whole passage must be done as well under the influence of the Holy Spirit" (Justo L. Gonzalez, A history of Christian thought.. p. 50). But yet, he did not keep on what he said. He did not consider the exegetical context of these passages. The sentences were read” I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau “(Mal 1:1-2, Romans 9:13). According to the text, it seems that God hates Esau and loves Jacob as it is stated. but both of the sentences were used in Hebrew “the perfect tense to illustrate the completed action of God in the past and His continuous action in the future as well. God has previously announced His love for Israel as the only reason for choosing her (Deut. 7:7; 10:18, Hos. 11:1) and that He continued to love her even in her present apostasy"(Loyd J. Ogilvie, the Communicators Commentary: Michah- Malachi, p. 440). But this hatred is not related to the person being but rather to the act committed. God hates “hypocritical worship, evils, pride, lying, evil imaginations, false witnessing and stirring up dissension among brethren” (Ibid). Paul and Malachi quoted the book of Genesis in order to illustrate their position that “the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works, but of Him that Called” (The pulpit Commentary: Amos to Malachi, Vo14, p, 1). The mystery of divine election is that even before Jacob’s birth, the chosen one, and Esau, the elder, was to serve the younger. Nevertheless, Esau was hatred because God foresaw his unworthiness and Jacob was beloved owing to his foreseen piety and faithfulness (Ibid). Prophet Malachi mentioned the sins of the two nations such as Edom and Israel (Mal 1: 1-4). However, he is not speaking of the predestination of the one brother and the reprobation of the other; he is contrasting the histories of the two peoples by them. Both nations sinned; both are punished; but Israel by God’s free mercy was forgiven and restored, while Edom was left in the misery which it had brought upon itself by its own iniquity (Ibid). Jacob passed from a deceiver to Israel as the representative or the conqueror (Gen 32: 24-28). Esau, on his side, became” a profane person and he did not do what is right and put himself outside of the divine favor (Heb 12: 16, 17) (Seventh Day Adventist Bible Commentary vol 4: Isaiah to Malachi, p, 1125). His choice determines his destiny. God does not discriminate people neither does He have favoritism (Acts 10:34). God’s divine favor did not come to Israel because of birth but because of character (Ibid., 1124). Although Israel was chosen but this choice did not make them a special people who would take everything for granted because they were elected. No, their disobedience led God to turn towards other nations not to reject Israel perse but rather they might repent and come back to God. Both Gentiles and Jews may continue to fulfill God’s Mission (Romans 11: 1-22). In sum, Luther did not take the story of Jacob and Esau in the context. He did not follow the exegetical work as he claimed it to be. He was not often consistent with what he said. We must respect the context of every text otherwise we will misinterpret it. God never makes distinction between us.He may hate what we are doing but He loves us eternally.
Mercidieu Barionnette Response to posting 4 James Dieujuste
Hello pastor James Your points contrasting what Dodd said regarding the " the day of Lord" are well grounded in the bible. These encourage us to study God's word in its context otherwise we may misinterpret it. Good job Mercidieu Barionnette
Mercidieu Barionnette Response 4 to Nathan Hellman Hello Pastor Nathan, I really like the way you describe and contrast the work of Erasmus and that of the Adventist. As you said " it seems that we have done very well to emphasize right belief and proper hermeneutical principals and exegesis, but we haven’t done well at communicating and embodying a ‘Christian piety’ that can be demonstrated in a day to day, moment by moment basis. I believe it is one of the things that we need to work on it seriously. By studying history,I believe that change can occur through the time. Wonderful job pastor Mercidieu Barionnette
‘The just shall live by faith’ This phrase crossed my mind all along during the class of protestant heritage because it has come to be the highest point of Luther’s departure from the Catholic Church. In trying to get some biblical explanation I realize its significant usage in the New and Old Testament. Hab 2:4 "Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith." (NKJ) Habakkuk 2:4 is one of the greatest declarations of faith to be found in the entire Bible. It presents a contrast between those who are arrogantly rebellious, and those who are humbly submissive. It reveals the striking difference between the proud and the just man. The future belongs to the righteous, while the wicked have no future. Wickedness carries with it the seeds of its own destruction. In this immediate context, the pride of the Babylonians would be their downfall, while the faithfulness of the righteous will be their salvation. Habakkuk says the Babylonians are self-centered and therefore doomed; the righteous are God-centered and therefore triumphant (Dan 4:30-32). In other words, the righteous man trusts, not in himself, but in God. His faith is directed upward, not inward -the ability to accept as reality what one cannot fully understand. The one who trusts in God is not troubled by the troubles of life. A. Romans Stresses "The Just" Rom 1:16-17 for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." (NKJ) Romans highlight the idea of righteousness. The just shall live by faith. The Bible reveals the righteous character of God, and the conditions on which man can be judged righteous by God. In order to be accepted, we must pattern our lives according to the righteous picture of God that is revealed on the pages of Scripture. By pursuing God's righteousness, we can develop personal integrity, virtue and purity of life (Rom 6:11-18). B. Hebrews Stresses "Shall Live" Heb 10:36-39 “For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: 37 "For yet a little while, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, my soul has no pleasure in him." 39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. (NKJ) Hebrews highlights the idea that faith is for the long haul (Heb 10:36-39). The just shall live by faith. Faith is not a singular event, confined to a distinct point in time and space; rather, it is a way of living. Those who have good and honest hearts bear fruit with patience (Luke 8:15). Eternal life belongs to those who patiently continue in doing good (Rom 2:7). We must run the race with patient endurance (Heb 12:1-2). C. Galatians Stresses "By Faith" Gal 3:10-12 for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them. Galatians highlights the idea of trusting in God rather than trusting in self. The just shall live by faith. For a person to reach heaven based on their own doing, they must never commit a single sin. However, no one except Jesus can approach God on this basis. Therefore, we must trust in God and in Christ rather than in self.
64 comments:
PTH – Posting 1–“Ritschl’s View of the Kingdom of God”
In my weekly reflection papers, I plan to discuss the views of four theologians discussed in our textbook as they relate to the area of eschatology. Each week I will focus on the thought and teachings of one of these theologians. I also plan to discuss the views of these individuals in my term paper. Hence, there will be some overlap between the blog postings and my research project.
This week, I am starting with Albrecht Ritschl, a German theologian, who lived from 1822 to 1889. Ritschl’s writings on eschatology, the kingdom of God, in particular, continue to impact Christian thought today. For Ritschl, the kingdom of God is not a “supernatural order that will come about through an intervention from on high at some future time” (A History of Christian Thought – p. 376). Rather, the kingdom is the new order that Jesus Himself started (ibid., 376). In his view, Jesus’ personal vocation and ministry constitutes the dawn of the kingdom (ibid., 376). In essence, the kingdom can be described as a “corporate state of life” in which people express loving and free mutual service toward one another (ibid., 376).
In Ritschl’s thought, the kingdom of God is to be understood as the achievement of a moral ethic in this world. The kingdom centers on “vocational ethic, on the need to live in a world which can be changed by the activity of love” (Kingdom of God and Human Society –p. 148). This ethic, in turns, allows for world-transforming possibilities (ibid., 148). This view allows for a transformation of the present world centered on morality. (ibid., 148). Thus, his theology is in contrast to the other-worldly “ascetic ethic” pietists who cut themselves off from the rest of the world (ibid., 148).
The Enlightenment’s view of the superiority and purity of Christian ethic has largely influenced his thinking on what constitutes the coming kingdom (An Introduction to Theology of Albrecht Ritschl – p. 177). It, thus, can be argued that his theology follow the Enlightenment’s humanistic and evolutionary concepts of the kingdom of God (ibid., 176). He regards the kingdom of God as independent of authoritative forms (The Ritschlian Theology p. 335). He, thus, rejects the Roman Catholic view that identifies God’s kingdom with the papal church (ibid., 335). A collective and mutual act of love by individuals who rightly engage in their personal vocation brings about the establishment of the kingdom. Thus, in explaining how the kingdom of God is manifested, he points to the idea of individual fidelity in the area of vocation. For him, the kingdom of God is realized as a moral ideal that comes about through faithfulness in one’s personal vocation (ibid., 366). Given this line of thought, he makes the following statement:“those who believe in Christ are the kingdom of God, in so far as they, regardless of the differences of sex, calling, or people, act mutually from love, and so produce the community of moral dispositions and moral goods which extends in all possible degrees to the limits of the human race” (The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation – p. 271).
In sum, the idea of the kingdom of God is to be viewed as an achieved moral ideal in this world stands in contrast with Scripture. Though Scripture points to the in-breaking of God’s kingdom in this world as a present reality, it doesn’t speak of it being established or consummated in same the manner espoused by Ritschl. For instance, on one occasion, Jesus says "the kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:20-21). On another occasion, He declares, “for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:17:18). A holistic approach helps us understand how Jesus can speak of the in-breaking of the kingdom and at the same time not say that it has already been established. – James W. Dieujuste
Over the last week we have elaborated upon the meanings of each of the words in our course title: Protestant Theological Heritage. We are Protestant because we hold fast to the ‘solas’. We looked at the term ‘theology’ and discovered within the word the term ‘God talk’. We are considering the ways that Protestants have talked of God over the course of history. Finally, we considered the term ‘heritage’ where we find the importance that God’s people are considered His heritage, and God is considered our heritage.
With all this discussion of history, theology, the ‘God talk’ in the past, and the way that God has lead in the past, we considered a timeline of the growth of God’s people which ‘shines forth greater and greater’ though the future. It was really helpful to put the growth of the church throughout history into perspective, and to consider that the SDA church is continuing the reformation which has progressed throughout history up until our present. This lead us into a fascinating discussion on remnant theology. We must be careful though, to assume that just because we are the SDA church, we are in and of ourselves automatically the remnant. The remnant really depends on those who are keeping the ‘commandments of God, and their faith in Jesus Christ.’
With the recent General Conference session, the remnant topic has been the ‘God talk’ in our church lately. I am comfortable with the idea of the Seventh-day Adventist Church being the remnant church, but I have never been comfortable with the exclusive and elitist attitude which sometimes garnishes our perspective. It was very helpful for us to discuss the nature of the remnant. In doing so, this was the first time that I had heard of the terms ‘institutional remnant’ and ‘spiritual remnant’. It makes sense that there are both throughout history. Right now the Seventh-day Adventist church is the only church which is holding fast to God’s commandments and the faith in Jesus. We have a particular prophetic message which is our calling in these last days. Yet for those who comprise our congregations within this ‘institutional remnant’, there is a choice as to whether or not they are of the ‘spiritual remnant’.
To be a part of the spiritual remnant, a person must individually be one who keeps the commandments and their faith in Jesus. It was beneficial to be reminded that Israel was an institutional remnant comprised of both the faithful and the unfaithful. We can be humble about the way that we preach the gospel, and the way that we consider ourselves the remnant if we realize that our practices are just as important as our theology. As mentioned earlier, sometimes the faithful Adventists can be full of pride and self-righteousness at the notion of being in the remnant church. We can even be aggressive and demeaning in our actions, while doing it all in the name of good theology. We have seen the importance of this in our Adventist history, and in our Protestant history.
---CONTINUED IN THE FOLLOWING POST----
--CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST---
In 1888, Ellen White rebuked those who were not being Christlike in the way that they presented and endorsed proper theology on righteousness by faith. In her perspective, which I believe is a biblical one, the attitudes and spirit in which one presents theology is just as important as the theology itself. If only everyone throughout Christian history held fast to the greatest commandment and practiced it as they communicated their theology.
In our reading, we have been considering some of the popular figures in reformation history. Luther is a name that if probably the most popular of reformation history. Though he is considered a champion of protestantism, sometimes the way that he communicated his theology and perspectives was quite harsh and volatile. This however, is not to say that he shouldn’t have been as firm as he was in standing up for what is right and appealing to the papacy for a change in practice. Luther was a prophetic change agent in that he promoted the Bible over tradition. Without him who knows how might have progressed.
Erasmus was another reformer but refused to break away from the Catholic church. His desire was to see reform happen within the church. Yet his emphasis was not on reforming the theology of the church, but the ‘praxis’–the ethics and practices of Christians within the church. Our reading pointed out that to him, theology was secondary to correct practices. This is quite obvious when you consider Erasmus’ views on the authority of scripture and Biblical interpretation. Despite seeing and frowning upon his support of backing away from a literal interpretation of scripture, I believe that we can consider his perspectives on the practices of Christians ‘God talk’ just as well. In Erasmus there is much that Seventh-day Adventists can contend with, yet I am curious to know just what it is that he promoted in his Christian ethics.
Going back to the remnant discussion, I believe that those of the remnant are holding on to both solid Biblical theology and proper hermeneutics, as well as good practices as obedient Christians. And to add, what is theology if it is not applied? If someone in the institutional remnant abandons applied theology, they may hear ‘I never knew you’. If they abandon Christian ethics and practice, they may hear ‘In as much as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’
The remnant of God applies their theology, and communicates it in a way which blesses others.
Response to Assignment # 1 posted by Nathan Hellman
I enjoyed reading your posting for assignment 1. I liked the balanced approach that you took in explaining the remnant church. Similar to you, I liked the presentation regarding “institutional” and “spiritual” remnant. I gained a better understanding of what we are really saying when we talk about "remnant" and how this plays out in a practical sense. Thanks for raising the question about the remnant church that eventually led to the class discussion on the subject. Also, I think that you did well summarizing and synthesizing the class lectures and discussions.
- James W Dieujuste
James, your first posting entitled Posting 1–“Ritschl’s View of the Kingdom of God” is really simple and clear. I partially concur with Ritschl’s view of the Kingdom of God as “corporate state of life.” The Kingdom of God has really started with the first coming of Christ. However, if we support this view what would we tell some experimental theologians who believe that our love relationship with God is all matter for Christian life?
Response #1 Nathan Hellman"s comment.
I do agree with you that as of now the Adventist church solely remains the "institutional remnant" due to the nature of our beginnings and the kind of message we carry to the whole world. Its a message that is wholistic and timely. I appreciate your connection to the recent concluded GC session in your comment whoose deliberations had an implication on "remnantism". I guess the challenge we have as a church is how to be the "Spiritual remnant"
Response #2 on James W's comment.
I have enjoyed your discussion of the 'Kingdom of God'according to Albrecht. I was wondering what he thought about the 'physical kingdom'becasue he seems to imply that the kingdom of God is solely spiritual i.e moral excellency of God's people. Are we not waiting for the destruction of the present system and final reign of God?
Your discussion is quite deep and enjoyable to follow. Look forward for more from you.
The perception of God in current trends theology
How Christians perceive God has a profound influence on their daily lives. Our perceptions of God come mostly from our parents and our religious teachers who are devoted Christians. Their perceptions of God also reflect on how they treat us and others. For example, a fatherless child will never emotionally have a full picture of God as father. This child’s grand children will inherit the fatherless spirit of their grandparents. Therefore God’s perception may remain the same or change throughout the history an unprecedented scale of events.
As far as history is concerned, human beings always want to comprehend God’s perceptions of reality. This desire gives impetus to the cause of several philosophical religious movements such as syllogisms, renaissance humanism, nomalism, and so on. Each of this movement had been handed down from generation to generation and had been received in faith by sincere true-seekers of God. The political subtext of syllogisms, renaissance humanism and nomalism had also risen up the ecclesiastical rank of catholic Christendom in history.
Every nation wanted to profess catholic faith. As the syllogism argument makes it clear, if Rome was dubbed the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore, being a catholic nation will eventually count a nation as part of the Holy Roman Empire. Justo L. Gonzalez (1975) helps us to see that the ostensible goal of Spain joining the rank of catholic Christendom was to preserve the Catholicism but its real arm was to conserve its cultural roots. This kind of syllogism has been rooted to the Platonic philosophy. The real life or ideal life cannot be comprehended by concrete arguments in our materials world. Since we cannot comprehend it through our fragmented intelligence, we must rely to the established institution of God, Catholicism, for divine revelation.
Every attempt is being made by the papacy to ensure that the works of syllogism are preserved for posterity. From syllogisms which basically advocated for mere pragmatic approach where the emphasis was on science studies, the renaissance humanism advanced that eloquence and clarity in writing will equip citizens to positively participate in the civic life of their community. In order to make the Catholicism viable, it was unfortunately necessary by the popes to spend money in it, “ The popes of the Renaissance felt compelled to bring together as much of the monetary resources of Europe as possible, in order to finance their patronage of the arts and their frequent wars and intrigues” (Gonzalez,1976, 17). The renaissance humanism contributed to the detriment of the Holy Roman Empire. The Popes began to lose prestige, honor, and respect in Europe, because they have been involved in nefarious activities such as taxations and indulgences which gave birth to nationalism-the sweeping force of Europe.
The situation then is this now. The syllogisms under the premise of ultimate unity of things proclaimed that “the entire universe was a logical hierarchy of which the ecclesiastical and civil hierarchies were reflections” (ibid., 20). The renaissance humanism introduced the idea that the real world can live on through arts, life community, or experimental. The latter is a good augury for nomalism. The nomalism swept away the fundamental principle of the platonic view that separated the object from its form. For example, the Platonians would never say a bed. They would prefer talk about the form of bed, for what you see it is the real bed. The nomalisms went further to declare that the universals also cannot be understood through synthesis. They suggested new premises that created a complex logic for theological debate.
The perception of God in current trends theology
How Christians perceive God has a profound influence on their daily lives. Our perceptions of God come mostly from our parents and our religious teachers who are devoted Christians. Their perceptions of God also reflect on how they treat us and others. For example, a fatherless child will never emotionally have a full picture of God as father. This child’s grand children will inherit the fatherless spirit of their grandparents. Therefore God’s perception may remain the same or change throughout the history an unprecedented scale of events.
As far as history is concerned, human beings always want to comprehend God’s perceptions of reality. This desire gives impetus to the cause of several philosophical religious movements such as syllogisms, renaissance humanism, nomalism, and so on. Each of this movement had been handed down from generation to generation and had been received in faith by sincere true-seekers of God. The political subtext of syllogisms, renaissance humanism and nomalism had also risen up the ecclesiastical rank of catholic Christendom in history.
Every nation wanted to profess catholic faith. As the syllogism argument makes it clear, if Rome was dubbed the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore, being a catholic nation will eventually count a nation as part of the Holy Roman Empire. Justo L. Gonzalez (1975) helps us to see that the ostensible goal of Spain joining the rank of catholic Christendom was to preserve the Catholicism but its real arm was to conserve its cultural roots. This kind of syllogism has been rooted to the Platonic philosophy. The real life or ideal life cannot be comprehended by concrete arguments in our materials world. Since we cannot comprehend it through our fragmented intelligence, we must rely to the established institution of God, Catholicism, for divine revelation.
Every attempt is being made by the papacy to ensure that the works of syllogism are preserved for posterity. From syllogisms which basically advocated for mere pragmatic approach where the emphasis was on science studies, the renaissance humanism advanced that eloquence and clarity in writing will equip citizens to positively participate in the civic life of their community. In order to make the Catholicism viable, it was unfortunately necessary by the popes to spend money in it, “ The popes of the Renaissance felt compelled to bring together as much of the monetary resources of Europe as possible, in order to finance their patronage of the arts and their frequent wars and intrigues” (Gonzalez,1976, 17). The renaissance humanism contributed to the detriment of the Holy Roman Empire. The Popes began to lose prestige, honor, and respect in Europe, because they have been involved in nefarious activities such as taxations and indulgences which gave birth to nationalism-the sweeping force of Europe.
The situation then is this now. The syllogisms under the premise of ultimate unity of things proclaimed that “the entire universe was a logical hierarchy of which the ecclesiastical and civil hierarchies were reflections” (ibid., 20). The renaissance humanism introduced the idea that the real world can live on through arts, life community, or experimental. The latter is a good augury for nomalism. The nomalism swept away the fundamental principle of the platonic view that separated the object from its form. For example, the Platonians would never say a bed. They would prefer talk about the form of bed, for what you see it is the real bed. The nomalisms went further to declare that the universals also cannot be understood through synthesis. They suggested new premises that created a complex logic for theological debate.
comment#1 History: Linear or Cyclical?
In last week's class sessions on how history is percieved, I got interested on how important this topic is in the course of witnessing Jesus to people of other religions. A correct understanding of how people of other religions view history will automatically influence mission strategies and dynamics so as to be relevant. Its clear that the two views of history- cyclical and linear, are represented by the two major religions of the world. the cyclical view is represented by Hinduism from which other religions like Daoism, Shintoism and Buddhism spring out. The linear perspective is held by Christianity and Islam including the minor sects within them. Hinduism being a religion of reason, views everything as cyclical because we have winter-Spring-summer and back again to the same cycle. The sun rises from the East and sets to the West and back again. However the cutting point of the cycle nature of history for these religions is the belief in the transmigration of the soul which is the recycle of life from one nature to another depending on how one has lived in the previous life. And since there is no God in Hinduism because everything is god, life is continous until one reaches a state of nothingness- Nirvana. Its not by mistake then that the teaching of resurrection of the dead will be readilly accepted by these religions as a form of Nirvana and not a process in salvation. Could this be the reason why the Sadducees rejected the resurrection teaching?
On the part of christianity, history is linear on the greater part because humans have a beginning when they come into existence. There is no pre-existence as the Eastern religions teach. The point of consideration is that there will not be a time one will never exist because of Jesus and His resurrection. For the believers there will be a resurrection which is not reincarnation because there will not be death again. For the unbelivers there will be death and no resurrection again. The Holy writings of these religions also emphasize the eschatological message when everything will be consumated and the end come. Its therefore vital for one to understand what people think of history before they witness.
Comment #1 Mercidieu Barionnette
Pastor Ernst
I really like the way you've elaborated on the perception of God in current trends theology as your project.
Parents play in an important role in the lives of the children. Getting them acquainted with God will highly protect their future.
And also I agree with you when you've shown that church as the Representative of God can easily lose prestige and honor when getting in politics and compromise such as pope in Europe.
Good job
Mercidieu Barionnette
This first week has been a blessing and a wonderful experience by learning some key biblical principles that will help me to understand the Protestant Theological Heritage. The lecture and readings have facilitated me to comprehend God’s desire to communicate with human beings. He talks with us through revelation and prayer. In order to witness for Him, His revelation is indispensable. I learned that the Protestant Theology is a legacy and a work that the remnant church must keep on doing until the path of the righteous becomes brighter and brighter until the full light of the day.
In every generation God has men and women who represent Him. And not all of them understand God’s truth the same way. But each one of them was called to fulfill His mission. For instance, the work of the reformation did not happen by accident. Even centuries before it took place, God has worked through church, governments, leaders, politicians, philosophers and theologians to make them know that He is the sovereign God. Therefore, He is in charge of the history. He is watching the course of the events. Each one of the representatives was called to fulfill God’s plan in the field they were assigned to do so. In some extent, all of them are called God’s ministers.
I discovered that the remnant church is a visible Church and a spiritual entity as well. This spiritual entity represents all believers who know God and have some relationship with Him but yet do not know all truth. God, in His mercy and His plan, has called this visible church (SDA Church) to represent the truth of His word so that all those who are out as the other sheep can become part of this fold, which is longing to be one flock, One Lord and one day.
I also learned about different concepts such as the Sola scriptura, Sola Christus, Sola Fide and Sola Gracia that have ingrained in the work of reformation. But those concepts have not been developed and understood well by theologians. Tradition has impacted them greatly. Therefore, it is essential that one goes deeply in the scriptures to help God’s people understand them in a better way. It is a mission that needs to rely on the work of the Holy Spirit so that the interpretation may not be impregnated of our own philosophical understanding and reasoning.
The concept heritage has a significant meaning for us as a remnant church. Yet, we must recognize also that we can not be exclusivist when it comes to the search of the truth. In the bible, God is the source of all truth; and He is our heritage. And the understanding of this concept can not be restricted, it must be extended as to have application to all God’s people of whom God speaks as follows” you will be unto me a kingdom of priest.”(Exod. 19: 6). Therefore, God has used other believers to share His truth.
When it comes to the interpretation and understanding of His word, we do not have the monopoly of truth, wisdom and humility must cover us so that we can resemble like Jesus which is the chief cornerstone of the Church in whom all truth rotates. By doing so, the Holy Spirit will use us and will become more effective and efficient. Whatever we are doing and saying must be rooted in the God’s word.
In sum, God does not change regardless time. His word does neither change nor history. History is the story that is dealing and leading God’s people through the past. There is nothing new under the sun. But yet, the Bible says for those who are in Christ, He will make all things new. That newness is not a new thing perse; but a new way of understanding truth when it comes to interpret the Bible. God is in control of the events in history. And He can take advantage of them to fulfill His purpose.
Mercidieu,
Thank you for your thoughtful review of what was learned last week. I appreciate the emphasis you placed upon the careful search of the scriptures and prayer for all of those who are God's people throughout history. We cannot rely solely on what was done in the past, but we must study and grow in our time. I also appreciated the notion of being humble as we do not have a monopoly of truth. Yes, Christ indeed is the one whom is the source of truth, so we must seek Him and find Him in the time that we have.
On Haron's post.
Wow! Thank you Haron for tying these perspectives of history with mission. It is so important that we consider everything we learn in light of our mission! I appreciate your insights into the Eastern religions and the various challenges and benefits there are for those who witness to these people. We can be like Paul ministering to the Greeks by understanding the conceptions of epistemology and metaphysics within these cultures.
Response to Mercidieu
You stated it clearly that in every generation God has men and women to represent Him. I do concur with that statement. However, few of us believe that God only acts in the good side of history and we are dubbed the darkness moments,"The evil attack and the absence of God's presence." Therefore i would declare that God acts with dysfunctional and functional people to accomplish His prophetic mission in history.
Response to N. Hellman: post 1 part 1
"Right now the Seventh-day Adventist church is the only church which is holding fast to God’s commandments and the faith in Jesus."
I have observed other churches that love God and live according to his commandments as they understand them; they live fully according to what they know. How can we affirm the SDA understanding in a way that can't be misunderstood as elitism?
(2nd Comment) N.Hellman post 1 part 2
"The remnant of God applies their theology, and communicates it in a way which blesses others."
Nathan, I can't think of a more aptly stated way than your summation of the SDA church's mission. Oh, that we could learn to communicate in a way that blesses.
Response to J. DieuJuste: post 1
Ritschlian theology, by your description is not in agreement with the Catholic understanding of God's kingdom being the papal church. Would Ritschl disagree with the Adventist majority who say those who honor a 7th day Sabbath to be God's church?
I appreciate your careful, systematic approach (the internet is crowded with blogs that tend to allow underdeveloped thoughts to be instantaneously published, your post shows deliberate consideration).
What causes division for Christians, and more specifically, Adventists? Christ has called Christians to be separate from the world (Don’t be conformed to the world…Romans 12:2). A further layer of separation for Adventists is their interpretation of scripture which differs from the rest of Christendom.
I would propose that neither of the aforementioned are the cause of division. The most salient idea for me was a statement made by Dr. Hanna on the first day of class. “Exclusive thinking leads to division.” How does exclusive thinking bring division?
Adventists by written statement and by common practice identify themselves as the remnant, God’s specially chosen people. However within this remnant are multiple groups, perhaps better termed factions. These factions separate themselves from the larger Adventist community by their unique understandings. The validity of their formation is not diminished by criticism or critique but in actuality bolstered by this perceived “persecution” which is interpreted by their adherents as a sign of their correctness.
Longevity is an issue for these factions as historically they unite not by common belief but their unity is generally the result of a shared disbelief of what the larger community of Adventists as a whole believes/does. They band, pseudo-bond, then after a short time begin to crumble. There is no end to the endless redaction of groups.
These groups require a byzantine-type devotion that does not allow for variance. Uniformity is equated with unity. Moderation is seen as compromise, and duality is seen as “straddling the fence.”
Exclusive thinking often takes the form of cultural bias, engendered stereotypes, and preconceived ideation that scripture has been maligned to match. Whereas God continues to enlarge his reach, scope, and kingdom, exclusivists tend to shrink, reduce, and constrict their groups.
In the final part of chapter one, Gonzalez identifies Erasmus as being one of the last balanced and moderate reformers-thusly effective. The cause for this evaluation- he was conciliatory toward Protestants and Catholics, something that was rare in that time.
These two groups are historically reactionary toward each other. This causes them to discount and ignore the valid points of their respective doctrines as a result of being intensely focused on what they view as errant theology. Again, exclusive thinking comes into play. The lack of consideration of God’s work in another group people leads to a loss of understanding. Exclusivists feel that by embracing the “wrong” group, they will embrace “wrong” thinking. Yet Augustine teaches the idea of semini verdi-seed of truth. God as the creator resides in all things as the creator of all things. So if we were to consider that Protestants and Catholics both have some correct thinking and embrace each other, it would not result in compromise but in a fuller understanding of God. I am not proposing that we adopt an incorrect picture, rather to obtain pieces of a picture of God and add them to the pieces we already posses to gain a better understanding. To cite an opposing individual as completely wrong does not presuppose you to be completely right.
If Adventist could move away from exclusive thinking it would allow them to express and exclusive message. The two have been confused. Adventists have confused the call to Christ with the call to serve him. They assume the latter means the former. This creates a false sense of
superiority which only reinforces exclusive thinking.
PTH– Posting 2 –“Harnack’s Views of the Kingdom of God”
In my first posting, I discussed Albrecht Ritschl’s views on the kingdom of God. This week, I am writing on Adolf von Harnack, a Protestant theologian, who was influenced by Ritschl’s eschatological views on the kingdom of God. Harnack was a late nineteenth and early twentieth century German theologian who lived from 1851 to 1930. He wrote lectures published in 1900 under the title Wesen des Christentums (translated in English as What Is Christianity?). Harnack was a keen follower of Ritschl and held him in high esteem (A History of Christian Thought, p. 380-381). It is evident that Ritschl’s views lived on in the writings of Harnack although the latter adopted a more individualistic interpretation concerning the kingdom of God (The Kingdom of God in the Teachings Jesus in 20th Century Theology – p. 8).
In Harnack’s view, Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God has two poles (ibid., 11). On one hand, the coming kingdom is discussed as a purely future event and one that would bring about outwardly the dominion of God (ibid., 11). On the other hand, it is something operating inwardly in the individual and has its mark already in the present (ibid., 11). In Harnack’s estimation, the pole that highlights the point that the kingdom of God does not come with outward manifestations and is already present in the heart of the believer is the true position of Jesus (ibid., 11). For Harnack, “the kingdom of God comes by coming to the individual, by entering into his soul and laying hold of it” (What Is Christianity? – p. 56) God’s kingdom is the “rule of the holy God in the hearts of individuals” (What Is Christianity – p. 56). According to him, when one considers the parables discussing the kingdom of God, the conclusion must be made that it is not a “question of angels and devils, thrones and principalities, but of God and the soul, the soul and its God” (What Is Christianity p.56).
Harnack became concerned that the history of Christian thought had turned out to be a “process of increased Hellenization” in which the attention shifted from Jesus’ teachings to His person (A History of Christian Thought, p. 381). Consequently, he felt impelled to call Protestants away from the “dogmatic, liturgical, and ecclesiastical result of that process” and to, instead, return to Jesus’ original teaching (ibid., p. 381). He proposed the idea that Jesus’ teachings could be summed up in three main areas – the kingdom of God and its coming, God the Father and the infinite value of the human soul, and the higher righteousness and the commandment of love (ibid., p. 381). It becomes evident then that Ritschl’s influence and his own interpretation of Jesus’ teaching have both contributed to his espousal of some form of “realized eschatology.”
Harnack’s view of the infinite value of the human soul has made a significant impact on the modern day understanding of the concept of realized eschatology. It is one of the reasons why he maintained that the kingdom of God can penetrate and be realized in the life of the individual believer. C.H. Dodd is arguably the most well-known theologian who popularized the view of realized eschatology stemming from this individualistic interpretation of the kingdom of God. Dodd, a Welsh New Testament theologian, who lived from 1884 to 1973, was evidently influenced by Harnack. For Dodd, the kingdom of God, “in its full reality is not something which will happen after other things have happened. It is to which that men awake when this order of time and space no longer limits their vision” (The Parables of the Kingdom – p. 108). This teaching on realized eschatology being passed on from one theologian to the next continues to be a subject of debate and contention among scholars and biblical interpreters. The relationship between the in-breaking and consummation of the kingdom presents itself as a major challenge that needs to be studied under the leading of the Holy Spirit using a holistic approach to biblical hermeneutics. – James W. Dieujuste
Was Luther a voice of dissent in Catholic Church teaching about forgiveness of sins?
The progression of history provides us with good insights on how human perception of God influences the reality of lives. The worldview that we live at a certain time in history defines the way we live, talk, and act towards another. However, Erasmus teaches us though we might live in two disparate worldviews we have ourselves that God can raise us as model or agent of change for the sake of history. Contrary to Erasmus, Luther actively wants to jog the Catholic Church to a new Biblical principle of forgiveness that goes against the indulgence system. Erasmus and Luther fought for the same existed issue with different epistemological approaches. Erasmus adopted an ethical approach to tackle the political and social parameters that gave impetus to the spiritual abuse of indulgences. Luther himself precisely stated to Erasmus that ethic is only called for the good that exists inside of human, but ethic cannot resurrect our lives that are wrapped up in sin and worldliness. After posting his ninety five theses on the door of Wittenberg Castle Church, Luther was not worthy to live for the Catholic Church. His understanding of human condition provoked animosity towards the proponents of indulgences. He firmly believed that the just must only live by faith and no other beings hold the key of salvation except God.
This justification by faith teaching was not in favor of Johann Tetzel, Pope Leo X, Emperor Maximilain and other who enriched themselves from selling indulgences. In response to Luther, Johann Tetzel wrote two set of counter theses to address Luther’s ninety five theses. Now, Luther was forced to attend the disputation at Heidelberg at a meeting of the Augustinian chapter to defend his view. Though, his argument on justification by faith seemed to be pure sophistry several brothers accepted his view of attacking the indulgences. Perhaps, they saw more lights in it for nationalism. If the Roman Catholic authority is declined, Germany can also liberate from the authority of the church. As the Lutheran teaching about justification by faith began to spread, the Catholic Church still wanted Luther to recant and return to the heart of the church. Luther was not easy man that could be placated by promises. He stood up for what he believed though he cost him his life.
The issue of my posting is not about if he was right or wrong. I believe that Luther did what was best to bring that change to happen. He certainly could have done it other ways; perhaps he was trying to add some theological insight on the platonic view of God. God is up there, we cannot ascend to heaven (Plato). Luther’s response might follow this logic: I do accept that; He also did come to me through Jesus by sharing my sorrows, fear, pain, and anger. (Theology of the cross). Therefore, through the reality of cross I am powerless and sinful. I conclude from the history of his time that Luther understanding was to suggest a new Biblical- philosophical approach of justification by faith that exposed the nakedness of human being.
Response to Assignment # 1 Posted by Barionette Mercidieu
I liked how you described God’s providential work in bring about the Reformation. God indeed used a variety of individuals and circumstances to direct the path of His church. You make a good point in that we need to continue to study Scripture in order to properly understand the different “sola” phrases and how to explain them. Also, thanks for reminding us that we need to be humble about the truth we have and not be arrogant in our thinking. – James W. Dieujuste
Response to Assignment # 2 Posted by Zachary Juniper
You took a balanced approach in explaining the dangers of upholding an exclusivist mindset. I liked your statement noting that “exclusivists feel that by embracing the ‘wrong’ group, they will embrace ‘wrong’ thinking.” You make a good point in that we ought not to adopt or embrace false teachings but that we should integrate truths held by other groups and denominations as we allow God to work to increase our understanding. It is important that we move forward avoiding the types of mindsets that will be sure to create divisions in our midst. – James W. Dieujuste
Response to Assignment # 2 Posted by Ernst Jacques
You provided a good analysis of Luther’s position and what he sought to accomplish. You also contrasted well the different methods used by Luther and Erasmus in confronting the problems of their day. I liked how you compared Erasmus’ push for ethics in light of Luther’s view of the human condition. You provided a good synthesis in contrasting their respective approaches and theological views. – James W. Dieujuste
Mercidieu Barionnette
Response to Assignment# 2 posted by James Dieujuste
Dieujuste
You've made some key points related to Albrecht Ritschl’s views on the "infinite value of the human soul, which has made a significant impact on the modern day understanding of the concept of realized eschatology." I believe his points on the importance of the eschatology can help us better to improve our relationship with God. I pray that God will continue to lead you while working hardly on your research.
Mercidieu Barionnette
Response #1 on Ernst's comment on Luther
I have read your comment and do appreciate your view of Luther's contribution to the debate of forgiveness of sins. You said at one point that his contribution towards the dabate of justification by faith was "pure sophistry". I think he was sincere.
Response 2# on Zachary's comment on Adventist.
Your comment on 'factions within Adventism is good. As you elaborated our class discussions on the problem of exclusive thinking, i agree that it is one of those errors that we have carried all along which have built a barrier between us and those we are meant to reach. My suggestion is that we need a new wave of thinking and approach in our transactions as a church in order for us to be relevant. We seminarians probably need to be the first ones to bring such a change as we go out to be involved with the business of the church.
Mercidieu Barionnette
Response to Zachary posting on" What causes division for Christians, and more specifically, Adventists?
Zachary
I believe that your points are really right.Because "exclusive thinking leads to division" and it can even cause damage to souls who are looking for light for a better understanding of God's word. I believe that based on points our church needs a spiritual revolution which can help to understand its mission in this confused world. As you said " we are called to serve him,"which is Jesus.And by sharing with others and learning from them can help us to be more effective in presenting God's to this last generation.And I would add to it " not to be proud of what we have without living it because it may surprise us with our exclusive thinking."
Good job Zachary, may God continue to lead you through your studies and research
Mercidieu
Mercidieu Barionnette
Response to Zachary posting on" What causes division for Christians, and more specifically, Adventists?
Zachary
I believe that your points are really right.Because "exclusive thinking leads to division" and it can even cause damage to souls who are looking for light for a better understanding of God's word. I believe that based on points our church needs a spiritual revolution which can help to understand its mission in this confused world. As you said " we are called to serve him,"which is Jesus.And by sharing with others and learning from them can help us to be more effective in presenting God's to this last generation.And I would add to it " not to be proud of what we have without living it because it may surprise us with our exclusive thinking."
Good job Zachary, may God continue to lead you through your studies and research
Mercidieu
Mercidieu Barionnette
Comment#1
Response to Haron Matwetwe on History of Cyclical or linear
You've proved the understanding of the both concepts well. You are able to trace different religions such"as Hinduism from which other religions like Daoism, Shintoism and Buddhism spring out to the Christianity where the linear perspective is held and Islam including the minor sects within them in order to show the importance of both concepts." Besides professor Hanna's lectures, you've added something more which is really helpful.
You've done a wonderful job.
May God continue to shine your path through your studies
Mercidieu
Comment#2Adventist and Anabaptist Liturgy contrasted
In our weekly readings, I have come to realize that one of the tasks of the reformers and the reform movement theologians was to take the Church in a direction diametrically opposed to the Church of the middle Ages. The work of the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli completely altered the liturgy, abolished most of the church year, did away with the lectionary concept of Scripture reading, replacing it with a continuous reading of whole books of the Bible, destroyed the images and vestments in the churches, and kept as little ceremony as possible .The liturgical forms observed by the Anabaptists were an outcome of Zwingli’s reformations that rejected the excesses of the Roman catholic church. They were always simple and with a great deal of exhortation. As the text shows, more time in worship was dedicated to the reading of the word followed by a discussion of it by the congregation. There was less time of preaching or lecturing people as is the case in many worship services of today.
The Adventist worship service theoretically follows this version of the Anabaptist where the reading and expounding of the word is the climax of the service. There however has been an infiltration of excessive activities prior to the reading of the word that makes the service full of activities and less of meditation as it were in the Anabaptist experience. For instance one observes a long list of announcements given followed by a humorous introduction of the platform managers before colorful and sarcastic elevation of the speaker. Then the speaker will take several minutes of responding, giving details of how the week was spent before preaching the word. By the time the sermon begins, in most cases people are tired and filled up with these activities that all that is remembered of the service is not what was preached but what happened. Ellen white gives a counsel similar to what the Anabaptist worship service looked like with its positive impact on the worshippers “There is much more preaching than there should be at our camp-meetings. This brings a heavy burden upon the ministers, and as a consequence much that requires attention is neglected. Many little things that open the door to serious evils are passed by unnoticed. The minister is robbed of physical strength, and deprived of the time he needs for meditation and prayer, in order to keep his own soul in the love of God. And when so many discourses are crowded in, one after another, the people have no time to appropriate what they hear. Their minds become confused, and the services seem to them tedious and wearisome”. {GW 407.2} “There should be less preaching, and more teaching. There are those who want more definite light than they receive from hearing the sermons. Some need a longer time than do others to understand the points presented. If the truth presented could be made a little plainer, they would see it and take hold of it, and it would be like a nail fastened in a sure place” [GW 407.3. “As we approach the end, I have seen that in these meetings there will be less preaching, and more Bible study. There will be little groups all over the grounds, with their Bibles in their hands, and different ones leading out in a free, conversational study of the Scriptures. [GW 407.488].
Are these counsels not worthy of consideration if we are to make our model of worship as simple as possible?
Mercidieu Barionnette
Posting#2
This week has been a wonderful and blessed week in the process of learning and studying from past history in order to better represent God in a more positive way in this present generation.
I learned a lot about the doctrine of predestination which is a complex and difficult subject. The reformers such as Calvin, Luther and Calvin and Zwingli were different lightly in their approach when it comes to the doctrine of predestination in some extent. They denied the freewill of man. God did not create us with the possibility and potentiality of free choice.
As Calvin believed" Predestination is God's eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed to become of each man"( Christian thought, p.159).
Luther, on his side, which is the focus of my research on" Luther's teachings on predestination: An Adventist Evaluation," who said that” freewill is downright lie"(A Study of Zwingli's Views on Predestination as Compared with Those Held by Luther and Calvin p.26). He believes that whatever we may do, it will be the result of God's decision. For he said "... we cannot in and of ourselves ignite in our hearts a firm belief in God. Therefore, we cannot of ourselves attain the faith that justifies, we can- and must- govern our various deeds according to the strength of the will that still remains in us"( Christian Thought, p108). The reformation in the sixtieth Century was supposed to be a legacy that leads to break out with the past not completely but by bringing some new light for the present history. However,Luther's understanding or teaching on predestination was deeply immersed in the Angustine's Theology, which was a heritage from platonic Philosophy. Someone said of Augustine "“It was through Platonism, or rather Neo-Platonism that he (Augustine) was led to more just and satisfying views, and through Platonism, along other influences, he was enabled at last to find peace in the bosom of the Catholic Church"( Samuel William Stovall, “ Predestination and Platonism,p 27). Or Luther was one of the admirers of Augustine in his theology like Calvin and Zwingli. His views on predestination are but a heritage received from Augustine. Both of them denied the freewill or liberty of action(Ibid). Luther used some example's in the bible to show that man does not possess freewill. He demonstrated that" God hardens pharaoh's heart to show His power and His strength." For him,He has mercy upon whomever he wills, in whomever He is well pleased from eternity and He hardens the heart of whomever he wills, which also was pleasing to him…(Hilton C. Oswald, ed. Luther's Work's Works: Lecture,p.82,83).
Based on these sayings from Luther, I will examine them from biblical standpoints and the context of other texts such as Judas, Jacob and Esau to show that God's action to them was not arbitrary.
In sum, Pharaoh was free to make a reasonable decision for himself and to avoid the ten plagues but he chose to do otherwise. The hardness of his heart was not a sequence of God's action but a consequence of his decision.
An attempt of an Adventist evaluation based on the biblical principles will help us to determine whether Luther's teachings on predestination were based on the determinism or on biblical foundations.
Mercidieu
I have found the chapter on the Anabaptists to be very fascinating. There are quite a few parallels between Anabaptists and Adventism, though one might not be able to draw a straight line connecting the two. I see the Anabaptists as a group of people who challenged the status quo of Christianity. This caused them to be largely unpopular. Infant baptism was the norm, and they challenged this because people needed to be able to make an honest decision for baptism and commitment to Christ. This idea is strongly connected to their rejecting of predestination, which had become a popular Protestant buzz word. I appreciate the notion of God yielding to us, and therefore we are presented with a choice to yield to Him if we are to become true Christians.
Anabaptism can be related to Adventism on the basis of these fronts. Adventists have rejected the status quo of Sunday worship, and call for the observing of the Sabbath. Like the Anabaptist’s rejection of infant baptism, this has drawn a distinct line between Adventists and the Christian world at large. On top of this, Adventists take the Arminian view of conditional election. Like the Anabaptists, Adventists take their theology seriously, and to have God predestine sin is contrary to the benevolence of God. We held a discussion in class about the nature of God’s predestination in relationship to sin. God permits sin because he gives us free will. Yet he predestines all to election, an election we must choose to enter. If God brought sin into the world, if he was the causer of sin, then he no longer is seen as a loving God, but a malevolent creator.
As I am studying Erasmus this term, I see a strong connection between the Anabaptists and Erasmus as well. Erasmus was largely concerned with the practicality of the Christian life over theology. Though the Anabaptists were thoughtful in their theology, they focused largely in the arena of Christian practice. I believe this is seen in their promotion of pacifism–a trait which Christ upheld as well. Adventism used to promote pacifism and conscientious objection just a decade or two ago, and it seems that these ideals are fading away with the North American cultural norm of combatancy. I admire the Anabaptists for their convictions and their courage to stick to them. It was because of this that they fell under such persecution. It seems that it is common today to avoid persecution; we are told to be careful, don’t stir up anything, and in turn we might see that we are lacking in courage. This of course is a generalization.
There is one more parallel I would like to highlight in comparing Anabaptists to Adventism. It seems that after both movements got off the ground and became established, there were some off-shoot radicals whose extremism stained the reputations of these movements. Anabaptism had to deal with the ‘spiritualizing’ movement of it’s time, just as was found in early Adventism. Both of these movements had extremists spring out of them, largely due to those extremists finding a priority above scripture and Christian practice.
May we be like the early Anabaptists– strong in our theology, yet gentle and meek like our Savior.
Zachary,
I think that Dr. Hanna's holistic model has been verry helpful to accurately approaching the myriad issues which spring out of PTH and Adventism. I appreciate your breakdown of what causes exclusive thinking among the adherents of our denomination. Your statement 'To cite an opposing individual as completely wrong does not presuppose you to be completely right', is really helpful and is one which teaches humility and a teachable spirit–two qualities which are poison to exclusivity.
-Nathan Hellman
Response to Haron Matwetwe from my posting on Luther's justification by faith
Haron, you have done an excellent job. I should not have said that Luther's theology on doctrine of justification was pure sophistry. I glad that you are helping me to think inclusive. What i really meant was that His view on doctrine justification was not fully developped. Though, his view was not well balanced some people bid to it for the sake of social reform.
Thanks.
Response to PTH– James'Posting 2 –“Harnack’s Views of the Kingdom of God”
James, I like C.H Dodd. I even bought one of his book that cost $100 and it only has 144 pages. The book entitled, "C.H. Dodd according to the scriptures." He has done a fabulous on this book. He is comparing the Greek and Hebrews to see the full picture of scriptures. However, if you do not follow his logic he may deceive on the road. Reading your posting tells me that you really took time to examine his concept of the kingdom which is timeless thing. We only have to live on the story of the kingdom.
PTH– Posting # 3 “Heritage Received and Heritage Passed on”
The Roots of Dodd’s Views
C.H. Dodd popularized the view of realized eschatology stemming from an individualistic interpretation of the kingdom of God. Dodd, a Welsh New Testament theologian, who lived from 1884 to 1973, was evidently influenced by both Ritschl and Harnack. Their teachings infiltrated Dodd’s writings on the kingdom of God. Similar to Ritschl, Dodd places much emphasis on the work of the individual human being in building the kingdom. Similar to Harnack, Dodd argued that human beings can experience the joys of the promised kingdom by waking up to the realization of its reality in the individual life. Also, Harnack’s view of the infinite value of the human soul has made a significant impact on the modern day understanding of the concept of realized eschatology. It is one of the reasons why Dodd maintained that the kingdom of God can be realized in the life of the individual believer. For Dodd, the kingdom of God, “in its full reality is not something which will happen after other things have happened. It is to which that men awake when this order of time and space no longer limits their vision” (Parables of the Kingdom – p. 108). This teaching on realized eschatology being passed on from one theologian to the next continues to be a subject of debate and contention among scholars and biblical interpreters. The relationship between the in-breaking and consummation of the kingdom presents itself as a major challenge to scholars and needs to be studied using holistic approach to biblical hermeneutics.
Dodd’s Positive Contributions
In terms of positive contribution, Dodd has done well highlighting the significance of Jesus’ work on earth establishing the kingdom of God. Dodd is widely known for having coined the term “realized eschatology” to promulgate the idea that Jesus’ ministry on earth served as evidence that God’s kingdom had already come. Dodd declares that “history is henceforth qualitatively different from what it was before Christ’s coming” (Apostolic Preaching – p. 88). He places great emphasis on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (A Theological Analysis and Evaluation of the Realized Eschatology of C.H. Dodd – p. 340). In that sense, it can be said that Jesus, through His incarnational ministry, has inaugurated the kingdom of God. Though Dodd’s assessments about the consummation of the kingdom are contradictory to Scripture, he does contribute to our understanding in that Jesus’ work on earth has “realized” a monumental step in the establishment process of the kingdom. Though his teachings on “realized eschatology” are controversial and on many levels stand opposite to the biblical picture of salvation, there is an element of truth in them. When the term “realized eschatology” is used to point to the in-breaking of the kingdom that had already taken place through Jesus, then its definition would be in harmony with biblical teachings. It would then be accurate to say that the promise to establish the kingdom was in the process of being “realized” in Jesus during His First Advent. As the King of kings, Jesus has already paved the way for the in-breaking of the promised kingdom. Thus, in the “already but not yet” aspect of the kingdom, Dodd has made a positive contribution in emphasizing the “already” portion of the biblical picture of salvation. Hence, only in that sense, it can be accurately said that interpreters cannot “read the Gospels without recognizing the amount of realized eschatology present in them” (Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology – p. 340). However, when the term “realized eschatology” is used to deny the future consummation of the kingdom and the glorious events associated with it, then it its use becomes incongruent with Scripture. – James W. Dieujuste
Lutheranism and Adventism view on justification by faith
George Santayana in dialogues in
limbo (1926) states that “Religion in its humility restores man to his only dignity, the courage to live by grace.” If Georges is right, we need a religion that promotes the value of humility in the believers. The Lutheranism tried to establish such religion through the doctrine of justification by faith. They undermined the Catholic indulgence doctrine in supporting the biblical view that the just shall live by faith (Ro. 1:17, Hab. 2: 4). They protested that only God has the power to forgive sins. Therefore, the obedient saving-faith of Jesus-Christ is more powerful than the catholically priesthood system. Hence, the great reformer Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church and became heretic. At his time, his view was right because there was a need of ethical-spiritual reform within the church. Erasmus felt the need, but he was more moderate than Luther. The question is do we always need a Luther to begin a reform or do we need an Erasmus to start it and a Luther to finish it? Or do we need an activist and pacifist to have a complete reform?
We may not want to answer these questions. The fact is our Seventh-day movement started the same way. We have William Miller and others who were devoted men to scriptures. Suddenly, they felt the need to start a spiritual reform to pave the way for the second coming of Jesus. They sold all of their belongings. Unfortunately, they experienced a spiritual disappointment. When Snow and others like Joseph bates began to re-examine the scriptures, they found that there was a mistake in the interpretation. William Miller did not understand that Christ will have to move from Holy Place to the Most Holy Place. They corrected William’s Miller view. Now Ellen G. White came into the picture and encouraged them to still have faith of Christ, but also to faith in His teaching, Rev. 14:12 “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” This word of encouragement strengthened the faith of the early Sabbath keeping church. They saw the need to live their Christian faith in Jesus. In order words, we are not given the task to finish the work. We only have to cooperate with Christ to finish it.
What do Lutheranism and Adventism teach us about reform? I think that reform should not be based on personal interpretation of the Bible. A balanced reform will take into the consideration the people lives and the biblical point of view. We might have some excitement points that can contribute to spiritual reform, but your points do not give you the authority to create confusion. Furthermore, the true reformer should overcome the spirit of anger and frustration that were built in his heart by the existence regime.
Response # 3a – Response to Haron Matwetwe
I think that you made some great points in your last posting on Adventist and Anabaptist liturgy. I agree that we need to dedicate more time in our worship services reading Scripture. Oftentimes, we don’t place sufficient emphasis on reading the Word of God. Our reading of Scripture, sometimes, becomes a routine activity in the midst of a flurry of other activities. You are right in that more “conversational study of the Scriptures” is needed in our churches. It also true that we need to establish small groups whereby people can fellowship and further study the Word. As you pointed out, unless we move in this direction, we will end up missing the real reason why we worship. - James W. Dieujuste
PTH– Posting # 4 –“Blessed Assurance”
The Day of the Lord as a Future Event
As Adventists we look forward to the literal and soon return of Jesus Christ. Given this hope, we look forward to the “Day of the Lord.” However, the false teachings of “realized eschatology” have denied this Second Advent hope in describing the Day of the Lord as “timeless.” In the writings of Dodd, the description of the Day of the Lord stands in contrast with the true biblical teaching. In reference to the Day of the Lord, Dodd says “that which cannot be experienced in history is symbolized by the picture of a coming event, and its timeless quality is expressed as pure simultaneity in time-‘as the lightning flashes’” (The Parables of the Kingdom, p. 108). As seen in this statement, Dodd describes the Day of the Lord in symbolic terms. He categorizes it as timeless and argues that it cannot be experienced in history. Hence, he spiritualizes it and classifies it as an activity belonging to the “eternal order.” However, in looking at the biblical description, a different picture emerges. In Scripture, the “Day of the Lord” concept refers to eschatological events that can be traced back to Old Testament authors. In several instances in the Old Testament, this term is used to refer to a distant future, which, in essence, will mark the last chapter of earth’s history. For instance, the prophet Zechariah makes reference to the Day of the Lord alluding to the atmosphere of celebration that will accompany it. Zechariah writes about the day of the Lord in glorious terms proclaiming that “the Lord shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be— ‘The Lord is one,’ and His name one” (Zech 14:9). It is evident that the day of the Lord in Zechariah has implications about salvation and points forward to a future time of blessing (The Day of the Lord in Zephaniah,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 152, no. 605 (Ja-Mr 1995): 16).
Similar to the Old Testament, the New Testament points to the Day of the Lord as an entirely future event when those who are redeemed will inherit God’s kingdom. For instance, Paul says “now I trust you will understand, even to the end as also you have understood us in part, that we are your boast as you also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus” (2 Cor. 1:13-14). Here, Paul mirrors the writings of Zechariah in proclaiming the eschatological Day of the Lord as a particular time when the redeemed will rejoice. Hence, the Day of the Lord is not described as timeless but as a specific event that will take place at a particular point in time.
The Need for the Created Cosmos to give way to the Coming Kingdom
In Matthew 24:35, Jesus says “heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” Jesus uses the term “pass away” to indicate that the created cosmos (both heaven and earth) will indeed come to a definite end. Hence, the created cosmos will necessarily suffer death. When Paul, in Romans 6:23, declares that “the wages of sin is death,” he is not simply referring to sin’s deadly consequence for the individual, but he is also showing the implications that sin has on the entire created cosmos. In the same way that sin necessarily results in the death of the individual, it must also warrant the death of the created cosmos. That’s why, in Revelation 21:1, John says “then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.” Thus, the popular concept of “realized eschatology” is misguided in that it incorrectly spiritualizes the meaning of the coming kingdom. The full establishment of the promised kingdom will only come about after the created cosmos passes away. Hence, kingdom of God will not be fully realized until after the present created cosmos experiences death. After this takes place, then, the redeemed will go on living with God for all eternity – James W. Dieujuste
Response # 3b – Response to Mercidieu Barionette
I enjoyed reading your evaluation of Luther’s views on freewill and predestination. I also liked how you compared his views with those of Augustine. It’s useful to make connections when studying history. You have shown well how the Protestant theological heritage was passed on from one theologian to another. This means that as we adopt a particular heritage we need to be careful that it’s one that’s in line with Scripture. – James W. Dieujuste
A response to Ernst on Luther.
I really appreciate your succinct perspective on the issues Luther and Erasmus faced regarding their frustration with the church. I am curious as to what you meant by 'it cost him his life'. From what I understand, Luther died in his bed in his later years. I really like your perspective on Luther advocating a new Biblical-philosophical approach. It was one that was greatly needed and brought the realization that we all are judged equally at the cross.
Response to Haron on Adventist and Anabaptist Liturgy.
I think that your points and observations are accurate, and worthy of our assessment. I appreciate the accurate depiction of our worship service. It does seem that our announcements and humorizing take up quite a bit of time that could be used in other ways. I think that we need to take a serious look at the way we do things and consider other constructive means of communicating our announcements and our message. I think joking around has to do with being 'real' and light-hearted. I don't have an answer or solution to this, but that we do take EGW's counsel to heart, and employ the body in creating effective means of communication.
Mercideau,
It's very helpful to consider the hellenized heritage that was passed down even through the reformation. I appreciate you giving the accurate perspectives of Luther's predestinarian theology. I also like how you responded to his conclusions in a Biblically oriented way, without the Platonic influence in the hermeneutics. Thinking of Dr. Hanna's holistic approach, we might consider there being deterministic elements in the Pharaoh story. He hardened his own heart, which determined his actions and judgement.
Ernst on Lutheranism and Adventism view on justification by faith.
Thank you for making those parallels between the Adventist movement, and the Reformation. I really appreciate your perspectives and wise counsel on reform. I think that we are all reformers in this movement, and you put it well when you aptly said "the true reformer should overcome the spirit of anger and frustration that were built in his heart by the existence regime". This is so important. It seems that there is a bitterness at the polar ends, and that we need to consider working toward reform in harmony, rather than in disarray. But what do we do when someone comes in the spirit of Luther? Do we kick them out of the church, or work with them toward finding a Biblical perspective?
James,
Thank you for wrestling with these issues on timelessness! What kind of hope would we have if we spiritualized our eschatology? What kind of hope would we offer this sin-burdened world? I appreciate your thorough research and Biblical exegesis on these issues.
Response # 4a – Response to Nathan Hellman
You made several good points in your posting on the Anabaptists. You highlighted well some of the parallels that exist between Adventists and Anabaptists. You are right that Adventists reject the status quo when it is called for us to do so. It is true we take our theology seriously. Also, you make a good point in that our view on predestination affects our view of God. I rejoice knowing that God does not predestine anyone to perish but that He has instead made it possible for all to have eternal life. – James W. Dieujuste
Response # 4b – Response to Ernst Jacques
Your posting on Lutheranism and Adventism was very clear. I like how you compared and contrasted Luther’s role in the Reformation with that of Erasmus. Your question on whether we always "need a Luther to begin a reform or do we need an Erasmus to start it and a Luther to finish it” is a good one. Thinking holistically, my response is that we may need both. In some instances, we need a Luther when a radical shift needs to happen. In other instances, we could use an Erasmus when a more moderate voice will prove to be more effective. Also, I enjoyed the parallel that you made between some of the Reformers and the early Adventists. I agree with you that reforms are also needed in our day. We definitely need God's Spirit in order for them to take place. – James W. Dieujuste
Response #1 on James' comment on 'blessed Assurance'
your topic is one of my favourite themes of the Bible. Yes the day of the Lord will be literal and the present has to give way for the Kingdom of God to be established. You traced the Old and New Testament picture of that day and just like you, i do agree that its a blessed assurance.
Response #2 on Nathan's comment on Anabaptist and Adventism.
Your comparions on the two religious movement is excellent. You have been able to connect the beginnings and strong positions against the status quo of these two in a very clear way. As for the off shoots which stemmed out, I take the words of E.White that whenever God has done His work, the evil one also gets in to bring counterworks. Good job Nathan.
comment #3
Liberal or Conservative Adventism: what do you think?
The terms 'liberal' and ‘conservative’ are words that are continually used within our culture and have taken on meanings that can't be ignored even within our church. Following the class discussions we have had regarding protestant reformation and its development, I tend to believe that the conservative and liberal perspectives are worldviews that arise unintentionally. I think a healthy society needs both. I don't think they can be combined into one viewpoint that makes everyone happy. I don't think that was God's intention. He created us with diversity. I think a truly useful education introduces students to alternative perspectives so that even when the 'other' is not their own, they can respect it as honest.
Most denominations cater for either a liberal or conservative frame of mind. Unless a denomination is very intentionally vocal about why both ways of 'seeing' are biblically and spiritually essential and consistently work to provide space and voice to both, eventually sometimes denominations naturally grow towards one pole or the other, filtering out the 'opposition'. In my opinion, a denomination that does not actively work to accept folks from both sides of the worldviews ceases to be a healthfully balanced place for spiritual development. Though such denominations will prosper simply because there will continually be folks of similar feathers to appeal to, these will be denominations that will unceasingly lose their adherents. Regardless of parental and denominational leanings, people are born with alternative frames of mind that don't fit in.
A conservative perspective tends to hold on to what has been and is. They tend to be gate-keepers. That doesn't mean change doesn't occur, but the changes are accepted only as they conform to a clear set of founding notions. A liberal mind is usually not limited to only the past set of beliefs, being open to new ways of thinking about just anything. If a denomination was built on the Bible and the Bible only, reform movements can at least speak from and appeal to a similarly cherished language and set of guiding principles. Unfortunately, even thus, we are interpretive beings and a common book doesn't guarantee a common interpretation.
If a denomination was formed on the beliefs of a person or group of people with an agenda, any attempts to reform beliefs either result in the demise of the whole denomination or will be rendered ineffective. Appeals for change can only appeal to the most cherished voices within that denomination. As for Adventism, the reality is we will always view things differently. Diversity is not only limited to dressing, food or geography. It includes thinking. We just have to accept the other side and learn to cope up.
Mercidieu Barionnette
Response 3# on Haron Matwetwe on Liberal or conservative Adventism.
I really like the way you've made the difference between liberal and conservative thoughts.
Any society needs both as you said. As christian believers, we need to learn from them in order to embellish our thinking and be able to make a good judgment
Mercidieu
Mercidieu Barionnette
Response to Nathan Hellman
Past. Hellman
Your few parallels between Anabaptists and Adventists are really interesting. They are clear stated. They enlightened my thoughts in a more positive way.
Good job
Mercidieu
Response to Haron: Liberal and Conservative adventists.
"I think a healthy society needs both. I don't think they can be combined into one viewpoint that makes everyone happy." That is a powerful model for holistic thinking. Back in the days, the modern world used knowledge to manipulate or scare people. One example, people used big words to impress their listeners. Now, this informative age tells us that all human beings have reason whether educated or so-called ignorant.
Therefore, knowledge is to stimulate deep thinking not to humiliate. The bible supports that model in the book of Isaiah, "come and reason with me.." In other words, come with you reasoning argument to convince my Divine power. This also tells us that the Bible is in favor of constructive dialogue rather divisive dialogue. God wants us to seek agreement in the midst of disagreeable issues.
Therefore Haron i agree with you that we need liberal and conservative Adventists in the church to glimpse at the functional model of trinity.
Mercidieu Posting 2
"Therefore, we cannot of ourselves attain the faith that justifies, we can- and must- govern our various deeds according to the strength of the will that still remains in us( Christian Thought, p108)."
That is strong statement. If we cannot attain the faith that is justified, how can we be justified? The answer of this question would be from Lutheranism we are justified by faith. But what is faith? Is it a gift for humanity or a gift for a group of selected people?
Mercidieu, thank you for opening my eyes on this statement.
In repose to Nathan:Clarification
Nathan, i meant that Luther lost his prestigious academic position in the Catholic church for the sake of this reform. He was excommunicated or his teaching credential was removed from the church. Why did Luther never think of his social and religious standard in the catholic church?
I am not saying that a good reformer must neglect the reality of life.
However, Luther taught me that it is hard to keep silence when God is moving you in a direction. The question is how do you move? Some people move with the speed of a car and others with the speed of light.
Thanks, Nathan.
Throughout this session, in my studies I see a recurring theme in the reformers of emphasizing Christian practice over theology. Certain groups and individuals grew tired of the coldness of theologizing and called for a revitalization in the Christian life–the tangible, day to day practices of those who hold to Christian truth. I can’t help but see this struggle today in Adventism. It seems that we have done very well to emphasize right belief and proper hermeneutical principals and exegesis, but we haven’t done well at communicating and embodying a ‘Christian piety’ that can be demonstrated in a day to day, moment by moment basis.
Thinking again back to Erasmus of Rotterdam, here was an individual who had grown tired of the bland, external, liturgical practices of the Catholic church, and called for a renewal in the personal life of the Christian. Yet in his emphasis, we see his clear communication of the ‘both...and...’ which we have learned about this session. He doesn’t call for us to do away with proper theology, in fact he emphasizes it. He does, however, emphasize the practicality of the Christian life springing from the transformed heart. The basis of his faith ethic is grounded in the belief that Christ is redeemer, and that the external actions of our lives should reflect the inner presence of God. If they are not reflective of God (which happens because of our sinfulness), then we need to strive (yes, even work) toward cultivating our intimacy with God so that the deeds we do accurately emphasize and lift up Christ. It is where orthodoxy and liturgy conflict with, or become ends to the Christian life that he claims is the source of many problems.
Looking at the chapter on ‘New Awakenings in Personal Piety’, we find quite a few groups who react to the fact that they received the cold orthodoxy of those before them, and wanted more than just objective truth, but rather a subjective, vibrant Christian experience. Philipp Jacob Spener’s six ‘pious desires’ are a contribution in this direction. In them he communicated the importance of a personal faith, which also contributes to how we handle theological disputes when they arise. Currently, we talk much about our ‘relationship with God’, and how we need it, but it seems that we would do well to provide opportunities and teachings on how we can cultivate that relationship even beyond the Sabbath hours.
In the 17th century, many of the groups which emphasized personal piety also endorsed the meeting together on a regular basis for the purpose of studying scripture and applying it to the daily life. Methodism sprung from this ideal, and John Wesley communicated his ‘methods’ of personal piety to the masses. It seems that as we consider our roots in Methodism, we can look over the course of recent Adventist history and see how we have drifted from providing ample opportunities for discipleship and personal piety to that of theologizing. Once again, this does not mean we should abandon theology, but we truly need to think about whether or not this legacy carries the ‘coldness’ of the orthodoxies of the past. Perhaps all of this is due to the theological crises which have arisen over the past few decades. Due to these crises we have come out of them with stronger theology, but I wonder about our ecclesiology.
How can our church provide the masses of this generation with a vibrant, living faith reminiscent of the piety of the past?
Is it possible for tradition to stay unchanged within a culture? This was a question raised in our last class together, and has been a source of my pondering over the past few days. Is there anything that is unchanged when it passes through a culture? Theology? Tradition? Practice? Through the observations I have made in my Christian experience and in the lectures and readings in this class, I have to respond with a resounding NO.
The chapter that stands out in embodying this response of mine is the chapter on the reformation in Great Britain. Here is a culture which has a legacy of it’s own, and we see the incredible changes which happen to theology, tradition, and practice within the turbulent days of it’s reformation. It seems that the responses of those in influence and the responses of the laity are key factors in these changes within a culture. The reformation came at a time when King Henri VIII (perhaps one of the most influential man in England, this due to his rule of course) was dealing with personal problems. We see theology in England take as much of a turbulent ride as the King himself. With his reactions against the pope, Henry produced his own ‘rule of faith’ for the land of England. Politics and dysfunction play a part in theology, tradition, and practice, when Christianity functions at the governmental level.
It is amazing to see how the faith of a nation changes from one regime to another in England. Henry got rid of monasteries to support and enforce his Act of Supremacy. Henry reacted against both Catholics and Protestants alike in establishing the Anglican religion of the kingdom. After his death we see the shifts go to and fro trying to articulate the Anglican religion amongst Catholic and Protestant beliefs as well. The supremacy of England’s church had to deal with the supremacy of the Roman Catholic church during the inquisition, yet it still came away establishing itself in distinction. Here we find the theology, traditions, and practices of 3 distinct movements taking different routes as they pass through a particular culture. This even happens within these traditions with different radical movements sprouting up articulating themselves in the micro-cultures within a culture. How far does the rabbit hole go?
Think of the theology, traditions, and practices that you inherit from either your family or your church. What are we doing with these things? It seems that the proper thing to do when it comes to these 3 realms is not assertion for assertion’s sake, but rather we test and try these things against the word of God and the practices of Jesus Christ. Is there anything about our inherited personal traditions and practices which are in conflict to God’s will as communicated through scripture? How much of our traditions are emphasized above and beyond practices outlined in scripture that are not taking place? What changes are we bringing to the landscape of our traditions? Are we promoting an entrenchment just for the sake of establishing self, or are we communicating the love of Christ in the way we employ our theology, tradition, and practices? Are there traditions we cling to which we would be better off without? Are there traditions which we need to adopt? These I believe are the questions we need to ask ourselves.
Response #4 Hellman's comment on Traditions.
I have followed your comment on whether anything remain the same once it passes through traditions. As we discussed in class, i agree that ideas become distorted with time and cultural impacts issues. Its the very reason probably why we study ancient languages to understand what biblical writers meant because traditions or cultures have changed. Your comment is deep with research and quite clear.
Response #4 Nathan's comment on practice over theology.
Here is your other wonderful insight on what really matters- practice over religion. I have enjoyed your comment as you began from where the class started. This is real what matters though we cannot downplay the importance of correct theology. We can have great piety just as the catholic church was before reformation, based on wrong theology and that does not make things okay. I do agree that Religion has to be practical. otherwise it would be like a gong making noise!You made me remember the sermon on the mountain Thanks Nathan
Mercidieu Barionnette
Posting # 4
This is the last part of my research paper on Luther's teachings: An Adventist Evaluation.
This section is about the Luther's view on Jacob and Esau whom He considered that God chose to love Jacob and to hate Esau when He says”… yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau... (Mal. 1:3)"
Luther believed that God has preference over them. He also believed that Jacob was predestined to be loved before he was born (Romans 9:11-13).
By considering the context of those texts God did not predestine to love Jacob and to hate Esau. Luther recognized that “to interpret any given text is to place it under the light of its context so that we might discover what the author’s intention is. The bible must be its own interpreter and the exegesis of the whole passage must be done as well under the influence of the Holy Spirit" (Justo L. Gonzalez, A history of Christian thought.. p. 50). But yet, he did not keep on what he said. He did not consider the exegetical context of these passages. The sentences were read” I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau “(Mal 1:1-2, Romans 9:13). According to the text, it seems that God hates Esau and loves Jacob as it is stated. but both of the sentences were used in Hebrew “the perfect tense to illustrate the completed action of God in the past and His continuous action in the future as well. God has previously announced His love for Israel as the only reason for choosing her (Deut. 7:7; 10:18, Hos. 11:1) and that He continued to love her even in her present apostasy"(Loyd J. Ogilvie, the Communicators Commentary: Michah- Malachi, p. 440). But this hatred is not related to the person being but rather to the act committed. God hates “hypocritical worship, evils, pride, lying, evil imaginations, false witnessing and stirring up dissension among brethren” (Ibid).
Paul and Malachi quoted the book of Genesis in order to illustrate their position that “the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works, but of Him that Called” (The pulpit Commentary: Amos to Malachi, Vo14, p, 1). The mystery of divine election is that even before Jacob’s birth, the chosen one, and Esau, the elder, was to serve the younger. Nevertheless, Esau was hatred because God foresaw his unworthiness and Jacob was beloved owing to his foreseen piety and faithfulness (Ibid). Prophet Malachi mentioned the sins of the two nations such as Edom and Israel (Mal 1: 1-4). However, he is not speaking of the predestination of the one brother and the reprobation of the other; he is contrasting the histories of the two peoples by them. Both nations sinned; both are punished; but Israel by God’s free mercy was forgiven and restored, while Edom was left in the misery which it had brought upon itself by its own iniquity (Ibid). Jacob passed from a deceiver to Israel as the representative or the conqueror (Gen 32: 24-28). Esau, on his side, became” a profane person and he did not do what is right and put himself outside of the divine favor (Heb 12: 16, 17) (Seventh Day Adventist Bible Commentary vol 4: Isaiah to Malachi, p, 1125). His choice determines his destiny. God does not discriminate people neither does He have favoritism (Acts 10:34).
God’s divine favor did not come to Israel because of birth but because of character (Ibid., 1124). Although Israel was chosen but this choice did not make them a special people who would take everything for granted because they were elected. No, their disobedience led God to turn towards other nations not to reject Israel perse but rather they might repent and come back to God. Both Gentiles and Jews may continue to fulfill God’s Mission (Romans 11: 1-22).
In sum, Luther did not take the story of Jacob and Esau in the context. He did not follow the exegetical work as he claimed it to be. He was not often consistent with what he said. We must respect the context of every text otherwise we will misinterpret it. God never makes distinction between us.He may hate what we are doing but He loves us eternally.
Mercidieu Barionnette
Response to posting 4 James Dieujuste
Hello pastor James
Your points contrasting what Dodd said regarding the " the day of Lord" are well grounded in the bible. These encourage us to study God's word in its context otherwise we may misinterpret it.
Good job
Mercidieu Barionnette
Mercidieu Barionnette
Response 4 to
Nathan Hellman
Hello Pastor Nathan, I really like the way you describe and contrast the work of Erasmus and that of the Adventist. As you said " it seems that we have done very well to emphasize right belief and proper hermeneutical principals and exegesis, but we haven’t done well at communicating and embodying a ‘Christian piety’ that can be demonstrated in a day to day, moment by moment basis. I believe it is one of the things that we need to work on it seriously. By studying history,I believe that change can occur through the time.
Wonderful job pastor
Mercidieu Barionnette
‘The just shall live by faith’
This phrase crossed my mind all along during the class of protestant heritage because it has come to be the highest point of Luther’s departure from the Catholic Church. In trying to get some biblical explanation I realize its significant usage in the New and Old Testament.
Hab 2:4 "Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith." (NKJ) Habakkuk 2:4 is one of the greatest declarations of faith to be found in the entire Bible. It presents a contrast between those who are arrogantly rebellious, and those who are humbly submissive. It reveals the striking difference between the proud and the just man. The future belongs to the righteous, while the wicked have no future. Wickedness carries with it the seeds of its own destruction.
In this immediate context, the pride of the Babylonians would be their downfall, while the faithfulness of the righteous will be their salvation. Habakkuk says the Babylonians are self-centered and therefore doomed; the righteous are God-centered and therefore triumphant (Dan 4:30-32).
In other words, the righteous man trusts, not in himself, but in God. His faith is directed upward, not inward -the ability to accept as reality what one cannot fully understand. The one who trusts in God is not troubled by the troubles of life.
A. Romans Stresses "The Just"
Rom 1:16-17 for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." (NKJ)
Romans highlight the idea of righteousness. The just shall live by faith. The Bible reveals the righteous character of God, and the conditions on which man can be judged righteous by God. In order to be accepted, we must pattern our lives according to the righteous picture of God that is revealed on the pages of Scripture. By pursuing God's righteousness, we can develop personal integrity, virtue and purity of life (Rom 6:11-18).
B. Hebrews Stresses "Shall Live"
Heb 10:36-39 “For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: 37 "For yet a little while, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, my soul has no pleasure in him." 39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. (NKJ)
Hebrews highlights the idea that faith is for the long haul (Heb 10:36-39). The just shall live by faith. Faith is not a singular event, confined to a distinct point in time and space; rather, it is a way of living. Those who have good and honest hearts bear fruit with patience (Luke 8:15). Eternal life belongs to those who patiently continue in doing good (Rom 2:7). We must run the race with patient endurance (Heb 12:1-2).
C. Galatians Stresses "By Faith"
Gal 3:10-12 for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them.
Galatians highlights the idea of trusting in God rather than trusting in self. The just shall live by faith. For a person to reach heaven based on their own doing, they must never commit a single sin. However, no one except Jesus can approach God on this basis. Therefore, we must trust in God and in Christ rather than in self.
Post a Comment