Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 4 Sept. 27, 2010 Michael Liu Reflection from reading the essay The Dynamics of Salvation from BRI. The passage mention the message of third angel’s message centers in justification by faith. So what is it? In reading of the context of the Evangelism I can find more detail of its meaning. The message which was to focus our eyes on the uplifted Saviour. In the message the efficacy of the blood of Christ was to be presented with freshness and power, that the hearer’s faith might lay hold upon its merits. The proclamation of this third angel’s message must be attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure which becomes an abiding influence. The result is made manifest in obedience to all commandments of God. Through divine transforming process accompanied by sincere repentance and the true devotion, the original propensities to sin in the heart with all their strength can be broken. Ev. 190,192 His gracious activity which save us at the same time vindicate His character and law. In the act of Christ in dying for salvation of man in the same time it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan before all the universe. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God and would reveal the nature and the results of sin. {PP 68.2} Sin is not a light thing, and God does not lightly pass over it, God meets the demands of a broken law. God is just and justifier of him who believes in Jesus only through the cross. Phil.2:8 (TDS) He established the law’s justice demand in our behalf. We need to proclaim the Third angel’s message in the context of the final events of earth’s history and of Christ’s ministry in heaven. (TDS p.2) The ministry of Christ in heaven has to do with making His sacrifice effective in human race by asking the Holy Spirit to be sent out to the world. It is the Holy Spirit that prompted the will of men and women so we can to respond to the good news. So the passage said in this way the ministry of Jesus is perpetuated. (TDS) ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_____________________________________________________________________ Reflection on Wazoua Serge Roger on Moral Influence theory Moral Influence has it point in transform people’s life in a powerful way as we behold the love of Christ, we become changed in a divine assigned way. This only deal with the sanctification part. The problem of this theory lies on using part of the Bible teaching and missing the part talking about legal justification which is the root of our salvation. Greater still if we are to look at the salvation in the great controversy view that make the whole things about suffering and the character of God in a more meaningful way.
“This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person, His merits, and His changeless love for the human family. All power is given into His hands, that He may dispense rich gifts unto men, imparting the priceless gift of His own righteousness to the helpless human agent. This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel's message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure…The efficacy of the blood of Christ was to be presented to the people with freshness and power, that their faith might lay hold upon its merits.” Ev. 190 “When the third angel's message is preached as it should be, power attends its proclamation, and it becomes an abiding influence. It must be attended with divine power, or it will accomplish nothing. “ Ev. 192
I appreciated your thoughts on Whidden's article. I enjoyed it as well. In regards to the w/o sin during the time of trouble, I couldn't agree more. Is 59:16 clearly states how God's people will be covered during that time. the following statement by EW sheds light as well. God bless you.
Then the angel repeated these words, and said, "This is the time spoken of in Isaiah. He saw that there was not man, and wondered that there was no intercessor. He had no mediator between God and man, and these plagues could be withheld no longer, for Jesus had ceased to plead for Israel, and they were covered with the covering of the Almighty God, and then they could live in the sight of a holy God, and those who were not covered, the plagues fell upon them, for they had nothing to shelter or protect them from the wrath of God."
I appreciated your thoughts on Whidden's article. I enjoyed it as well. In regards to the w/o sin during the time of trouble, I couldn't agree more. Is 59:16 clearly states how God's people will be covered during that time. The following statement by EW sheds light in a most beautiful manner. God bless you.
Then the angel repeated these words, and said, "This is the time spoken of in Isaiah. He saw that there was not man, and wondered that there was no intercessor. He had no mediator between God and man, and these plagues could be withheld no longer, for Jesus had ceased to plead for Israel, and they were covered with the covering of the Almighty God, and then they could live in the sight of a holy God, and those who were not covered, the plagues fell upon them, for they had nothing to shelter or protect them from the wrath of God."
Chester Clark III Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna Week 4 Reflection
I really appreciated Dr. Whidden’s treatment of Ellen White’s writings in Chapter 5, “Salvation, and the Great Controversy Theme.” In a few sentences he succinctly summed up complex theological systems and in words that a layman could read and understand. Kudos to him for his clear writing skills.
This sentence particularly impressed me: “For Ellen White the issue of utmost importance was always the practical application for sin-afflicted humans, who find themselves caught on the battlefield of this great controversy.”
The fact is that most of the writers of the Bible were more-or-less common folk who God used to convey His message to other common folk. It’s not that they weren’t intelligent; but in most cases – actually, in all cases – their qualification for the prophetic role came from the attitude of their heart before God rather than the literary institution they graduated from. In fact, many of them would not be considered theologians by today’s standards. Even collectively they would not be considered as having developed a systematic theology (a “shortcoming” of the apostolic Church which I recently became informed about).
Please don’t misunderstand me: the Church needs deep-thinking theologians. But even if we turn to arguably the most capable and qualified theologian of early Christianity, the Apostle Paul, we find him, like Ellen White, couching his theology in the practical implications for daily living. What would the faith-teachings of Romans be without the allusions to Abraham living by faith (Romans 4) or Paul’s own personal testimony (Romans 7)? Though this letter is rich with the theological and the abstract, it is also filled with practical examples and exhortations. Romans 6 applies the theory of Romans 5’s justification by grace through faith to the life of the believer. Romans 8 further deduces the meaning of this grace and it’s liberating power to transform the life, repeatedly drawing a contrast between the life following the flesh versus the life led by the Spirit. Romans 12 paints practical images of the transformed life, while Romans 13 defines duties towards authorities and governments. Romans 14 brings it home with the matter of respecting others’ conscientious convictions. All in all, I think that it could be said that Paul also was more often than not penning truth’s “practical application for sin-afflicted humans.”
Which brings me to the question that’s been lurking in the forefront of my sub-consciousness: In my “doing” of theology, do I retain, or even grow, my ability to make it practical back in the real world?
I’m afraid I could easily become a theologian. (And here, at the risk of offending theologians I respect greatly, I’m using the term in a negative sense.) The longer I’m in the classroom, the easier I find it is to begin debating and fomenting abstract ideas, forming treatises and theses that have everything to do with the theoretical and comparatively little to do with the practical life. Is studying theology a risk that’s worth taking? Yes, of course, but it’s a risk I want to mitigate as much as possible.
So, how can we as seminary students stay connected with reality while so sublimely studying theory? Ask often and incessantly, “So what? What will this mean to the one lost in the gutter, or lost in the jungles, or lost on Wall Street?” Stay active in ministry – whether working at the call center or as a pastor or volunteering in a local church or witnessing right here in a campus dormitory. And stay stubbornly at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ, where our own great need becomes daily more and more real and apparent to our senses. Then we will see even ourselves as “sin-afflicted humans,” “caught on the battlefield of this great controversy,” and our theology will become as practical as one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.
Chester Clark III Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna Week 5 Reflection
After last week’s discussion on the atonement theories (from which I learned a lot – Thank you, Dr. Hannah, for your patient explanations!) I found the chapter on Ellen White’s view of the atonement very enlightening. It helped to aggregate the loose ideas that I had floating around my mind into a more cohesive understanding. Dr. Whidden has the ability to succinctly summarize complex theological ideas and systems in a few words, for which I must give him credit and thanks.
To be honest, before last week I’d never really challenged the notion of Adventists differing from the Reformers’ substitutionary theory of the atonement. I just assumed we followed in their steps. I don’t recall Ellen White ever challenging them (in those terms anyway) on the matter. Of course when it comes to Calvinism’s determinism I knew we deviated.
Now I’ll confess just how much being “practical” in my theology perhaps warps my ability to think theoretically. As we discussed various theories, my mind had a hard time grasping anything positive, any common ground that can be found in them. I think the most deviant of the theories that I have encountered is the Moral Influence Theory. Perhaps I’ve just been introduced to particularly virulent or extreme versions of this theory, but it has seemed to me that those who promote it deny the substitutionary nature of the atonement, making the theories mutually exclusive. Since I do believe that Jesus died on the cross in my place, the response to the Moral Influence Theory is essentially to argue the Substitutionary Theory (which I still contend has always been taught with an appreciation for the moral influence of the cross, i.e. “the goodness of God” leading to repentance).
But what I learned, from the class discussion and reflection of what I actually believe (and my impression of what is contained in the writings of Ellen White and in church positions) is not adequately described in any of the neat pre-packaged theories of the atonement. My own Bible study and extensive reading of the Spirit of Prophecy had led to a subconscious concept of atonement that I had never attempted to put into words. And I wasn’t finding that any of the classic theories were satisfactory.
Enter Dr. Whidden’s Chapter 7, “The Atonement.” This chapter put into words what I was already concluding, that Adventists have an understanding of the atonement in its timing (a continuous line throughout fallen human history), in its beautiful and perfect balance (between law and grace, justice and mercy), and in its implications for daily living (drawing by grace, justification by grace through faith, sanctification by grace through faith) that no other modern movement can come close to defining. I was gratified to read his view that her comments focused on the concepts of penalty, substitution, and satisfaction. And with him I marveled that an “uneducated” prophetess had developed a theological system which, though not exhaustive, is wide, practical, and coherent – as well as ground breaking. “It is almost as if she went on a shopping trip at the doctrinal supermarket and was able to get all the choicest fruits without picking up a single rotten theological apple.” Whidden, 49. What an amazing atonement, all so that I could be saved! What an amazing Savior!
Alicia, I appreciate your posting in regard to salvation, the law and the great controversy. I definitely agree that Satan’s whole goal is to misrepresent the character of God so that we serve him out of fear rather than love. In my experience personally, it was not until I came to see God as a loving Father, that the desire sprang within me to follow Him. As made clear,the beauty of grace is that what the law could not do by saving us, Christ did. Christ in dying upholds the law and through His indwelling Spirit he fulfills the law in us. Alicia thanks for your thoughts. It has reemphasize the simplicity of the gospel and reminded me of how God’s love transforms our lives when we right understand His true character.
My apologies for all the deleted posts. I kept getting an error message when posting and didn't notice they were actually posting, on page two of the blog.
“We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance: perseverance character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” – Romans 5:3-5 I love this passage in Romans 5. Suffering obviously not an easy thing to rejoice in, but when you look at what can come out of it, it really does inspire hope. Paul points out that “hope does not disappoint us” and throughout the Bible you can see how the lives of so many of the heroes of faith actually lived with this kind of hope. The hope they had was real, and they lived as if it were true. They lived knowing that God would do what He said He would do. The hope talked about in the Bible is not a hope that wishes for something, thinking maybe it will come true, but hope in the Bible is assurance in the promises of God. This is why we have to persevere through suffering and rejoice, not rejoicing in the fact that we are suffering, but in the fact that one day there will be no suffering. We can learn, with God’s help, to view the trials of our day as stepping stones to character and to hope, as stepping stones closer to God. The last part of the passage quoted above says, “God has poured out his love into our hearts”. This is amazing! The picture that this paints is amazing, that God would fill our hearts with His love. We should be overflowing with His love, so much that it spreads to those around us. The reading from Whidden this week was pretty good too. I liked how it showed Ellen White’s understanding of free will. It talked about how God is always drawing us towards Him, He is always reaching towards us, but we also have the freedom to choose to respond or not. A quote from Ellen White in the chapter that I like was “ It is impossible for us, of ourselves, to escape from the pit of sin in which we are sunken. . . . His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness.” It so good to know that the grace of God us sufficient; God can supply our every need. He is able to attract our soul to Himself and to holiness. It’s good to know that though we are sinful and we are in a terrible mess God gives us every provision necessary to get out, even to the point of leading us to the understanding that we need help.
“We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance: perseverance character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” – Romans 5:3-5 I love this passage in Romans 5. Suffering obviously not an easy thing to rejoice in, but when you look at what can come out of it, it really does inspire hope. Paul points out that “hope does not disappoint us” and throughout the Bible you can see how the lives of so many of the heroes of faith actually lived with this kind of hope. The hope they had was real, and they lived as if it were true. They lived knowing that God would do what He said He would do. The hope talked about in the Bible is not a hope that wishes for something, thinking maybe it will come true, but hope in the Bible is assurance in the promises of God. This is why we have to persevere through suffering and rejoice, not rejoicing in the fact that we are suffering, but in the fact that one day there will be no suffering. We can learn, with God’s help, to view the trials of our day as stepping stones to character and to hope, as stepping stones closer to God. The last part of the passage quoted above says, “God has poured out his love into our hearts”. This is amazing! The picture that this paints is amazing, that God would fill our hearts with His love. We should be overflowing with His love, so much that it spreads to those around us. The reading from Whidden this week was pretty good too. I liked how it showed Ellen White’s understanding of free will. It talked about how God is always drawing us towards Him, He is always reaching towards us, but we also have the freedom to choose to respond or not. A quote from Ellen White in the chapter that I like was “ It is impossible for us, of ourselves, to escape from the pit of sin in which we are sunken. . . . His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness.” It so good to know that the grace of God us sufficient; God can supply our every need. He is able to attract our soul to Himself and to holiness. It’s good to know that though we are sinful and we are in a terrible mess God gives us every provision necessary to get out, even to the point of leading us to the understanding that we need help.
Great thoughts in your reflections from this week. I like how you pointed out that Adventists have such an awesome view and teaching on atonement. The atonement is amazing, God is so good.
Brian Baierl Assignment #4 The reflection this week is on the chapters Romans 4 and Whidden’s chapter 4. I did something interesting on the reading of Romans. I read the chapter in an interlinear Bible with Greek. The Greek words were translated as close as possible into the English equivalent. There was one particular text that jumped out more than usually when read in just English. The text is Romans 4:4, 5. In the English the words grace and debt caught my attention. I know I have considered the words before, but for some reason the wording spoke to me differently. The one not working the reward is grace not debt. In my life when I am not working I am going further into debt. The thought Paul has on grace was the opposite. Paul states if you are working debt will be your reward. The focus of the two groups is interesting as well. The one working is focused on a reward. The one not working believes on the One justifying. So maybe it is not the work or not working, but the focus on the reward or the One. The chapter in Whidden talked about Ellen White dealing with perfection. I knew a great deal of her influence came from John Wesley when it came to this subject. The quotes of her attempts of perfection touched my heart. I too hope that my words or sayings do not hurt anyone. We do need Jesus every hour of the day. Anger is a very prominent emotion in the realm of a Christian. I have a whole family that has anger issues. I am constantly treading the line of anger as to not hurt anyone and stay calm and peaceful. We may not obtain perfection here, but we need to continue to pursue perfection. Vince Lombardi a Green Bay Packer coach in the 50’s and 60’s was quoted saying, “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.” I believe we need to chase perfection and catch Christ. We have the tendency to think we have reached the summit and turn a blind eye to the other mountains in the distance. Ellen White mentions, “nobody is perfect.” We must still reach for the goal of perfection.
Brian Baierl Commenting on Elias assignemnt #4 I thought it was a very intellectual approach to issue of salvation. I was wondering more about the thought presented on "sold under sin"? God is good and willing to help the helpless. Thank you for the blog and encouragement.
Romans chapter 2 tells us why God gave us his law. And it is written by verse 13. “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified”. At that time, Jews were proud of themselves keeping the law to be saved. But they did not keep the law. Paul strongly mentioned that they were keeping the law as a wrong way. In the bible we can find a story about rich ruler (Luke 18:18). And through that story, we can see he is the one who want to be saved. And he said to Jesus "All these I have observed from my youth (Luke 18:21). But E.G White mentioned in the book of “Desire of Ages” that he had not kept the law. Also he were not keeping the third commandment. "You shall not make for yourself a graven image you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exodus 20:4,5) he is serving the money, whealthy as his image. That was not what God wants us to do. That was not the way keeping the law. But all Jews were doing. “you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Luke 18:22). And the ruler worried about that.
For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God (Roman 2:28,29) This was Paul wanted to mention through the book of Roman chapter 2.
Roman 3:20 tells us why the Law need. “For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” The only purpose is for knowledge of sin. This verse tells why we do not have to judge others. It should be used for myself, not for others. “since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith”. The only one who can judge us is God. Through this verse we can find the powerful messege for us. I really like to use this sentence “Through their faith” in our life. Also it tells us about the power of salvation that is opened not only for me, but also for others. That is why we do not have to judge others. Because he or she is precious person who is given salvation through their faith, not through my faith, not through the law, but through their faith. God judges me through my faith. And the only thing to do for me is to know about my sin through the law.
Through the article “Christ saved the human race” I could get several insight. Also we think that he tried to restore between God and us. Through being tempted by Satan, he could show all the universe that what he is doing for us. That was the same temptation that Adam was tempted. Also the article used the words “objective work of salvation”.he shows is that we can get a victory from the Satan. Also he shows us what salvation is.
How big is your gospel? How big is mine? The real gospel is deep, it is vast and mysterious, it can even seem complex. But we are used to oversimplifications of the gospel. We reduce the gospel down to only one (or a few) of its elements. But these simplifications are simply false.
The gospel is justification, sanctification, and glorification. It is all parts of the sanctuary, all the sacrifices, all the duties of the priest. It is not only Christ's death, but His birth, His perfect life, His resurrection, His intercession, and His coming. It is what God has done for me, is doing, and will do. It is the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, the Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. It is the year of Jubilee and the cities of refuge. It is legal, it is relational, it is victorious. It is ransom, regeneration, reconciliation, and transformation. It is adoption, inheritance, light and cleansing. The gospel is freedom from the bondage of sin, taking up the yoke of Christ and becoming a slave to righteousness. The gospel is the power of God yet it is also His tenderness. It is deliverance from the wrath of God and the powers and darkness and conveyance into the kingdom of the Son of His love.
Jesus Christ, the Son of His love is my Savior. He is the love of God demonstrated to us. He is the humility which puts and end to what pride began. He is the gift I must receive, the pearl I must find, the path I must choose, the robe I must put on, and the treasure I must treasure. He is the bread of life I must eat and the blood of the covenant I must drink. He is the fountain of living waters flowing out of my heart. He is my righteousness, sanctification, wisdom, and redemption. Jesus is my qualification.
The gospel is far bigger than a truth I can put in my pocket or a badge I can put on my sleeve. It is vast and mysterious, awesome and wonderful. It causes us to worship our glorious God who is the Captain and Author of our Salvation who Himself is our salvation and so much more.
Rev 19:1 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God!
How big is your gospel? How big is mine? The real gospel is deep, it is vast and mysterious, it can even seem complex. But we are used to oversimplifications of the gospel. We reduce the gospel down to only one (or a few) of its elements. But these simplifications are simply false.
The gospel is justification, sanctification, and glorification. It is all parts of the sanctuary, all the sacrifices, all the duties of the priest. It is not only Christ's death, but His birth, His perfect life, His resurrection, His intercession, and His coming. It is what God has done for me, is doing, and will do. It is the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, the Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. It is the year of Jubilee and the cities of refuge. It is legal, it is relational, it is victorious. It is ransom, regeneration, reconciliation, and transformation. It is adoption, inheritance, light and cleansing. The gospel is freedom from the bondage of sin, taking up the yoke of Christ and becoming a slave to righteousness. The gospel is the power of God yet it is also His tenderness. It is deliverance from the wrath of God and the powers and darkness and conveyance into the kingdom of the Son of His love.
Jesus Christ, the Son of His love is my Savior. He is the love of God demonstrated to us. He is the humility which puts and end to what pride began. He is the gift I must receive, the pearl I must find, the path I must choose, the robe I must put on, and the treasure I must treasure. He is the bread of life I must eat and the blood of the covenant I must drink. He is the fountain of living waters flowing out of my heart. He is my righteousness, sanctification, wisdom, and redemption. Jesus is my qualification.
The gospel is far bigger than a truth I can put in my pocket or a badge I can put on my sleeve. It is vast and mysterious, awesome and wonderful. It causes us to worship our glorious God who is the Captain and Author of our Salvation who Himself is our salvation and so much more.
Rev 19:1 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God!
After further reflection on the text, I believe that there are two dynamics that Paul is attempting to convey as it relates to salvation. Specifically, Paul seems to express the dynamics of the Role of the Holy Ghost as well as the Role of Christ. I believe this is extremely important because Paul’s two nature argument seems to suggest that the two dynamics of salvation are inseparable. In fact, they are One, in both their unique relationship and shared purpose. In referring to the Role of the Holy Ghost Paul seems to suggest that the primary work of the transformation of the heart takes place under the Guidance of the Holy Ghost. In referring to the Role of Christ he seems to suggest that the primary work of the Person of Christ was to accomplish our salvation through both His death and His life, both as a sacrifice for our sins and as a mediator of our sins. These two salvific dynamics (The Work of the Holy Ghost and the Work of Christ) are related in that they both accomplish the same purpose, reconciliation with God. After all it was Paul who said that, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor. 5:10).” So it appears that Paul is attempting to demonstrate that these two dynamics of the work of the Holy Ghost and the Work of Christ ultimately work together two produce God’s divine purpose for humanity. I believe it is important that we see both sides of God’s reconciliation. For without one the other is incomplete (Salvation without Transformation) and without the other the one is insufficient (Transformation without Salvation). Therefore we discover a reconciliation that is dependent on both the saving work of Christ and the transformative work of the Holy Ghost.
Great post! Your thoughts had me pondering God’s word, asking myself questions, and praising God for his grace. One question I’m thinking about now is, “How can I effectively communicate the idea of a grace-based righteousness to someone who is primarily concerned with righteous living (i.e. outward acts)?
Dario Ferreira Doctrine of Salvation Assignment #5
After presenting the means God uses to justify sinners, using as the basis of the experience of faith of Abraham, the apostle Paul begins to describe the blessings received by those whose faith was imputed to them justice. He brings peace, joy and hope as blessings that are manifested in the lives of those who have been justified by faith. We also found that Paul mentions three objects of joy: 1. The hope of the glory of God (5:2) - the purpose for which He created man, “created them for my glory” (Isaiah 43:7), 2. The tribulations (5:3) - are seen in the New Testament as the normal experience of a Christian (Acts 14:22) 3. God himself (5:11) - poured his love (5:5) in reconciling us to Him by Christ's death (5:11). God confirms His love for us, because Christ died for us while we were still weak (5:6) and sinners (5:8). Paul starts to make a representation of Christ as the “Second Adam,” in contrast to the “first Adam.” God always raises someone to replace him, when a man fails, or is prevented from performing one of his purposes. Where and Adam could only replace him someone who had the ability to undo the effects of his sin and had the power to start all over again. In this case, only Christ could tackle this challenging task. Only Jesus Christ, the “Second Adam,” is qualified to redo what the “First Adam” fell apart.
Whidden chapter 6, entitled “Sin, the Human Condition, and Salvation”, presents the view of Ellen White concerning the sin. A vision that “we humans come into the world tragically the damage goods, not simply unfortunate babes in the woods who suffer lapses of memory and little numerous mistakes. We are seriously depraved and corrupted!” She also made clear that as sinners, we will retain our sinful nature until glorification. What we can and must achieve is the perfection of character, but never the perfection of nature. I thought, very deep and at the same time complete the way Ellen White deals with the issue of freedom of choice depravity and salvation. When we sin, we become slaves to sin. Therefore, we are unable to repent for ourselves. Only Christ can bring us to repentance. Nothing we could do, never could we do to deserve or earn salvation, but only the grace of God combined with the most serious effort on our part can lead us to victory.
In the document “Comments on the ‘In Adam/In Christ’ Motifs,” Angel Rodriguez deals with the meaning of such terms as used by the 1888 Study Committee. He comes, then the conclusion that the lack of understanding of these terms led to many misunderstandings and consequently some very serious theological problems for the 1888 Study Committee. Angel Manuel Rodriguez proposes something that could explain the meaning of the phrases “In Adam/In Christ”: Social Solidarity in the Old Testament. The solidarity in Israelite society was based on various important factors that as a people they had in common: 1. They had a common God entered into covenant with them all; 2. They had a common religious experience and the same system of worship; 3. They had a common ancestor - the patriarch Abraham; 4. They had a common future - the promise of making them a nation of priests over all the nations of the earth.
I think really that common elements provide the basis for religious and social religious and social concept of the Old Testament helps us understand the phrases “In Adam/In Christ.”
I share with you about the value of class discussions regarding the models of Atonement. I confess that I have learned a lot too. I was surprised to recognize that the Bible uses multiple models of atonement.
Like you, I am amazed at how God used Ellen White to develop a theological system, not affected or influenced by human assumptions, but coherent, biblical and, peculiar in its clarity and balance.
Reed Richardi Response # 5 to Michael Mickens comment on Rom. 5:1-11
Great post. What a blessed thought that Christ and the Holy Spirit are co-laborers for our salvation. We know that the entire Godhead is united for our reconciliation but it seems that we understand the work of the Spirit the least. May we have an deeper understanding and experience of the Spirit's work.
Assignment #6 (and as for Assignment #5, I accidently titled both my 4th and 5th entries as assignment #4) It worked out well that class this week dealt with the atonement and the issues involved in God’s mercy and justice and that it was the topic of Whidden’s chapter that I read for this next week. I do wish that in the exploration we would look in more depth into each of the historical views of the atonement. I agree in the balance of the penal-substitutionary and influence theories, or more general the objective and subjective views of the atonement. However, the view that has seemed to speak to tempt me is the ransom theory and I wish that Whidden would have at least mentioned it. I know that the ransom theory has problems, as do all the theories, but it seems to make sense to me – though there might be an influence from C.S. Lewis’s Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe which I read early in life and the narrative structure may have been formational in my understanding. I do hold to the stream of thought that involves both/and much more than the either/or, which have been foundational in my life experience and education before coming to the seminary. Sometimes I think we just have too much of a desire to figure things out too definitively. We need to accept and maybe even embrace mystery and recognize the big-picture holistic nature of scripture which reveals what is central painfully clearly but then leaves more than all of humanity throughout all of history in the realm of mystery, uncertainty and further exploration. In fact, we will have all of eternity to continue exploring the mysteries of God. And I have a feeling that learning and growth in heaven may be similar to that of earth – the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know anything yet. When searching for answers to questions you are more likely to find more questions than answers.
I appreciated your thoughts on the broad, holistic and mysterious nature of the gospel. I agree that we do often try to over simplify it, and many other things for that matter.
We need to be willing to dig deep and explore the mysteries God has placed before us, but ultimately just have faith in Him because He is the way the truth and the life.
From the article by Biblical Research Institute, the book of Romans, chapter 6, and the last class period, I had an opportunity to think deeply about sin and righteousness. First of all, BRI’s article ‘Dynamics of Salvation’ widens my understanding how I should look at salvation in a broad way. ‘The saving righteousness of God is not in conflict with His eternal law.’ God had to judge all people justly according to the Law and Law requires men and women to be condemned to die of the result of sin. But God’s supreme character is love, which can save anyone who believe in Jesus Christ who died for all. ‘While the cross and resurrection of Christ are the focal point of the ages (cf. Heb. 9:26), the divine initiative does not end with them. The risen Christ, ascended to the right hand of the Father, asks for the Holy Spirit to be sent to the world (John 14:16, 26).’ We often see the cross is the place where salvation is completed and tend to believe that there is nothing else we preach about salvation. But this is not quite true God’s salvation covers more than that. Jesus’ salvation is as dynamic as we can think of. It exhaustibly includes every aspects of Jesus’ ministry as part of salvation. As a future minister, I should not forget that presenting salvation can be misleading in terms of focusing on one aspect of salvation.
As Romans 6 shows that Jesus’ grace is the central focus of whole plan of salvation, we need to understand the counterpart of Jesus’ grace is Satan’s rebellion. This is one of the hardest yet at the same time simple things that we should see in the plan of salvation.
I raised an idea in the class where it says that it is safe to proclaim salvation using legal system of universe. The reason why I thought this way is that law of God is in the center of the great controversy between God and Satan. When Satan rebelled in heaven, God’s law was broken in him and because of that it affected entire human world. Because of the invasion of Satan to God’s law, God had to protect His law by putting something to restore what Satan’s invasion of the Law broke. It is Jesus whom God used to restore what Satan broke. Therefore, if we think that there is conflict between God’s righteousness and His eternal law, we don’t see the reason why God has right to send Jesus for our sin. But, if we see bigger picture starting Satan’s rebellion, it would be clear to see it.
I found interesting when you say that there are several factors of common characteristics in 'in Adam/in Christ' idea. I actually think so too. There must be some kind of commonness in both Adam and Christ. As we see this commonness, we shouldn't forget that there are more than this.
I love how Paul sets up his argument for chapter 4 of Romans. In chapter 1, he has outlined why the Gentiles stand guilty before God; they have rejected His revelation to them in nature. Then in chapter 2, Paul shows why the Jews also stand guilty before God; they have failed to live up to the standard which God gave them through the law. Chapter 3 brings it together, and verse 23 really sums it up. Everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.
Now we come to chapter 4. Paul has already begun to discuss justification by faith in the latter part of chapter 3. Now in chapter 4 he sets out to prove that his arguments are indeed true by appealing to the Old Testament. He’s writing to a Jewish audience. He knows that they pride themselves in their heritage. They are the children of Abraham. They have the Law of God. They have the sign of circumcision. Paul takes all this into consideration and uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith. Abraham believed God, and God counted him righteous because of it. Not only that, but Abraham was counted as righteous before he was ever circumcised. Think of it! The Jews were so caught up in external obedience to the law. Circumcision was everything. If you weren’t circumcised, you weren’t a true son of Abraham. You couldn’t be saved! But Paul shows that Abraham’s circumcision was not the source of his righteousness, but rather it was the proof of his righteousness (verse 11).
This point should not be underemphasized. It is crucial to understanding the relation of faith and works. Paul makes it very clear that Abraham was justified because he believed what God had said. Looking at the full context of Abraham’s story shows that this was more than mere mental assent to God’s promise. Abraham acted on his belief. He really did believe that what God said He would do, He would do! But his righteousness came not from his actions, but prior to them—from his faith in God’s word. His actions, such as circumcision, demonstrated that he really did believe God.
Paul spends the rest of the chapter developing this idea of Abraham’s righteousness being a result of faith. He argues that God’s promise to Abraham was not based on the Law, but rather on righteousness by faith. Thus Abraham’s true descendants are not merely those who have followed in his bloodline, but those who follow his example of righteousness by faith. Believing that what God promises is what He will do is still the only way to be saved. It’s amazing, though, how we always try to find some other way. It seems like every generation finds a new way to be legalistic.
I was talking with my wife, Emmalee, one day about why some Christians are such sticklers about rules in some areas, but in others they tend to let things slide. For example, some people prefer to attend a conservative, traditional worship service on Sabbath morning, despite the fact that they were out drinking and partying the night before. Emmalee had a profound insight into this phenomenon. She said, “I think people like to pick and choose how they pay to get to heaven.” It’s so true—about all of us, really. Our fallen human nature is inherently self-reliant. After all, that was the first sin, wasn’t it? Adam and Eve chose to rely on their own judgment regarding a certain kind of fruit instead of trusting what God had said. But even when we realize we’re falling short in one area, we still think that somehow we can make up the slack elsewhere. If we’re especially holy and pious on Sabbath, maybe that will make up for some of our misdeeds during the week. But it doesn’t work that way, and it never has. The only way to be saved is to believe in the promise of God, revealed most clearly in Jesus Christ. Salvation has, is, and always will be by faith.
I love how Paul sets up his argument for chapter 4 of Romans. In chapter 1, he has outlined why the Gentiles stand guilty before God; they have rejected His revelation to them in nature. Then in chapter 2, Paul shows why the Jews also stand guilty before God; they have failed to live up to the standard which God gave them through the law. Chapter 3 brings it together, and verse 23 really sums it up. Everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.
Now we come to chapter 4. Paul has already begun to discuss justification by faith in the latter part of chapter 3. Now in chapter 4 he sets out to prove that his arguments are indeed true by appealing to the Old Testament. He’s writing to a Jewish audience. He knows that they pride themselves in their heritage. They are the children of Abraham. They have the Law of God. They have the sign of circumcision. Paul takes all this into consideration and uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith. Abraham believed God, and God counted him righteous because of it. Not only that, but Abraham was counted as righteous before he was ever circumcised. Think of it! The Jews were so caught up in external obedience to the law. Circumcision was everything. If you weren’t circumcised, you weren’t a true son of Abraham. You couldn’t be saved! But Paul shows that Abraham’s circumcision was not the source of his righteousness, but rather it was the proof of his righteousness (verse 11).
This point should not be underemphasized. It is crucial to understanding the relation of faith and works. Paul makes it very clear that Abraham was justified because he believed what God had said. Looking at the full context of Abraham’s story shows that this was more than mere mental assent to God’s promise. Abraham acted on his belief. He really did believe that what God said He would do, He would do! But his righteousness came not from his actions, but prior to them—from his faith in God’s word. His actions, such as circumcision, demonstrated that he really did believe God.
Paul spends the rest of the chapter developing this idea of Abraham’s righteousness being a result of faith. He argues that God’s promise to Abraham was not based on the Law, but rather on righteousness by faith. Thus Abraham’s true descendants are not merely those who have followed in his bloodline, but those who follow his example of righteousness by faith. Believing that what God promises is what He will do is still the only way to be saved. It’s amazing, though, how we always try to find some other way. It seems like every generation finds a new way to be legalistic.
I was talking with my wife, Emmalee, one day about why some Christians are such sticklers about rules in some areas, but in others they tend to let things slide. For example, some people prefer to attend a conservative, traditional worship service on Sabbath morning, despite the fact that they were out drinking and partying the night before. Emmalee had a profound insight into this phenomenon. She said, “I think people like to pick and choose how they pay to get to heaven.” It’s so true—about all of us, really. Our fallen human nature is inherently self-reliant. After all, that was the first sin, wasn’t it? Adam and Eve chose to rely on their own judgment regarding a certain kind of fruit instead of trusting what God had said. But even when we realize we’re falling short in one area, we still think that somehow we can make up the slack elsewhere. If we’re especially holy and pious on Sabbath, maybe that will make up for some of our misdeeds during the week. But it doesn’t work that way, and it never has. The only way to be saved is to believe in the promise of God, revealed most clearly in Jesus Christ. Salvation has, is, and always will be by faith.
Alicia, I like that you pointed out the eschatological significance of salvation. If Jesus really is coming soon, then the choices we’re making now are of utmost importance. Furthermore, helping others make the right choices is vital, too. That’s a big part of why I decided to become a pastor. I want to help people to get to know Jesus!
I also appreciated your observations about Ellen White’s statements on perfection at the close of probation. Those statements have troubled me, too. I think you explained well the balance that Mrs. White had in her writings, and you also kept the focus on Jesus as the Source of our perfection. I found Edward Heppenstall’s BRI article, “Some Theological Considerations of Perfection,” to be helpful in addressing this issue.
I thoroughly appreciate the fact that Ellen White is not a Calvinist neither a perfectionist. I have long held to the understanding that it is impossible to completely escape sin on this side of Earth. However I was startled one day by a fellow preacher a while ago who stated that he was currently living without sin. I really didn’t know how to take that remark or how to understand how or what he meant. Needless to say I am wary of people who advocate Christian perfection. After reading chapter six of Woodrow Wilsons book, it is clear that Ellen White was not an advocate of this. In that Adam passed down to us the effects and the propensities of the original sin. Even if we could somehow, keep the law through works, she says that they would still have no merit. Christ, when He spoke about the law pushed the envelope even farther beyond works. Christ spoke about motives and the role that they play in obedience and salvation. And what is more we all have inherited the sinful state of Adam. So, just as the Bible says, “even our righteousness is as filthy rags” without the merits of Christ. But even if we could somehow keep the law according to our works, it still would not be enough to garner our salvation. So is it possible to live without sin? Christ did it we are sure and doesn’t that mean that mean that mean that we can too. I mean isn’t that what He came to show us; that we too could live a life free of sin? I don’t think so. Every human being born is born with the bent of original sin. Christ, being born of the Holy spirit was not born with this bent. So then we are not required to live up to the level that Christ lived. Yes that is our goal and we strive to live a life pleasing to our God. But to me the fact still remains that Christ died for us so that Grace and mercy could be implemented on our behalf. Another theologian who I admire today said it this way: While living on Earth and running the Christian race, we are adequately fenced in by grace. And if we happen to trip or to fall along the way in our Earthly journey; we are still tripping/ falling within the bounds of grace.
Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 5 Oct. 6, 2010 Michael Liu Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T. n.d. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s BRI document. What is the place of judgment in the doctrine of justification by faith? Judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly from misuse the idea of the justification of ungodliness into opportunity to be lawlessness. If judgment call for works, then those who are justified by Christ are called to live for Christ. We are called to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed until the end of all things. When the end comes, the judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful witness of God's people. To be without the righteous deed as the fruit is to be apart from God's redemptive process in this world. Justification grants assurance to the believer, but judgment guards that assurance. The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us under the lordship of Christ. To reject this walk in sanctifation is to reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship. From the author’s point of view to see Christian experience as a unit of continuation of Christian walk. The justification and sanctification cannot separate with each other and still a protect its wholeness. In the same time the meaning of faith is obedience to the reveled will of God. That also join the justification and sanctification together as one. The subjective aspect of gospel is making it real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel. The objective gospel can become a reality to us only when we experience its power in our lives. The truth can make us free only when we believe and receive it in our hearts. (Jn.8:32, Rom. 5:17) Paul express as Christ in you. (Jack Sequeira 1999) The experiences we have in the saving act of Christ may be described as the fruits the objective gospel. _____________________________________________________________________ In reflection on Michael Jones assignment 4 The rethinking of the meaning of righteousness in biblical perspective and in human perspective is very different. In God view human righteousness is bankrupted because of the fallen human nature. That understanding open the feeling of need of the grace of God. So the salvation work done by Jesus can be effective to work in a receptive heart. We can learn this lesson by the inspiring writing of our own hurting then repent. If we accept the testimony the road will be easier.
Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 5 Michael Liu Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T. n.d. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s BRI document. What is the place of judgment in the doctrine of justification by faith? Judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly from misuse the idea of the justification of ungodliness into opportunity to be lawlessness. If judgment call for works, then those who are justified by Christ are called to live for Christ. We are called to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed until the end of all things. When the end comes, the judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful witness of God's people. To be without the righteous deed as the fruit is to be apart from God's redemptive process in this world. Justification grants assurance to the believer, but judgment guards that assurance. The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us under the lordship of Christ. To reject this walk in sanctifation is to reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship. From the author’s point of view to see Christian experience as a unit of continuation of Christian walk. The justification and sanctification cannot separate with each other and still a protect its wholeness. In the same time the meaning of faith is obedience to the reveled will of God. That also join the justification and sanctification together as one. The subjective aspect of gospel is making it real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel. The objective gospel can become a reality to us only when we experience its power in our lives. The truth can make us free only when we believe and receive it in our hearts. (Jn.8:32, Rom. 5:17) Paul express as Christ in you. (Jack Sequeira 1999) The experiences we have in the saving act of Christ may be described as the fruits the objective gospel. _____________________________________________________________________ In reflection on Michael Jones assignment 4 The rethinking of the meaning of righteousness in biblical perspective and in human perspective is very different. In God view human righteousness is bankrupted because of the fallen human nature. That understanding open the feeling of need of the grace of God. So the salvation work done by Jesus can be effective to work in a receptive heart. We can learn this lesson by the inspiring writing of our own hurting then repent. If we accept the testimony the road will be easier.
Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 5 Michael Liu Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T. n.d. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s BRI document. What is the place of judgment in the doctrine of justification by faith? Judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly from misuse the idea of the justification of ungodliness into opportunity to be lawlessness. If judgment call for works, then those who are justified by Christ are called to live for Christ. We are called to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed until the end of all things. When the end comes, the judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful witness of God's people. To be without the righteous deed as the fruit is to be apart from God's redemptive process in this world. Justification grants assurance to the believer, but judgment guards that assurance. The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us under the lordship of Christ. To reject this walk in sanctifation is to reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship. From the author’s point of view to see Christian experience as a unit of continuation of Christian walk. The justification and sanctification cannot separate with each other and still a protect its wholeness. In the same time the meaning of faith is obedience to the reveled will of God. That also join the justification and sanctification together as one. The subjective aspect of gospel is making it real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel. The objective gospel can become a reality to us only when we experience its power in our lives. The truth can make us free only when we believe and receive it in our hearts. (Jn.8:32, Rom. 5:17) Paul express as Christ in you. (Jack Sequeira 1999) The experiences we have in the saving act of Christ may be described as the fruits the objective gospel. _____________________________________________________________________ In reflection on Michael Jones assignment 4 The rethinking of the meaning of righteousness in biblical perspective and in human perspective is very different. In God view human righteousness is bankrupted because of the fallen human nature. That understanding open the feeling of need of the grace of God. So the salvation work done by Jesus can be effective to work in a receptive heart. We can learn this lesson by the inspiring writing of our own hurting then repent. If we accept the testimony the road will be easier.
Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 5 Michael Liu Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T. n.d. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s BRI document. What is the place of judgment in the doctrine of justification by faith? Judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly from misuse the idea of the justification of ungodliness into opportunity to be lawlessness. If judgment call for works, then those who are justified by Christ are called to live for Christ. We are called to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed until the end of all things. When the end comes, the judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful witness of God's people. To be without the righteous deed as the fruit is to be apart from God's redemptive process in this world. Justification grants assurance to the believer, but judgment guards that assurance. The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us under the lordship of Christ. To reject this walk in sanctifation is to reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship. From the author’s point of view to see Christian experience as a unit of continuation of Christian walk. The justification and sanctification cannot separate with each other and still a protect its wholeness. In the same time the meaning of faith is obedience to the reveled will of God. That also join the justification and sanctification together as one. The subjective aspect of gospel is making it real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel. The objective gospel can become a reality to us only when we experience its power in our lives. The truth can make us free only when we believe and receive it in our hearts. (Jn.8:32, Rom. 5:17) Paul express as Christ in you. (Jack Sequeira 1999) The experiences we have in the saving act of Christ may be described as the fruits the objective gospel. _____________________________________________________________________ In reflection on Michael Jones assignment 4 The rethinking of the meaning of righteousness in biblical perspective and in human perspective is very different. In God view human righteousness is bankrupted because of the fallen human nature. That understanding open the feeling of need of the grace of God. So the salvation work done by Jesus can be effective to work in a receptive heart. We can learn this lesson by the inspiring writing of our own hurting then repent. If we accept the testimony the road will be easier.
Comment on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter 8 This topic has considerable interest for me considering my previous religious background as a Pentecostal. In a recent conversation with my father he asked me a life defining question, “What do you think about Jesus.” This question has sense caused me to reconsider many of my previously held presuppositions about the persona and nature of Christ. Particularly, I have been interested in the human and divine nature of Christ. I’m careful not to suggest that he has two different natures, but acknowledging that He is of one nature which are composed of two different dimensions: both the human and the divine perfectly united in one. How this is accomplished is truly a mystery for all time. It causes a believer to contemplate on the complimentary nature of Christ, which guarantees their eternal salvation. Recognizing that in his being God possessed the attributes and components of humanity and divinity that are necessary to fully satisfy the atonement for sin. In his chronological study of Ellen White on Salvation Woodrow W. Whidden II, attempts to grapple with the mystery of this paradoxical conundrum. He attempts to argue for a more balanced approach to the subject. Rather than arguing from one perspective on another Whidden suggests viewing the subject from both sides, thus acknowledging the significance and relevance of both perspectives. In unfolding his argument he refers to what has commonly become known as the identity and uniqueness of Christ in his divine human nature. When considering the writings of Ellen White which he considers to be extremely consistent throughout her prophetic ministry, he points to the way in which she employed each perspective in an attempt to describe two different sides of one great reality. I found his treatment of the subject although not exhaustive rather helpful in attempting to approach the challenge of Ellen Whites dialectical approach to the person and nature of Christ. I agree with the author that this approach offers the best potential solution at present time with the Seventh-day Adventist Community. While this will clearly not solve the problems with the subject or settle the debate, I do believe that it offers a possibility for more of a consensus on her true understanding of the greatest mystery of our world. The challenge of fully understanding this mystery within the limits of the cosmos further reminds us that we know in part and until the day of Christ return we continue to await a full unveiling of this truly amazing mystery.
Comment on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter 8 This topic has considerable interest for me considering my previous religious background as a Pentecostal. In a recent conversation with my father he asked me a life defining question, “What do you think about Jesus.” This question has sense caused me to reconsider many of my previously held presuppositions about the persona and nature of Christ. Particularly, I have been interested in the human and divine nature of Christ. I’m careful not to suggest that he has two different natures, but acknowledging that He is of one nature which are composed of two different dimensions: both the human and the divine perfectly united in one. How this is accomplished is truly a mystery for all time. It causes a believer to contemplate on the complimentary nature of Christ, which guarantees their eternal salvation. Recognizing that in his being God possessed the attributes and components of humanity and divinity that are necessary to fully satisfy the atonement for sin. In his chronological study of Ellen White on Salvation Woodrow W. Whidden II, attempts to grapple with the mystery of this paradoxical conundrum. He attempts to argue for a more balanced approach to the subject. Rather than arguing from one perspective on another Whidden suggests viewing the subject from both sides, thus acknowledging the significance and relevance of both perspectives. In unfolding his argument he refers to what has commonly become known as the identity and uniqueness of Christ in his divine human nature. When considering the writings of Ellen White which he considers to be extremely consistent throughout her prophetic ministry, he points to the way in which she employed each perspective in an attempt to describe two different sides of one great reality. I found his treatment of the subject although not exhaustive rather helpful in attempting to approach the challenge of Ellen Whites dialectical approach to the person and nature of Christ. I agree with the author that this approach offers the best potential solution at present time with the Seventh-day Adventist Community. While this will clearly not solve the problems with the subject or settle the debate, I do believe that it offers a possibility for more of a consensus on her true understanding of the greatest mystery of our world. The challenge of fully understanding this mystery within the limits of the cosmos further reminds us that we know in part and until the day of Christ return we continue to await a full unveiling of this truly amazing mystery.
Comment to Alicia... Hey Alicia, I really enjoyed your comment on Ellen Whites understanding of the Doctrine of Salvation. I particularly appreciated the point you brought out about the oft misquoted statements that seem to be the norm in Adventism. I also am not in agreement with such a theology that attempts to suggest that attempts to suggest that we stand alone in our own merits. I think this is potentially one of the greatest dangers in Adventism because it posits that there is the possibility for me to achieve perfection apart from Christ. Also, it completely goes against Ellen Whites full counsel on the matter where she says that we will be sinners until Jesus returns. I also appreciated your point about the character of a loving God. I agree that Ellen White's statement in Steps to Christ helps to clarify the true nature and character of the Father in relation to the Son and in relationship to us as his beloved children. I am a father and to suggest that I would seek my son's evil rather than good would be contrary to the nature of the true love that I have for him. My love for my son is a restoring love, because I'm always seeking to seek him restored to what God intended him to be. I also believe this is the Father's view toward us and that he desires to restore us through his blessed Son both in this world and in the world to come...
Reed Richardi Assignment # 6 Do you ever wish that you could clear your brain when reading a passage of scripture? I am not talking about everyday distractions that keep us from focusing on what we are reading. It is the interpretations, models, and understandings that are crammed into my brain from all of the sermons, classes, books, conversations, and seminars I have experienced that sometimes I wish I could clear from my brain. I find that many times when I read a passage of scripture I read it from the perspective of the interpretations that are already in my brain (like when I read Romans 6 for this week). Sometimes I wish I could read with fresh new eyes. What if you could read the whole Bible without having any interpretations or any theological understanding in floating around in your head? What if you read the Bible with a completely blank slate? I guess that I would experience a greater sense of amazement. Probably I would see truths in God’s word that I have no comprehension of now. But I also realize that there are countless truths that I grasp now that I would never have understood on my own. Theologically speaking I am a midget standing on the shoulders of giants. I am blessed with having an Adventist framework passed on to me that has unlocked doors of understanding in the scripture that would otherwise be closed to me! Where would I be without the framework of the Great Controversy, the Heavenly Sanctuary, the nature of man, the complementary nature of law and grace, justice and mercy? I am thankful for those pastors, teachers, authors, and friends, who have impressed a system of truth upon me that has allowed me to enter deeper into the things of God. I just wish that my hard heart wouldn’t turn truth and understanding into familiarity, but that by God’s grace more light would lead to more amazement. Even still sometimes I wish I could climb off of those giants’ shoulders (just for a moment) and see things from a completely fresh perspective. But since I can’t do this I must pray that through the Holy Spirit the Word would be to me living and active, and I must also be willing to listen to the perspectives and ideas of others that I might glimpse a different vantage. I pray for a fresh appreciation of salvation and for a deeper understanding and amazement at what Christ has done and is doing to redeem me.
Dario Ferreira Doctrine of Salvation Assignment #6
Strange as this idea is that when we continue in sin the grace of God the opportunity to become much more abundant (Romans 6:1), is a fact that has always arisen who insist that this is the argument Paul’s justification by faith. It seems, this was one of the problems that caused concern in the apostle Paul, for he had previously mentioned this concern in Romans 3:8. Paul made an analogy Market slaves (6:15-23). “Formerly,” said Paul, “you were slaves of sin.” Sin was his master, and you were forced to make all the bad things that sin ordered them, had no forces to say no. But now that died on its relation to sin, no longer need prestart attention on the orders of sin. Sin pays wages to his servants - and the wage is death. God gives us, not wages, but something better and more generous: for His grace He gives eternal life as a free gift - eternal life that belongs to us by our union with Christ.
Reading chapter 7, “Ellen White on Salvation”, could better understand how Ellen White explains that “Trinity has done, is doing and will do to reconcile sinners” - The Atonement. According Whidden, understanding Ellen White's Atonement reflects the use of different views of the Atonement that mutually complement each other. Using the concepts of penalty relief and satisfaction thought her atonement reflects the balance between grace and law, and justice and mercy. Grace had an infinite cost, far more precious than anything in the universe: the life of the Son of God.
The sixth is on salvation that I read a study document of the Seventh-day Adventist Church - the statement “The dynamics of salvation.” I found it very laudable initiative of Pastor Neal Wilson, president of the General Conference to request this study in an issue of crucial importance. The focus of this study in the dynamics is to embrace the main aspects of the plan of salvation. The study covers six Aspects of the dynamics of salvation, which is presented in six different sections: 1. Humanity’s Desperate Need 2. The Divine Initiative 3. The Human Response to Grace 4. The New Status in Christ 5. The New Life in Christ 6. The consummation.
I Thoroughly enjoyed, namely the existence of that study, reading mainly because it refreshed my mind with the wonderful truth of salvation in a clear statement that connected the various aspects of salvation.
I found it interesting the way you expressed regarding the possibility of emptying the mind of any assumption before opening the Bible. I really believe that distractions can hinder us to achieve a deeper understanding of truth is Scripture. On the other hand, get rid of the assumptions is difficult, because it is a legacy resulting from everything we hear, read, and we conclude, attached to everything we experience in our life experience. Unfortunately, we all carry with us this reality.
So when we open the Bible, we need ask the Holy Spirit, the same one who inspired the Scriptures, that clears our mind of any distraction or preconceived ideas, and show us clearly what He had in mind when He led the prophets to write the Word of God.
Reed Richardi Response # 6 to Matthew Shallenberger Assignment # 4
Mathew I appreciated your comments. Thank you for relating what your wife said about how people want to choose how they pay their way into heaven. I think this insight does help us to understand a lot of the behavior we see around us. We humans have invented a lot of gods and theologies as salves for our guilty conscience. And if someone is in the business of inventing a god or a religion, why shouldn't they just make up one that pleases them?
May we repent from trying to make the Creator in our image! May we surrender and be made in His image.
Assignment #7 The both/and approach we are looking at in class is the view I came to very clearly in my undergraduate education, and from that background I feel that we might need even more of a both/and approach than what we are discussing in class with the both/and approach to the substitutionary and influence views of the atonement. Though I agree that both of these are involved, I think that the picture may be even bigger and more inclusive than these two approaches. I think that the atonement encompasses aspects of possibly all the views of the atonement, though each cannot just be syncretized without evaluating the biblical foundation of each view. But I believe I have mentioned something similar to this before in a blog reflection so I will now move on.
From reading the BRI documents, I thought it would be nice if they had a format similar to that of Spectrum where they would allow people to comment upon and discuss the documents. I think that it is important that we allow all people to be involved in the thinking of the church, because when we have documents without discussion we draw closer to a creedal approach with the high-ups saying what is appropriate to believe and then the masses follow. Though the challenges of disinterest of the masses will often lead to this automatically, I believe we should do whatever we can to include as many people as possible in the working through and discussing belief and doctrine. But if we are to go this route we will have to accept more diversity in thought and this may seem scary. But what if we become so locked into our way of thinking that if there were a new movement similar to that of early Adventism we would we kick them out of our churches? What if a radical liberal person from a poor town started preaching a different perspective, would we like the Jews rejected Him out of hand because His views didn’t fit into their fundamentals of belief? I just think that we need to move out of an elitist approach to religion and include the whole body of Christ, involving all that are willing to put in the time and thought necessary for a sincere and well-founded Biblical worldview approach to life and exploration.
I have been dealing with the idea of removing our glasses of worldview which clouds our interpretation of the Bible in a paper this semester. And I have come to experience a similar desire: to truly be able to see the Bible for just what the Bible says and not what I bring to it.
But then I have discovered in thinking and researching that truly it is impossible to leave behind all things as we approach scripture. To truly leave all behind and come with a totally fresh perspective we would have to be babies who don't know how to read yet. So I think the thing we should work towards is not somehow totally removing all perspectives and ideas as we approach scripture but instead removing, as far as possible, all un-biblical thinking that is contrary to a biblical worldview. The challenge is that we are reading the Bible through what we think to try to evaluate what we think and are thus incredibly limited in our ability to understand how we should interpret scripture.
The Nature of Christ is no menial subject. Whidden deals with this controversial subject in his book. However prior to my reading of chapter eight I had the opportunity to read another book of his called Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ. I found much to be considered in this work of which he briefly hinted in the current book we are reading for class. Allow me to provide a quote that really began to help me understand the nature of Christ as it pertains to salvation: “On the one hand He was pre-fall in the sense that His humanity was not “infected” with sinful corrupt tendencies, or propensities to sin, such as we are born with. On the other hand, He was post-fall in the sense that His humanity was “affected” by sin, in which he never indulged.”(p. 15). Whidden went on to use the analogy of a man whose arm was broken, and who would be hindered from some normal functions because of it. And he would describe that as “affected”. But in contrast someone who has HIV/AIDS would be described as “infected”. For me this clarifies so much in terms of salvation. Christ was not born with a bent, but at the same time that does not make him unaffected by sin. And some people including Arianists would remark that He is somehow not able to procure us or redeem us if this is the case. However again I agree with Whidden that Christ’s temptation was the same as ours every single day; the temptation to go alone and “depend on self”. Also I read the Biblical research institute’s article about “Why did Jesus Die? How God saves us?”. The article states that Christ’s desire to please the Father only was paramount to our ransom and redemption for it was His yielding to the Father that allowed the Father to raise Him up on the third day and leave the devil with simply an empty tomb. Through the Moral influence theory it would seem that all that Christ did was simply an example of how we should be without any saving merit in and of itself. But Christ’s death was more than that His sinless nature, that bore our sins was what was needed to procure our salvation. It was a task to high for humanity alone to accomplish it took the unique unity of the infinite and the finite.
Reading chapter six in Whidden’s book reminded me again of how balanced Ellen White’s views were. She kept a proper perspective because her theology was rooted and grounded in the Word. This chapter talked about her views on sin and the human condition. As we discussed in class, if we’re going to understand the “good news” of salvation, we first have to understand the “bad news” of sin.
One area where we can see Mrs. White’s balanced view is her beliefs on free will and human depravity. She rejected the Calvinist tradition, which taught that all human beings are predestined either for salvation or damnation. We have no say in the matter; our omniscient and omnipotent God makes the choice for us. One reason why the Calvinist tradition required predestination is because of their understanding of human nature. They viewed human nature as totally depraved. Sin has completely destroyed the image of God in man. We are utterly incapable of responding to God. Thus God has to step in and choose to save (predestine) those that He will. We cannot make the choice to be saved. In the Calvinist view, exercising free will to choose salvation was seen as something akin to a work. Since salvation is by grace alone and not by works, they reasoned that any human action in salvation must be ruled out altogether.
In contrast, Mrs. White followed the Arminian tradition, which affirms that humans do indeed have a choice in their salvation. We choose either to exercise faith in Jesus and so be saved, or to reject God’s free offer and thus be lost. Faith is not seen as a work, but rather as the means by which we lay hold of God’s grace. It is His grace alone which saves us. However, Mrs. White still affirmed that human nature was indeed twisted and depraved by the Fall. While not going as far as the Calvinists did, with their idea of total depravity, she still acknowledged that the image of God in man has been terribly marred. She even goes so far as to say that if God had not provided a way for Adam and Eve to resist Satan, all humanity would have been hopelessly lost forever. In other words, the plan of salvation went into effect as soon as Adam and Eve sinned. God preserved some measure of humanity’s free will so that we can choose to accept salvation. Without God preserving our free will, we would be utterly without hope (see the BRI article by Ángel Rodríguez, “Adam and the Human Race in the Writings of E. G. White”).
Another thing I noticed about Mrs. White’s views on salvation is that she is not always specific in her definitions. This is not to say that her writings are ambiguous; Whidden describes them more as “elusive.” She does not describe and define in exact detail every element of the way in which God saves us, nor does she nail down the exact nature of human depravity. She leaves room for mystery in God’s marvelous plan of salvation. I think there is a lesson for us in her approach. Perhaps there is a danger in being too quick to define salvation. Maybe we can’t actually understand in exact detail what fallen human nature really is. And it certainly seems impossible for finite human beings to completely understand the miraculous salvation plan of an infinite God. Ellen White talks about how we will study salvation for the endless ages of eternity. We’d be rather arrogant if we assumed that we have a thorough understanding of it now, while we’re still in our fallen state. It seems as though we need to approach this subject prayerfully and humbly, with a willingness to admit that we can’t absolutely define every element of God’s wonderful plan of salvation. With this attitude, perhaps we won’t get caught up so quickly in arguments over the nature of salvation.
Chester, I appreciated your thoughtful reflection on our class discussion of atonement models. Like you, I have found my own views stretched by Dr. Hanna’s lectures and by my classmates’ comments. Broadening our horizons is part of the educational process, and I am enjoying this class immensely because of the opportunities for learning that it presents.
I agree with you that the Adventist model of atonement is actually different from all other models. It is not a strict substitutionary model. There are, in fact, elements of moral influence and elements of other models. As you pointed out, though, those other models are often taken to extremes; the Adventist model certainly avoids that. But perhaps an appreciation for the contribution of the moral influence theory to our understanding of the atonement can help us have a positive dialogue with those who subscribe to that theory. We can affirm the biblical aspects of the moral influence theory in good conscience without accepting the elements that are taken too far.
Reflection 4 I really enjoyed the class discussion we had on the various models of salvation. I like the fact that God uses different models to highlight various aspect of salvation. Growing up I have always encountered these theologically loaded concepts but never really understood its significance. These models of salvation are biblical. Though some models have been overemphasized/under emphasize in the history of the church; together they present a grand picture of the gospel. When these models are exegetically studied and explored I believe it will unleash the power of the gospel in our preaching and practice. As I reflect on the various images of salvation, of particular interest to me is Paul’s concept of justification in Romans 5. Reading the BRI documents really got me thinking about the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Since then I have been wrestling to find a proper balance between the already accomplished saving activity of Christ on Calvary and the role of humankind faith and freewill. It is this subject that is tackled in Romans 5:12-21. Here Paul discusses how Christ as our 2nd Adam undoes the failure of the 1st Adam. According to the text all where condemned in Adam and in Christ all are made righteous. This is mind blowing to me. I guess in a sense this is saying that though all are condemned due to the effect of Adam’s sin, at Calvary Christ took our condemnation and extends to man His gift of righteousness. This was where my apparent struggle began. On one side we can say everyone was justified at Calvary through Christ, and all we need to do is simply believe this fact and experience new birth. Thus the issue is not that we need to do something to be righteous, but rather refusal to accept that God has made us legally righteous causes us to be lost. On the other hand we can say all men were not legally justified at Calvary, rather the provision was made. Yet in order to be justified we must exercise faith, and without this faith we cannot be declared legally righteous. So, have all already been justified and it is our heart appreciation of this fact that produces faith and the new birth in our heart for God, or have we been provided with Christ righteousness yet it’s only when we receive it by faith (that we are given) that that we are justified and born again. I believe that both of these sides of justification are true. On one side God has done all possible to justify all of mankind and yes the provision has been made, but he also provides us with the faith to receive His righteousness as our own. Though we are provisionally justified by
Reflection 4 I really enjoyed the class discussion we had on the various models of salvation. I like the fact that God uses different models to highlight various aspect of salvation. Growing up I have always encountered these theologically loaded concepts but never really understood its significance. These models of salvation are biblical. Though some models have been overemphasized/under emphasize in the history of the church; together they present a grand picture of the gospel. When these models are exegetically studied and explored I believe it will unleash the power of the gospel in our preaching and practice. As I reflect on the various images of salvation, of particular interest to me is Paul’s concept of justification in Romans 5. Reading the BRI documents really got me thinking about the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Since then I have been wrestling to find a proper balance between the already accomplished saving activity of Christ on Calvary and the role of humankind faith and freewill. It is this subject that is tackled in Romans 5:12-21. Here Paul discusses how Christ as our 2nd Adam undoes the failure of the 1st Adam. According to the text all where condemned in Adam and in Christ all are made righteous. This is mind blowing to me. I guess in a sense this is saying that though all are condemned due to the effect of Adam’s sin, at Calvary Christ took our condemnation and extends to man His gift of righteousness. This was where my apparent struggle began. On one side we can say everyone was justified at Calvary through Christ, and all we need to do is simply believe this fact and experience new birth. Thus the issue is not that we need to do something to be righteous, but rather refusal to accept that God has made us legally righteous causes us to be lost. On the other hand we can say all men were not legally justified at Calvary, rather the provision was made. Yet in order to be justified we must exercise faith, and without this faith we cannot be declared legally righteous. So, have all already been justified and it is our heart appreciation of this fact that produces faith and the new birth in our heart for God, or have we been provided with Christ righteousness yet it’s only when we receive it by faith (that we are given) that that we are justified and born again. I believe that both of these sides of justification are true. On one side God has done all possible to justify all of mankind and yes the provision has been made, but he also provides us with the faith to receive His righteousness as our own. Though we are provisionally justified by
Reflection 4 I really enjoyed our class discussion on the various models of salvation. I like that God uses different models to highlight various aspect of salvation. Growing up I have always encountered these theological concepts but never really understood its significance. These models of salvation are biblical. Though some models have been overemphasized or under emphasize in the history of the church; together they present a grand picture of the gospel. When these models are exegetically studied and explored I believe it will unleash the power of the gospel in our preaching and practice. As I reflect on the various images of salvation, of particular interest to me is Paul’s concept of justification in Romans 5. Reading the BRI documents really got me thinking about the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Since then I have been wrestling to find a proper balance between the already accomplished saving activity of Christ on Calvary and the role of humankind faith and freewill. It is this subject that is tackled in Romans 5:12-21. Here Paul discusses how Christ as our 2nd Adam undoes the failure of the 1st Adam. According to the text all where condemned in Adam and in Christ all are made righteous. This is mind blowing to me. I guess in a sense this is saying that though all are condemned due to the effect of Adam’s sin, at Calvary Christ took our condemnation and extends to man His gift of righteousness. This was where my apparent struggle began. On one side we can say everyone was justified at Calvary through Christ, and all we need to do is simply believe this fact and experience new birth. Thus the issue is not that we need to do something to be righteous, but rather refusal to accept that God has made us legally righteous causes us to be lost. On the other hand we can say that all men were not legally justified at Calvary, rather the provision was made. Yet in order to be justified we must exercise faith, and without this faith we cannot be declared legally righteous. So, have all already been justified and it is our heart appreciation of this fact that produces faith and the new birth in our heart for God, or have we been provided with Christ righteousness yet it’s only when we receive it by faith that that we are justified and born again. I believe that both of these sides of justification are true. On one side God has done all possible to justify all of mankind and yes the provision has been made, but he also provides us with the faith to receive His righteousness as our own. Though we are provisionally justified by Christ act at Calvary, we must receive it by faith personally and it is these two aspects together that captures a more balanced understanding of justification.
Reflection 4 I really enjoyed the class discussion we had on the various models of salvation. I like the fact that God uses different models to highlight various aspect of salvation. As I reflect on the various images of salvation, of particular interest to me is Paul’s legal model of justification in Romans 5. Reading the BRI documents really got me thinking about the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Since then I have been wrestling to find a proper balance between the already accomplished saving activity of Christ on Calvary and the role of humankind faith and freewill. It is this subject that is tackled in Romans 5:12-21. Here Paul discusses how Christ as our 2nd Adam undoes the failure of the 1st Adam. According to the text all where condemned in Adam and in Christ all are made righteous. This is mind blowing to me. I guess in a sense this is saying that though all are condemned due to the effect of Adam’s sin, at Calvary Christ took our condemnation and extends to man His gift of righteousness. This was where my apparent struggle began. On one side we can say everyone was justified at Calvary through Christ, and all we need to do is simply believe this fact and experience new birth. Thus the issue is not that we need to do something to be righteous, but rather refusal to accept that God has made us legally righteous causes us to be lost. On the other hand we can say all men were not legally justified at Calvary, rather the provision was made. Yet in order to be justified we must exercise faith, and without this faith we cannot be declared legally righteous. So, have all already been justified and it is our heart appreciation of this fact that produces faith and the new birth in our heart for God, or have we been provided with Christ righteousness yet it’s only when we receive it by faith (that we are given) that that we are justified and born again. I believe that both of these sides of justification are true. On one side God has done all possible to justify all of mankind and yes the provision has been made, but he also provides us with the faith to receive His righteousness as our own. Though we are provisionally justified by Christ act at Calvary, we must receive it by faith personally and it is these two aspects together that captures a balanced understanding of justification.
Reflection 5 The Lord recently used an experience to clarify my view of justification, though this is not a detailed attempt to oversimplify this subject. A simple act of kindness by a lady who deposited some money in a money gram account in my name gave me a a deeper appreciation of justification. Sis. Smith first told me her intent to deposit the money, second she confirmed that she actually deposited the money and later provided me with the pin number to receive it. Similar to this lady's action, God out of the kindness of his heart in his eternal purpose made provision for me to have the righteousness of His Son. The good news is that at Calvary, Christ righteousness has been placed in our 'life saving's' account with our names on it. God then proclaim in the gospel this good news of what He has done for every one of us. The question now is, how do we response? When this lady placed money at money gram, I had it provisionally, it was for me in my name,yet days went by and the money stayed where it was. Without any response to this lady's kindness, I could not make use of the funds that was provided, available and already written out to me. In reality Sis. Smith's gift was there objectively (in my name at Money Gram) but it needed to be received subjectively (by her act enacting me to go to Money Gram and take the gift). For a few days however I did nothing about the money that was given. One reason for not getting the money was that I had no vehicle to go to Money Gram get it. In a similar way all of us have been provided with the righteousness of Christ. His righteousness has been deposited, and signed over in our name. We however must believe God's word that Christ righteous is ours. Though I did not initially have transportation to go and receive the money, the vehicle provided to receive God given righteousness is faith. When I went to money gram I had to use the pin # the lady provided to take hold of the money. Similarly just as the lady provided me with the pin to receive her gift, Christ also provides us with the faith to receive his gift of righteousness. Through this lady self-initiated act of kindness I receive her money as my own, and through Christ self-initiated kindness I receive Him as my righteousness. My physical hand grabbed hold of the money the lady provided at (Money Gram), (that i desperately needed) and with the hand of faith we receive the righteousness provided us at (Mount Calvary) that we are seriously lacking. This story provided me a clearer grasp of objective and subjective justification. I was provisionally given money that was available for me at money gram, but I am declared to have it when I receive in my possession. The greater news is that I have been given the righteousness of God available in Jesus, but I am declared to have that righteousness when I receive it as my very own. Yes! Mankind are to be told they have $100 dollar money gram in their very names(yet this is only objectively). In order to have what is there in our names, we must use the vehicle available to us (faith), use the pin provided (faith), and use the hand of faith given us, to take hold of Christ infinite worth and receive by faith (subjectively) the righteousness of Christ as the basis of our personal worth.
Reflection 5 The Lord recently used an experience to clarify my view of justification. A simple act of kindness by a lady who deposited some money in a money gram in my name gave me a deeper appreciation of justification. Sis. Smith first told me her intent to deposit the money, second she confirmed that she deposited the money and later provided me with the pin number to receive it. Similar to this lady's action, God out of the kindness of his heart in his eternal purpose made provision for us to have the righteousness of His Son. The good news is that at Calvary, Christ righteousness has been placed in a 'life saving's' account in our name. God then proclaim in the gospel the good news of what He has done for all mankind. The question now is, how do we response? When this lady placed money at money gram, I had it provisionally, it was for me in my name, yet days went by and the money stayed where it was. Without any response to this lady's kindness, I could not make use of the funds that was provided, available and issue to me. In reality Sis. Smith's gift was there objectively (in my name at Money Gram) but it needed to be received subjectively (by her act enacting me to go and take the gift). In a similar way all of us have been provided with the righteousness of Christ. His righteousness has been deposited, and signed over to us. Though I did not initially have transportation to go and receive Sis. Smith’s gift, the vehicle provided to receive God given righteousness is faith. When I went to money gram I had to use the pin # the lady provided to take hold of the money. Similarly just as the lady provided me with the pin to receive her gift, Christ also provides us with the faith to receive his gift of righteousness. Through this lady self-initiated act of kindness I receive her money as my own, and through Christ self-initiated kindness I receive Him as my righteousness. My physical hand grabbed hold of the money the lady provided at (Money Gram), and with the hand of faith we receive the righteousness provided us at (Mount Calvary). This story gave me a clearer grasp of objective and subjective justification. Though I was provisionally given money available to me at money gram, I am declared to have it when I receive in my possession. The greater news is that I have been given the righteousness of God available in Jesus, and I am declared to have that righteousness when I receive it as my very own. Yes! Mankind are to be told they have God’s righteousness provided in Christ (yet this is only objectively). In order to receive this gift, we must use the vehicle available to us (faith), the pin # provided us (faith), and the hand of faith given us, to take hold of Christ infinite worth and receive (subjectively) the righteousness of Christ as the basis of our personal worth.
Reflection 5 The Lord recently used an experience to clarify my view of justification. A simple act of kindness by a lady gave me some funds through a money gram exchange gave me a deeper appreciation of justification. This lady first told me her intent to deposit the money, second she confirmed that she deposited the money and later provided me with the pin number to receive it. Similar to this lady's action, God out of the kindness of his heart purposed and made provision for us to have the righteousness of His Son. The good news is that at Calvary, Christ righteousness was placed in a 'life saving's' account in our names. God then proclaims in the gospel the good news of what He has done for mankind. The question now is, how do we response? When this lady placed money at money gram, I had it provisionally, it was for me in my name, yet days went by and the money stayed where it was. Without any response to this lady's kindness, I could not make use of the funds that was issued to me. This sister;s gift was there objectively at Money Gram but it needed to be received subjectively in my possession. I did not initially have transportation to receive this sister’s gift, yet the vehicle provided to receive God’s righteousness is faith. When I went to money gram I had to use the pin # given me to take hold of the money. Similarly we have to use the faith God provides us to receive his gift of righteousness. My physical hand grabbed hold of the money the lady provided at Money Gram, and with the hand of faith we receive the righteousness provided at Mount Calvary. This story gave me a clearer grasp of objective and subjective justification. Though I was provisionally given riches in a money gram deposit, I am declared to have it when I receive it in my possession. The greater news is that I have been given the righteousness of God available in Jesus, and I am declared to have that righteousness when I receive it as my very own. Yes! Mankind is to be told that God’s righteousness is provided to all in Christ (yet this is only objectively). In order to receive this gift of righteousness, we must use the vehicle available to us (faith); the pin # provided us (faith), and the hand given us (faith) to take hold of Christ infinite worth as the basis of our personal worth.
I am responding to Chapter 13 of Whidden, “Justification after Minneapolis - Maintaining Gospel Balance.”
This chapter focused on different statements by EGW after 1888 related to justification and sanctification. According to Whidden’s perspective, she was trying to keep a balance between the two. He also shared some statements of hers that were clear affirmations of the traditional view of justification being based solely on the merits of Christ. He also shared that in her view of sanctification, it was equally the merits of Christ that were able to work a change in the life. I really appreciated the following quote:
“The people of God can experience real victory over sin only if they know they are fully accepted in Christ’s merits and righteousness.”
Clearly I have not read EGW’s statements on this issue as much as Whidden, but I do wonder if he is making more of a distinction between justification and sanctification than EGW herself would have made. She sees the whole process as being based on the merits of Christ, both the initial salvation which brings about an entirely new relationship to God and eternity and the ongoing salvation that deepens that relationship.
I am often uncomfortable with the use of the term “balance” to describe these sorts of things. I think they encourage a false dichotomy. When you are balancing something, it is because they are on opposite ends of the spectrum and each draws you in a completely different direction. If I have too much of one, I need to back off from that and go to the other. I don’t think salvation is like this because I think that justification and sanctification (so called) are both applying force in the same direction (when rightly understood).
Justification involves identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and by so doing becoming a new creation. Sanctification involves the same things. Justification involves an awareness of sinfulness, so does true sanctification. We are helpless to achieve either. It is all based on the merits of Jesus and his drawing of us. All we have to do is turn to God. All of this is true of both justification and sanctification.
I think that the splitting of the two concepts tends to make us think that God doesn’t change anything in justification other than our “legal status,” but the Bible clearly says we are new creations and are born again. That sounds a bit more holistic to me. On the other hand, we begin to think that sanctification is something we achieve as a response of love to God. No it isn’t. We are powerless to achieve this, no matter how much we love God, without God’s redemptive power. Sanctification is more of God’s response to us because he loves us. Our part is only ever to turn to God with everything, our sinfulness, our creatureliness, and the love that he has given us.
I am responding to Chapter 13 of Whidden, “Justification after Minneapolis - Maintaining Gospel Balance.”
This chapter focused on different statements by EGW after 1888 related to justification and sanctification. According to Whidden’s perspective, she was trying to keep a balance between the two. He also shared some statements of hers that were clear affirmations of the traditional view of justification being based solely on the merits of Christ. He also shared that in her view of sanctification, it was equally the merits of Christ that were able to work a change in the life. I really appreciated the following quote:
“The people of God can experience real victory over sin only if they know they are fully accepted in Christ’s merits and righteousness.”
Clearly I have not read EGW’s statements on this issue as much as Whidden, but I do wonder if he is making more of a distinction between justification and sanctification than EGW herself would have made. She sees the whole process as being based on the merits of Christ, both the initial salvation which brings about an entirely new relationship to God and eternity and the ongoing salvation that deepens that relationship.
I am often uncomfortable with the use of the term “balance” to describe these sorts of things. I think they encourage a false dichotomy. If I have too much of one, I need to back off from that and go to the other. I don’t think salvation is like this because I think that justification and sanctification are both applying force in the same direction.
Justification involves identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and by so doing becoming a new creation. Sanctification involves the same things. Justification involves an awareness of sinfulness, so does true sanctification. We are helpless to achieve either. It is all based on the merits of Jesus and his drawing of us. All we have to do is turn to God. All of this is true of both justification and sanctification.
I think that the splitting of the two concepts tends to make us think that God doesn’t change anything in justification other than our “legal status,” but the Bible clearly says we are new creations and are born again. That sounds a bit more holistic to me. On the other hand, we begin to think that sanctification is something we achieve as a response of love to God. No it isn’t. We are powerless to achieve this, no matter how much we love God, without God’s redemptive power. Sanctification is more of God’s response to us because he loves us. Our part is only ever to turn to God with everything, our sinfulness, our creatureliness, and the love that he has given us.
I am responding to Chapter 13 of Whidden, “Justification after Minneapolis - Maintaining Gospel Balance.”
This chapter focused on different statements by EGW after 1888 related to justification and sanctification. According to Whidden’s perspective, she was trying to keep a balance between the two. He also shared some statements of hers that were clear affirmations of the traditional view of justification being based solely on the merits of Christ. He also shared that in her view of sanctification, it was equally the merits of Christ that were able to work a change in the life.
Clearly I have not read EGW’s statements on this issue as much as Whidden, but I do wonder if he is making more of a distinction between justification and sanctification than EGW herself would have made. She sees the whole process as being based on the merits of Christ, both the initial salvation which brings about an entirely new relationship to God and eternity and the ongoing salvation that deepens that relationship.
I am often uncomfortable with the use of the term “balance” to describe these sorts of things. I think they encourage a false dichotomy. If I have too much of one, I need to back off from that and go to the other. I don’t think salvation is like this. Justification and sanctification are both applying force in the same direction.
Justification involves identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and by so doing becoming a new creation. Sanctification involves the same things. Justification involves an awareness of sinfulness, so does true sanctification. We are helpless to achieve either. It is all based on the merits of Jesus and his drawing of us. All we have to do is turn to God. All of this is true of both justification and sanctification.
I think that the splitting of the two concepts tends to make us think that God doesn’t change anything in justification other than our “legal status,” but the Bible clearly says we are new creations and are born again. That sounds a bit more holistic to me. On the other hand, we begin to think that sanctification is something we achieve as a response of love to God. No it isn’t. We are powerless to achieve this, no matter how much we love God, without God’s redemptive power. Sanctification is more of God’s response to us because he loves us. Our part is only ever to turn to God with everything, our sinfulness, our creatureliness, and the love that he has given us.
I like the fact that you read all of Romans in a short period of time. You were able to get more whole view of the writing.
It is very true that a lot of fanantic practices are not very founded in the Bible. If we are Biblically based and rooted, it will keeps away from craziness.
I think this is the best article I read on this page so far, because you were clear in your writing, and you had good things to say. Your writing sounded personal, because you weren't trying to impress anyone with fancy writing. Keep that quality. Now, if that's not a positive comment, I don't know what is.
I agree that Salvation simple, but yet so deep. That's part of what makes it amazing.
I like how you had an intro to your article. It made me intrested in what you had to say.
I truly liked that you took "slave to righteousness" as a "slave". I like your interpretation. Sin binds us and we have no choice. Righteousness binds us by love. "I'm slave to love!" I think of how in many cultures. When someone saves your life, you are forever indebted to him-- not as a burden, but out of gratitude. (Refer to the movie, Prince of Persia lol)
Reflection assignment 6 Oct. 12 Michael Liu Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T.. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s continued The judgment according to works in relation to justification by faith gives expression to the wholeness and unity of salvation seen in the relation between Christ as Saviour and Christ as Lord, between the gift of God and the claim of God. Christ's lordship is the rule of His love. To speak of His lordship is only to say that His sacrificial love is meant to prevail in all the earth. As Lord He claims our entire life for His love. EGW join the two ideas together as follow. "The religion of Christ means more than the forgiveness of sin; it means taking away our sins, and filling the vacuum with the graces of the Holy Spirit. It means divine illumination, rejoicing in God. It means a heart emptied of self, and blessed with the abiding presence of Christ. Rom.6: When Christ reigns in the soul, there is purity, freedom from sin.” Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 419, When Paul says “dying to sin”? He means, in brief, an exchange of lordships. Previously sin had been lord, and now Christ is. To have a new Lord is at once to be freed from the old lord (this is the gift) and to be enlisted in the continuing service of the new (this is the claim). we can readily see that there is an inner connection between what Christ gives to us and what He claims of us. All that the Christian is to do is revealed, and is the product of, what Christ has done for him. His gift is both the content of His claim and the strength to fulfill it. "Forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." Eph. 4:32: "Love one another. . . as I have loved you." John 13:34: To see and accept what Christ has done for us is to know what He wishes to do through us. To live in harmony with His claim, as a consequence of the reality of His gift, is not to save oneself by one's own works. It is rather to accept the Messiah truly and to have one's life shaped by His deliverance. The event that secures our acquittal also secures our renewal. Forgiveness is linked with a new creation. Without forgiveness renewal is not possible, and without renewal forgiveness is truncated, ineffective. David had the true conception of forgiveness when he prayed, 'Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.' Psalm 5 1:10 Without complete assurance that God forgives and accepts us we cannot possibly live for Christ and in harmony with His claim. If we do not fully realize our acceptance we cannot be freed from preoccupation and anxiety over self to have sufficient interest and time to concentrate on others. ____________________________________________________________________ In response to Alicia Johnston Assignment #4 When we will stand before God without a mediator, we may still have a Savior as believer. In that time we are so settled into God and sealed by Him to a point that we will not moved by any circumstances. And all the case is settle once for all. It just wait to show the real character of both side to the on looking universe.
Wayne Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 12 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #2: Salvation Is Not About Feelings
I read what Ellen White on Salvation, chapter 2. It talks about her early salvation experience. It started when she was about 9 when a rock was thrown at her face. It was during this dramatic period in her time that she wanted to make herself right with God. Later she did find a peace, but that joy later died down because she felt as though she needed the “second blessing”. She wanted the assurance of sanctification. Many of us are like this, we get so caught up in emotions. We think that if we don't feel good, then we're not experiencing salvation. After all, we're saved. We are suppose to be all hyped-up all the time. Even though that would be nice, it is not always the truth. The relationship with God is not about emotion. It's about commitment. Think of it as a marriage. Not everyday, you're going to be feeling all mushy and lovy-dovy. But you're still married. It's not as though you stopped loving each other. You are still love your partner, even when you don't feel in love, because love is a choice. A choice to put the other first. With God, we don't need to be feeling the spiritual high in order to know that we are right with God. That's where faith comes in. We need to trust God that we are good to go, because we committed ourselves in His hands.
I've struggled with this issues a lot myself. I like what you said about multiple pictures together giving a more full picture. I have a CS Lewis quote on my desk that reminds me of this...
"But never, here or anywhere else, let us think that while anthropomorphic images are a concession to our weakness, the abstractions are the literal truth. Both are equally concessions; each singly misleading, and the two together, mutually corrective."
I think this can be applied to more than the abstractions vs. anthropomorphic images. It can be applied to a lot of things, especially the multitude of metaphors we are given to understand salvation. Thanks, Kevin :)
As I was reading The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, by A. T Jones Chapter 15 —The Cleansing of the Sanctuary, I noticed something interesting. Talking the meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8, he said: “The service in the earthly sanctuary shows also that in order for the sanctuary to be cleansed and the course of the gospel service there to be finished, it must first be finished in the people who have a part in the service. That is to say: In the sanctuary itself, transgression could not be finished, an end of sins and reconciliation for iniquity could not be made, and everlasting righteousness could not be brought it, until all this had been accomplished in each person who had a part in the service of the sanctuary. The sanctuary itself could not be cleansed until each of the worshipers had been cleansed. The sanctuary itself could not be cleansed so long as, by the confessions of the people and the intercession of the priests, there was pouring into the sanctuary a stream of iniquities, transgressions, and sins. The cleansing of the sanctuary, as to the sanctuary itself, was the taking out of and away from the sanctuary all the transgressions of the people which, by the service of the priests, had been taken into the sanctuary during the service of the year. And this stream must be stopped at its fountain in the hearts and lives of the worshipers, before the sanctuary itself could possibly be cleansed.” There is that one thing that I got in this text is that, if we are in the business of sin-forgiveness, sin again forgiveness cycle, and think that that is all the Lord has provide in Christ then He died in vain. Salvation is regard to sin, first. It is to save us from penalty, its power and the when Christ from its presence. God is looking forward to end the activities of sin in us. We cannot just keep on going on with sin. We must believe that God has provided a way to escape its power. This is the message that cries loud and clear from the sanctuary services. Without the Yom Kippour all the daily services would have been in vain. But let no one forget that God alone knows what perfection is like, and He alone can take us there. Our work is to depend faithfully on Him. ! THess 5:24 “ The one who called is faithful, He also will do it”
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 13 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #3: BUY ME OUT!
In the article, “Why Did Jesus Die? How God Saves Us” by George W. Reid, he talks about being ransomed. I praise God for ransoming me.
People get so caught up in minor details sometimes that they miss the message. Metaphors are good, but are not meant to be taken to the extreme in the minor details. We need to think when it comes to metaphors, what does this metaphor mean literally? Then we must ask ourselves, What does this mean spiritually? We must look at the meaning as a whole. Some people wonder, “To whom was the ransom paid too?” Who cares! The point is, it was paid. I personally figure that it was paid to justice. Justice, which God created, demanded that death be the punishment for sin. We were a slave to that curse, until Christ paid the price with His death.
And it goes beyond that. He buys us, with His blood, from the slavery of sin. Yes, we just mentioned that we are freed from the penalty of sin, but He also buys us from the bondage of sin. Many of us are bound by sinful habits and mindsets. Jesus’ death, somehow frees us from that slavery. I say “somehow”, because I can’t explain it. How can you explain a miracle?
We need the miracle of redemption. We need to be redeemed from the penalty of sin and the bondage of sin. That’s why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 says that we are “bought with a price therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's”(1 Cor 6:20) and “be not ye the servants of men” (1 Cor 7:23). We need Jesus to buy us out.
I liked how this chapter on Whidden pointed out that Ellen White’s view of atonement is pretty comprehensive. It doesn’t take just one popular theory in its entirety, but lie Whidden says, it’s like Ellen White “went on a shopping trip at the doctrinal supermarket and was able to get all the choicest fruits without picking up a single rotten theological apple.” I like how he illustrates it in that way. It is also awesome that Ellen White was able to do that, to be distinguish the good from the bad within different atonement theories. It’s always easy to take things as a package, in fact we usually prefer to buy things as sets, or whole packages, then time is saved from having to put together a package ourselves. Even if that package has something we don’t think is best we will sometimes still get it in the name of convenience. But Ellen White had the discernment and the passion for God’s word to not buy into a pre-wrapped or pre-packaged theory of atonement, she went for what the Bible says about it. It was also good to see the different theories brought up again, as they were in class, but in a little different light. Romans Chapter 6 has some good stuff, as does the whole book. Every time I read through it I am amazed and impressed with the depth of Paul’s teachings in this epistle. I have been noticing so many different things in my reading and our discussions from class that I haven’t thought of before. I love how in Romans 6:20 says, “When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.” And Paul keeps making the point in this chapter those who are in Christ died to sin and as a result we are now free from sin. So if “when we were slaves to sin” we were “free from the control of righteousness” then now if we are “slaves to righteousness” we should be free from the control of sin. That’s awesome! I like also were Paul says that Christ “died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” We are alive to God, that is why Paul argues that we should no longer be “instruments of wickedness”, because the sinful way of life really did nothing for us, but Christ did everything for us so be “alive to God” we should be doing all we can to enjoy the newness of life we have. We should rejoice in the fact that the benefits we receive in Christ lead to holiness, “and the result is eternal life”. (6:22). I think the illustration of slavery that Paul is using is a good one, but he even points out that he is using a human argument, that it’s not as good as it should be, but it still shows how great the news is that we are dead to sin and “alive to God”. About the online article that we had to read for this assignment, I thought it was cool that it came about because the GC President got a group together to study tough theological issues. That, to me, is a beautiful thing and says a lot about that President for one, and it also speaks a great deal about the Adventist church; that we are not afraid of tough issues. We should be making this known even more today, we shouldn’t shy away from the tough issues, instead we need to be studying and keep studying so we can keep growing and learning.
I like the idea of reading the BIble with a clear mind, like you said its a cool thought. I have thought about this too, but at the same time I am constantly amazed when I find something new even after reading the same thing hundreds of times. I like how you point out that Adventist theology is built on some solid work done by those who have come before us and I am also thankful for that.
As I reading the account of Jesus’ birth in Matthew, I realize the simplicity of the message of salvation for those who approach it with humility. But for those want to approach it a sophisticated way they will find it hard. The simplicity of God somehow escapes them. The gospel is humble and simple enough for any peasant to grasp and complex enough for any sophisticated mind to understand. Jesus was worship even while he was a baby; before He opened up His mouth in righteousness, before He walked on water, before HE gave the promise of the Holy Spirit, he was small enough to be approached by the simple ones. I don’t know if we should talk about the power of faith or amazing grace of God. Christ given to us even before any faith was expressed. The most important part as far as my read in was concerned, is Matt 1:21. “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” He would not have been called Jesus had not it been that He literally saves His people. He saves HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS…I like that! We may be right hermeneutically according the principles of hermeneutics that we had established, but if our doctrine of salvation is not efficient and effective to save the sinner from His sins, then it amounts to nothing, however logically the doctrine is right. This is the message clearly expressed in Matt 1:21.
As I reading the account of Jesus’ birth in Matthew, I realize the simplicity of the message of salvation for those who approach it with humility. But for those want to approach it a sophisticated way they will find it hard. The simplicity of God somehow escapes them. The gospel is humble and simple enough for any peasant to grasp and complex enough for any sophisticated mind to understand. Jesus was worship even while he was a baby; before He opened up His mouth in righteousness, before He walked on water, before HE gave the promise of the Holy Spirit, he was small enough to be approached by the simple ones. I don’t know if we should talk about the power of faith or amazing grace of God. Christ given to us even before any faith was expressed. The most important part as far as my read in was concerned, is Matt 1:21. “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” He would not have been called Jesus had not it been that He literally saves His people. He saves HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS…I like that! We may be right hermeneutically according the principles of hermeneutics that we had established, but if our doctrine of salvation is not efficient and effective to save the sinner from His sins, then it amounts to nothing, however logically the doctrine is right. This is the message clearly expressed in Matt 1:21.
Comment on Justification by Faith before 1888 As usual I enjoyed many of Whidden's insight on the theology of Ellen White as it relates to justification by faith. I was particularly impressed with his straightforward approach to addressing her understanding of the subject. I appreciate that he shares his convictions even with the possibility of being labeled as a legalist for some of his more conservative statements about her beliefs. The area that I thought he did the best job on in this chapter was the section entitled “Christian Assurance.” In this section he stresses the assurance of the believer in Christ's divine acceptance of them. Also, he seems to counter any idea of perfectionism by reminding his readers of her comments concerning the believers "need of divine strength." Apparently, he is attempting to help his reader understand the fine balance between a false sense of security and a legalistic perfection. Yet, he does not back down on the importance of obedience as he understands it in her writings. As he terms it "objective obedience" is a necessary component to the Christian faith that will be seen as the result of an abiding faith and trust in Christ. He also, articulated well the importance of the believer accepting Christ's merits on their behalf. He seems to want to stress the importance of the reader understanding that it is not a 50/50 transaction between them and God, but rather it is a 100/100 transaction where God pays the full ransom completely rescues them and saves them from their sins. While he does not see a two part process between the believer and God he remains clear on Ellen Whites position that faithful obedience is the “natural” result of a loving relationship with the Master. On another note, I was not in full agreement on his use of the term "safety net." I thought he used this term rather ambiguously in his understanding of the relationship between the believer and God. His description of the "safety net" gives the impression of a believer walking a tight rope with God attempting not to sin. This kind of analogy could be potentially carried to far and seems to be suggesting that the believer must walk a fine line through the Christian life in order not to offend God in an attempt to be saved. Although I believe he was attempting to make a positive point, I think that point would be better made with more appropriate analogies.
Response to Alicia Johnston Hey Alicia, as always I enjoyed your comments. They are both insightful and enlightening. I specifically appreciated your comment concerning the matter of balance between justification and sanctification. While it does seem to serve as more of a technical term than a natural expression of the issue, it does appear to convey that there is a dichotomy between the two. I agree with you that such a dichotomy would be problematic for the life of a believer seeing that our lives are not compartmentalized in this way. Rather a more holistic approach as you suggested is to be preferred because it acknowledges the humanness of our lives and our need for Christ in a full and complete way. For the believer, life is simply in process and justification and sanctification are realities in that process.
Well, here we go ☺ Was Abraham justified by faith or justified by works? It may seem rather easy if you only read one or two texts. However when you compare these verse with the classic Adventist favorite James 2:21-24 you find a different understanding. Now, since taking this class I have learned that I should not say that these verses are ‘contradicting’ each other. Instead I should be asking the question of how these shed light on each other in regards to salvation. This is a good concept because I truly do believe that the Bible is the word of God and in that sense I should be approaching it with confidence rather than with doubt (the Historical Critical debate). That being said when I look at Romans 4 and the discussion of Abraham I am able to see what Paul is trying to emphasize here when he is speaking to those in Rome. I realized that Paul is speaking to a group of people who had problems with trying to do certain things to be saved and that that caused them and the people around them trouble. James, on the other hand, is speaking to different people with different problems so he is emphasizing another aspect of the process of salvation. This minor discovery helps me to understand proof texting in a more hands-on way and how it could be very dangerous without a in-dept study of the text. Also as I read Romans 4 I found a lot of comfort in v7-8. I have found peace with these verses before as they provide me great assurance that God has forgiven me. I would even consider these verse along the same lines as 1 John 1:9 with their importance. I will continue to use these two verses together with people who need to find peace with Go regarding their sin and forgiveness.
Well, here we go ☺ Was Abraham justified by faith or justified by works? It may seem rather easy if you only read one or two texts. However when you compare these verse with the classic Adventist favorite James 2:21-24 you find a different understanding. Now, since taking this class I have learned that I should not say that these verses are ‘contradicting’ each other. Instead I should be asking the question of how these shed light on each other in regards to salvation. This is a good concept because I truly do believe that the Bible is the word of God and in that sense I should be approaching it with confidence rather than with doubt (the Historical Critical debate). That being said when I look at Romans 4 and the discussion of Abraham I am able to see what Paul is trying to emphasize here when he is speaking to those in Rome. I realized that Paul is speaking to a group of people who had problems with trying to do certain things to be saved and that that caused them and the people around them trouble. James, on the other hand, is speaking to different people with different problems so he is emphasizing another aspect of the process of salvation. This minor discovery helps me to understand proof texting in a more hands-on way and how it could be very dangerous without a in-dept study of the text. Also as I read Romans 4 I found a lot of comfort in v7-8. I have found peace with these verses before as they provide me great assurance that God has forgiven me. I would even consider these verse along the same lines as 1 John 1:9 with their importance. I will continue to use these two verses together with people who need to find peace with Go regarding their sin and forgiveness.
Reed Richardi Assignment # 7 I Just read the chapter in Whidden’s book on the nature of Christ and salvation which I appreciated for the following reasons. First I am thankful for Whidden’s acknowledgement of the mysteriousness of the nature of Christ. Just yesterday I was reflecting on what a good thing it is that there are mysteries in the Bible that we don’t understand because it humbles us and leads us to seek wisdom from above. But with the nature of Christ it is not just that there is much we don’t understand but that there is much that we can’t understand. “Man cannot define this wonderful mystery—the blending of the two natures…It can never be explained” (7 BC 904 as quoted by Whidden). God is awesome. He is infinitely greater than what we can imagine. I agree with Whidden that when we talk of the nature of Christ we must recognize that we are on holy ground, we must tread with caution, reverence, and humility. Secondly Whidden made clear the tension in Ellen White’s writings (also evident in the Bible) between Christ being like us and being unlike us. Like biblical writers Ellen White does not try to resolve this tension, she holds both poles to be true and simply lets the tension exists. But we so often run into trouble when we try to resolve what the Bible holds in tension. We want need tidy truths that we carry in our pockets and use for our own purposes. But we must come with humility. We must let the truths of the Bible be bigger than us. It is not necessary for truths to be in our grasp in order to be true. May the truths that are not neat and tidy serve to humble us and cause us to glorify God in His wisdom and seek for greater understanding through Him. “The problems in understanding Ellen White have arisen when interpreters have wanted to stress one aspect of His humanity to the neglect of the other or when the have wanted to totally solve a mystery that cannot be solved by Human minds. If there was no mystery, what need would there be for faith?” (Whidden pg. 62). Amen, preach it brother. God has certainly revealed enough to us for salvation. We know that Christ was enough like us to be our priest but enough different from us to be our substitute. This is a mystery that I can believe by faith, and a truth of which I will be eternally learning and grateful.
(By the way, someone recently gave me a copy of another book by Whidden: Ellen White on the Nature of Christ, which I look forward to reading when my stack of seminary reading is not so towering.)
Reed Richardi Response # 7 to Nick Clark Assignment # 6
I am in agreement. I too am in amazed at the depths of Paul's insights about salvation! Certainly Paul was right when he said the Lord showed him the gospel. What an amazing truly inspired bookbook
Well, here we go ☺ Was Abraham justified by faith or justified by works? It may seem rather easy if you only read one or two texts. However when you compare these verse with the classic Adventist favorite James 2:21-24 you find a different understanding. Now, since taking this class I have learned that I should not say that these verses are ‘contradicting’ each other. Instead I should be asking the question of how these shed light on each other in regards to salvation. This is a good concept because I truly do believe that the Bible is the word of God and in that sense I should be approaching it with confidence rather than with doubt (the Historical Critical debate). That being said when I look at Romans 4 and the discussion of Abraham I am able to see what Paul is trying to emphasize here when he is speaking to those in Rome. I realized that Paul is speaking to a group of people who had problems with trying to do certain things to be saved and that that caused them and the people around them trouble. James, on the other hand, is speaking to different people with different problems so he is emphasizing another aspect of the process of salvation. This minor discovery helps me to understand proof texting in a more hands-on way and how it could be very dangerous without a in-dept study of the text. Also as I read Romans 4 I found a lot of comfort in v7-8. I have found peace with these verses before as they provide me great assurance that God has forgiven me. I would even consider these verse along the same lines as 1 John 1:9 with their importance. I will continue to use these two verses together with people who need to find peace with Go regarding their sin and forgiveness.
Tyler Rosengren Assignment #4 Well, here we go ☺ Was Abraham justified by faith or justified by works? It may seem rather easy if you only read one or two texts. However when you compare these verse with the classic Adventist favorite James 2:21-24 you find a different understanding. Now, since taking this class I have learned that I should not say that these verses are ‘contradicting’ each other. Instead I should be asking the question of how these shed light on each other in regards to salvation. This is a good concept because I truly do believe that the Bible is the word of God and in that sense I should be approaching it with confidence rather than with doubt (the Historical Critical debate). That being said when I look at Romans 4 and the discussion of Abraham I am able to see what Paul is trying to emphasize here when he is speaking to those in Rome. I realized that Paul is speaking to a group of people who had problems with trying to do certain things to be saved and that that caused them and the people around them trouble. James, on the other hand, is speaking to different people with different problems so he is emphasizing another aspect of the process of salvation. This minor discovery helps me to understand proof texting in a more hands-on way and how it could be very dangerous without a in-dept study of the text. Also as I read Romans 4 I found a lot of comfort in v7-8. I have found peace with these verses before as they provide me great assurance that God has forgiven me. I would even consider these verse along the same lines as 1 John 1:9 with their importance. I will continue to use these two verses together with people who need to find peace with Go regarding their sin and forgiveness.
Assignment #8 I am seeing a very strong theme of balance in Whidden’s book on Ellen White’s views on salvation. It makes me happy that this balanced view is being proposed, but the challenge I see is that this is the view of those who are taking the time to learn but getting the people as a whole to see it this way can be hard sometimes. People tend to polarize, especially on such important topics because they feel that they are right under God and thus others must be wrong and they consider belief without questioning/exploration to be the highest of virtues. I wish all the people would get excited about exploring God beyond the Sabbath School quarterlies, and I also wish that the Sabbath School quarterlies. Now as to how I am thinking through how I would present the balance of salvation I believe that what I would put before people would be based upon their views. In seeking to move people towards balance I would probably present different aspects of salvation to different people. To those who feel that they can (or have to) earn their way to heaven I would present the fact that we are saved by grace alone. If people are living however they’d like without regard to God’s law and saying that they are saved by grace I would want to move them towards a deeper understanding of the faith that is the foundation of the salvation by grace. I might fear the repercussions of what I might say and avoid dealing with controversial issues on the macro level (such as from the pulpit) in this manner of presenting corrective views. From the pulpit I would present the importance of balance, and any corrective re-balancing would take place on an individual basis. In regards to Romans, I am finding more and more that we as Adventists may have been reading what we want to see into the text. Not that I am saying our beliefs are incorrect, I am just concerned that there seem to be times that we twist more texts to conform to our view than actually support it. I have seen evangelists present valid topics but throw out verses left and right that may or may not support exegetically what they are saying. We need to make sure we understand our views and that we present them correctly or we will run into all sorts of problems. If we spread an incomplete message to the ends of the earth, will we have to go do it all over again if we realize that our understanding of the gospel was off-base?
I liked your focus on the word tension. There are so many things that we can explore, but won't be able to understand. At least anywhere near completely.
I also appreciated your astute awareness of the issue of a desire for neat and tidy truth that is so prevalent in the church. We want to use the Bible to support our presuppositions, rather than using the Bible to reshape our presuppositions.
Dario Ferreira Doctrine of Salvation Assignment #7
If I could give a title to the seventh chapter of Romans, I titled “Free the Law”. It’s exactly what this chapter describes. The chapter begins by illustrating the freedom of law in terms of the relationship between husband and wife (7:1-6). In verses 7-13, talking about the law and sin, it is obvious that the law is good (7:12) and it certainly could not make this bad situation. Sin is the true enemy. He is spoiling everything. And finally, the verse 14-25, Paul describes an internal conflict between the law of sin and death and the law of his mind approving the will of God (7:23). For me, Paul is talking about himself, his own experience in an inner conflict against sin. From verse 7, Paul begins to speak in first person singular and continues until the end of the chapter. What I found interesting in this narrative, through a closer look at the original Greek, is that I could see that verses 7-13 are in the past tense. And verses 14-25 are in the present tense. Perhaps this difference of tense can refer, respectively, at different periods of Paul's experience before and after his conversion. I see that Paul's experience parallels the reality experienced by all believers. Every Christian has had actual experience in this unequal struggle against the law of sin, which is in its members - as Paul calls it (7:23). Paul recognizes the fierce struggle within himself. A fight between good and evil, between light and darkness.
Whidden, in the Chapter 8 of his book, he explains on Ellen White’s understanding of the relationship between human nature of Christ and Christian perfection. He made it clear that Ellen White believed “in the full deity of Christ.” Whidden admits that there “elements of mystery and seemingly irregular features in Ellen White’s view of Christ’s humanity.” He concludes that there is a delicate balance in his view of doctrine of Christ's humanity and that “expressions such as ‘pre-Fall’ and ‘post-Fall’ are simply insufficient to get at the richness of Ellen White's understanding of Christ’s humanity.” And Whidden exemplifies saying, “When It came to Christ as a fully sinless, sacrificial substitute, she was ‘pre-Fall,’ but When She spoke of His ability to sustain in times of temptation, she stressed largely His identity and spoke in ‘post-Fall’ terms.” It’s clear from reading this chapter that Ellen White constantly battled against the extremes, with the understanding some mystery and tension, always using the terms identity and uniqueness in a balanced manner.
I thought it was very clear and profound manner in which Edward Heppenstall addresses the issue of Christian perfection. Edward presents arguments that identify what type of perfection encourages the Bible, perfection in nature or character. The perfect righteousness of Christ is the only way to live as Christ lived, because our righteousness is “as filthy rags” (Isa 64:6). Real holiness and victory over all known sin are possible but does not mean sinlessness. Those who remains in Christ, has in everyday life counteracting the power of God against their sinful tendencies and their sinful natures. As Christians, we continually walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-18). The most solemn warning against the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life, is the text of 1 John 1:8-10, which says that “... If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness ... “. Salvation by grace means that sinlessness and absolute perfection can not be achieved in our reality here and now. Our victory over sin is the exclusive work of God in Christ, through the continuous control of life by the Holy Spirit. Through daily union with Christ we can participate in Christ’s holy life.
I agree with you when you remember the mystery that is the nature of Christ for our limited human understanding. Really, we should be silent before this great mystery. Surely, our limited understanding leads us to bow before the infinite greatness of God and accept what He has decided to reveal.
You're right in saying that Ellen White recognizes the mystery of divine-human nature of Christ and yet not try to resolve this tension ... In my opinion, you expressed it well when he said that “we must recognize that we are on holy ground” when dealing with matters like this.
Questions. That’s what Romans 6 presents to me. There are many things that are difficult to understand. Paul uses a number of terms and phrases that have been interpreted in various ways. For example, he says that we have “died to sin.” What exactly does this mean? Have the sinful parts of us ceased to exist? Have we suffered the punishment for sin (through Christ’s death)?
What does Paul mean when he says that we were baptized into Christ Jesus? Or that we were baptized into his death? What does he mean when he says that “our old self was crucified with him [Christ] so that the body of sin might be done away with” (NIV)? He can’t mean that we no longer have sinful natures, because he already said, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (vv. 1-2).
What does it mean that the death Christ died, he died to sin once for all? In English, the idiom “dead to me” means that I act as if the thing is dead. If a friend grievously offended me, I could say, “he is dead to me.” In other words, I am pretending that he is no longer alive. But is this the sense in which Paul talks about Christ’s death to sin, or our death to sin? He does not say that sin has died to me, he says, “we have died to sin,” and “count yourselves dead to sin.” Perhaps we could understand him to mean that we should not consider ourselves to be in the same realm as sin, or no longer under its control. This makes sense in light of v. 12. Paul says, “Therefore [since you consider yourself dead to sin], do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, resulting in heeding to your [or: its] desires.” In other words, it seems that Paul is saying something along the lines of, “Though you may commit sin, you are no longer controlled by it. You have freedom to choose. Don’t live as though you don’t!”
“Sin shall not be your master,” Paul says, “for you are not under law, but under grace.” This is another statement that is difficult to understand. We are not under law, but under grace. It seems that what Paul means by this can be understood when we examine it in the context of the rhetoric which follows. He says, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” He then proceeds to argue that though we used to be slaves to sin, we have been set free and are now slaves to righteousness. Thus, if Paul means that we no longer need to keep the law because we are under grace, why does he immediately infer that we are now to avoid sin? What is sin if there is no law? On the other hand, if being under grace vs. law is a reference to the means whereby we are saved, Paul’s comments are much more logical. If I am not saved by adherence to the law, I might naturally think that I no longer needed to keep it. But that would mean being a slave to sin, from which I have now been set free.
Slavery and freedom is a major theme in Romans 6. Paul’s point in this chapter seems to be that because of Christ’s death, we are no longer in slavery to sin. It is no longer our master. Instead, we are slaves to righteousness. The benefit we reap is holiness, and the result is eternal life.
This week I read chapter seven in Whidden’s book, which dealt with Ellen White’s view of the atonement as well as briefly surveying various historical views of the atonement. I also read George Reid’s BRI article: “Why Did Jesus Die? How God Saves Us.” Both of these make strong arguments against the moral influence theory. While Whidden and Reid both accept that Jesus’ death on the cross does indeed have a moral influence, they maintain that His death also served as a substitution for ours.
It seems like both Whidden and Reid accept a big model of salvation. Whidden notes that Ellen White took elements from many different atonement models. However, she only took the best and accepted nothing that was contrary to Scripture. Thus, her views cannot be limited to a single model (although Whidden does argue that the predominant view in Mrs. White’s writings is the penal substitution model, he recognizes elements of moral influence in her soteriology).
Likewise, Reid discusses Peter Abelard’s moral influence theory and acknowledges there is truth in this theory. It is simply taken too far. Jesus’ death on the cross was indeed a manifestation of God’s love for humanity. And this wonderful example of God’s love does have a powerful moral effect on us. But in Scripture and in Mrs. White’s writings, this moral influence drives us to repent of our sins and to accept the sacrifice of Jesus in our place. In the moral influence theory, however, the moral effect of Jesus’ death seems to stop short of convicting us of sin and our need of repentance. It merely convinces us that our perception of God has been wrong and moves us to change our view of Him.
Clearly the moral influence theory is insufficient to describe what Jesus really did for us at Calvary. Yet this theory continues to attract Christians, even Adventists. I am wondering if the reason for this is that we have overemphasized penal substitution and underemphasized the moral influence aspect of the atonement. Perhaps we have spoken of Jesus’ death in dry, theological terms. Yes, Jesus came to die in my place and to pay the penalty for my sins. But how will that ever move me to love Him, how will it ever persuade me to accept Him as my Savior, unless I know that the reason Jesus gave His life for me is because He loves me so very much?
Perhaps the moral influence theory does pose a threat to a correct understanding of salvation. Its conclusions do seem to lead down dangerous paths to unbiblical ideas. But maybe the proper way to combat the moral influence theory is not to argue more strongly in favor of penal substitution. Instead, as Dr. Hanna has so often pointed out, perhaps what we need is to accept a bigger model of salvation. Perhaps the way to deal with the unbiblical ramifications of the moral influence theory is to emphasize (within a model which accepts penal substitution) a very biblical idea—the matchless love of God. The Gospel is about a God who came to this earth, lived as one of us, and died in our place—all because He loves us so much. (And, as Paul would say, it’s much more, too.) It’s the realization that God loves me which changes me. I can know that Jesus died for me; but it doesn’t really make a difference in my life until I know that He loves me.
Ryan, I can relate to the questions you raise about Romans 6. Paul is hard to understand sometimes. But we shouldn’t feel too bad, I guess; even Peter thought Paul was hard to understand!
About Paul’s statements that we are to consider ourselves dead to sin: maybe one way to look at it is this. We are to consider ourselves dead to sin. Does a dead person respond when you call to him? No. So when sin (temptation) comes knocking on our door, we just say, “Nobody’s home; I’m dead to sin. I can’t respond to temptation beckoning me because I’m dead to sin, but alive to Jesus. I can only hear Jesus beckoning me.” This would fit in with Paul’s statements about sin no longer being our master. Sin ain’t our boss no more! We don’t do what it tells us to do. We follow a new Master—Jesus—and we only do what He tells us to do.
And like you said, even if we stumble and fall from time to time (which we are likely to do—1 John 2:1), we can get back up in the power of Jesus and keep fighting the good fight. We no longer have to be controlled by sin, even if we occasionally give in to temptation.
Alexander Rybachek Assignment #5 Evaluation on Justification and the Cross by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez Romans 5:12-21 is very discussed, since it brings the idea of two Adams. I always thought of us being sinful in Adam as us being viewed in the first Adam. So when Adam committed sin we were in him. Thus I understood the deliverance from sin in Christ. When we are in Christ we are delivered from sin in Christ. Very first thing: Originally Sin and Death Were not Part of the World. As I was reading the article by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez on Rom 5:12-21 I was surprised by the research results. The sin of Adam was unique in the history of the human race in terms of its consequences or results. The sins that we are proclaimed guilty of along with Adam are not Adam’s sin transplanted into us. The sin came into the world by means of Adam. Adam became channel of sin into his descendants. The problem of sin was the issue for a young boy who was sick with diabetes at very fragile age. Problem of sin was an issue for a father who had lost his 16 year old daughter. Problem of sin is an issue for many molested children. It is difficult to explain to them why sin entered the world and why by disobedience of one we have so many consequences. Until I have read Roman 5 I could not get the biblical perspective of why God was silent to many evils. Actually He was not silent. He gave an answer in His Son Jesus. Verse Paul describes in Rom 5:12-19 the event of the cross as an act of divine grace. The manifestation of this gift has as its only objective the human race. Through Christ God provided enough grace to save the whole human race, since the time of Adam to the end of mercy. But this gift must be accepted in order to be ours. The gift is justification by faith and those who accept it are the "many" who are in Christ through faith in him. The text says Romans 5:14-15 4 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! (my emphasis). Gift is not like the trespass. many died by the trespass of one man, HOW MUCH MORE DID GOD’S GRACE … OVERFLOW THE MANY. This is the answer of God to fallen humanity – you suffer because of one trespass of Adam and you really do. He started the thing and you just follow, BUT in My Son you will find more than life – you will find Me as the source of life. Yes, there is an answer to all that have suffered from sin and its consequences. God have send His Son in order to suffer all the way with us, but His sufferings along the way has saved us greater than sin has damaged us! We are overflowed by God’s grace and His gift. Christ is not just the answer to the problem of sin – He is the true meaning of life if there would be no sin! Christ is too much! Thus in Paul’s view when he sees sufferings he sees the One who not only is able to reconcile in sufferings, but give joy of life and bring true sense of life. In this small passage in Romans I found my peace. The person of Jesus is not simply answer to the problem of sin – He is the sense of life throughout Eternity.
Well, this chapter was loaded! There is so much good stuff in here to think about that I don’t really know where to begin. It seemed there was just sermon after sermon coming to my mind as I read through this with the goal of trying to think of what jumped out at me while I read. Verse 1 is of prime importance to me because I was thinking recently of how to reach the post-modern mind. As I was thinking about this I realized that most post moderns believe in “the Divine” of some sort but just not necessarily Jesus. I also realized that when they believe in ‘the Divine” they are welcome to the term “God”, just not necessarily in my sense. Nonetheless I think a great question to pose to a post-modern would be “are you at peace with God?”. Interestingly this is exactly the concept that Paul starts out chapter 5 of Romans with. He states that because of justification by faith he has “peace with God” through his Lord Jesus Christ. It is also interesting to note how Christocentric this entire chapter is. Is seems that the name “Christ” is used a lot in the chapter, possibly even more than any of the other chapters in Romans. I found that those two themes worked really well together in this chapter because Christ truly is our peace with God and without Him we cannot have peace with God. I think in the future as I discuss various things with post-moderns I will continue to ask if they have peace with God and now I have a Bible reference to work together with this idea.
Alexander Rybachek Comment on Tyler Rosengren, I agree with you Tyler that these verses in Romans 4:7, 8 are giving peace. The man who is forgiven is the blessed man. We are blessed people when we know we are forgiven. It is like having the mountain off your shoulders. The life starts making sense when you are forgiven. These words written by David after sin with Bathsheba are deeply rooted in the sense of gratitude. Just this phrase of forgiveness may bring many to Christ, because the world is not only full in sin, but also in desire of forgiveness. Thanks for post, Alex
I wanted to go back to what we studied last time in class in Romans. Here is the verses we read: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” I just noticed that we usually jump into this text with some presumption; we already have e debate between predestination and free will going on in our minds so much such that we as Adventists don’t usually read the text as it is but react to the attacks against our beliefs. I don’t think because these text has been used to promote predestination as led by Calvin that we should use it in the same way to defend our belief for by doing so we might miss the really issue in these verses. And I believe that it’s the enemy who is keeping our mind from the real blessing that our Father intended to bestow upon us. I don’t think that predestination was the issue in this chapter if we really look at it I the context and the purpose of his writing to the Christians in Rome. I wanted just to put something in the picture here. First of all verse 29 starts with “ For”, “”, indicating that the Apostle is about to explain or justify what he has just said, which is verse 28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose”. If we consider these verses in their context we will understand that the all idea was give more ground to the Christian believer to keep on putting their trust in God. Paul exhorting them so much that he went to the extent of telling them that God has a plan though things maybe though He still has control. And this can be a great lesson to us. The road on which the Lord is leading us might not be smooth, but t is safe. As E. M. Bounds puts it “The ed of every trouble is good in the mind of God”
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
We do all agree that these verses apply primarily to the Christians in Rome, and therefore to any Chrsitian who has and will evr lived in this world. But could we go beyond this to apply this to every person whos has ever lived or will live? such that, that God did forknow, predestinate, call, justify, glorify, everybody in Christ? I belive if Paul was given the a different recipient he wouild have said the same thing. This truth expressed in Ro.8:29,30 goes beyond the walls of Christianity and embrace the whole world. We can know that by noticing the fact that Paul is even talking about glorification to people in past tense, suggesting that this work goes even beyond human response to God in his salvation,; that is this things are true already in Christ even if there would have bee no any response.
Reflection assignment 7 Oct. 19 Michael Liu Reflection on Who’s Got the Truth by Martin Weber The book mention about the Christ-centered legalists will pursue a relationship with Christ for the sake of strength to fulfill the law so they can be saved. The problem is their trusting in their own attainments rather than in Christ’s accomplishments on their behalf. The issue is not whether they depend on Christ’s strength or their own; the fact is they are trying to become good enough to go to heaven. Even they can be desiring to love Jesus with all their heart, but they worry more about their own love for him than they rejoice in His love for them. Steps to Christ say this kind of religion worth nothing because their heart are not deeply touched by the love of Christ. When Christ dwells in the hearts, the soul will be so filled the joy of communion with Him, self will be forgotten. Love to Christ will be the spring of action. We will yield all and manifest interest proportionate to the value of the object which we are seeking. Religion with this deep love is just dry and burdensome. What’s the problem with the legalists is that their defining sin in a behavior term. They are working on the outside but only God can transform people from the inside. Legalists obey the law for self advancement not out of love and appreciation for God. If they can see the law demand the kind of loyalty and love even in the omotivation level, they will know they will never good enough for the salvation but the kind of peace with God only Christ can provide. It’s so interesting in the discussion of the freedom of choice in Christ’s earthly life in class. He could choose to walk the other way and risk the eternal lost. The kind of risk for our salvation was so great beyond our imagination. But he demonstrate a sinless life as an example not only on this earth but also is a kin of assurance for us that in heaven we will be so settle into the truth and like Christ will never choose to sin again with still possess the freedom of choice.
____________________________________________________________________ A response to Landon Schnabel assignment #4 It is interesting to mention the balance of the Law and grace in the context of the salvation view. Concerning the Second Coming and the obedience as believer’s discussion is very insightful. If we view the obedience and the Seconding Coming in the Great Controversy context, our behavior have a effect on the vindicating God’s law that can be perfectly obeyed. The motivation for doing that is for the glory of God. To show what God can do through us by His Holy Spirit. The cleansing of the sanctuary is about the vindication of God’s reputation before the whole universe. Not we want to achieve something by our obedience but what God wants to accomplish through us if we cooperate with Him.
Perfection is the word for God. God is the only one who is perfect in nature and character. He is the source of perfection. But there has been a question on this 'perfection' in Christian lives. Some people seem to believe that once you are saved you are going to live in perfection as God is perfect. And this is why some of the early Christians and present time desire to be perfect by doing what God wants them to do. And there is another question for this matter. That is on how perfect is perfect in Christian perspective. It is impossible for me to understand without thinking about different phase of salvation or the dynamics of salvation. We all know that God can't accept what is unclean or what is sinful at all. This means that there is no exception when it comes to salvation. This is how serious God deals with salvation. If you are not perfect as God is perfect you can't go to the kingdom of heaven. This is exactly why Satan was thrown out of the kingdom of heaven. God couldn't keep Satan in heaven because he was against God's law and his government. In order to keep the kingdom of heaven perfect place, God had to throw Satan out of the kingdom. Sinners cannot go to heaven unless they deal with sin problem which means that they have to somehow make themselves to be perfect to be accepted into heaven. However, there is no way for us to make ourselves perfect because we are sinful and that is it. Unless there comes power from outside to get us out to be perfect, we are who we are. That's why Jesus came to get us out of the sin so whosoever believes in Jesus, we have power to be perfect as He is perfect.
Some may raise a question saying, 'what does being perfect in Christ?', 'how does it work?'. These questions are classical questions that have been out there. Romans 8 talks about this clearly. Living perfectly means living according to the spirit of Jesus. Every moment is our opportunity to exercise living according to the will of God which is the spirit of Jesus. I may not live all the time because of Satan's assaults but I get up again and keep following Jesus.
Thank you for your insight on legalists. Like you said, their behavior are based on how they act or respond out of duty or responsibility for keeping the law of God in order to get any benefit to be saved. We need to do God's will out of love that Jesus has shown. One's motivation on something is very hard to say because that motivation can be known to God only for he is the only one who read what we think.
Comments on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter Ten...
I personally found this chapter to be both interesting and extremely informative, particularly as it relates to the historical context surrounding the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference. The area that caught my attention the most was the "Holy Flesh" movement and what was later referred to as the "Adventist Pentecostalism." This is of particular interest to me considering my Pentecostal heritage, of which my father was a Pastor for some 12 years during my childhood. It appeared to me from the limited information cited by the author that this movement caused considerable unrest within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I also gathered that the Prophetess Ellen G. White had some very clear views on the matter. What appears to have been absent during this time was a clear position on the movement from the leadership of the church. While it is clear that they did not support the movement and apparently they were not in agreement with the basic tenets of the teachings of the movement, it did not appear to me that they offered a clear theological exposition defining their views on the matter. In my experience in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I have often found that when we disagree with various views whether within or without of our organization that we often denounce the movement without offering a clear biblical response that positively addresses the issue. While it is obvious to see why there were some fears concerning the movement, it is still necessary that Christian comportment and humble understanding be demonstrated toward those who may have potentially erred. By doing this it allows the church to appropriately correct the error as well as restore and reconcile those who were in error. Unfortunately, by not taking this approach the church loss of some of its more prominent members and perhaps alienated many more both within and without. I think we should use this as a “teachable moment” within our church history, where we realize that the proper way to handle error with in the church is not simply to denounce it but to present a more biblical approach to the subject that provides grace for both the individuals involved as well as the community of faith.
I really enjoyed your perspective on the apparent balance in Ellen G. White's writings on the topic of salvation. I particularly agreed with your sentiments concerning the need to open the bible in a more honest way. It seems to me that there are a lot of misunderstandings about what the bible really teaches and sadly this can be seen both in our pews and in our pulpits. I believe that the church needs to go back to basic bible study with a humble heart and a teachable spirit prepared and willing to learn under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am personally concerned with the clear disconnect between the learned members of our church and those who think they already know everything. I know I'm risking being a bit bold when I say this, but I really do believe that this needs to be corrected in our church. I personally believe that it sends a confusing witness to the world when we’re so divided on the basic issues of the bible and the elementary teachings our faith. This must come as a surprise to those who come into contact with Adventist, a people who say that they highly esteem the bible and yet seems to be so unclear as a church as to what it actually says. We need to determine to truly be people of the book and go back to the book to see what it really says. Then people will be able to determine for themselves if they agree with our understanding of the bible, instead of us telling them this is what the bible says, especially if that’s not what it says. The world needs a witness that is clear and honest and that reflects the truth of the bible rather than the traditions of our faith. On a more personal note: My mother told me that when she first became a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church one of the things that surprised her the most was the lack of bible study going on in the church. In Pentecostal church which she was formerly a member of she was accustomed to studying the bible several times a week with the church pastor, yet when she became a Seventh-day Adventist, the church suggested that Sabbath School was the appropriate time and place for bible study. Interestingly though, there was very little bible study taking place and just a lot of empty discussions that never quite came to any clear conclusions. My mother shared with me that for sometime she was considering leaving the church until, some concerned individuals in the church assisted her with better understanding the teachings of the church. Truly it would have been a tragedy of immense proportions for a genuine seeker of truth to discover that the truth she was seeking was unknown by those who proposed to have the truth.
I have been thinking that the issues of theology, and most importantly salvation, must be thought about on a deeper level if we hope to explore them theoretically rather than just practically. God has made salvation available for all and a theological framework is not necessary for that salvation, but this is the practical level of salvation. As we work on degrees in theology we work largely on the theoretical level, but we oftentimes keep of discussion at the level that takes place in Sabbath School without going beyond into the presuppositions and philosophical underpinnings on which we base these discussions. I feel that we all too often discuss at too surface a level, with the danger of coming to a conclusion at this level that is based upon faulty presuppositions and thus of no more worth than a debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a needle in which we come to a clear and lucid conclusion that is able to convince the masses but will not hold water at the presuppositional level.
Reading Whidden’s chapter this week was a very different experience because after hearing seeing and hearing him at the Arminian Symposium I imagined him reading the chapter while I read it and could hear him as I went along. I found the exploration of Ellen White’s renewed focus during the time following 1888 as interesting, and that there were many interesting things happening at this time rather than just the conference. I had not known about this particular strain of Adventist holiness movement and found it alarmingly similar movements that have arisen within Adventism. As Ecclesiastes says, “there is nothing new under the sun,” and it would seem that this is definitely the case in regards to heresies. Though some movement will think their ideas are new and unique, they are probably going off in some direction similar to another person or group of the past.
The chapter provided a better understanding of Ellen White’s view of perfection for me because she talked of perfect forgiveness, a perfection based upon the person of Christ that we are claiming in us rather than our own flesh which seemed to be the view of the Adventist holiness movement.
I really liked your suggestion of using possibly eruptive moments of disagreement as a "teachable moment." We should strive to be restorative in all that we do.
I also found your comments and history with Pentecostalism to be interesting. I think that though we should avoid anything where we call ourselves "perfect" in the sense they we are now sinless, there is always a value in understanding the other viewpoint so that we can come to better balance and maybe incorporate the Holy Spirit more into our thinking. I noticed from the chapter that though Ellen White was opposed to the holiness movement in Adventism, she did have a greater emphasis on the Holy Spirit during this time. She is an example we should look to for balance and understanding of others.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 20 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #4: TIME WELL SPENT
In the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” by Woodrow W. Whidden II, there is a chapter called, “James and Ellen: Their Compelling Personal Testimonies”. This chapter talks about how Ellen White admitted that she wasn’t perfect. However, she sees that one should be striving for perfection, but being humble about it. I like what this Whidden said— high aspirations, but modest testimonies (paraphrased).
However, there was something that caught my attention. James White wanted ministers to “preach Christ more”. In a dream that Ellen White had after James’ death, she saw James saying (in the dream) that they made a mistake in going to so many meetings, when they could have spent more time writing on things that people needed to hear. They could have benefited people for years on things that they knew that others did not.
Sometimes we get so caught up in meetings, when we could be ministering. Also, sometimes it’s good to take time to write. Yes, perhaps writing time may take away from preaching time, but a written message can be a sermon to perhaps more than the spoken word. Of course today you can also record sermons so it can be passed on to others that you may never come in personal contact.
The point is, I need to do more when it comes to ministry. Too much time is wasted in waste of time activities, and even in activities that are not bad in and of itself (like the meetings that James and Ellen attended), but many times, these activities together take away from the overall mission.
I need to pray for guidance so God can lead me in the ways I use my time.
Dario Ferreira Doctrine of Salvation Assignment #8
After speaking of the freedom won by those who are in Christ Jesus (8:1-11), and now walk in the Spirit (8:12-17), Paul calls on believers to have hope in the midst of suffering, based on freedom achieved the death and resurrection of Jesus (8:18-25). The certainty of our hope is confirmed both for those who love God and to those who are called according to His purpose (8:28).
The 8th chapter of Romans is, to me, one of the most remarkable chapters of the Bible. He has served as a comfort to thousands of Christians from the early Christian church, when Paul told us this message. I have experienced the power of those words in many moments of struggle and spiritual instability or even suffering. Knowing that nothing can separate us from the power of God at our disposal to help us in our Christian journey is to know that nothing can separate us from this love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. God's love surpasses any distress or calamity. This and the nature of our God and this gives us a lot of security and helps us keeping our faith. The first chapter of section 3 (chapter 9) of Whidden addresses the subject of justification by faith - before 1888. The most important presentation on justification by faith has happened in the 1883 General Conference session in Battle Creek, Michigan, November 9-20.
Ellen White emphasized the importance of obedience, showing that faith and works are never separated. The Christian should not look at himself, but keep a continuous and conscious dependence on power and acceptance of Christ.
The concept of the merits of Christ is always related to Christ's intercessory ministry, because: 1. Christ’s Merits make acceptable our obedience; 2. Christ’s Merits make up for our “deficiencies”; 3. Christ’s Merits provides the Christian's proper response to the devil’s taunting accusation; 4. Christ’s Merits reflects the attitude of God – especially toward the believer. God is willing to forgive.
I could sum up the vision of Ellen White’s justification, even before 1888 was that “Justification is the excuse for sin, but it does provider for the penitent Christ’s merits that are a perfect atonement for the failures of the faithful.”
In the eighth document on salvation, Ángel Manuel Rodriguez, talks up the “Justification and the Cross”, making an accurate analysis of Romans 5:12-21. He said the apostle Paul is making a contrast between the result of the sin of Adam and the salvific action of Christ. Paul argues that Adam’s sin had a universal impact. When he sinned, sin and death came automatically into the world. “We are sinners because we came ... under the power of death”. The event of the cross is an act of divine grace. This gift that came by Christ is enough to save the whole human race, but must be accepted to be our.
I agree with you about the balanced way that Whidden presents the vision of Ellen White on Salvation.
Indeed, many of us preachers, especially evangelists tend to drive only on text that is consistent with the goal we want or what we believe. I see no problem with it, necessary and specific situations. The problem is we can’t make it a rule but an exception. It is certainly a big challenge looking at the text as a whole and extract the truths contained in it even if they supporter all you want. Therein lies the balance honesty with the biblical text.
Matthew, good post and reflection on Romans 4. You noted that it is important to keep a proper relation of faith and works in mind. Abraham’s works (circumcision, etc.) were the result of the faith he already had, and which justified him. I wonder what this says about assurance of salvation. If I commit a sin, is that evidence that I don’t have saving faith? Is this concept even addressed by Romans 4?
It seems that there are few theological issues within Adventism that can stir up as much volatile debate as the issue of Christ’s human nature. Was it a sinless, perfect nature akin to Adam’s before the Fall? Or is it just like yours and mine, sinful and naturally inclined to evil (though, of course, Christ never actually committed any sinful acts). Until you get into the debate, it seems like this shouldn’t be too big of a deal. We don’t know what his human nature was like, Scripture says nothing explicit about it. Why is it important? Isn’t it enough to know that Christ overcame sin by living a perfect life and dying for our sins on the cross?
However, what might be a minor issue, relegated to the realm of obtuse theological discussion, has become a lightning rod. In my experience, Adventists tend to fall into two groups on this issue (or perhaps it is more accurate to say that there are two extremes on this issue, and Adventists tend to fall somewhere along the spectrum between the two).
Those who staunchly believe that Christ’s human nature was like Adam’s before the fall (sinless) seem to be trying to reconcile what they find in Scripture with what they find in the world around them. Human beings—all human beings—are sinful. There are many pious and holy people to be sure; there are many kind and Christlike people. But none of them have seem to have managed to overcome sin entirely so that their characters were perfected. And certainly none of them have ever abstained from sin for the entirety of their lives. So, since the Bible tells us that Christ never sinned, that he was a lamb without spot, there must have been something different about him. He must not have had the natural inclination to sin that we have. This explains how he was able to be perfect from the time he was born, and we started sinning as soon as we could speak (or earlier!).
Those on the other side of the debate, who valiantly defend the idea that Christ’s human nature was like Adam’s after the Fall (i.e. that his nature was like ours from birth) seem to be reacting to the idea that Christ had any kind of advantage which allowed him to live a sinless life. If Christ had an advantage, then how can human beings be expected to overcome sin? The fear is that people will use this idea to justify or excuse their wrong behavior.
It is easy, especially when discussing a subject that lacks clear biblical teaching, to become defensive and reactionary. However, it seems to me that it will be helpful to affirm foundational teachings so that fear can be minimized. For example, when we remind ourselves on the one hand, that the Bible teaches that no one is perfect or without sin, and on the other hand, of the innumerable biblical injunctions to obedience and right living, we can discuss the human nature of Christ without fear that it will affect our basic biblical faith.
Wayne, I liked your personal reflection on the chapter in Whidden. I, too, could benefit from spending more time on the important parts of ministry, and less time on the urgent parts. Especially when I’m out of school and back in full-time ministry, the pressures to deal merely with what is right in front of me will tend to lead me to neglect the things that are not urgent, but important.
Assignment #6 Whidden, Chapter 8 “The nature of Christ and Salvation”
I was a bit disappointed that this chapter used very few EGW quotes, or even many references, so we are dependant on Whidden’s interpretation of the issue. Nonetheless, I appreciated the chapter.
I have noticed the way that Christology seems to underlie Soteriology. It seems like a rather natural association that those who emphasize the change in our characters and Christian perfection want to talk about Christ as an example to us, therefore there is an emphasis on his closeness to us. And those who want to emphasize the substitutionary aspects of grace completely apart from works want to emphasize Christ’ otherness and divinity.
There was a time in my life when I took a pretty one-sided approach to this issue, but now I can see the value of balance. I don’t think that either of those prospectives is wrong, necessarily. Though sometimes either one can stray too far. One can lose track of the fact that we are perfected only by the work of God in us, and we are powerless on our own. The other can slip into thinking salvation is all about getting into heaven and not about being saved from sin.
So when I read what Whidden says about Ellen White emphasizing both aspects of Christ in different contexts, it really makes sense to me. Unfortunately, this also makes sense of why it is so easy to go to EGW’s writings to find support for whatever viewpoint you already hold. I think the Bible is like this too. It’s so important to approach any study with a spirit of questioning and openness and to allow what you are reading to challenge you.
Whidden also said that EGW always being clearly trinitarian from the beginning. I really wish he would have offered more support for this view. I guess I’ll have to check out QOD, which he referenced. I have heard before that she didn’t really take either side on the matter until 1888 when a strong view of Christ’s righteousness demanded a strong Christ. Anyone have any insight on his? A quote in which she is clearly trinitarian early on would be appreciated if anyone happens to have it.
I love what you said about resonating with the ransom model of salvation because of CS Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." That has often crossed my mind as well! I always think about what that book says about "deeper magic" being those principles that ultimately triumphed. I think what I like about this phrase is that it aptly speaks to the mystery of the whole thing. I also appreciate what you said about both/and. I'm with you. There is a reason why we have so many different analogies given us in scripture.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 24 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #5: “PERFECT, JUST PERFECT”
Perhaps you’ve made that statement, “No one’s perfect.” Is that true? Is it possible to be perfect? After all, Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” Matt 5:48. Jesus commands us to be perfect, but yet Jesus also said, “there is none good but one, that is, God” Matt 19:17. So we have a dilemma here. We are suppose to be perfect, but yet no one is perfect.
Edward Heppenstall’s article, “How Perfect Is "Perfect" Or Is Christian Perfection Possible?” is an excellent article. Many of the texts that I use to talk on this issue are here. Noah and Asa were said to be perfect, but yet they were not. Abraham was declared right in the sight of God, yet he was definitely not perfect. Romans 4:2 says, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God” Romans 4:2. He wasn’t right in God’s eyes because he was good guy. The next verse says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” Romans 4:3. This word “believed” comes from the greek word “pisteuo” which deals with “trust”. Abraham trusted in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Abraham was right in God’s sight, because He put His trust in God.
Paul says “For he (The Father) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” 2 Cor 5:21. We receive the righteousness of God when we are in Christ. Isaiah said that God “clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness” Isaiah 61:10. When we put on Christ, we have His perfect record. Paul says that he wants to “be found in him (Christ), not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” Phil 3:9. When we are in Jesus heaven doesn’t see our un-perfect record. It see the record of Jesus.
So we can be perfect— perfect in the record of Jesus. And then ” if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” 2 Cor 5:17. We are perfect in the perfect life of Christ, and our life can become better. All this when we are in Christ.
Ryan, I seem to comment on your posts a lot. I always enjoy reading them. I appreciated your breakdown of the two sides of the Christological debate. I thought you did a good job of explaining what’s at stake for each side and why they insist on their view.
You pointed out that the Bible teaches that all men are sinful and imperfect, yet it also calls us to live holy, obedient lives. You said if we keep this in mind, we don’t need to have such a phobia of Christological issues. I agree, and I think this is another example of the tension of biblical theology. We’re not perfect, yet we’re supposed to strive for perfection. We’re saved already, yet we’re not saved all the way yet; that won’t happen till Jesus comes. And Jesus was like us, yet He wasn’t like us, too. These all seem to be paradoxes, but this is what the Bible teaches. We have to learn how to be comfortable with tension in our theology.
Also, a few observations regarding your comment about Romans 4: Although this chapter doesn’t seem to address assurance of salvation directly, vv. 20-21 can help us understand assurance. Here Paul tells us that Abraham “did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.” So our assurance that Jesus has saved and will save us comes from our unwavering faith in His ability to save us.
What about sinning, then? If we sin after placing our faith in Christ, does it mean our faith is ineffectual? I think we have to go outside Rom. 4 to address this. Rom. 7 might help us, but that depends on how one interprets it. Is Paul saying that he, a believer, strives to do good yet still struggles with sin? Or is he using the first-person “I” more as a rhetorical tool to explain the unconverted person’s dilemma: trying to overcome sin but not being successful, to which verse 25 offers the solution?
One verse that might help us with this issue of assurance is 1 John 2:1. John says that he’s writing so that the believers may not sin. But if they should sin (and Paul’s use of the subjunctive here seems to indicate that sinning is in the realm of probability), they can still rely on Jesus for forgiveness, as John has already explained in 1:9. What do you think?
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 24 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #6: SINFUL BABIES
I once heard a preacher say, “Ever since birth we are sinful. Look at baby. From the moment its born, it’s crying. It’s selfish. Whenever it wants something, it cries until it gets what it wants. By the time it can think, you tell the baby ‘no’ don’t touch that, and the moment you’re not looking, the baby touches it.” Is this true? Are we sinful from birth? In the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” Woodrow W. Whidden II has a chapter called “Sin, the Human Condition, and Salvation”. This chapter brings up the issue of original sin and being guilty from birth. Are we guilty of sin from birth? Are we lost because of Adam even before we are born?
Jesus tackles this issue in the gospel of John: “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” John 9:1-2. The disciples had the concept of original sin. They thought that it was possible for sin and its guilt to be passed down from parent to child through birth. What was Jesus’ answer to this, “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents” John 9:3. This man was suffering guilt because of his parent’s sins. But you may wonder, doesn’t the Bible say that we are “born in sin and sharpened in iniquity”? No. That quote is not in the Bible. Those are two phrases taken out of context and put together. In fact, we get that from this same chapter, dealing with this same blind man whom Jesus healed. After Jesus healed the man, the Pharisees got upset as usual and we interrogating the man. The once blind man was saying that Jesus was of God. In anger, the Pharisees said to the him, “Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out” John 9:34. What a terrible source to base original sin and guilt. Who do you want to believe? The Pharisees or Jesus, who said that neither this man or his parents’ sin brought this blindness on the man?
Yes, because of Adam’s sin, sin entered the world. And yes, the effects of sin is passed down to the third and fourth generation, such as drug addictions. However, guilt does not pass through the umbilical cord. Sin is a choice. But we can also choose the gift of Salvation.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 25 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #7: till death do YOU part
I heard someone mention how he would call his friend and invite them to go hang out, and the friend would reply, “Sorry man, I can’t.” “Why not?” “It’s my finger.” “What’s wrong with your finger?” “There’s a ring on it.” When someone gets married, they are locked down. The ring is the smallest handcuff. Talk about being “wrapped around someone’s finger”. For such a small rock, it really weighs you down. You know, at the altar, you say all those fancy words, “For richer, for sicker; for poorer, for healthier; to have and to be bold, till death do us part.” After that… it’s a waiting game. But seriously, when a woman gets married, by law she is bound to her husband until he dies. If she gets with someone else while he is still alive, she is an adulterer. Romans 7 talks about this, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband” (Romans 7:2). So when her husband dies, she can free to get married again, but she can’t roll with two guys. “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (vs 3). So why am I saying all this? Why is Paul saying all this? “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God” (vs 4). So, just like how we are bound to our spouse until that person dies, we are bound to the law and to the consequences of the law until death. Now, the law can’t die. It cannot be abolished, but we can die (ye also are become dead). When we are crucified with Christ, as talked about in the previous chapter, then we can actually marry Jesus (him who is raised from the dead). Just like how you can’t have two people in your life in the married sense, in the spiritual sense you can’t have two people in your life. You can’t have Jesus and yourself. When you die, then you can marry Jesus and then we can “bring forth fruit unto God”, just like how a couple has babies. With Jesus, we can give birth to a fruitful life. The law becomes natural result (a birth) of our marriage with God. When I am dead, then I can be one with my spouse. What about you?
nancy thomas assignment #5 I have been reading Romans chapt 8 and I found some interesting points that I'm not sure if I am grasping onto it right or not. I've always heard that because was able tolive sin free in his human form we too are able to live sin free. But as I read Romans chapt 8 it is saying something different. It seems to me that Paul address the fact that Jesus came in human form, but his sin free body was used as a sacrifice, and the only way that we can live sin free is to submitt to Jesus, and give the Holy Spirit control. So it is only through Jesus that we are able to live sin free not that we can live sin free if we follow his example. nancy
John Coaxum Assignment on the BRI article Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Works by Ivan T. Blazen. And chapter 9 in “Ellen White on Salvation”.
In his article Blazen makes a solid comment: “We need to be clear: Justification and assurance of salvation are not achieved by human works or by faith plus human works. Justification and assurance come only by the all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ as Savior.” When reading this statement some may refer to it as upholding the concept of cheap grace. Which is basically the acceptance of salvation without any obedience because that obedience can never merit us salvation. John Wesley and Ellen White at first were afraid of stating this openly because they feared that these types of statements would open the gates for “presumptuous sinning”. Because it led to the notion of the Calvinistic: “Once saved always saved”. Its often confusing when we think about it. Because when new Christians come to faith, they wonder what is their role in salvation after accepting Christ. How much do I need to do before I am justified and then I can progress to the stage of sanctification and then Glorification? I think that a lot of novice believers are thoroughly confused by what their role is. And moreso than that they have trouble distinguishing nowadays between what is salvific and what is not. In a phone conversation with a friend she wanted to know what are some of the things that would cause someone to be lost. And while I was formulating a response in my mind I was struck by the thought that it is actually quite hard for anyone to be lost. As we look at the gospel Christ has done, is doing, and will do everything in His power to save us. Which again leads me to believe that if anyone is lost it will be by decision and not deception. God simply asks that we accept Him and we will be saved, according to John 3:16. Anything less than this acceptance and belief in Christ and we fall short of salvation. Furthermore I also appreciated what Dr. Hanna presented in class last week regarding salvation. He basically stated that the only perfection that is attainable here on Earth, is of the progressive kind. It simply means that we will never be exactly where God wants us to be here on Earth. Salvation is like a continuum as long as I stay unsatisfied with the position I am in and always striving to go higher and deeper with Christ than I am, in some sense, perfect. Because I am never satisfied and always trying to do better. And it is the motives and the intentions and the desire of the heart that God looks at.
Assignment on the BRI article Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Works by Ivan T. Blazen. And chapter 9 in “Ellen White on Salvation”.
In his article Blazen makes a solid comment: “We need to be clear: Justification and assurance of salvation are not achieved by human works or by faith plus human works. Justification and assurance come only by the all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ as Savior.” When reading this statement some may refer to it as upholding the concept of cheap grace. Which is basically the acceptance of salvation without any obedience because that obedience can never merit us salvation. John Wesley and Ellen White at first were afraid of stating this openly because they feared that these types of statements would open the gates for “presumptuous sinning”. Because it led to the notion of the Calvinistic: “Once saved always saved”. Its often confusing when we think about it. Because when new Christians come to faith, they wonder what is their role in salvation after accepting Christ. How much do I need to do before I am justified and then I can progress to the stage of sanctification and then Glorification? I think that a lot of novice believers are thoroughly confused by what their role is. And moreso than that they have trouble distinguishing nowadays between what is salvific and what is not. In a phone conversation with a friend she wanted to know what are some of the things that would cause someone to be lost. And while I was formulating a response in my mind I was struck by the thought that it is actually quite hard for anyone to be lost. As we look at the gospel Christ has done, is doing, and will do everything in His power to save us. Which again leads me to believe that if anyone is lost it will be by decision and not deception. God simply asks that we accept Him and we will be saved, according to John 3:16. Anything less than this acceptance and belief in Christ and we fall short of salvation. Furthermore I also appreciated what Dr. Hanna presented in class last week regarding salvation. He basically stated that the only perfection that is attainable here on Earth, is of the progressive kind. It simply means that we will never be exactly where God wants us to be here on Earth. Salvation is like a continuum as long as I stay unsatisfied with the position I am in and always striving to go higher and deeper with Christ than I am, in some sense, perfect. Because I am never satisfied and always trying to do better. And it is the motives and the intentions and the desire of the heart that God looks at.
Roman 4 tells us about the faith that should be applied in our Christian life. And also it tells us that through the faith we can become a happy human. We are not a worker. If we a worker, if we would do something for only getting the salvation, if we obey God’s law only for salvation, we would claim our salvation. In fact it is wrong to claim to God our salvation. Bible tells us the salvation is gift for us from God. If we claim our gift for our birthday, it would be so funny situation. The gift is based on the person who giving, but not receiver.
This chapter includes my most favorite verses in the Bible, 4:18-25. Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, so shall thy seed be. (4:18) “Believed against hope” this sentence impressed me. What do we call the faith? It is to believe something. But this Bible verse mention that the important thing is not only how do we believe but also when do we believe. And also I could find why Abraham could be called the father of faith. He believed when the situation he never believed. And it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. (4:22)
and finally Roman chapter 4 tells that it is not only Abraham’s story but also our story. We are living as a Christian. And the most important thing as a Christian is Faith. And the faith that we must have is the faith that Abraham had. Believed Against hope, I hope that is ours.
I had heard a good deal about 1888 and its relation to Ellen White and her focus before, but I was happy to see it again in Whidden’s book which laid it out in a simple and organized manner. What I appreciated most of what he said was probably the relaying of other people’s past perspective on the conference and Ellen White and then the distinction he draws with those views which includes making clear the differences between Ellen White and Jones/Waggoner. Also, his suggestion that Ellen White was unique in being the only Adventist clearly laying out an objective view of the atonement before 1888 was intriguing.
The way in which history unfolds amazes me sometimes. It makes me wonder if this last General Conference Session will end up as a turning point in Adventism in the future, or if it will just be another GC Session. It is only with hindsight that we can clearly (or relatively clearly) see what events mean for the development of history. It is strange to think that for us the present is the only time in actuality (at least in our ability to experience it) because it is always now and never yesterday or tomorrow. But it is through remembering yesterday that we can move forward tomorrow. Once something happens it almost becomes a thing, though an abstract thing, that we can look back at, deconstruct and analyze so that we can learn from it. Though history can be contained in books in some sense which allows us to learn from it, it is also completely gone in the sense that we are only left with the perspective of the person (or video camera) which remembers it. Because of its nature I think it would be safe to say that history is one of the hardest (and most elusive) and most important things that could be studied. The nature of history/time becomes even more complex in the Biblical worldview because of typology which links time and space to the will of God in a way which brings together the mind of God into actuality which is continually unfolding. It is also interesting that humanity’s preferred forms of entertainment are closely tied to narrative and the unfolding of truths in either history (or even fiction) in a way that we are able to relate to others who have gone before us. Truly there is nothing near under the sun, but those things are constantly being expressed in different ways.
Wayne, I really liked your analogy. It really brought home the idea of law, and being under law now. But the challenge is when we die to self, at the point of conversion/baptism, we are reborn in Christ as new people. I agree with your analogy, but then there is the wrench in the gears of "What happens at baptism?" Are we still married to the law, or are there two types of law, or are we married to two things at this point? I don't know the answers to these questions now.
Again, I really appreciated your analogy of until death do you part and the things it gets us thinking about. It really is quite interesting in the Bible how well marriage represents our experience, and how God used marriage in the time of the exile to illustrate the fact that His people were being unfaithful to Him.
thanks Landon for your comments. To answer your questions. We are not married to two things, because the text says the opposite. We are freed from the law, but now there is a new law, Romans 3:27 tells us that its the law of faith (putting our trust in God. When you trust someone you follow them). There is more that happens at baptism, but I'll present that in class for my research paper.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 26 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #8: JESUS DIDN’T HAVE AN ADVANTAGE
In the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” Woodrow W. Whidden II has a chapter called “The Nature of Christ and Salvation”. This chapter deals with whether Jesus had the propensity to sin or inclination. What kind of nature does he have? If He was fully man, then was He sinful or just had a sinful body?
These questions have bothered me for some time. Ellen White doesn’t talk much on it. It wasn’t really her focus. However, she does support Christ as being fully man and fully God. These questions bother us, because we know that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, but can He really relate to us?
I see the situation as this. Jesus was similar to Adam’s pre-fall state. Adam never sinned, therefore he didn’t have a natural inclination to sin. However, he was tempted, and the temptation was strong enough to have the victory over him. Jesus never sinned and He had the Holy Spirit from the beginning, therefore he was in the same situation as Adam. We on the other hand, when we are born, have never sinned, but we don’t have the Holy Spirit to strengthen us.
However, Jesus wasn’t exactly the same as Adam, because He didn’t have a perfect body like Adam. Jesus was operating at a disadvantage. An unperfected body is weak a frail and has a yearning to satisfy the flesh. The difference between us and Jesus is that we yield to that yearning, but Jesus didn’t. (this theory is to not be confused with us having sin and guilt from birth. We receive that through choice. See my previous blog, “Sinful Babies”) Every time we yield to sin, the tendency for sin becomes stronger.
But you might say, “that’s not fair. Jesus had an advantage over us.” Well, He definitely didn’t have an advantage over Adam. Besides, do you think that Satan tempted Jesus the way he temps us? Satan perhaps only sends his rookie demons to mess me us, and I’m constantly falling down like a new born giraffe. Its some tough temptation. Imagine Jesus to go through. Satan didn’t send the rookie demons. He sent legions (I’m sure) of the best, headed up by himself personally to tempt Jesus. Also, God doesn’t allow us to go through temptation that we can’t handle. Jesus, could handle any temptation at any level, so Satan must have gone crazy in tempting Jesus. Jesus did not have an advantage over us. He handled temptations as a man, and as an example to us on how we can not fall to temptation, He simply relied on the Father. He said, “the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” John 14:10.
Once again, I appreciated Whidden's balanced perspective on Ellen Whites relationship to the 1888 Meeting. The two points that he attempted to elucidate concerning the matter centered on the churches “spiritual needs” and “doctrinal confusion” concerning the meaning of justification by faith. In this section he was extremely careful to demonstrate that Ellen White's understanding of the issue was not the primary focus of the 1888 meetings, but rather he attempts to demonstrate that it was her intentionality in being more “theologically precise” on the issue for the sake of the church and the individual believer which seems to be the main focus of the meeting. He also makes it very clear that she did not lean toward a more “subjective” view of Salvation as it relates to the individual experience of the believer but rather she attempted to correct the doctrinal misunderstanding in its “objective” sense in order that the individual believer might experience the “living faith” that comes from being justified by faith through Christ. Of considerable importance in this section is his distinction between Ellen Whites understanding of justification and the later theological developments of Waggoner and Jones, while he sees that Ellen White shared agreement with Waggoner and Jones in several important areas of their presentation, he suggests that it was in no way a whole-sale approval or commendation of all of their later teachings on the subject. He suggests that this is where the primary misunderstanding appears to have derived; mainly that Ellen White shared "all" of the views of Waggoner and Jones, which he strongly rejects. What appears to be important to Whidden's study was Ellen White's previous Christ-Centered Ministry that served as the basis of her understanding and which he suggests she further clarified in “theological” and “technical” terms after hearing the presentation of Waggoner and Jones. I personally appreciated his quotations from her writings establishing her view on justification. Particularly, there were two points that caught my attention. First, that Christ became a curse "for us" and took our sins, and second, that He "imputed unto us" His own righteousness. These two points appear to represent the crux of her view on the doctrine of justification, at least as it relates to the work of Christ. From this perspective, as well as the many statements she made concerning the bestowing of the "merits of Christ" on behalf of the sinner, we have a clearer understanding on her personal view on the matter. Finally, throughout her ministry of consistently uplifting Christ as the great redeemer she reminded the individual believer of their assurance of salvation and their acceptance before God.
I really enjoyed your balanced comments on the BRI document concerning faith and works. I agree that there is real danger for people to look for a Jesus + model of salvation. As you mentioned, this particularly becomes an issue for new believers attempting to discover their role in salvation and their responsibility in relation to God. I also see the potential for a sort of cheap grace to develop "once saved always saved" or "its all about the heart" almost as if obedience doesn't matter. I think it is always important to remember when talking about salvation there are two sides to the coin: God's part and the believer's part. In this sense, I'm not suggesting that the believer plays a role in salvation but rather that the believer has a role in living out the salvation he has received. I think these are two very different things. On the one hand, God has done everything necessary to save me; on the other hand my life should reflect the salvation I have received. In other words, the believer’s part is to simply live by faith in the righteousness of Christ, striving toward perfection in Him as Ellen White stated having a "living faith." I believe this aligns with the idea of "progressive perfection," where the believer is on an "upward" path toward growth in Christ. In this way the believer is daily growing in Christ and continuing to experience the grace of God that leads to growth in Christ. I believe this is what the Apostle Peter had in mind when he admonished us to "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To "Him" be glory both now and forever. Amen (2 Pet. 3:18) [Italics supplied]"
Paul begins by drawing a distinction between those who are seeking righteousness from God by faith and those who are seeking it through their own works of the law (most Jews). Paul says that those who are seeking righteousness by works of the law are have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” This is tough for me to take. How can you have zeal for God but be lost because you got the facts wrong?
Maybe Paul thinks differently about knowledge than we do. We seem to approach knowledge in what we think is an objective manner. We talk about proofs and systematic theology as if the truth will be clear if we get the arguments clear. I don’t think that Paul thought of knowledge in this way.
Paul was a pharisee and very well established in the law. He probably had at lease the Torah memorized. The study of it had been his life, and he got in completely wrong. It wasn’t until Jesus opened Paul’s eyes that he was able to understand it rightly. All the sudden he saw the same scriptures in a completely different life, and his theology changed completely.
Romans chapter one talks about Pagan who had a clear (though incomplete) revelation of God, but they did not act on this revelation, and eventually they lost what knowledge they had and became even more ignorant. And now in chapter 10 it does not appear to matter even when you have a much greater amount of information on which to try and construct knowledge. It is still so easy to get it wrong. But maybe that failure in knowledge isn’t so much about a theological failure.
I think that what Paul came to understand about knowledge is that we can only really have it when God reveals it to us. This is why the Jews were accountable for getting it wrong, because they had not humbled themselves before Jesus who would have shown them all they needed to know.
I agree with you that in order to live a better life, we must submit to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit take control.
Also, it is true that a lot of times we try to follow his example and we get messed up. Jesus doesn't want people to try to be like him. He wants people to let the Holy Spirit be like himself in them. We can't be imitators. Jesus needs to live the real thing in us and through us.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 26 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #9: MATRIX PREDESTINATION
I never saw the movie, “The Matrix”, but someone told me about one of the scenes. Oracle is talking to Nero and for no apparent reason states, “and don’t worry about the vase.” “What vase?” Nero responds as he turns to look for the vase. In the process he knocks over a vase. “I’m so sorry.” Nero says. “I said, don’t worry about already.” “How did you know?” “The question is, would you have broken the vase even if I didn’t mention it.” In this scene, Nero knocks down a vase, because Oracle mentioned it. It was as if Oracle predestined Nero to knock over the vase. Does God predestine us to mess up? Because God knows what we are going to do, is that the reason why we do it? Does God predestine some to be saved and some to be lost?
The Calvinist view is that salvation is like riding a bull. The bull that you are riding can either go to heaven or hell, and you have no choice which bull you can ride and you can’t sway that bull or get off that bull. However, is that the Biblical meaning of predestination? The article “Predestination, Foreknowledge and Human Freedom” by Kwabena Donkor has very good explanation on these questions. Predestination is a preplan, a goal, a desire that God has for us. God plans for all of us to be saved. However, not all of us will be saved, because we have freedom of choice. How else do you explain the fact that someone can follow God for part of their life and not the rest? Why is it that someone who is lost can still have a yearning for Christ? If we believe the Calvinist predestination view, then we believe that God and Satan are partners.
Yes, God does have a foreknowledge of our futures. That does not mean however that He is making us do it. A parent may know that the child will steal the candy even if they tell them not too. Just because the parent knows, doesn’t mean that the parent is making the child steal. However, the parent can have a preplan to influence the child and guide the child on not stealing the candy. But at the end of the day, the child has the choice whether to obey his parent or not.
God preplans for us to be saved and to make the right choices. He has backup plans if we make wrong choices. We have freedom of choice. Therefore, we have freedom to love.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 27 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #10: “ROW, ROW, ROW YOUR BOAT”
This church is like a ship. We are moving to understand the Bible more. I read the chapter, “Ministry After Minneapolis— 1888-1902” in the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” by Woodrow W. Whidden II (wow, his initials are WWW. Like the internet). This chapter showed a lot of drama going on during that time. Pantheism, emotionalism, perfectionism, Adventist Pentecostalism, Daniel 7 confusion, Galatians 3:19-25 confusion, faith healing through the cross— it was just a lot of drama.
I guess, if we are a movement then we are going to have bumps. If we don’t move, then bumps won’t happen, but that shouldn’t stop us from moving. That makes me wonder. Why does it seem like we stopped moving? It seems as though we had all this movement in the study of the scriptures, but once that time past, we relaxed, and printed out a baptismal checklist. I’m not saying that we are suppose to add more to the checklist (in fact, that checklist has too many things that are not related to baptism [but I understand we want people to understand the beliefs of the people they’re joining]). I’m saying that there are still unanswered questions in the Bible. We don’t understand the Bible in its entirety, but we fool ourselves in thinking that if we know the 28 fundamental beliefs, we know the Bible.
On a more positive, we do have the Bible Research Institute that helps to keep us moving in understanding the word of God more. However, we can’t leave it to the guys in the basement of the James White Library to move this huge church along. We need all hands on deck. Everybody grab an oar row!
This message is for me, because before I can start moving in uncharted waters, I should sail the known seven seas (28 in our case). I should be studying to show myself approved, because why should I be ashamed. I need to be able to rightly divide the word of truth. I pray to God for the motivation and the strength to study His word, and the wisdom to get understanding.
But before we can really start sailing, we need to be in the boat. That’s where Salvation comes in. We need to be in Jesus and have the Holy Spirit be in us. Then, we can really “row, row, row our boat”.
The chapter in Whidden’s book for this week is, I think, my favorite so far. I appreciated the balanced, non-inflammatory approach to justification. Or perhaps I just liked it so much because it built on conclusions I had already tentatively come to, but supported them with additional evidence and expanded my own preliminary understanding.
Whidden points to a number of Ellen White’s statements from the post 1870 period “to the effect that only the ‘merits’ of Christ could be the basis of salvation, not the human works of obedience” (72). She said that “The true follower of Christ” “will see more clearly his own defects, and will feel the need of continual repentance, and faith in the blood of Christ.” This statement follows ideas I wrote about in an earlier blog post. As we come closer to our perfect example, Christ, we recognize in ourselves not more goodness, but less.
Whidden notes here that all the good works of human beings are polluted with sin and need the objective, accounted merits of Jesus to make them acceptable. Interestingly, this seems to harmonize partially with the philosophy that says human beings are basically selfish and that everything we do comes from, at some deep level, self-interest. Later in the chapter, Whidden references Zechariah’s vision of Joshua the High Priest. Joshua is standing in court, condemned, and wearing filthy garments, which represent the righteousness of Israel. Only when the Angel of the Lord orders that he be clothed with clean garments is Joshua accounted righteous. This whole idea is affirmed by Paul’s famous statement in Rom. 3:23 that “all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.” Paul says that everyone has sinned. Perfect tense. It’s a matter of historical record. But then he says not that everyone has fallen short of the glory of God, but that they are falling short. Present participle. This is the strongest way to describe an action as ongoing in Greek. Everything we do is tainted.
What are the implications of such an understanding of human sinfulness? It seems to me that being more aware of my own deep-rooted sinfulness (in spite of the fact that I am growing in obedience to God) will produce in me greater reliance on Christ’s righteousness, and less reliance on my own. I will cling to Christ as my intercessor more firmly, because I know that without him, I have nothing. In my mind, this is much more important than the idea some people stress that we need to be overcoming all sins (coffee, cheese, jewelry and the like) in order for Christ to return. Ellen White’s description of the last generation seems to be those who strive to be obedient, but struggle deeply with the weight of their own sinfulness. Whidden notes that she picture’s God’s last people as pleading “for pardon and deliverance through Jesus their Advocate. They are fully conscious of the sinfulness of their lives” (5T 473, qtd in Whidden, 74). The testimony of my own experience tells me that I feel closer to God and have a greater capacity for kindness and selflessness when I recognize the horror of my own sin and the damage it has caused, and then throw myself on Christ, begging for mercy, than when I spend hours trying to dissect whether it is permissible to swim on Sabbath, just wade, or whether I had better stay dry.
I got such good thanks for my last comment on your blog post that I figured I had better post another. :P
I concur with your comments on our ship. Why are we not still moving? When was the last time you heard people talk about “present truth?” It’s been a while (aka, before I was born). I’ve questioned why this is also. Is it because there is such a separation between the theologians and the laity? We don’t speak the same language any more. How can people in the pews get excited about new developments in exegesis or theology if they can’t understand the language? But many Adventist theologians also write for a popular audience, so that can’t be the whole reason. Perhaps it’s because our major denominational magazine never seems to publish new theological developments. Then again, I rarely read it. Yawn! That thing is boooo-ring!
I wanted to put something across the idea present eschatology whereby there is way one can experience in small scales events that God has set for the end of the world. Things like resurrection can be experienced even before the end of the world; Moses experienced it, and didn’t need to wait for the last days; even before Christ offered Himself on the cross. In this sense let’s consider the text in Nahum 1:9 “What do ye imagine against the LORD? He will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.” Could be that, we may get an assurance in text, that somehow sins which buffet us will not rise again a second time? I know what may run into our minds while we I reading these lines; one may really take this far and then come up with an idea of sinlessness. This is not what I am saying here. God is able to save us and completely deliver us from our sins which have been frustrating us; He can do an utter destruction of it to the extent that they will not rise again to haunt us. God has the ability and the ability to cease the work of sin. We may not be able to notice it, and we may even be able to seek for such experience, but the truth is that God is able to bring to an end some wrong practices in our lives that they “shall not rise the second time.” He is forgiveness is more that excusing sin, and letting us experience this infernal cycle of sin- forgiveness-sin forgiveness.. He is really in the business of ending the activity of sin the lives of His people before destroying sin with fire when He will come back. I think this idea is what has been exposed to us during the Yom Kippur. Each year the High Priest went beyond the curtain for the purification of the sanctuary. This service was different from the daily ones. And if we do believe that Jesus is our High Priest today, we may also be sure that He is in the business of making those who trust in Him overcomers as He also did overcome. Christ id cleansing us from sins that we may really rest and have that fullness of life He promised in John 10:10. We should people who really believe in the power to save us from the power of sin, its oppression, its slavery, and to keep us for His glorious appearing. It is sad we believe that our life is summarized by sin and forgiveness sin and forgiveness, when Jesus gives more than that. We believe that sin is more powerful than Jesus. If can make a complete destruction of sin at the end of the world He can also make it now. If He will walk with us in heaven He can also walk with now.
Awesome post, Wayne! I'm totally with you. We need to keep moving. I wonder if part of that movement might include being more responsive the the kinds of issues we have in our culture today. Your post brought to mind a specific issue where I think that staying put has been a problem. Before I mention the issue, let me say that I don't think we should be changing our basic position, but we need a deeper theology because the issues is so prevalent. We need a theology that will meet people where they are and help them. So how about we work on deeper and more developed theology in the area of divorce. It is really ripping so many families apart, and so are terrible marriages. It seems like we just say that people should live in their terrible marriage, for years and years, causing problems for their kids, and just tough it out because divorce is wrong. Well, terrible marriages are just as wrong, and realizing this, most people will eventually get a divorce anyways. So we need a deeper theology to address this that not only addresses the evil of divorce but gives some type of guidance and help to people who are terrible marriages so they don't get that far. Instead, we are afraid to touch the issue. I'm even a bit nervous to post on it for fear that people will think that I am implying divorce is not so bad, which I am not at all. We have become so afraid of appearing not to hold up the traditional beliefs that we are afraid to help people address the pain they are experiencing. So we need to keep moving to help these people because divorce is epidemic in our society and our churches. What do you think, Wayne? Is this the kind of thing you were talking about?
Here we have the beginning to of Paul’s dichromatic theology. The wonderful blue of salvation by grace alone but now a little bit of the yellow of works is added to the mixture and Paul’s theology is starting to look a little green. And the beginning theologian they might feel a little green as well. In the previous chapters Paul has hinted to the fact that we are saved by faith alone and refers to Abraham’s belief in God as an example. That may have led one to believe that that was all they needed to do, just believe and they were assured of salvation. However here in 6:15 Paul asked us the question if we should still sin, to which he highly emphasizes a resounding “Certainly not!”. Although this may not seem like works based salvation yet it is some what of a fulcrum for Paul because here he is alluding to the idea that somehow your works/deeds/actions play a role in your salvation. He continues on from this verse and explains that there is a responsibility that we have regarding whom we “present ourselves to”. He says that we have the choice to either present ourselves to sin or present ourselves to obedience. To which I ask the question, is not presenting yourself to something an ‘act’ or ‘work’ of some sort, thus making salvation linked to works in some way. I would answer ‘yes’. Have often wondered if Paul is able to walk the fine line between faith and works, however I have come to the conclusion that he has not. There are times where emphasizes faith (thus not walking the fine line) and other times where he is emphasizing works (again, off the line). Nonetheless, he is the inspired writer and those of us who are trying to walk the line should take note to Paul’s teachings.
Wow, what a great chapter! I still remember the first time I read this and it spoke directly to what was going on in my life. The highlight for me was especially vs15-25 where Paul laid out the struggle he had between what he wanted to do and what he found himself doing. It was as if Paul knew in his mind what he wanted to do but found himself doing the exact opposite. However, I think that the English translation doesn’t come through as clear as it could. Here Paul says that he wants to do good, but ends up doing bad. What is missing is the idea that Paul is really saying that he knows what is good and wishes that he wanted to do it. The reason I say this is because if you really want to something bad enough you will do it. You have free choice and will over your life and actions. It was not as if Paul was actually physically taken over by sin, but rather his heart and mind were sinful, due to the sinful nature, and thus he ended up doing what he really wanted to do because he wanted sin. The English translation does not show the idea that it was more the knowledge of good and evil that Paul now had and that he knew what was good and thought he ought to do it. I believe this is what Paul is really saying. This takes a little bit of the edge off because it does seem as if there are some physical impossibilities going on in the translation from Greek to English. That being said, I completely resonate with the essence of what Paul is saying, not only have I experienced that in my own life, but have talked with many people who have. I think it would be fair to say that every Christian has this battle going on once they have invited Christ into their heart. In fact, this is one of the first texts that I share with newly interested and newly converted members to the church. So that they know it is normal to have struggles. The highlight to the whole chapter is obviously v25. I find it a little ironic that the answer to the questions that is raised in the previous 11 verses is simply put into 1 verse. It seems that there is a lot of inner turmoil going on and the answer seems to be so simple to Paul, Jesus Christ. I appreciate his answer and the simplicity yet depth it offers.
I read the article by Frank Hasel entitled “The Wrath of God” found at: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Wrath%20of%20God.htm
I appreciate his addressing this difficult issue, but I found a lot of problems with his article. He began by saying that wrath is out of style. This may be true in the Adventist church, but it is certainly not true outside of the Adventist church. The wrath of God is alive an well in Reformed (Calvinist) Theology which talks about Jesus’ propitiation to satisfy the wrath of God. I wish he had addressed this as I find the doctrine find it very problematic. Instead his article could actually be taken to support Reformed Theology since it was fairy blanket in favor of talking more about the wrath of God.
I appreciated his comments about anthropomorphism. He said that some argue against God’s wrath on the basis that it is an anthropomorphism and pointed out that this same argument could be used to discredit the idea that God loves us. Good point. He also pointed to verse after verse which uses anthropomorphic images to talk about God. So the Bible clearly has no problem with it.
I did find another inconsistency when he said “God’s wrath is not wrathful.” Earlier he had pointed out that Hebrews do not separate action and character, and then he wanted to differentiate between action and character to say that God has wrath but is not and angry or wrathful God. Blatant inconsistency. If God has wrath, he must be wrathful.
I wish he had talked about what God’s wrath actually is. Paul talks about his wrath in terms of giving people up to their own impure desires when they have not chosen to follow him (Romans 1). Essentially he says that if you want to live apart from Him, he will let you do so and face all the consequences that such a separation results in. This is not a wrath that needs to be appeased, but rather a wrath that acknowledges the reality of rebellion.
Had he talked defined wrath in these terms and addressed the problems of responding to Reformed Theology, I think the article would have been much better and more pertinent to what is happening right now. In a world where most Christians believe in eternal torture for the damned, we need to be careful to address mischaracterizations of God’s wrath as well. The wrath of God is real, but it is not what Jonathan Edwards made it out to be.
I read the BRI article by Frank Hasel entitled “The Wrath of God.”
I appreciate his addressing this difficult issue, but I found a lot of problems with this article. He began by saying that wrath is out of style. This may be true in the Adventist church, but it is certainly not true of the Christian church at large. The wrath of God is alive an well in Reformed (Calvinist) Theology which talks about Jesus’ propitiation to satisfy the wrath of God. I wish he had addressed this as I find the doctrine find it very problematic.
I appreciated his comments about anthropomorphism. He said that some argue against God’s wrath on the basis that it is an anthropomorphism and pointed out that this same argument could be used to discredit the idea that God loves us. Good point. He also pointed to verse after verse which uses anthropomorphic images to talk about God. So the Bible clearly has no problem with it.
I did find another inconsistency when he said “God’s wrath is not wrathful.” Earlier he had pointed out that Hebrews do not separate action and character, and then he wanted to differentiate between action and character to say that God has wrath but is not and angry or wrathful God. Blatant inconsistency. If God has wrath, he must be wrathful.
I wish he had talked about what God’s wrath actually is. Paul talks about his wrath in terms of giving people up to their own impure desires when they have not chosen to follow him (Romans 1). Essentially he says that if you want to live apart from Him, he will let you do so and face all the consequences that such a separation results in. This is not a wrath that needs to be appeased, but rather a wrath that acknowledges the reality of rebellion.
Had he talked defined wrath in these terms and addressed the problems of responding to Reformed Theology, I think the article would have been much better and more pertinent to what is happening right now. In a world where most Christians believe in eternal torture for the damned, we need to be careful to address mischaracterizations of God’s wrath as well. The wrath of God is real, but it is not what Jonathan Edwards made it out to be.
Dario Ferreira Doctrine of Salvation Assignment #9
Chapters 9-11 of the Epistle to the Romans, is quite distinct from the previous chapters (1-8) as well as the rest of the epistle (12-16). They form a parenthesis in the development of Paul’s argumentation. The apostle, in these chapter deals with a problematic situation: his own people, the Jews had mostly stopped accepting salvation proclaimed in the gospel proclaimed by him, although they have been first submitted to them. What could be done for his people? Paul even suggests that if he could exchange his own salvation by them (9:3), he would. It was inconceivable to the fact that the nation that had been specially prepared for this time the nation in which the Messiah came to be born, not recognized when it came, while others who had never enjoyed such privileges, readily accepted the gospel when they were announced. Chapter 10, Whidden, explains about the most critical period of Ellen White’s teachings about salvation. It was a period of 15 years (1888-1902) who greatly influenced the meaning of salvation in the ministry of Ellen White. Whidden, in this chapter suggests three events that shaped greatly the understanding of Ellen White concerning salvation: 1. The Minneapolis General Conference session; 2. The "Life of Christ" writing project, and 3. The “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost” movement of the Latter part of the 1890s and the first two years of the new century. Adventists were divided in understanding the meaning of Galatians 3:19-25 and one of the 10 horns of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 symbolic. In the same time, the prophetic authority of Ellen White was being questioned, especially among the church leaders, because Ellen White was agreeing with the ideas of E. J. Wagoner stressed that justification by faith. The “Life of Christ” project resulted in the publication of her most important books on the life and teachings of Christ: Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing (1896), The Desire of Ages (1898), and Christ's Object Lessons (1900). The “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost” was a perfectionist movement that emphasized a mystical vision of God and manifested itself from the more sophisticated version in Philosophical Pantheism to the most spectacular expression in the “Holy Flesh” fanaticism in Indiana. In short ... to Ellen White, perfection and holiness should not be overly emotional, you should always involve a correct understanding of justification by faith in Jesus, we could involve the perfection of character, but not of “Flesh” or “Nature”, and always the result of dedicated obedience to the Ten Commandments.
In the ninth document on salvation, Ivan T. Blazen presents a series of articles showing the relationship between justification by faith and Judgment according to works. These two doctrines are apparently contradictory but the truth is that Scripture teaches both. Ivan Blazen describes that there is an internal unity among them, as well as the unity that exists between Jesus Christ as Savior and Jesus Christ as Lord. The Justification and the assurance of salvation are only achieved by self-sacrifice of Jesus as our Savior. Jesus Christ as Savior gave his life for us, as the Lord leads us to live for him.
I appreciated the aspects that you've highlighted and balanced conclusions you've arrived.
I agree with you that as we acknowledge our sinfulness, we feel the continued need for repentance and a longing for the righteousness of Christ to cleanse us and make us acceptable in God's presence.
This deep understanding of our sinfulness drives us to become less dependent on ourselves and a greater confidence in the justice of Christ.
In chapter 12 of his book Whidden continues to explore the implications of 1888 on Ellen White’s views upon salvation. The number of chapters he has upon 1888 reveals the importance Whidden accounts it upon Ellen White’s understanding of salvation and the continuing conversations that take place in regards to this.
Again he shows the balance she places upon faith and works. These are incredibly hard to balance, but it would seem that Ellen White accomplished this. I am happy that she declared the existence of “unavoidable deficiencies” that we have as humans in our current fallen condition. She seems to be very clear on the fact that only Jesus is perfect, proclaiming that “no one is perfect but Jesus.” So whatever people may say within debates upon “perfectionism,” it is impossible to say that Ellen White did not differentiate between any shade of perfection that humans may possibly have versus that of Jesus. Salvation cannot be through our own works, and therefore anyone who declares themselves perfect upon their own merit has a sure outcome, but probably the opposite outcome that they would think they have. We can only be saved through reliance upon Jesus, which involves admission of our sinfulness and a imputation of His perfection as a white garment in place of our filthy rags.
Though she does have balance, it would seem that it is a different balance than that of Armianism. She seems to be clearly Semi-Pelagian. This can be seen in her obvious statement, “When we do our best, He becomes our righteousness.” This could be equated to what Roger Olsen spoke about in one of his plenary talks where someone explained salvation as possible by just reaching as far as you can and then Jesus reaching the rest of the way. This is Semi-Pelagianism, where what the person does apart from Jesus determines whether or not they are saved. He then explained Arminius’s view as basically just not fighting what Jesus is trying to do. Rather than doing anything to gain salvation, all we do is stop fighting the Holy Spirit. Though Adventism says it is Arminian, it seems relatively clear to me that we are in actuality Semi-Pelagian. Personally I tend to agree with Arminius, but this probably puts me on the liberal side of Adventist debates on salvation, even though it is technically what we are officially.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we are a progressing (a possibly inflammatory word to use, I admit) movement. This is what present truth is all about, and I appreciate your expounding upon what it means to be moving forward, especially what you said about the need for everyone to join in.
Maybe we should start an Adventist wiki to complement what BRI is doing so that everyone can join in. Yes, this could get out of control and people could fight, but it wouldn't hurt to try.
And I think we should start a a scholarly wiki that would have multiple levels of access - everyone could see what was selected as viewable by all, equivalent to "published." This information would be put together by access to all Adventist scholars with pre-determined credentials who could edit like a regular wikipedia, but with a requirement of peer review before it can be "published." This would be challenging, but I think it would be a good way to get conversation going and make the work that scholars are doing more readily accessible and visible to the church at large.
There is much in Romans 9 that warrants discussion. After the important chapter 8, Paul addresses the problem of God’s justice surrounding Jewish/Gentile acceptance and rejection. “What shall we say, then?” he asks, in v. 14, “Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” There are more issues surrounding Paul’s rhetoric here than I will address at the moment. Paul also goes into God’s sovereign election in the following verses. There is much that could be addressed there as well (in fact, it touches on the whole Calvinism/Arminianism debate, which we have already discussed in class).
I will leave these issues be, and focus instead on a different (though obviously related) question that seems to be Paul’s main point in chapter 9: How can we understand how God chooses to accept some and reject others? This is the question that every person asks at some point in life because it is essentially the same as the question, “How can I be saved?” and every other variant of it.
It is in the conclusion (vv. 30-33) that Paul sums up his answer. He says that “the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works,” (emphasis mine).
I think Paul’s point can be made clear by referring to a parable Jesus tells, recorded in Matt. 22. It’s the passion week, and Jesus is back in the temple the day after clearing it out when he made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The embarrassed and angry religious leaders come to confront Jesus, who is teaching in the courtyard. When their confrontation fails, he begins to tell parables to both them and the crowd of hearers he had been teaching before their arrival. One parable that Matthew records is of the Marriage Feast.
The king is throwing a marriage feast for his son, and sends his servants out to call those whom he has invited. The invitees rebuff his servants twice, even abusing and killing some. Enraged at the dishonor and the murder of his servants, he puts burns the towns of the murderers and puts them to death. Then he sends his servants to call anyone who will come. Matthew records that they brought everyone they could find, “both evil and good.”
The religious leaders are obviously spoken to as those who rejected the King’s invitation. Many of the other listeners are represented by those who came. The difference in acceptance by the King was the invitees’ response to the invitation.
This is what Paul addresses here. Israel (i.e. those who have not become followers of Christ) has declined the invitation, while the Gentiles (new Christians), have accepted the invitation.
Dario, I liked your summary of the three readings for this week. However, it would have been nice to read your assessment of the issues or how they impacted you.
You present an interesting summary of Ivan Blazen’s article, which I have not yet read. How can we hold two contradictory doctrines (justification by faith / judgment by works) at the same time? I have reconciled these in my own mind with the understanding that we are judged by works, but if we are covered by Christ’s righteousness (justification by faith), our own lack of works is made up for or overridden by Christ’s perfect works. It has been a while since I thought this through or evaluated it. Is this a good way to reconcile those two doctrines?
Ellen White said that the humanity of Christ is everything to us. It is not only to talk about it as just mere information. It has all to d with our salvation; and it is so sad that it has become the most controversial issue our church has. We talk about it not even with carefulness but rather fear to be labeled under a certain categories of church believers. I was reading the Consecrated Way to Perfection, by A. T. Jones, to get his view on the nature of Christ, I realize something very interesting. HE does not fear to say that Christ took our sinful nature. I wonder why today, the phrase “sinful nature” has many meaning among Adventists. Where have gotten all those different meanings from? The word is from the bible, what cant we just take it simply as the Bible puts it? Why should someone have another theological meaning to that phrase while the author of that phrase was clear about it? Paul was not trying to confuse us. He knew what sinful meant and could have used a different word for it. But it also true we cannot just ignore the fact this has brought a lot of confusing in the church. I do believe that Christ took upon himself our sinfulness, but was not affected by..it. We might not get the right word to explain it how He managed to be sinless at the same time sinful as far He taking our sinful nature is concerned. We say, all that we want, the Bible is clear, He took our flesh, and there was only one sinful flesh that ever existed, the sinful one. I think we will have trouble to explain this as we do also have trouble to explain Jesus fully human and God at the same time
Kevin Solomon Doctrine of Salvation Assignment 6 Romans chapter 7 is a passage that speaks to me. Paul struggle is my struggle. The more you see the good standard in God’s law, the more you see the sinful depravity in yourself. The more you will to live for God, the more you subscribe to live for the ego. The law is not the problem; the law is just here to point out ours. And like Paul says, it’s an ugly picture, when you see what God see’s. Yet when we see our evil, then we can be open to God’s good. Roman 7 is mankind’s battle. Though I am declared right legally I act humanly wrong. I am grateful however that God does not leave me in Romans 7. He brings me to Romans 8. I am not left with God’s law to condemn me, but introduced to God’s Son who covers me. The law showed me my awful disgraceful but Christ shows me God’s amazing grace. The law indicted me as continual failure but Christ enables me to be a continual victor. What the law could not do Christ did. Christ kept the law I could not keep and carried out the sentence of the law by dying in my stead. Jesus thus puts out the old law of sin, and puts in the new law of His Spirit. At first I stood condemned before the law, but in Christ I have no condemnation. I am standing before God as a criminal sitting beside Him as His son. God then lavishes on me the spirit-filled life of learning to love as the essence of learning to live. In Romans 8, I find a new life, not one of failing to live up to the law, put the great privilege of learning to live out the law, not out of fear of condemnation but as the assurance of having no condemnation, “to those who are in Christ who walk not according to flesh but according to the Spirit.”
It is great to understand that the chapters in the Bible were not there when the original authors wrote the letters. This is especially important here in the book of Romans. As I was doing this assignment I only limited myself to one chapter per reading. However, on my last assignment, Romans Chapter 7, I got to the end of my reading and just wanted to keep reading because it was as if what Paul had just said wasn’t over yet, he was only beginning. Well, sure enough, Romans 8 was very important to the continuation of Romans 7. Romans 7 ends with the very simple solution to the problem of struggling with sin, “Jesus Christ our Lord” and then Romans 8 continues with greater details what exactly it is that makes Jesus so wonderful to us. The climax is right there in verse 1, “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”. This is great news considering Paul was just extremely worried about all the bad things he was ding in his life (even though he didn’t want to be doing them). This also spoke to me because as I was reading Paul in chapter 7 I was imagining my life and the hopelessness I have felt at times was very similar to his. Verse 1 is a great verse that explains how we can be free, but it also raises a little question. If we have no condemnation if we are in Christ Jesus, how do we ‘get in Christ Jesus’ so that we are no longer condemned. This is answered a little more in verse 10 when it talks about “Christ who dwells in you” and also verse 11 when it emphasizes “the Spirit of Him” dwelling in you. Again, these are ‘spiritual’ topics and require a little faith, but at the same time it does show how we can be free in Christ.
Assignment #7 Alexander Rybachek Romans 7 is all about the process of salvation (sanctification). First it states that the law requires faithfulness and death alone can release person from responsibility of marriage. Paul goes further saying that the same thing happens with the law. We are all under the law and in order the law to be fulfilled we must die first by the law since we all have sinned. The next step in Paul’s theology of salvation is the constant battle between two powers in his life – power of life and power of sin. It seems to the majority of commentators that the struggle between sin and evil leaves the sinner in disadvantage. Sin always wins, because the author in desperation cries out – who will deliver me from this body of evil. Then later he will say – Jesus, Christ alone is the Redeemer of sinners in this desperate situation. If I follow Paul’s logic correctly the 7th chapter is the climax of the problem of evil in Romans. He started with judgment of the world – both Gentiles and Jews. Later on he explains the principles of justification by faith. He clearly explains the means of justification – cross of Jesus Christ, and sanctification – consecration of entire life to Christ Jesus in a new resurrected life in Him. However here in chapter seven we have real life situation. On theory everything looks peaceful and perfect, but the true life of genuine Christian is always a fight. We fight with sin and sometimes loose. True Christian hates sin and runs from it, but sinner always will struggle with sin as long as Jesus would not come for the second time. The problem of evil is very complex. Because of sin we are separated from God’s presence; however we may serve God in our mortal bodies. Our lives were supposed to be sinless and in harmony with God, but we see that we are far from harmony with our Creator. Two realities: with Christ, and not yet without sin are the difficulty of Christian life. We are with Jesus, but before He transforms us we will be in troubles with sin. This makes the expectation moment even more desirable. I thank God that Paul did not stop on the agony of wrestle with God and sin. I thank God he went further to express his gratitude to the Lord Jesus Christ who saves us permanently from what we are. Indeed – praise the Lord for Jesus.
Romans 9:30-33 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. It is always frustrating when you are looking for something in a wrong spot. I felt the same many times. It is even more frustrating when you are looking not just for keys from a car, but for salvation and finally realize that someone who did not seek for it has it right now, but you missed all the point and now are frustrated because looked for it in wrong place. Question for me as SDA member, SDA Seminary student: am I looking for salvation in a right place? For me salvation varied from time to time. Sometimes I thought salvation is there if you only do not eat pork and keep the Sabbath (do not go to school). Later it increased into many restrictions: no smoking, no alcohol, no dances. Thus salvation equivalency was about something I always do or do not do. I never thought of salvation in terms of relationships. The word faith for me was equivalent to the knowledge of doctrine. And finally I found out that I am in the world with all my perfect knowledge. It took me a while to get to the point where I realized that I need personal relationships with Jesus. Only when I was in the ditch I have realized that I need a PERSONAL Savior. I was looking for the salvation in wrong place. I was looking for the law of righteousness, but what was needed is righteousness by faith. When I think of a Jews who were blessed with Holy Scriptures and were in great advantage in terms of light in comparison with Gentiles I say – this is impossible! How can I lose the battle having an army 10 times greater and better equipped to someone who does not even know how to fight! This is what happens when we miss the essence of God’s character. He gave us faith to trust Him that He is able to save us from our sins. Instead we always together with the Jews invent tools for our own salvation like works of righteousness. It is nothing wrong in good deeds, but it is wrong to trust them as your means for salvation. I have to remind myself this paradox - That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith. I wonder whether I am still looking for the righteousness that is true according to Scripture. For my personal testing I just allow the Holy Spirit reveal me what is my assurance of salvation – what I have done for others, or what God has done for me? There is no contradiction here – when I realize what God has done for me I do not count how much good I do for others, because in comparison with what God has done for me my good deeds are no way means for my own salvation.
Romans 8:1 contains some of the most encouraging words in all of Scripture: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Earlier in Romans Paul has laid out the bad news: all men—Jews and Gentiles and everyone else—are sinners and are condemned to die. Then he started giving the good news: God has a plan to save lost, condemned-to-die sinners. That plan involves Jesus, the sinless Substitute for sinful human beings. By placing our faith in Jesus and His sacrifice for us, we can be saved from certain death; in fact, we can have eternal life!
In chapter 7 Paul discussed the relation of the law to salvation. He also talked about the internal war that rages in the hearts of humans. We try to do what’s right, but our flesh is held hostage to sin. We find ourselves not doing what we want to do, and doing what we don’t want to do! Again Paul lifts up Jesus as the only solution to the sin problem. He’s the only one who can save us from this unwinnable battle with our sinful selves.
Now in chapter 8 Paul drives home even harder his message about victory in Jesus. Our situation might seem hopeless, but Jesus can do the impossible. Not only can He save us from the penalty of sin (death), He can deliver us from continued bondage to sin. When His Spirit lives in us, we are empowered to live according to His holy law, something we could never do in our own power. I love the focus on Jesus in Paul’s letters. He is always pointing to Christ as the answer to all of our problems.
Sadly, our human nature drives us to try and solve our problems ourselves (self-sufficiency was at the heart of the first sin). When we’re struggling with sin, so many times we’re tempted to think, “If I just try harder, I can beat this thing!” This method of overcoming sin, while it may occasionally work for a time, is ultimately futile. When we finally fail again, we become disillusioned and wonder if it’s even possible to have victory over sin.
The good news is that it is possible to have victory over sin! But we’ll never achieve it by gritting our teeth and trying harder to “be good.” It is only by submitting ourselves to Jesus and letting His Spirit transform us that we can win the battle. He’s already won the war; Satan is a defeated foe. Our individual battles with sin are no match for the power of Jesus. When we unite our efforts with His transforming power, we will achieve victory.
And if Jesus has won the victory, if He’s saved us, what reason do we have to fear Satan and sin? “If God is for us, who is against us?” God gave us His own Son; He spared no expense to save us. Won’t He see our salvation through to the end? “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” If we have Jesus in our corner, nothing the devil throws at us can knock us down. Jesus died to save us from sin, and now He’s interceding for us to keep on saving us from sin. Praise God!
Romans 8:1 contains some of the most encouraging words in all of Scripture: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Earlier in Romans Paul has laid out the bad news: all men—Jews and Gentiles and everyone else—are sinners and are condemned to die. Then he started giving the good news: God has a plan to save lost, condemned-to-die sinners. That plan involves Jesus, the sinless Substitute for sinful human beings. By placing our faith in Jesus and His sacrifice for us, we can be saved from certain death; in fact, we can have eternal life!
In chapter 7 Paul discussed the relation of the law to salvation. He also talked about the internal war that rages in the hearts of humans. We try to do what’s right, but our flesh is held hostage to sin. We find ourselves not doing what we want to do, and doing what we don’t want to do! Again Paul lifts up Jesus as the only solution to the sin problem. He’s the only one who can save us from this unwinnable battle with our sinful selves.
Now in chapter 8 Paul drives home even harder his message about victory in Jesus. Our situation might seem hopeless, but Jesus can do the impossible. Not only can He save us from the penalty of sin (death), He can deliver us from continued bondage to sin. When His Spirit lives in us, we are empowered to live according to His holy law, something we could never do in our own power. I love the focus on Jesus in Paul’s letters. He is always pointing to Christ as the answer to all of our problems.
Sadly, our human nature drives us to try and solve our problems ourselves (self-sufficiency was at the heart of the first sin). When we’re struggling with sin, so many times we’re tempted to think, “If I just try harder, I can beat this thing!” This method of overcoming sin, while it may occasionally work for a time, is ultimately futile. When we finally fail again, we become disillusioned and wonder if it’s even possible to have victory over sin.
The good news is that it is possible to have victory over sin! But we’ll never achieve it by gritting our teeth and trying harder to “be good.” It is only by submitting ourselves to Jesus and letting His Spirit transform us that we can win the battle. He’s already won the war; Satan is a defeated foe. Our individual battles with sin are no match for the power of Jesus. When we unite our efforts with His transforming power, we will achieve victory.
And if Jesus has won the victory, if He’s saved us, what reason do we have to fear Satan and sin? “If God is for us, who is against us?” God gave us His own Son; He spared no expense to save us. Won’t He see our salvation through to the end? “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” If we have Jesus in our corner, nothing the devil throws at us can knock us down. Jesus died to save us from sin, and now He’s interceding for us to keep on saving us from sin. Praise God!
Tyler, I agree; Romans 7 and 8 have to be read together. I always try to do a quick overview of the previous chapter when I’m reading Romans because Paul’s arguments are all so closely connected.
I like how you connected us “being in Christ” to Christ “being in us.” Like you said, that concept is a little difficult to understand; it’s a bit of a mystery. It reminds me of what Jesus says in John. He says that we have to remain in Him and He has to remain in us.
I was considering the effect of sin be it in heaven or on earth. Sin took place in heaven and those who were upholding it were defeated in the war that took place in heaven as portrayed by Revelation 12. We do not really have a picture of what the heavens look like after sin was found in Satan; we do not know if heaven was affected also in the way earth was. But I tend to believe that the impact of sin in heaven was minor compared to the one of our planet, maybe due to the fact that angels did not come out of on archangel as we are out of Adam.
But we can consider this issue in a different way; who defines the consequences of sin? is it God or sin itself?
If God is the one who defines them then, we will understand better that the consequences or the curses given to us in genesis 3 are God's work and not sin itself. One can argue that the consequence of sin is death, and that Adam could have died without any delay, but God to create a probation time to accommodate any opportunity or chance to save mankind.
Or we may say that all the consequences of sin are defined by sin itself but God just has the control of them,; so that He could define the extent or the damage sin could cost t us.
The story of the paralytic at the pool in John 5 would be a good illustration for that. The statement Jesus made when He met the man who has been healed can help to get an idea: ‘'Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" - This statement suggests that the paralytic was sick as a result of sin. - We can see here that Jesus has the power to control even the consequences of sin. (It's sad that today we can hear that God can forgive but you will bear the consequences of your sins. Jesus did more than forgiving this man; He haled also from the consequences of His sin) - He was really or directly involved n bring the curse upon this man ( he might maybe have allowed to happen to him)
So to come back to my point, there is a way in which God is involved in defining the consequences of sin that we commit, ( in controlling them maybe) but we have to say that sin in itself bears death and enough chaos and is capable to produce its own consequences
Alicia, thanks for commenting on my post. Yayy! I couldn't agree more. We are not trying to change our positions, but to get deeper, and learn more. There are issues, like the one you mentioned about bad marriages, that we are dealing with today. There are others, like media. We need to study to get answers. You know, Harry did a research paper reguarding that topic of divorce. From his presentation in class, I didn't agree with him, but it did open my mind to the subject. Maybe his actual paper has better arguments than his verbal ones.
YOOO!! That is hot! An Adventist Wiki. Like a SDApedia, or a Wikiventist. But seriously, that would be so good, to be able to see things from the average perspective. And it would be an easier read. And that levels things, is mad smart. The lower level, is the average thought. And the upper level would be pastors, and the upper upper level would be phd scholars. Yo, did you think of that just now or you had this on your mind before? Either way, you can make mad money off this. I'm serious, that would get popular real quick. We should grab some people and start this. Wait... we should delete these comments b4 someone steels you idea. lol
Thanks Matthew for reminding me of Romans 8:1-2. I felt today that I was unworthy. But this reminded me that I'm good in Jesus. Also, your right. Jesus is the fighter in our life. With Him, we win. But the thing is we need to be surrendered completely to Him.
Sasha, I liked your personal testimony in response to Romans 9. When I was younger, I thought that salvation was all about rules and obedience. But in my experience, this produced a tendency to give up. Neither reaction is right. It wasn’t until I fell in love with Jesus that I accepted salvation and began to want to do what was right.
In Romans 10, Paul is answering the question that comes up in reading chapter 9. Why did the Israelites reject Christ? The short answer is this: “They did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own” (v. 3).
There is much to ponder in this statement.
The implication here is that if I do not know the righteousness of God, I will try to establish my own. This righteousness, then, will fool me into thinking that I am saved. How many people are there in church today who have found their own righteousness, but are unaware that they need something else? This statement gives me pause. I am forced to go to God again and submit to his will and ask for him to save me. But fortunately, as Paul reminds us, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Then, as Paul says in this chapter, “It is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved” (v. 10). There is both a cognitive and emotional assent as well as an acting out. The acting out of faith that Paul refers to here seems to be the confession of Christ. A public statement and way of life that communicates that I am a follower of Christ.
These words are very broad. I must be active in sharing my faith, but my life must also match my words. Thus, confession is wholistic. If I live in such a way that people do not get a good picture of Christ, or think that I must not be a Christian, then I am not “confessing” Christ. Confession, then, is always evangelistic in nature. All of life is evangelistic.
The people Paul is specifically concerned about being saved, as we read chapter 10, is the Israelites. The very people who have not submitted to God’s righteousness, but established their own. Who are the Israelites that Paul would be writing to today? They are Christians. The people inside the Church, not outside. They are the people who have heard the gospel, but have not understood. The gospel may have penetrated the thick calcium covering of their heads, but their hearts are covered by something much more difficult to penetrate.
How can such people be reached Paul does not address in this passage. Perhaps an answer is coming in chapter 11.
First off, I like Paul’s illustration of marriage. I like how shares the idea that the law has no authority over those who have died to the law. Not only are we released from the authority of the law, but we live because of the One who overcame death, we belong to God. I love how Paul also says we serve differently now, he doesn’t say that since we died to the law we no longer have obligations or we no longer serve, we just serve differently. “By dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Rom 7:6. We as servants of God serve God in a new way, the way of the Spirit, and this way leads to joy and life. Paul does a good job of confusing me, often. He says, “once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.” Rom 7:9,10. Now he is talking about dying, but not dying to the law and living in Christ, but just dying. I am not completely sure what he is talking about here, at least I am not sure why he says it this way. And he seems to know that what he is saying is confusing so he clarifies: “Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.” Rom 7:13. So, basically Paul is thankful that sin has become what it should be to him, disgusting, because he has been shown that it leads to death. Seeing sin for what it is, this is something that unfortunately is not always seen. But sin is seen as sin the closer we are to God and the more and more we are growing in Him. This is how we can gain a clearer vision and are able to spiritually discern what is good and what is bad, what will lead to life and what will lead to death. Honestly, the fact that I can read through this chapter and be confused by it is the reason I love the Bible. I love that by reading over a broad section I can understand certain things while at the same time some things don’t quite pop out at me and leave me with questions. I like this about the Bible because that means everyday is new, I am reading old things, things I have read hundreds of times before but all of the sudden God speaks to me and shows me something I never noticed before. That is why I love the Bible, because it is always fresh, always new, always inspiring.
I like how you point out that we are at a disadvantage when facing sin, sin always wins and the only way to overcome is in Christ. Christ steps in makes up for our weakness all because of love. Thanks for the reminder of that.
Billwayne W. Jamel Martin Hanna, Ph.D. THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits 04 November 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #11: DO I HAVE TO GO TO WORK
No one likes working. It would be nice just to get a paycheck for fee. Some people feel that being a Christian means loving Jesus and that it. Works have nothing to do with it. I read the chapter, “The Significance and Meaning of 1888” in the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” by Woodrow W. Whidden II. This chapter touched on good works and sanctification. Now, we know that good works doesn’t save us. However, good works aren’t bad. That would be an oxymoron. “Ellen White never denied the high goals of sanctification and perfection” (pg 88). We should want to have a better character. We should want to live better lives. We should be working with God to make these changes. We know that James says that works are important. So we can not dismiss the idea of living good lives.
Yes we are justified when we give our life to God. We are reborn as a brand new baby in Jesus and we receive the perfect record of Jesus. Then, that’s where sanctification comes in. God starts to mold us and make us like potter. Justification is the transformation from rock to clay. Sanctification is the molding of that clay.
But how does this sanctification occur. Is it going to happen by just wishful thinking? Can a leopard change its spots? Can an Ethiopian change his skin? No- with a capital N. So can a man have a better lifestyle by just wishful thinking? No. So we need to try harder right? Put our back into it? No. No matter how hard a leopard may try it cannot make its spots into star shapes. The Christian life is impossible without God. We need God to make the transformation and the sanctification. He needs to work in our heart changes that will be reflected on the outside. He needs to give us the strength to make these changes. However, we need to intentionally work with God.
We know that the Bible talks about how a good tree bears good fruit. If we are with God, then that means we are good tree, and we would be having a good life (fruits). However, the fruit doesn’t make the tree. The tree makes the fruit. We must first be transformed into the right type of tree, in order to produce the right lifestyle.
Dario Ferreira Doctrine of Salvation Assignment #10
In chapter 10 of Romans, Paul shows that he understands very well the mental state of Israel, when he says: "They have a zeal for God, but not with understanding." This was also his own attitude before his encounter with Christ. He, Paul, had also stumbled against the stumbling block, until the scales fell from his eyes and his life was redirected. Now he just wanted to magnify Christ in his life (see Philippians 1:20). The two paths, the path of law and the path of faith, are illustrated by Paul, using quotations from the Old Testament (Lev. 18:5, Deut. 5:11-14, Isaiah 28:16). Paul also magnify the office of apostle or evangelist who proclaims the good news of salvation (Isaiah 52:7). The message was intended to produce faith (10:16). Israel had heard the gospel and the very well understood, but they refused to obey him.
I appreciated the reading of Chapter 11, “Ellen White on Salvation” where Whidden contextualizes “The Significance and Meaning of Minneapolis and 1888”. This reading I came into the impact that this new emphasis on the doctrine of justification by faith has caused the ministry of Ellen White. I had never understood so clearly, as discussed in this chapter, the cloth-of-fund and the reactions of all, brought about by the new understanding of Jesus as the “SIN-PARDONING SAVIOR.” I found it interesting the way that Ellen White with emphatic preaching this message and have not been deterred by those who suspected that she harbored feelings anti-law. Ellen White was keen to clarify and expose the message of justification by faith, with intense brightness, especially in the four years that followed 1888 (1888-1892). What also impressed me was the fact that Ellen White had preached and written about 45% of what she said in that aspect of salvation in only four years of 58 years of his ministry. Undoubtedly, 1888 'was a clearer understanding of the much neglected subject of Justification by faith.
In the tenth document on Salvation, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, comments about the "Justification in Romans 3:21-24." It presents a contrast between a prior reality when Jews and Gentiles were in a state of sin and a new reality - a new way of salvation totally independent of the law - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ. All sin, and salvation through faith in Jesus is for all human beings, without distinction (3:22). Is God justified freely by faith who believe in Jesus. I could express my understanding of reading this document Ángel Manuel Rodríguez in the following words: Justification is God's free gift of God's grace brought within reach through Jesus who paid the price for our salvation.
I appreciated your reflection on Romans 9:30-33. You put this in a very personal message. Their experience often was also mine. When I was born, my parents were already Seventh-day Adventists as a child has become accustomed to seeing religion as what can or can not be done... As you well expressed, faith becomes equivalent to knowledge of doctrine. We seek a better sense for our spiritual life and it seems that nothing we do in meets. We fight until we despair in search of a new meaning for our existence and it turned out that what we need is Jesus and only one significant relationship with Him
I see now, how much wasted time, effort and unnecessary, how much frustration we experience when we seek salvation in the wrong place when we needed was only faith in Jesus. Indeed, faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the only means of salvation.
“So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” Rom 7:25. Paul doing his typical thing ends chapter 7 with this crazy phrase that is a little confusing. It gives the impression of a dualistic understanding of himself by saying that in his mind is a slave to God, but his body is a slave to the sinful nature. But then you read on and find that awesome promise in Rom 8:1, 2 that says “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” and that the “Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. So when taking in context Paul is leaving us with the impression that a part of him is a slave to the “law of sin” and he is o.k. with that, but he goes on to point out that in Christ the Spirit has set him free from the “law of sin and death”. This is a prime example of how the chapter divisions can make things read in a weird way and that it’s always important to look at context. In Rom 8:9-15 Paul is saying some awesome things to contrast the life of the Spirit and the life controlled by the sinful nature. He says, “we have an obligation – but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.” The reason Paul gives for this is that the sinful nature does nothing for us, it leads to death. When put this way it is crazy to think that we still fall to temptation, even small things. Those temptations and sin do nothing and have done nothing for me so why do I keep doing them? Which is the same thing that Paul was wrestling with in chapter 7. God has done everything for me and has given me the Spirit to set me free from a destructive way of living, God’s way leads to life and freedom, but too often I forget or get side tracked. And Paul gives us hope by reminding us to keep on pressing on, to persevere because “our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” Rom 8:18. He says that even creation is waiting, it’s waiting for the same thing we are waiting for, it has been aching and feeling the sting of sin just like us. So we “wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved . . . But if we hope for what we do not yet have we wait for it patiently.” Rom 8:23, 24. I can’t wait for Jesus to come, but I honestly have to ask myself do I wait eagerly and patiently? Everyday? Do I live my life with expectancy of Jesus’ return? Unfortunately it isn’t always a thought that is at the forefront of things, and I want it to be because if it was it change my life, it would change the way I approach life and the way I interact with people. I can’t wait for that future glory. I love the reminder that even when “we do not know what we ought to pray . . . the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.” Rom 8:26. God is so good! Even in prayer He makes up for my weakness, so that even when my words fail, the Spirit knows and explains what’s on my heart. Wow.
In chapter 13 of Whidden, I have felt the focus of the book clearly – and am starting to feel like I’ve got the point and could move on. Ellen White was balanced. Works and faith. Faith and works. We are saved by Jesus, and being saved by Jesus will lead to us doing good things. So I am feeling that this aspect of the book is quite redundant, though I know this is the point since that seems to be his thesis.
I found the bit on impartation, imputation and infusion and how these terms related to the pantheistic movement at the time. Also, I found it interesting that Whidden considered her thinking on justification to be largely developed by 1892 and the lack of much further “embellishment” from 1893 onwards.
Reading this book makes me think of Alden Thompson’s book, Beyond Common Ground, which deals with how the church needs both conservatives and liberals. It seems that Ellen White could be considered both a liberal and a conservative which illustrates that she was balanced. The challenge is whether or not we will be balanced when quoting her. I find it interesting that she seemed to be disdained by some conservatives in her day, especially in the matters that led her to Australia. Now that what she is no longer here and what she wrote is so far in the past conservatives seem to like it more. This makes me wonder if this is tied more to the fact that conservatives want to look to the past and liberals like to look to the future (generally). Therefore liberals would like a living person who is applying their connection with God in the contemporary context and conservatives like to do what has worked in the past. This can even be seen in the fact that conservatives like Ellen White’s earlier writings and liberals like her later writings.
Just as it is interesting to think about how Christians would respond if Jesus were to show up today as an extreme change agent without the proper background, it would be interesting to know how Adventists would respond if a modern female prophet would arise today. It is also interesting to think about what Ellen White would think about different aspects of current Adventist thought and practice if she were alive today.
Once again I enjoyed Whidden's balanced approach to the topic. Although I do not always agree with his use of terminology as I find some if it not quite adequate in addressing some of the issues, nonetheless he's very clear about his position on how he understands Ellen Whites views on salvation. In this chapter he continued to maintain that balance that he ascribes to Sister White as it relates to her understanding of law and grace, faith and works. His emphasis in this chapter is on the sinner’s sinful nature and God's unmerited favor. What becomes even clearer in this chapter is Ellen Whites position on "unintentional sins." Whidden uses the terms safety net, which I do not particularly care for because of its potential implications, nevertheless he makes it clear that Ellen White believed that the sinner who fell could find grace with God. He also, gives particular attention the idea of “creature merit” which he extrapolates from Ellen Whites writings in order to demonstrate her understanding of the creature’s hopeless condition before God. Here he attempts to demonstrate that the “creatures merit” is with out value before God without the “merit of Christ” to cover the merits of the creature. This has profound implications from Whidden’s perspective because it demonstrates even more the sinner’s great need for God and Ellen White’s position that the sinner was in need of the saving “merits of Christ.” It also enables him to demonstrate Ellen White’s position on works righteousness, that is, that a sinner stood righteous before God not based on any merit of their own, but rather on the righteousness Christ and His merits alone. From this perspective it is clear that Ellen White desired that the believer would have no doubt concerning their acceptance and assurance before God.
Hey Nick... I really enjoyed your comment on Paul's statements in Romans Chapter 7. I too have wrestled over these statements and found comfort in Paul's explanation of the paradoxical relationship of the new believer to the law. I also enjoyed your comment concerning the new way of life. I too think this is a profound statement by Paul where he illustrates through the marriage relationship the radical new way of life for the new believer. He makes it clear that as the new believer enters into a new relationship they also enter into a new reality. Although this can sometimes be difficult to fully understand and even be quite confusing at times, we discover that it is here where God meets the new believer in order to confront them with the new reality of their new life in Him. We find that this is in Harmony with God’s words to John in his Revelation, “For behold I make all things new.” I also appreciate that the Bible reveals things both old and new and that we continue to discover the voice of God afresh. I believe that it is this fascinating quality of the Bible that enables it to speak with unrivaled authority as the living word of an Eternal God.
Matthew, I agree Romans 8:1 is an awesome promise. I can read that over and over and it never gets old. I really like how you pointed out that Jesus can do the impossible. It's so easy to look at our situation and feel as if there is no hope or redemption possible, but Jesus is able and is and always will be all that we need just when we need it. Jesus specializes in the impossible, thanks for the reminder.
Romans 11 is a chapter that Adventists should be able to see themselves reflected in. Paul addresses Jewish/Gentile relations to ward off any Gentile Christians who may find themselves tempted to boast about their superiority over the Jewish Christians. The Israelites, Paul says in the previous chapter, have rejected the righteousness of God in Christ, and have substituted their own, which consisted in keeping the law as a means of salvation.
Though the Israelites have a long history of disobedience and rebellion, Paul says that God has certainly not cast away his people (11:1). He reminds his readers of the story of Elijah, who fled from Jezebel, thinking that there was no one faithful in all of Israel. God’s reply, Paul reminds us, was that he had reserved for himself 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. These faithful people are God’s remnant. And according to Paul’s argument, God has always had a remnant.
Further, Paul uses the metaphor of the olive tree to describe Israel. He says that some branches have been cut off, and that the Gentiles have been grafted on. However, lest the Gentiles begin to boast about their new status in God’s kingdom, Paul reminds them to be faithful, for “if God did not spare the natural branches, he may not spare you either” (v. 21).
In v. 18, Paul urges the Gentiles not to boast against the branches, and to remember that “you do not support the root, but the root supports you.”
It seems to me that we Adventists would do well to learn from the situation Paul addresses here. Adventists have often exhibited this same attitude of boasting toward other Christian denominations that Paul describes in the Gentiles.
We would do well to remember that God always has a remnant. The remnant Paul refers to here is a remnant among the Jews. In the same way, God’s remnant exists also outside the Adventist Church. There are many, many faithful Christians in other denominations. We should remember that if those in the past who have rejected the righteousness of God and substituted their own were cut off, we too must remain faithful and accept God’s righteousness. The truth is that we who have come last do not support the history of God’s work on earth. Rather, it is the other way around. Those who have come before us serve as lessons for us, and are thus used by God to fulfill his redemptive plan.
Nick, good thoughts and reflection on Romans 8. You point out well how weak we humans really are. Not only do we live with divided selves, in part slaves to sin and in part slaves to God (7:25), but even the longing for God to restore us to glory can be fickle. My prayer is that God will romance us with love so strong that we are overwhelmed and fall head-over-heels for him.
At least according to my thinking based upon Whidden’s analysis, it seems to me that the key to understanding Ellen White’s view of “perfection” is based upon definition. I would say this is true in most discussions in regard to perfection. I would agree that perfection is possible if we are saying that Jesus is perfect and that He stands in my place, but if we say that I am perfect in any sense of “having arrived.” It would seem that the idea of “having arrived” is often the sense of the word when we say something is perfect, and whenever this definition is taken I will say that even after glorification I will not have arrived completely and perfectly, but my fallen nature will be completed. As long as we live in time, there is no arriving at the end unless we are destroyed – and that is not somewhere I want to “arrive” at. Now if we mean “not under the effects of sin” by perfection, we cannot say we are perfect in that way. Not even Jesus was totally immune to the results of sin. External maladies were possible for Him (He could have scraped up His knees, caught a cold and in the end, die). However, in the sense of the committing of sin, He was sinless. However, the temptations would seem to indicate that though He did not have the same propensities and tendencies we have (He’s the only one who never fell) it was possible that He could have sinned (or at least Satan seemed to think so) though I would question whether or not He would have been sent by the Father to earth if He would have fallen anyways. But here we must admit we are deep in the realm of mystery.
Again, it seemed to me that Ellen White was Semi-Pelagian, and thus not Armenian, at least before 1888. I’ll have to see after reading further whether or not her definitions change, but it is clear that she believed we need to do the best that we can. I agree if the best we can do is to submit to the Holy Spirit and stop fighting God. But if the best we can do somehow merits us any value beyond the covering of Jesus, it goes into the realm of salvation by works and I cannot agree with this. Yes, salvation will lead to good works, but works will never lead to salvation on their own.
I appreciated your comments about the similarities between the position of Adventists today to that of the Jews in early Christianity. I often wonder if (some) Adventists might respond in a similar way to Jesus as did the Pharisees. What if Jesus were to dance? What if Jesus were to eat mustard, pepper, drink tea or even chat with His followers over coffee at Starbucks? What if Jesus didn't keep the Sabbath the way we do?
And would He accuse us of being white-washed tombs?
Alexander, that was a great testimony! I especially like how you applied Paul’s teaching to us as Adventists. Are we as Adventists looking for salvation in the right place? Or are we, like the Jews, a bit confused about the whole thing? Sometimes we are! I think there are quite a few parallels between the Jews of Christ’s day and Adventists, not the least of which is our status as God’s “chosen” people. How frustrating it would be for us if we suddenly realized that all around us Baptists, Methodists, and even Catholics were receiving salvation (because they were looking for it in the right place), but we as Adventists missed it because we looked for it in the wrong place! Now, none of that means I don’t value the Adventist message; I do value it greatly. But as you pointed out, it’s not my knowledge of doctrine that will save me. It’s a relationship with Jesus. Even as an Adventist, a member of God’s last-day remnant church, I have to constantly keep in mind where my source of salvation comes from. It does not come from my status as part of the remnant, but from my relationship with Jesus Christ.
I really enjoy the presentation by Kilgore on the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of both the believer and the non-believer.
We always point point out how the Holy Spirit has a different role in the lives of the unbelievers and the belivers, emphis which usual puts more clouds around the simplicity of the message of salvation.
The Holy Spirit really does not change the role as such. the purpose for which God has appointed Him to do in us is the same, it is just we are the ones who have given less access to our hearts and forcing to have a seemingly different work form the one He was to perform.
there is away in which even the believer is experiencing the same relation with the Holy Ghost like the one in the non-believer. there are areas in our lives which we have not really surrender to Christ righteousness and leadership there fore the Holy Spirit is convicting us of sin, of righteousness and of judgment.
there is also a way in which, the Holy Spirit is is acting in the non-believer as if he was acting in the believer. I will take the example of the verse in roman 8:16, where Paul says ' The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God", i do believe that The Holy Spirit gives the same witness to the non-believer about the sonship given to the whole world through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
Through this I really understand the importance of getting in both side of the picture; such knowledge really humbles me!
Response to Michael Micken on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter 12.
I agree with you that Whidden does have a nice approuch to the issues.
Yeah, unintentional sins are different. That's why I don't agree with the statement "sin is sin". All sin is not at the same level, because people people's hearts are different.
Chester Clark III Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna Week 6 Reflection
Perhaps the fact that my research paper for this class is on the topic of the nature of Christ, I particularly appreciated the penetrating and thoughtful approach that Dr. Whidden brings to the topic in the chapter “The Nature of Christ and Salvation.”
Growing up in a conservative Adventist environment where some Adventists I knew certainly “tended to read Ellen White emphasizing the similarities, seeing Christ sinful in nature,” I remember the prevalent idea that anyone who believed in pre-lapsarian Christology had to be a justification-only, cheap-grace, live-as-you-please Adventist INO (in-name-only).
This perception of pre-lapsarian Adventists as those who saw Christ as Substitute but not example was reinforced by some proponents of this view. I distinctly remember one conference evangelist who came to my church and towards the end of the series was teaching a Sabbath School class. “What type of human nature did Jesus have?” he asked. It was interesting to hear the responses from the mostly Adventist class, who mostly had no idea and if they did had no evidentiary passages to back them up. The evangelist in discussion settled the matter with pure experiential inspiration, without even attempting to provide biblical support. “If Jesus had a fallen human nature, that would mean that we could stop sinning. But since we know that we can’t, we can be sure that Christ came with the nature of Adam before the fall.”
It happened to be at a time in my own spiritual experience when I was grappling with matters of faith and inspiration. If I was to be completely honest, I would have to concede that my view of what the Scriptures taught and what I was living were far from synonymous. There were already doubts tumbling in my mind: if this is the truth, then why isn’t it my experience? There was something attractive, something blissfully attractive, in accepting a theology that matched what I was experiencing rather than being dissatisfied when my experience fell short of what I believed God wanted. To put it bluntly, I began to question, Perhaps my belief in God’s desire to give victory over willful sin is simply naïve and unrealistic?
A couple of passages which I was in familiar with were also circling my head. “To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy….” Jude 24. “Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” John 8:34-36. “Through defects in the character, Satan works to gain control of the whole mind, and he knows that if these defects are cherished, he will succeed. Therefore he is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with his fatal sophistry that it is impossible for them to overcome.” Great Controversy, p. 489. “He who has not sufficient faith in Christ to believe that he can keep him from sinning, has not the faith that will give him an entrance into the kingdom of God.” Review and Herald, March 10, 1904. These statements obviously needed to be taken in the context of the rest of Inspiration’s teachings on salvation. But how could I accept a theology that flatly contradicted such direct and unequivocal statements?
This launched me into a deep heart searching of not just what I believed, but why I believed it. What would my faith be based upon? Matters of revelation/inspiration became the real issue I was grappling with. For me the matter of the nature of Christ would have to wait until after I arrived at conclusions here.
Chester Clark III Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna Week 7 Reflection
Last week I wrote about my personal journey wrestling with matters of personal experience versus what inspiration seemed to plainly teach. What should I do with the disparity between them? Some Adventists seemed to have arrived at a rather attractive solution to this problem – that of adapting theology to match experience. Yet certain passages in Inspiration seemed inevitably to be contradicted, particularly some rather unambiguous statements in the Spirit of Prophecy.
One thing was fairly clear in my mind: Ellen White was clearly an instrument of supernatural power. The battle in my mind became not just a matter of the human nature of Christ or soteriology – I began to question everything. If Ellen White was an imposter, and her well-attested supernatural experiences were not of God but the devil, then I really had to call the entire Seventh-day Adventist Church into question. But I really couldn’t stop there. My study of Daniel 2 convinced me that the historicist hermeneutic was Biblical, but I couldn’t deny the links between Daniel 8 and 9: if the first 70 weeks of the prophecy were so exactly fulfilled in Christ, then 1844 seemed inescapable. Perhaps the “intellectual” critical views of Scripture (though conflictory) were more realistic? Maybe the Bible wasn’t so dependable after all, and personal experience was more reliable?
I can’t in the space of these few pixels do justice to how I sorted out and resolved all of these questions, but I can share a few of my conclusions. Briefly I could summarize as follows:
Jesus is Everything. The only hope that I have of eternal life is found in Jesus. Period. Instead of focusing on overcoming sin I need to focus on Him, including trusting His mercy and grace to forgive me even when in my human weakness I willfully stray from His will. “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” 1 John 2:1. My best evidence for God’s grace and mercy is found in the Word of God! It is inconsistent to believe the Bible to be reliable on this point but unreliable elsewhere.
My Humanity is Unpredictable. Unlike the nature of God, who never changes, my feelings and beliefs and impressions are fluid and changing. This part of my experience I find to be in harmony with the clear teaching of the Word. To choose my (or anyone else’s) personal experience for defining truth in place of the Word is to step onto a roller coaster to an uncertain destination.
Weakness is Strength in God’s Hands. 2 Corinthians 12:9; 1 Corinthians 10:12. This is not to say that it is God’s will for us to sin – but it does mean that an awareness of how far I fall short of the glory of God (coupled with a faith in the sufficiency of Christ) is not a sign of failure in the Christian’s life. Rather than leading to a cavalier attitude towards sin, it leads to a deep sense of the sinfulness of sin and of my human inability to do anything but sin. But it seems that here again my experience and the Bible agrees: only through a real sense of my weakness (coupled with a belief that God wants me to overcome) will lead me to ever seek for closer and more consistent dependence on His strength. Part of the problem with the “sin-and-live” theology is that it teaches me some sort of an intellectual assent to faith in Jesus (Pray this prayer after me – You’re saved!), the end result of which is I don’t feel much need for moment by moment dependence upon Jesus. My dependence was decided back when I accepted Christ, and (in their view) He covers everything regardless of my present choices. Ironically, they appeal to the Bible for their evidence for this desirable teaching but find higher critical exemptions for the passages which cannot be harmonized with it.
Chester Clark III Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna Week 8 Reflection
The problem with a dependence upon experiential revelation is that our experience teaches us (in harmony with the Word) that our experience is unreliable. One must only observe the plentitude of opposing and waffling opinions held by religious theorists to recognize the folly of finding truth through this method. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Proverbs 14:12. One constant within human nature is the desire for sinful gratification and the inability in our own strength to follow through with what we purpose to do (see Romans 7). While some Adventists pragmatically (and often popularly) teach a theology that matches a naturally very prevalent human experience, making it seem plausible and truthful, this approach is fraught with logical inconsistencies.
The testimony of personal experience teaches us that we are weak and prone to sin, but is equivocal at best on the matter of overcoming. To look to our experience to determine what should be expected of the Christian life is inconsistent since we do not look to our experience to find confidence in a Savior from sin. Many confidently declare, based on Scripture, that Jesus’ grace saves them unconditionally, but deny the same Bible’s authority to define how Jesus saves them.
I really appreciate Dr. Whidden’s insistence throughout Ellen White on Salvation that Jesus saves from not just in sin. Ellen White’s teachings on this are clear, and I believe that a holistic understanding of the Bible’s teachings are in harmony with this understanding.
Those who take the post-lapsarian view and focus on perfection may have an element of truth that is being neglected by their counterparts, in the concept of God wanting to give victory over sin. But too often they consciously or subconsciously define perfection as externals – and neglect to recognize the Bible’s entire treatment of the matter, that the overcoming Christian will have a deep sense of unworthiness and weakness, leading them to seek an ever more consistent dependence upon a Savior who can change their hearts and habits, and (Hallelujah!) cover their mistakes and inadequacies and failures as they grow in Him.
As I sorted through the quagmire of doubts I came to a new, intimately personal, and treasured appreciation for the faith that I had without my choice been born into. I became convinced that the most coherent, logical, and consistent worldview is the biblical teachings of Christianity, and that the most intellectually consistent Christianity can be found within Adventism. I concluded that the most important understanding is to be gained through first a knowledge of the matchless charms of Jesus and second a knowledge of my own weakness and constant need of Him. And I found the Bible, just as it reads, to be a consistent and reliable revelation of both.
Dario Ferreira Doctrine of Salvation Assignment #11
The study of Romans 11 has led me to conclude that all the time, God's purpose in choosing his people was safeguarded by its preservation of a faithful remnant. So too were the days of Paul, a small minority who do not faithfully rejected the gospel. Paul himself was one. Even if Israel had failed as a people and stumbled, he would not fall to the point of being unable to rise further. And because they stumbled, the blessings of the gospel were extended to the Gentiles. The reference to the root and branches, in Romans 11:16, Paul takes to develop his parable of the Olive Tree (11:17-24). Paul speaks of a cultivated olive tree (Jews) getting the branches of a wild olive (gentiles). It is possible that Paul was not trying to use the principles of grafting, but has adapted to his illustration that would better serve their purposes. For Paul it seems, through this comparison trying to make a warning to Gentile Christians do not boast the expense of Israel, or not to show disdain for the Jews. This image was suggested by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 11:16,17, saying that Israel was the tree that God planted. Hosea also expressed a similar thought: “His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive-tree, and his smell as Lebanon”(ASV). The purpose of God is revealed to the world in giving His undeserved mercy for both Jews and for Gentiles. Paul recognizes this as a reason for an unceasing praise of God, and concludes the chapter and the whole argument of chapters 1-11, so glorious in the words of the doxology in verses 33-36.
Whidden in Chapter 12 entitled “Justification After Minneapolis - Late 1888 to 1892” examines the explanation of Justification made by Ellen White during this period. Whidden shows that the fact that Ellen White did not show marked changes in their understanding of salvation, compared to the previous period shows the importance of balance between Justification and Sanctification salvation in the teachings of Ellen White. Whidden’s conclusion, based on the teachings of Ellen White's salvation is that justification is necessary for believers, all the way through your experience. And to better illustrate it uses the electric trolley car illustration Compared with the bus. The trolley traveled through to stay connected with the source of power from above. The bus moves depend on the power it receives from its own fuel tank. So Whidden says: “We must be trolley car all the way to the kingdom – every moment and mile of the way!” (Whidden, 104).
In the twenty-first document on salvation, Kwabena Donkor focuses on two core concepts - predestination and foreknowledge. To say that predestination is the cause of salvation, Donkor says, makes salvation becomes “a matter of God choosing discriminatorily to give grace to some while denying it to others”. Identify foreknowledge with predestination is to deny any notion of free will and human responsibility. Donkor also briefly examines the biblical passages that speak directly to these two concepts. And finally, he concludes that the Bible teaches a doctrine of predestination which is based on foreknowledge of future individual choices. And remember: “God’s ability to know events that have not yet occurred in a way that does not condition outcomes is perhaps the key unresolved problem in predestination. But isn’t this capacity that which distinguishes Him as God?”
Landon, I agree with you that Whidenn seems really speak more in his book on 1888 than any other subject. Maybe because Ellen White was keen to clarify and expose the message of Justification by faith, with intense brightness, especially in the four years That Followed 1888 (1888-1892). What impressed me was the Also That fact Ellen White HAD preached and written about 45% of what she said In That aspect of salvation in only four years of 58 years of his ministry. Undoubtedly, 1888 was a ‘clearer understanding of the much neglected subject of Justification by faith’.
The perfect balance between faith and works, demonstrated by Ellen White in her writings impressed me very well. Another important point mentioned by you was that only Jesus is perfect, but we carry “unavoidable disabilities” in our fallen condition. Which brings us once again to acknowledge our dependence on Jesus and his robe of righteousness to cover our filthy rags.
Arthur Jennings Doctrine of Salvation Martin Hanna, Ph.D. November 13, 2010
Response Assignment 2
Response to Landon Schnabel – concerning reading from Whidden
Landon, you bring a unique perspective in your views concerning Romans. I have never really thought about how it transitions from chapter to chapter because of the fact I see it as a parental letter from Paul to his children (metaphorically speaking). I do realize that in a letter there are various topics and subjects depending on the nature of the letter. However; I decided to re-read Romans from your viewpoint to understand your analysis. My conclusion is that I agree with you that there is a shift in Ellen White’s thinking that brought new revelation as well as compromising circumstances. Paul’s love for Christ and his love for his brethren is revealed in Paul’s letter to the Romans .Paul’s message concerning Christ is maintained throughout the letter.
It is easy for me to see how holiness and perfection moved away from the bible. The biblical message concerning these topics is often taken out of context and there is no support of it. There are a few texts like ‘be ye perfect as I am perfect’ but it must be taken contextually. Lastly there are and will always be fanatics ready to bring confusion to the truth for their own purpose.
Arthur Jennings Doctrine of Salvation Martin Hanna, Ph.D. November 13, 2010
Response Assignment 3
Response to Michael C. Mickens – concerning Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians.
Well said Mike, It was Paul’s desire to bring a proper understanding of the Gospel as it related to the recent death of Christ to both Jew and Gentile. Paul’s message of a Christ-centered faith was not only emphasized by his study but it was now Paul’s personal testimony concerning Christ. Paul approach to his audience was a bold claim to what Christ had done for them as well as all humanity.
I agree that Paul wanted the Roman Christians to know that the Gospel message came from God testifying about His son the Christ, and this message was transformative to all nations (Greek and Jew). In addition to that, this message was for anyone who believed and accepted the truth regarding the revelation of God through Christ. Paul’s commitment to the Gospel concerning Christ is revealed by his faith. Paul’s declaration of not being ashamed of the Gospel demonstrates the power of God which had brought salvation to him and was free to all who accepted the work Christ had done.
Arthur Jennings Doctrine of Salvation Martin Hanna, Ph.D. November 13, 2010
Response Assignment 4
Response to Kevin Solomon – concerning Ellen White and Salvation
Kevin, I have heard so many people talk about how the book “Steps to Christ” change their lives and/or opened their understanding to new revelation concerning Christ. It is a powerful book as are many other of her writings. Ellen White does an excellent job in sharing her views on salvation. I agree with her views because it is true that when we understand the love and holiness of God; our own unrighteousness is revealed before our eyes therefore; we see that we are in need of God’s saving grace.
Also, I am not willing to say that Ellen White had a high view of sanctification as it relates to her run in with fanaticism and how she dealt with perfectionism. We must remember that Ellen White came out of the Methodist Church. Perfection was their viewpoint; Ellen’s background came from a Methodist theology. This is what led to her studying and having the thirst for knowledge concerning perfectionism. She realized that all would continue to fight with sin however; it would be their constant relationship with Christ that carried them.
Arthur Jennings Doctrine of Salvation Martin Hanna, Ph.D. November 13, 2010
Response Assignment 5
Response to Alicia Johnston – concerning chapter 4 reading of Whidden
Yes! Alicia I love that statement by Ellen White “I wish that self should be hid in Jesus…” This statement should be our definition of self when we look at ourselves and others. It is a statement of humility that is intended to bring restoration in our relationship with Christ.
You are also right when you say it is rare in leadership and people do not want their leaders to confess their short comings. When I was at Oakwood, I had a professor (let’s call him Professor E.) who was against Ministers sharing or confessing their short comings to the congregation. In fact, Professor E. told my entire class that we should never, ever tell members our problems because they may never respect us and/or look at us in a different way that does not reflect Christ. It might also do damage to your ministry. Professor E. said it is hard for members to see Christ in you, if you confess to being a wife abuser (in the past) or a prostitute or any damaging image that they cannot replace in their minds or associate with Christ. I agree that it might pose a problem for some people although I believe that pastors need to be seen as human beings with real problems in front of their members. None of us should be put on a pedestal as some are still doing to Sister White.
765 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 765 Newer› Newest»Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 4
Sept. 27, 2010 Michael Liu
Reflection from reading the essay The Dynamics of Salvation from BRI.
The passage mention the message of third angel’s message centers in justification by faith. So what is it? In reading of the context of the Evangelism I can find more detail of its meaning. The message which was to focus our eyes on the uplifted Saviour. In the message the efficacy of the blood of Christ was to be presented with freshness and power, that the hearer’s faith might lay hold upon its merits. The proclamation of this third angel’s message must be attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure which becomes an abiding influence. The result is made manifest in obedience to all commandments of God. Through divine transforming process accompanied by sincere repentance and the true devotion, the original propensities to sin in the heart with all their strength can be broken. Ev. 190,192 His gracious activity which save us at the same time vindicate His character and law. In the act of Christ in dying for salvation of man in the same time it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan before all the universe. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God and would reveal the nature and the results of sin. {PP 68.2}
Sin is not a light thing, and God does not lightly pass over it, God meets the demands of a broken law. God is just and justifier of him who believes in Jesus only through the cross. Phil.2:8 (TDS) He established the law’s justice demand in our behalf.
We need to proclaim the Third angel’s message in the context of the final events of earth’s history and of Christ’s ministry in heaven. (TDS p.2) The ministry of Christ in heaven has to do with making His sacrifice effective in human race by asking the Holy Spirit to be sent out to the world. It is the Holy Spirit that prompted the will of men and women so we can to respond to the good news. So the passage said in this way the ministry of Jesus is perpetuated. (TDS)
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_____________________________________________________________________
Reflection on Wazoua Serge Roger on Moral Influence theory
Moral Influence has it point in transform people’s life in a powerful way as we behold the love of Christ, we become changed in a divine assigned way. This only deal with the sanctification part. The problem of this theory lies on using part of the Bible teaching and missing the part talking about legal justification which is the root of our salvation. Greater still if we are to look at the salvation in the great controversy view that make the whole things about suffering and the character of God in a more meaningful way.
“This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person, His merits, and His changeless love for the human family. All power is given into His hands, that He may dispense rich gifts unto men, imparting the priceless gift of His own righteousness to the helpless human agent. This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel's message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure…The efficacy of the blood of Christ was to be presented to the people with freshness and power, that their faith might lay hold upon its merits.” Ev. 190
“When the third angel's message is preached as it should be, power attends its
proclamation, and it becomes an abiding influence. It must be attended with divine power, or it will accomplish nothing. “ Ev. 192
Response #4 to Alicia Johnston
I appreciated your thoughts on Whidden's article. I enjoyed it as well. In regards to the w/o sin during the time of trouble, I couldn't agree more. Is 59:16 clearly states how God's people will be covered during that time. the following statement by EW sheds light as well. God bless you.
Then the angel repeated these words, and said, "This is the time spoken of in Isaiah. He saw that there was not man, and wondered that there was no intercessor. He had no mediator between God and man, and these plagues could be withheld no longer, for Jesus had ceased to plead for Israel, and they were covered with the covering of the Almighty God, and then they could live in the sight of a holy God, and those who were not covered, the plagues fell upon them, for they had nothing to shelter or protect them from the wrath of God."
Response #4 to Alicia Johnston
I appreciated your thoughts on Whidden's article. I enjoyed it as well. In regards to the w/o sin during the time of trouble, I couldn't agree more. Is 59:16 clearly states how God's people will be covered during that time. The following statement by EW sheds light in a most beautiful manner. God bless you.
Then the angel repeated these words, and said, "This is the time spoken of in Isaiah. He saw that there was not man, and wondered that there was no intercessor. He had no mediator between God and man, and these plagues could be withheld no longer, for Jesus had ceased to plead for Israel, and they were covered with the covering of the Almighty God, and then they could live in the sight of a holy God, and those who were not covered, the plagues fell upon them, for they had nothing to shelter or protect them from the wrath of God."
Chester Clark III
Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna
Week 4 Reflection
I really appreciated Dr. Whidden’s treatment of Ellen White’s writings in Chapter 5, “Salvation, and the Great Controversy Theme.” In a few sentences he succinctly summed up complex theological systems and in words that a layman could read and understand. Kudos to him for his clear writing skills.
This sentence particularly impressed me: “For Ellen White the issue of utmost importance was always the practical application for sin-afflicted humans, who find themselves caught on the battlefield of this great controversy.”
The fact is that most of the writers of the Bible were more-or-less common folk who God used to convey His message to other common folk. It’s not that they weren’t intelligent; but in most cases – actually, in all cases – their qualification for the prophetic role came from the attitude of their heart before God rather than the literary institution they graduated from. In fact, many of them would not be considered theologians by today’s standards. Even collectively they would not be considered as having developed a systematic theology (a “shortcoming” of the apostolic Church which I recently became informed about).
Please don’t misunderstand me: the Church needs deep-thinking theologians. But even if we turn to arguably the most capable and qualified theologian of early Christianity, the Apostle Paul, we find him, like Ellen White, couching his theology in the practical implications for daily living. What would the faith-teachings of Romans be without the allusions to Abraham living by faith (Romans 4) or Paul’s own personal testimony (Romans 7)? Though this letter is rich with the theological and the abstract, it is also filled with practical examples and exhortations. Romans 6 applies the theory of Romans 5’s justification by grace through faith to the life of the believer. Romans 8 further deduces the meaning of this grace and it’s liberating power to transform the life, repeatedly drawing a contrast between the life following the flesh versus the life led by the Spirit. Romans 12 paints practical images of the transformed life, while Romans 13 defines duties towards authorities and governments. Romans 14 brings it home with the matter of respecting others’ conscientious convictions. All in all, I think that it could be said that Paul also was more often than not penning truth’s “practical application for sin-afflicted humans.”
Which brings me to the question that’s been lurking in the forefront of my sub-consciousness: In my “doing” of theology, do I retain, or even grow, my ability to make it practical back in the real world?
I’m afraid I could easily become a theologian. (And here, at the risk of offending theologians I respect greatly, I’m using the term in a negative sense.) The longer I’m in the classroom, the easier I find it is to begin debating and fomenting abstract ideas, forming treatises and theses that have everything to do with the theoretical and comparatively little to do with the practical life. Is studying theology a risk that’s worth taking? Yes, of course, but it’s a risk I want to mitigate as much as possible.
So, how can we as seminary students stay connected with reality while so sublimely studying theory? Ask often and incessantly, “So what? What will this mean to the one lost in the gutter, or lost in the jungles, or lost on Wall Street?” Stay active in ministry – whether working at the call center or as a pastor or volunteering in a local church or witnessing right here in a campus dormitory. And stay stubbornly at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ, where our own great need becomes daily more and more real and apparent to our senses. Then we will see even ourselves as “sin-afflicted humans,” “caught on the battlefield of this great controversy,” and our theology will become as practical as one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.
Chester Clark III
Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna
Week 5 Reflection
After last week’s discussion on the atonement theories (from which I learned a lot – Thank you, Dr. Hannah, for your patient explanations!) I found the chapter on Ellen White’s view of the atonement very enlightening. It helped to aggregate the loose ideas that I had floating around my mind into a more cohesive understanding. Dr. Whidden has the ability to succinctly summarize complex theological ideas and systems in a few words, for which I must give him credit and thanks.
To be honest, before last week I’d never really challenged the notion of Adventists differing from the Reformers’ substitutionary theory of the atonement. I just assumed we followed in their steps. I don’t recall Ellen White ever challenging them (in those terms anyway) on the matter. Of course when it comes to Calvinism’s determinism I knew we deviated.
Now I’ll confess just how much being “practical” in my theology perhaps warps my ability to think theoretically. As we discussed various theories, my mind had a hard time grasping anything positive, any common ground that can be found in them. I think the most deviant of the theories that I have encountered is the Moral Influence Theory. Perhaps I’ve just been introduced to particularly virulent or extreme versions of this theory, but it has seemed to me that those who promote it deny the substitutionary nature of the atonement, making the theories mutually exclusive. Since I do believe that Jesus died on the cross in my place, the response to the Moral Influence Theory is essentially to argue the Substitutionary Theory (which I still contend has always been taught with an appreciation for the moral influence of the cross, i.e. “the goodness of God” leading to repentance).
But what I learned, from the class discussion and reflection of what I actually believe (and my impression of what is contained in the writings of Ellen White and in church positions) is not adequately described in any of the neat pre-packaged theories of the atonement. My own Bible study and extensive reading of the Spirit of Prophecy had led to a subconscious concept of atonement that I had never attempted to put into words. And I wasn’t finding that any of the classic theories were satisfactory.
Enter Dr. Whidden’s Chapter 7, “The Atonement.” This chapter put into words what I was already concluding, that Adventists have an understanding of the atonement in its timing (a continuous line throughout fallen human history), in its beautiful and perfect balance (between law and grace, justice and mercy), and in its implications for daily living (drawing by grace, justification by grace through faith, sanctification by grace through faith) that no other modern movement can come close to defining. I was gratified to read his view that her comments focused on the concepts of penalty, substitution, and satisfaction. And with him I marveled that an “uneducated” prophetess had developed a theological system which, though not exhaustive, is wide, practical, and coherent – as well as ground breaking. “It is almost as if she went on a shopping trip at the doctrinal supermarket and was able to get all the choicest fruits without picking up a single rotten theological apple.” Whidden, 49. What an amazing atonement, all so that I could be saved! What an amazing Savior!
Kevin Solomon Response to
Alicia Johnston
Alicia, I appreciate your posting in regard to salvation, the law and the great controversy. I definitely agree that Satan’s whole goal is to misrepresent the character of God so that we serve him out of fear rather than love. In my experience personally, it was not until I came to see God as a loving Father, that the desire sprang within me to follow Him. As made clear,the beauty of grace is that what the law could not do by saving us, Christ did. Christ in dying upholds the law and through His indwelling Spirit he fulfills the law in us. Alicia thanks for your thoughts. It has reemphasize the simplicity of the gospel and reminded me of how God’s love transforms our lives when we right understand His true character.
I'm having trouble posting my reflections, even though I've reduced them to as little as 2,400 characters including spaces. Any suggestion?
- Chester
My apologies for all the deleted posts. I kept getting an error message when posting and didn't notice they were actually posting, on page two of the blog.
Nick Clark
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignments #5
“We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance: perseverance character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” – Romans 5:3-5
I love this passage in Romans 5. Suffering obviously not an easy thing to rejoice in, but when you look at what can come out of it, it really does inspire hope. Paul points out that “hope does not disappoint us” and throughout the Bible you can see how the lives of so many of the heroes of faith actually lived with this kind of hope. The hope they had was real, and they lived as if it were true. They lived knowing that God would do what He said He would do. The hope talked about in the Bible is not a hope that wishes for something, thinking maybe it will come true, but hope in the Bible is assurance in the promises of God. This is why we have to persevere through suffering and rejoice, not rejoicing in the fact that we are suffering, but in the fact that one day there will be no suffering. We can learn, with God’s help, to view the trials of our day as stepping stones to character and to hope, as stepping stones closer to God. The last part of the passage quoted above says, “God has poured out his love into our hearts”. This is amazing! The picture that this paints is amazing, that God would fill our hearts with His love. We should be overflowing with His love, so much that it spreads to those around us.
The reading from Whidden this week was pretty good too. I liked how it showed Ellen White’s understanding of free will. It talked about how God is always drawing us towards Him, He is always reaching towards us, but we also have the freedom to choose to respond or not. A quote from Ellen White in the chapter that I like was “ It is impossible for us, of ourselves, to escape from the pit of sin in which we are sunken. . . . His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness.” It so good to know that the grace of God us sufficient; God can supply our every need. He is able to attract our soul to Himself and to holiness. It’s good to know that though we are sinful and we are in a terrible mess God gives us every provision necessary to get out, even to the point of leading us to the understanding that we need help.
Nick Clark
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignments #5
“We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance: perseverance character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” – Romans 5:3-5
I love this passage in Romans 5. Suffering obviously not an easy thing to rejoice in, but when you look at what can come out of it, it really does inspire hope. Paul points out that “hope does not disappoint us” and throughout the Bible you can see how the lives of so many of the heroes of faith actually lived with this kind of hope. The hope they had was real, and they lived as if it were true. They lived knowing that God would do what He said He would do. The hope talked about in the Bible is not a hope that wishes for something, thinking maybe it will come true, but hope in the Bible is assurance in the promises of God. This is why we have to persevere through suffering and rejoice, not rejoicing in the fact that we are suffering, but in the fact that one day there will be no suffering. We can learn, with God’s help, to view the trials of our day as stepping stones to character and to hope, as stepping stones closer to God. The last part of the passage quoted above says, “God has poured out his love into our hearts”. This is amazing! The picture that this paints is amazing, that God would fill our hearts with His love. We should be overflowing with His love, so much that it spreads to those around us.
The reading from Whidden this week was pretty good too. I liked how it showed Ellen White’s understanding of free will. It talked about how God is always drawing us towards Him, He is always reaching towards us, but we also have the freedom to choose to respond or not. A quote from Ellen White in the chapter that I like was “ It is impossible for us, of ourselves, to escape from the pit of sin in which we are sunken. . . . His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness.” It so good to know that the grace of God us sufficient; God can supply our every need. He is able to attract our soul to Himself and to holiness. It’s good to know that though we are sinful and we are in a terrible mess God gives us every provision necessary to get out, even to the point of leading us to the understanding that we need help.
response to Chester
Assignment 5
Great thoughts in your reflections from this week. I like how you pointed out that Adventists have such an awesome view and teaching on atonement. The atonement is amazing, God is so good.
Brian Baierl
Assignment #4
The reflection this week is on the chapters Romans 4 and Whidden’s chapter 4. I did something interesting on the reading of Romans. I read the chapter in an interlinear Bible with Greek. The Greek words were translated as close as possible into the English equivalent. There was one particular text that jumped out more than usually when read in just English. The text is Romans 4:4, 5. In the English the words grace and debt caught my attention. I know I have considered the words before, but for some reason the wording spoke to me differently. The one not working the reward is grace not debt. In my life when I am not working I am going further into debt. The thought Paul has on grace was the opposite. Paul states if you are working debt will be your reward. The focus of the two groups is interesting as well. The one working is focused on a reward. The one not working believes on the One justifying. So maybe it is not the work or not working, but the focus on the reward or the One.
The chapter in Whidden talked about Ellen White dealing with perfection. I knew a great deal of her influence came from John Wesley when it came to this subject. The quotes of her attempts of perfection touched my heart. I too hope that my words or sayings do not hurt anyone. We do need Jesus every hour of the day. Anger is a very prominent emotion in the realm of a Christian. I have a whole family that has anger issues. I am constantly treading the line of anger as to not hurt anyone and stay calm and peaceful. We may not obtain perfection here, but we need to continue to pursue perfection. Vince Lombardi a Green Bay Packer coach in the 50’s and 60’s was quoted saying, “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.” I believe we need to chase perfection and catch Christ. We have the tendency to think we have reached the summit and turn a blind eye to the other mountains in the distance. Ellen White mentions, “nobody is perfect.” We must still reach for the goal of perfection.
Brian Baierl
Commenting on Elias assignemnt #4
I thought it was a very intellectual approach to issue of salvation. I was wondering more about the thought presented on "sold under sin"? God is good and willing to help the helpless. Thank you for the blog and encouragement.
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment 2
Jin soo Park
Romans chapter 2 tells us why God gave us his law. And it is written by verse 13. “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified”.
At that time, Jews were proud of themselves keeping the law to be saved. But they did not keep the law. Paul strongly mentioned that they were keeping the law as a wrong way. In the bible we can find a story about rich ruler (Luke 18:18). And through that story, we can see he is the one who want to be saved. And he said to Jesus "All these I have observed from my youth (Luke 18:21). But E.G White mentioned in the book of “Desire of Ages” that he had not kept the law. Also he were not keeping the third commandment. "You shall not make for yourself a graven image you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exodus 20:4,5) he is serving the money, whealthy as his image. That was not what God wants us to do. That was not the way keeping the law. But all Jews were doing. “you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Luke 18:22). And the ruler worried about that.
For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God (Roman 2:28,29) This was Paul wanted to mention through the book of Roman chapter 2.
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment 3
Jinsoo park
Roman 3:20 tells us why the Law need. “For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” The only purpose is for knowledge of sin. This verse tells why we do not have to judge others. It should be used for myself, not for others. “since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith”. The only one who can judge us is God. Through this verse we can find the powerful messege for us. I really like to use this sentence “Through their faith” in our life. Also it tells us about the power of salvation that is opened not only for me, but also for others. That is why we do not have to judge others. Because he or she is precious person who is given salvation through their faith, not through my faith, not through the law, but through their faith. God judges me through my faith. And the only thing to do for me is to know about my sin through the law.
Through the article “Christ saved the human race” I could get several insight. Also we think that he tried to restore between God and us. Through being tempted by Satan, he could show all the universe that what he is doing for us. That was the same temptation that Adam was tempted. Also the article used the words “objective work of salvation”.he shows is that we can get a victory from the Satan. Also he shows us what salvation is.
Reed Richardi
Assignment # 5
Some thoughts in response to our class today.
How big is your gospel? How big is mine? The real gospel is deep, it is vast and mysterious, it can even seem complex. But we are used to oversimplifications of the gospel. We reduce the gospel down to only one (or a few) of its elements. But these simplifications are simply false.
The gospel is justification, sanctification, and glorification. It is all parts of the sanctuary, all the sacrifices, all the duties of the priest. It is not only Christ's death, but His birth, His perfect life, His resurrection, His intercession, and His coming. It is what God has done for me, is doing, and will do. It is the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, the Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. It is the year of Jubilee and the cities of refuge. It is legal, it is relational, it is victorious. It is ransom, regeneration, reconciliation, and transformation. It is adoption, inheritance, light and cleansing. The gospel is freedom from the bondage of sin, taking up the yoke of Christ and becoming a slave to righteousness. The gospel is the power of God yet it is also His tenderness. It is deliverance from the wrath of God and the powers and darkness and conveyance into the kingdom of the Son of His love.
Jesus Christ, the Son of His love is my Savior. He is the love of God demonstrated to us. He is the humility which puts and end to what pride began. He is the gift I must receive, the pearl I must find, the path I must choose, the robe I must put on, and the treasure I must treasure. He is the bread of life I must eat and the blood of the covenant I must drink. He is the fountain of living waters flowing out of my heart. He is my righteousness, sanctification, wisdom, and redemption. Jesus is my qualification.
The gospel is far bigger than a truth I can put in my pocket or a badge I can put on my sleeve. It is vast and mysterious, awesome and wonderful. It causes us to worship our glorious God who is the Captain and Author of our Salvation who Himself is our salvation and so much more.
Rev 19:1 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God!
Reed Richardi
Assignment # 5
Some thoughts in response to our class today.
How big is your gospel? How big is mine? The real gospel is deep, it is vast and mysterious, it can even seem complex. But we are used to oversimplifications of the gospel. We reduce the gospel down to only one (or a few) of its elements. But these simplifications are simply false.
The gospel is justification, sanctification, and glorification. It is all parts of the sanctuary, all the sacrifices, all the duties of the priest. It is not only Christ's death, but His birth, His perfect life, His resurrection, His intercession, and His coming. It is what God has done for me, is doing, and will do. It is the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, the Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. It is the year of Jubilee and the cities of refuge. It is legal, it is relational, it is victorious. It is ransom, regeneration, reconciliation, and transformation. It is adoption, inheritance, light and cleansing. The gospel is freedom from the bondage of sin, taking up the yoke of Christ and becoming a slave to righteousness. The gospel is the power of God yet it is also His tenderness. It is deliverance from the wrath of God and the powers and darkness and conveyance into the kingdom of the Son of His love.
Jesus Christ, the Son of His love is my Savior. He is the love of God demonstrated to us. He is the humility which puts and end to what pride began. He is the gift I must receive, the pearl I must find, the path I must choose, the robe I must put on, and the treasure I must treasure. He is the bread of life I must eat and the blood of the covenant I must drink. He is the fountain of living waters flowing out of my heart. He is my righteousness, sanctification, wisdom, and redemption. Jesus is my qualification.
The gospel is far bigger than a truth I can put in my pocket or a badge I can put on my sleeve. It is vast and mysterious, awesome and wonderful. It causes us to worship our glorious God who is the Captain and Author of our Salvation who Himself is our salvation and so much more.
Rev 19:1 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God!
Comment on Romans 5:1-11
After further reflection on the text, I believe that there are two dynamics that Paul is attempting to convey as it relates to salvation. Specifically, Paul seems to express the dynamics of the Role of the Holy Ghost as well as the Role of Christ. I believe this is extremely important because Paul’s two nature argument seems to suggest that the two dynamics of salvation are inseparable. In fact, they are One, in both their unique relationship and shared purpose. In referring to the Role of the Holy Ghost Paul seems to suggest that the primary work of the transformation of the heart takes place under the Guidance of the Holy Ghost. In referring to the Role of Christ he seems to suggest that the primary work of the Person of Christ was to accomplish our salvation through both His death and His life, both as a sacrifice for our sins and as a mediator of our sins. These two salvific dynamics (The Work of the Holy Ghost and the Work of Christ) are related in that they both accomplish the same purpose, reconciliation with God. After all it was Paul who said that, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor. 5:10).” So it appears that Paul is attempting to demonstrate that these two dynamics of the work of the Holy Ghost and the Work of Christ ultimately work together two produce God’s divine purpose for humanity. I believe it is important that we see both sides of God’s reconciliation. For without one the other is incomplete (Salvation without Transformation) and without the other the one is insufficient (Transformation without Salvation). Therefore we discover a reconciliation that is dependent on both the saving work of Christ and the transformative work of the Holy Ghost.
Response to Michael Jones’ assignment #4
Michael,
Great post! Your thoughts had me pondering God’s word, asking myself questions, and praising God for his grace. One question I’m thinking about now is, “How can I effectively communicate the idea of a grace-based righteousness to someone who is primarily concerned with righteous living (i.e. outward acts)?
Dario Ferreira
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #5
After presenting the means God uses to justify sinners, using as the basis of the experience of faith of Abraham, the apostle Paul begins to describe the blessings received by those whose faith was imputed to them justice. He brings peace, joy and hope as blessings that are manifested in the lives of those who have been justified by faith. We also found that Paul mentions three objects of joy: 1. The hope of the glory of God (5:2) - the purpose for which He created man, “created them for my glory” (Isaiah 43:7), 2. The tribulations (5:3) - are seen in the New Testament as the normal experience of a Christian (Acts 14:22) 3. God himself (5:11) - poured his love (5:5) in reconciling us to Him by Christ's death (5:11). God confirms His love for us, because Christ died for us while we were still weak (5:6) and sinners (5:8). Paul starts to make a representation of Christ as the “Second Adam,” in contrast to the “first Adam.” God always raises someone to replace him, when a man fails, or is prevented from performing one of his purposes. Where and Adam could only replace him someone who had the ability to undo the effects of his sin and had the power to start all over again. In this case, only Christ could tackle this challenging task. Only Jesus Christ, the “Second Adam,” is qualified to redo what the “First Adam” fell apart.
Whidden chapter 6, entitled “Sin, the Human Condition, and Salvation”, presents the view of Ellen White concerning the sin. A vision that “we humans come into the world tragically the damage goods, not simply unfortunate babes in the woods who suffer lapses of memory and little numerous mistakes. We are seriously depraved and corrupted!” She also made clear that as sinners, we will retain our sinful nature until glorification. What we can and must achieve is the perfection of character, but never the perfection of nature. I thought, very deep and at the same time complete the way Ellen White deals with the issue of freedom of choice depravity and salvation. When we sin, we become slaves to sin. Therefore, we are unable to repent for ourselves. Only Christ can bring us to repentance. Nothing we could do, never could we do to deserve or earn salvation, but only the grace of God combined with the most serious effort on our part can lead us to victory.
In the document “Comments on the ‘In Adam/In Christ’ Motifs,” Angel Rodriguez deals with the meaning of such terms as used by the 1888 Study Committee. He comes, then the conclusion that the lack of understanding of these terms led to many misunderstandings and consequently some very serious theological problems for the 1888 Study Committee. Angel Manuel Rodriguez proposes something that could explain the meaning of the phrases “In Adam/In Christ”: Social Solidarity in the Old Testament. The solidarity in Israelite society was based on various important factors that as a people they had in common:
1. They had a common God entered into covenant with them all;
2. They had a common religious experience and the same system of worship;
3. They had a common ancestor - the patriarch Abraham;
4. They had a common future - the promise of making them a nation of priests over all the nations of the earth.
I think really that common elements provide the basis for religious and social religious and social concept of the Old Testament helps us understand the phrases “In Adam/In Christ.”
Response to Chester Clark III : Assignment 5
I share with you about the value of class discussions regarding the models of Atonement. I confess that I have learned a lot too. I was surprised to recognize that the Bible uses multiple models of atonement.
Like you, I am amazed at how God used Ellen White to develop a theological system, not affected or influenced by human assumptions, but coherent, biblical and, peculiar in its clarity and balance.
Reed Richardi
Response # 5 to Michael Mickens comment on Rom. 5:1-11
Great post. What a blessed thought that Christ and the Holy Spirit are co-laborers for our salvation. We know that the entire Godhead is united for our reconciliation but it seems that we understand the work of the Spirit the least. May we have an deeper understanding and experience of the Spirit's work.
Assignment #6 (and as for Assignment #5, I accidently titled both my 4th and 5th entries as assignment #4)
It worked out well that class this week dealt with the atonement and the issues involved in God’s mercy and justice and that it was the topic of Whidden’s chapter that I read for this next week. I do wish that in the exploration we would look in more depth into each of the historical views of the atonement. I agree in the balance of the penal-substitutionary and influence theories, or more general the objective and subjective views of the atonement. However, the view that has seemed to speak to tempt me is the ransom theory and I wish that Whidden would have at least mentioned it. I know that the ransom theory has problems, as do all the theories, but it seems to make sense to me – though there might be an influence from C.S. Lewis’s Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe which I read early in life and the narrative structure may have been formational in my understanding.
I do hold to the stream of thought that involves both/and much more than the either/or, which have been foundational in my life experience and education before coming to the seminary. Sometimes I think we just have too much of a desire to figure things out too definitively. We need to accept and maybe even embrace mystery and recognize the big-picture holistic nature of scripture which reveals what is central painfully clearly but then leaves more than all of humanity throughout all of history in the realm of mystery, uncertainty and further exploration. In fact, we will have all of eternity to continue exploring the mysteries of God. And I have a feeling that learning and growth in heaven may be similar to that of earth – the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know anything yet. When searching for answers to questions you are more likely to find more questions than answers.
Response to Reed
I appreciated your thoughts on the broad, holistic and mysterious nature of the gospel. I agree that we do often try to over simplify it, and many other things for that matter.
We need to be willing to dig deep and explore the mysteries God has placed before us, but ultimately just have faith in Him because He is the way the truth and the life.
Assignment 6
Youngkyo Suh
From the article by Biblical Research Institute, the book of Romans, chapter 6, and the last class period, I had an opportunity to think deeply about sin and righteousness. First of all, BRI’s article ‘Dynamics of Salvation’ widens my understanding how I should look at salvation in a broad way. ‘The saving righteousness of God is not in conflict with His eternal law.’ God had to judge all people justly according to the Law and Law requires men and women to be condemned to die of the result of sin. But God’s supreme character is love, which can save anyone who believe in Jesus Christ who died for all. ‘While the cross and resurrection of Christ are the focal point of the ages (cf. Heb. 9:26), the divine initiative does not end with them. The risen Christ, ascended to the right hand of the Father, asks for the Holy Spirit to be sent to the world (John 14:16, 26).’ We often see the cross is the place where salvation is completed and tend to believe that there is nothing else we preach about salvation. But this is not quite true God’s salvation covers more than that. Jesus’ salvation is as dynamic as we can think of. It exhaustibly includes every aspects of Jesus’ ministry as part of salvation. As a future minister, I should not forget that presenting salvation can be misleading in terms of focusing on one aspect of salvation.
As Romans 6 shows that Jesus’ grace is the central focus of whole plan of salvation, we need to understand the counterpart of Jesus’ grace is Satan’s rebellion. This is one of the hardest yet at the same time simple things that we should see in the plan of salvation.
I raised an idea in the class where it says that it is safe to proclaim salvation using legal system of universe. The reason why I thought this way is that law of God is in the center of the great controversy between God and Satan. When Satan rebelled in heaven, God’s law was broken in him and because of that it affected entire human world. Because of the invasion of Satan to God’s law, God had to protect His law by putting something to restore what Satan’s invasion of the Law broke. It is Jesus whom God used to restore what Satan broke. Therefore, if we think that there is conflict between God’s righteousness and His eternal law, we don’t see the reason why God has right to send Jesus for our sin. But, if we see bigger picture starting Satan’s rebellion, it would be clear to see it.
Response to Dario Ferreira #5
I found interesting when you say that there are several factors of common characteristics in 'in Adam/in Christ' idea. I actually think so too. There must be some kind of commonness in both Adam and Christ. As we see this commonness, we shouldn't forget that there are more than this.
Matthew Shallenberger
Assignment 4
I love how Paul sets up his argument for chapter 4 of Romans. In chapter 1, he has outlined why the Gentiles stand guilty before God; they have rejected His revelation to them in nature. Then in chapter 2, Paul shows why the Jews also stand guilty before God; they have failed to live up to the standard which God gave them through the law. Chapter 3 brings it together, and verse 23 really sums it up. Everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.
Now we come to chapter 4. Paul has already begun to discuss justification by faith in the latter part of chapter 3. Now in chapter 4 he sets out to prove that his arguments are indeed true by appealing to the Old Testament. He’s writing to a Jewish audience. He knows that they pride themselves in their heritage. They are the children of Abraham. They have the Law of God. They have the sign of circumcision. Paul takes all this into consideration and uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith. Abraham believed God, and God counted him righteous because of it. Not only that, but Abraham was counted as righteous before he was ever circumcised. Think of it! The Jews were so caught up in external obedience to the law. Circumcision was everything. If you weren’t circumcised, you weren’t a true son of Abraham. You couldn’t be saved! But Paul shows that Abraham’s circumcision was not the source of his righteousness, but rather it was the proof of his righteousness (verse 11).
This point should not be underemphasized. It is crucial to understanding the relation of faith and works. Paul makes it very clear that Abraham was justified because he believed what God had said. Looking at the full context of Abraham’s story shows that this was more than mere mental assent to God’s promise. Abraham acted on his belief. He really did believe that what God said He would do, He would do! But his righteousness came not from his actions, but prior to them—from his faith in God’s word. His actions, such as circumcision, demonstrated that he really did believe God.
Paul spends the rest of the chapter developing this idea of Abraham’s righteousness being a result of faith. He argues that God’s promise to Abraham was not based on the Law, but rather on righteousness by faith. Thus Abraham’s true descendants are not merely those who have followed in his bloodline, but those who follow his example of righteousness by faith. Believing that what God promises is what He will do is still the only way to be saved. It’s amazing, though, how we always try to find some other way. It seems like every generation finds a new way to be legalistic.
I was talking with my wife, Emmalee, one day about why some Christians are such sticklers about rules in some areas, but in others they tend to let things slide. For example, some people prefer to attend a conservative, traditional worship service on Sabbath morning, despite the fact that they were out drinking and partying the night before. Emmalee had a profound insight into this phenomenon. She said, “I think people like to pick and choose how they pay to get to heaven.” It’s so true—about all of us, really. Our fallen human nature is inherently self-reliant. After all, that was the first sin, wasn’t it? Adam and Eve chose to rely on their own judgment regarding a certain kind of fruit instead of trusting what God had said. But even when we realize we’re falling short in one area, we still think that somehow we can make up the slack elsewhere. If we’re especially holy and pious on Sabbath, maybe that will make up for some of our misdeeds during the week. But it doesn’t work that way, and it never has. The only way to be saved is to believe in the promise of God, revealed most clearly in Jesus Christ. Salvation has, is, and always will be by faith.
Matthew Shallenberger
Assignment 4
I love how Paul sets up his argument for chapter 4 of Romans. In chapter 1, he has outlined why the Gentiles stand guilty before God; they have rejected His revelation to them in nature. Then in chapter 2, Paul shows why the Jews also stand guilty before God; they have failed to live up to the standard which God gave them through the law. Chapter 3 brings it together, and verse 23 really sums it up. Everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.
Now we come to chapter 4. Paul has already begun to discuss justification by faith in the latter part of chapter 3. Now in chapter 4 he sets out to prove that his arguments are indeed true by appealing to the Old Testament. He’s writing to a Jewish audience. He knows that they pride themselves in their heritage. They are the children of Abraham. They have the Law of God. They have the sign of circumcision. Paul takes all this into consideration and uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith. Abraham believed God, and God counted him righteous because of it. Not only that, but Abraham was counted as righteous before he was ever circumcised. Think of it! The Jews were so caught up in external obedience to the law. Circumcision was everything. If you weren’t circumcised, you weren’t a true son of Abraham. You couldn’t be saved! But Paul shows that Abraham’s circumcision was not the source of his righteousness, but rather it was the proof of his righteousness (verse 11).
This point should not be underemphasized. It is crucial to understanding the relation of faith and works. Paul makes it very clear that Abraham was justified because he believed what God had said. Looking at the full context of Abraham’s story shows that this was more than mere mental assent to God’s promise. Abraham acted on his belief. He really did believe that what God said He would do, He would do! But his righteousness came not from his actions, but prior to them—from his faith in God’s word. His actions, such as circumcision, demonstrated that he really did believe God.
Paul spends the rest of the chapter developing this idea of Abraham’s righteousness being a result of faith. He argues that God’s promise to Abraham was not based on the Law, but rather on righteousness by faith. Thus Abraham’s true descendants are not merely those who have followed in his bloodline, but those who follow his example of righteousness by faith. Believing that what God promises is what He will do is still the only way to be saved. It’s amazing, though, how we always try to find some other way. It seems like every generation finds a new way to be legalistic.
I was talking with my wife, Emmalee, one day about why some Christians are such sticklers about rules in some areas, but in others they tend to let things slide. For example, some people prefer to attend a conservative, traditional worship service on Sabbath morning, despite the fact that they were out drinking and partying the night before. Emmalee had a profound insight into this phenomenon. She said, “I think people like to pick and choose how they pay to get to heaven.” It’s so true—about all of us, really. Our fallen human nature is inherently self-reliant. After all, that was the first sin, wasn’t it? Adam and Eve chose to rely on their own judgment regarding a certain kind of fruit instead of trusting what God had said. But even when we realize we’re falling short in one area, we still think that somehow we can make up the slack elsewhere. If we’re especially holy and pious on Sabbath, maybe that will make up for some of our misdeeds during the week. But it doesn’t work that way, and it never has. The only way to be saved is to believe in the promise of God, revealed most clearly in Jesus Christ. Salvation has, is, and always will be by faith.
Response to Alicia Johnston’s Assignment 4
Alicia, I like that you pointed out the eschatological significance of salvation. If Jesus really is coming soon, then the choices we’re making now are of utmost importance. Furthermore, helping others make the right choices is vital, too. That’s a big part of why I decided to become a pastor. I want to help people to get to know Jesus!
I also appreciated your observations about Ellen White’s statements on perfection at the close of probation. Those statements have troubled me, too. I think you explained well the balance that Mrs. White had in her writings, and you also kept the focus on Jesus as the Source of our perfection. I found Edward Heppenstall’s BRI article, “Some Theological Considerations of Perfection,” to be helpful in addressing this issue.
John Coaxum Assignment #3
I thoroughly appreciate the fact that Ellen White is not a Calvinist neither a perfectionist. I have long held to the understanding that it is impossible to completely escape sin on this side of Earth. However I was startled one day by a fellow preacher a while ago who stated that he was currently living without sin. I really didn’t know how to take that remark or how to understand how or what he meant. Needless to say I am wary of people who advocate Christian perfection. After reading chapter six of Woodrow Wilsons book, it is clear that Ellen White was not an advocate of this. In that Adam passed down to us the effects and the propensities of the original sin. Even if we could somehow, keep the law through works, she says that they would still have no merit. Christ, when He spoke about the law pushed the envelope even farther beyond works. Christ spoke about motives and the role that they play in obedience and salvation. And what is more we all have inherited the sinful state of Adam. So, just as the Bible says, “even our righteousness is as filthy rags” without the merits of Christ. But even if we could somehow keep the law according to our works, it still would not be enough to garner our salvation. So is it possible to live without sin? Christ did it we are sure and doesn’t that mean that mean that mean that we can too. I mean isn’t that what He came to show us; that we too could live a life free of sin? I don’t think so.
Every human being born is born with the bent of original sin. Christ, being born of the Holy spirit was not born with this bent. So then we are not required to live up to the level that Christ lived. Yes that is our goal and we strive to live a life pleasing to our God. But to me the fact still remains that Christ died for us so that Grace and mercy could be implemented on our behalf. Another theologian who I admire today said it this way: While living on Earth and running the Christian race, we are adequately fenced in by grace. And if we happen to trip or to fall along the way in our Earthly journey; we are still tripping/ falling within the bounds of grace.
Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 5
Oct. 6, 2010 Michael Liu
Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T. n.d. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s BRI document.
What is the place of judgment in the doctrine of justification by faith? Judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly from misuse the idea of the justification of ungodliness into opportunity to be lawlessness. If judgment call for works, then those who are justified by Christ are called to live for Christ. We are called to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed until the end of all things. When the end comes, the judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful witness of God's people. To be without the righteous deed as the fruit is to be apart from God's redemptive process in this world.
Justification grants assurance to the believer, but judgment guards that assurance. The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us under the lordship of Christ. To reject this walk in sanctifation is to reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship.
From the author’s point of view to see Christian experience as a unit of continuation of Christian walk. The justification and sanctification cannot separate with each other and still a protect its wholeness.
In the same time the meaning of faith is obedience to the reveled will of God. That also join the justification and sanctification together as one.
The subjective aspect of gospel is making it real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel. The objective gospel can become a reality to us only when we experience its power in our lives. The truth can make us free only when we believe and receive it in our hearts. (Jn.8:32, Rom. 5:17) Paul express as Christ in you. (Jack Sequeira 1999) The experiences we have in the saving act of Christ may be described as the fruits the objective gospel.
_____________________________________________________________________
In reflection on Michael Jones assignment 4
The rethinking of the meaning of righteousness in biblical perspective and in human perspective is very different. In God view human righteousness is bankrupted because of the fallen human nature. That understanding open the feeling of need of the grace of God. So the salvation work done by Jesus can be effective to work in a receptive heart. We can learn this lesson by the inspiring writing of our own hurting then repent. If we accept the testimony the road will be easier.
Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 5 Michael Liu
Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T. n.d. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s BRI document.
What is the place of judgment in the doctrine of justification by faith? Judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly from misuse the idea of the justification of ungodliness into opportunity to be lawlessness. If judgment call for works, then those who are justified by Christ are called to live for Christ. We are called to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed until the end of all things. When the end comes, the judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful witness of God's people. To be without the righteous deed as the fruit is to be apart from God's redemptive process in this world.
Justification grants assurance to the believer, but judgment guards that assurance. The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us under the lordship of Christ. To reject this walk in sanctifation is to reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship.
From the author’s point of view to see Christian experience as a unit of continuation of Christian walk. The justification and sanctification cannot separate with each other and still a protect its wholeness.
In the same time the meaning of faith is obedience to the reveled will of God. That also join the justification and sanctification together as one.
The subjective aspect of gospel is making it real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel. The objective gospel can become a reality to us only when we experience its power in our lives. The truth can make us free only when we believe and receive it in our hearts. (Jn.8:32, Rom. 5:17) Paul express as Christ in you. (Jack Sequeira 1999) The experiences we have in the saving act of Christ may be described as the fruits the objective gospel.
_____________________________________________________________________
In reflection on Michael Jones assignment 4
The rethinking of the meaning of righteousness in biblical perspective and in human perspective is very different. In God view human righteousness is bankrupted because of the fallen human nature. That understanding open the feeling of need of the grace of God. So the salvation work done by Jesus can be effective to work in a receptive heart. We can learn this lesson by the inspiring writing of our own hurting then repent. If we accept the testimony the road will be easier.
Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 5 Michael Liu
Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T. n.d. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s BRI document.
What is the place of judgment in the doctrine of justification by faith? Judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly from misuse the idea of the justification of ungodliness into opportunity to be lawlessness. If judgment call for works, then those who are justified by Christ are called to live for Christ. We are called to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed until the end of all things. When the end comes, the judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful witness of God's people. To be without the righteous deed as the fruit is to be apart from God's redemptive process in this world.
Justification grants assurance to the believer, but judgment guards that assurance. The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us under the lordship of Christ. To reject this walk in sanctifation is to reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship.
From the author’s point of view to see Christian experience as a unit of continuation of Christian walk. The justification and sanctification cannot separate with each other and still a protect its wholeness.
In the same time the meaning of faith is obedience to the reveled will of God. That also join the justification and sanctification together as one.
The subjective aspect of gospel is making it real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel. The objective gospel can become a reality to us only when we experience its power in our lives. The truth can make us free only when we believe and receive it in our hearts. (Jn.8:32, Rom. 5:17) Paul express as Christ in you. (Jack Sequeira 1999) The experiences we have in the saving act of Christ may be described as the fruits the objective gospel.
_____________________________________________________________________
In reflection on Michael Jones assignment 4
The rethinking of the meaning of righteousness in biblical perspective and in human perspective is very different. In God view human righteousness is bankrupted because of the fallen human nature. That understanding open the feeling of need of the grace of God. So the salvation work done by Jesus can be effective to work in a receptive heart. We can learn this lesson by the inspiring writing of our own hurting then repent. If we accept the testimony the road will be easier.
Doctrine of Salvation Reflection assignment 5 Michael Liu
Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T. n.d. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s BRI document.
What is the place of judgment in the doctrine of justification by faith? Judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly from misuse the idea of the justification of ungodliness into opportunity to be lawlessness. If judgment call for works, then those who are justified by Christ are called to live for Christ. We are called to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed until the end of all things. When the end comes, the judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful witness of God's people. To be without the righteous deed as the fruit is to be apart from God's redemptive process in this world.
Justification grants assurance to the believer, but judgment guards that assurance. The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us under the lordship of Christ. To reject this walk in sanctifation is to reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship.
From the author’s point of view to see Christian experience as a unit of continuation of Christian walk. The justification and sanctification cannot separate with each other and still a protect its wholeness.
In the same time the meaning of faith is obedience to the reveled will of God. That also join the justification and sanctification together as one.
The subjective aspect of gospel is making it real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel. The objective gospel can become a reality to us only when we experience its power in our lives. The truth can make us free only when we believe and receive it in our hearts. (Jn.8:32, Rom. 5:17) Paul express as Christ in you. (Jack Sequeira 1999) The experiences we have in the saving act of Christ may be described as the fruits the objective gospel.
_____________________________________________________________________
In reflection on Michael Jones assignment 4
The rethinking of the meaning of righteousness in biblical perspective and in human perspective is very different. In God view human righteousness is bankrupted because of the fallen human nature. That understanding open the feeling of need of the grace of God. So the salvation work done by Jesus can be effective to work in a receptive heart. We can learn this lesson by the inspiring writing of our own hurting then repent. If we accept the testimony the road will be easier.
Comment on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter 8
This topic has considerable interest for me considering my previous religious background as a Pentecostal. In a recent conversation with my father he asked me a life defining question, “What do you think about Jesus.” This question has sense caused me to reconsider many of my previously held presuppositions about the persona and nature of Christ. Particularly, I have been interested in the human and divine nature of Christ. I’m careful not to suggest that he has two different natures, but acknowledging that He is of one nature which are composed of two different dimensions: both the human and the divine perfectly united in one. How this is accomplished is truly a mystery for all time. It causes a believer to contemplate on the complimentary nature of Christ, which guarantees their eternal salvation. Recognizing that in his being God possessed the attributes and components of humanity and divinity that are necessary to fully satisfy the atonement for sin. In his chronological study of Ellen White on Salvation Woodrow W. Whidden II, attempts to grapple with the mystery of this paradoxical conundrum. He attempts to argue for a more balanced approach to the subject. Rather than arguing from one perspective on another Whidden suggests viewing the subject from both sides, thus acknowledging the significance and relevance of both perspectives. In unfolding his argument he refers to what has commonly become known as the identity and uniqueness of Christ in his divine human nature. When considering the writings of Ellen White which he considers to be extremely consistent throughout her prophetic ministry, he points to the way in which she employed each perspective in an attempt to describe two different sides of one great reality. I found his treatment of the subject although not exhaustive rather helpful in attempting to approach the challenge of Ellen Whites dialectical approach to the person and nature of Christ. I agree with the author that this approach offers the best potential solution at present time with the Seventh-day Adventist Community. While this will clearly not solve the problems with the subject or settle the debate, I do believe that it offers a possibility for more of a consensus on her true understanding of the greatest mystery of our world. The challenge of fully understanding this mystery within the limits of the cosmos further reminds us that we know in part and until the day of Christ return we continue to await a full unveiling of this truly amazing mystery.
Comment on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter 8
This topic has considerable interest for me considering my previous religious background as a Pentecostal. In a recent conversation with my father he asked me a life defining question, “What do you think about Jesus.” This question has sense caused me to reconsider many of my previously held presuppositions about the persona and nature of Christ. Particularly, I have been interested in the human and divine nature of Christ. I’m careful not to suggest that he has two different natures, but acknowledging that He is of one nature which are composed of two different dimensions: both the human and the divine perfectly united in one. How this is accomplished is truly a mystery for all time. It causes a believer to contemplate on the complimentary nature of Christ, which guarantees their eternal salvation. Recognizing that in his being God possessed the attributes and components of humanity and divinity that are necessary to fully satisfy the atonement for sin. In his chronological study of Ellen White on Salvation Woodrow W. Whidden II, attempts to grapple with the mystery of this paradoxical conundrum. He attempts to argue for a more balanced approach to the subject. Rather than arguing from one perspective on another Whidden suggests viewing the subject from both sides, thus acknowledging the significance and relevance of both perspectives. In unfolding his argument he refers to what has commonly become known as the identity and uniqueness of Christ in his divine human nature. When considering the writings of Ellen White which he considers to be extremely consistent throughout her prophetic ministry, he points to the way in which she employed each perspective in an attempt to describe two different sides of one great reality. I found his treatment of the subject although not exhaustive rather helpful in attempting to approach the challenge of Ellen Whites dialectical approach to the person and nature of Christ. I agree with the author that this approach offers the best potential solution at present time with the Seventh-day Adventist Community. While this will clearly not solve the problems with the subject or settle the debate, I do believe that it offers a possibility for more of a consensus on her true understanding of the greatest mystery of our world. The challenge of fully understanding this mystery within the limits of the cosmos further reminds us that we know in part and until the day of Christ return we continue to await a full unveiling of this truly amazing mystery.
Comment to Alicia...
Hey Alicia, I really enjoyed your comment on Ellen Whites understanding of the Doctrine of Salvation. I particularly appreciated the point you brought out about the oft misquoted statements that seem to be the norm in Adventism. I also am not in agreement with such a theology that attempts to suggest that attempts to suggest that we stand alone in our own merits. I think this is potentially one of the greatest dangers in Adventism because it posits that there is the possibility for me to achieve perfection apart from Christ. Also, it completely goes against Ellen Whites full counsel on the matter where she says that we will be sinners until Jesus returns. I also appreciated your point about the character of a loving God. I agree that Ellen White's statement in Steps to Christ helps to clarify the true nature and character of the Father in relation to the Son and in relationship to us as his beloved children. I am a father and to suggest that I would seek my son's evil rather than good would be contrary to the nature of the true love that I have for him. My love for my son is a restoring love, because I'm always seeking to seek him restored to what God intended him to be. I also believe this is the Father's view toward us and that he desires to restore us through his blessed Son both in this world and in the world to come...
Thanks Alicia!
Mike
Corrections
"that attempts to suggest" x1
"seeking to see him restored"
Mike
Reed Richardi
Assignment # 6
Do you ever wish that you could clear your brain when reading a passage of scripture? I am not talking about everyday distractions that keep us from focusing on what we are reading. It is the interpretations, models, and understandings that are crammed into my brain from all of the sermons, classes, books, conversations, and seminars I have experienced that sometimes I wish I could clear from my brain. I find that many times when I read a passage of scripture I read it from the perspective of the interpretations that are already in my brain (like when I read Romans 6 for this week). Sometimes I wish I could read with fresh new eyes. What if you could read the whole Bible without having any interpretations or any theological understanding in floating around in your head? What if you read the Bible with a completely blank slate? I guess that I would experience a greater sense of amazement. Probably I would see truths in God’s word that I have no comprehension of now. But I also realize that there are countless truths that I grasp now that I would never have understood on my own. Theologically speaking I am a midget standing on the shoulders of giants. I am blessed with having an Adventist framework passed on to me that has unlocked doors of understanding in the scripture that would otherwise be closed to me! Where would I be without the framework of the Great Controversy, the Heavenly Sanctuary, the nature of man, the complementary nature of law and grace, justice and mercy? I am thankful for those pastors, teachers, authors, and friends, who have impressed a system of truth upon me that has allowed me to enter deeper into the things of God. I just wish that my hard heart wouldn’t turn truth and understanding into familiarity, but that by God’s grace more light would lead to more amazement. Even still sometimes I wish I could climb off of those giants’ shoulders (just for a moment) and see things from a completely fresh perspective. But since I can’t do this I must pray that through the Holy Spirit the Word would be to me living and active, and I must also be willing to listen to the perspectives and ideas of others that I might glimpse a different vantage.
I pray for a fresh appreciation of salvation and for a deeper understanding and amazement at what Christ has done and is doing to redeem me.
Dario Ferreira
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #6
Strange as this idea is that when we continue in sin the grace of God the opportunity to become much more abundant (Romans 6:1), is a fact that has always arisen who insist that this is the argument Paul’s justification by faith. It seems, this was one of the problems that caused concern in the apostle Paul, for he had previously mentioned this concern in Romans 3:8. Paul made an analogy Market slaves (6:15-23). “Formerly,” said Paul, “you were slaves of sin.” Sin was his master, and you were forced to make all the bad things that sin ordered them, had no forces to say no. But now that died on its relation to sin, no longer need prestart attention on the orders of sin. Sin pays wages to his servants - and the wage is death. God gives us, not wages, but something better and more generous: for His grace He gives eternal life as a free gift - eternal life that belongs to us by our union with Christ.
Reading chapter 7, “Ellen White on Salvation”, could better understand how Ellen White explains that “Trinity has done, is doing and will do to reconcile sinners” - The Atonement. According Whidden, understanding Ellen White's Atonement reflects the use of different views of the Atonement that mutually complement each other. Using the concepts of penalty relief and satisfaction thought her atonement reflects the balance between grace and law, and justice and mercy. Grace had an infinite cost, far more precious than anything in the universe: the life of the Son of God.
The sixth is on salvation that I read a study document of the Seventh-day Adventist Church - the statement “The dynamics of salvation.” I found it very laudable initiative of Pastor Neal Wilson, president of the General Conference to request this study in an issue of crucial importance. The focus of this study in the dynamics is to embrace the main aspects of the plan of salvation. The study covers six Aspects of the dynamics of salvation, which is presented in six different sections:
1. Humanity’s Desperate Need
2. The Divine Initiative
3. The Human Response to Grace
4. The New Status in Christ
5. The New Life in Christ
6. The consummation.
I Thoroughly enjoyed, namely the existence of that study, reading mainly because it refreshed my mind with the wonderful truth of salvation in a clear statement that connected the various aspects of salvation.
Response to Reed Richardi: Assignment 6
I found it interesting the way you expressed regarding the possibility of emptying the mind of any assumption before opening the Bible. I really believe that distractions can hinder us to achieve a deeper understanding of truth is Scripture. On the other hand, get rid of the assumptions is difficult, because it is a legacy resulting from everything we hear, read, and we conclude, attached to everything we experience in our life experience. Unfortunately, we all carry with us this reality.
So when we open the Bible, we need ask the Holy Spirit, the same one who inspired the Scriptures, that clears our mind of any distraction or preconceived ideas, and show us clearly what He had in mind when He led the prophets to write the Word of God.
Reed Richardi
Response # 6 to Matthew Shallenberger Assignment # 4
Mathew I appreciated your comments. Thank you for relating what your wife said about how people want to choose how they pay their way into heaven. I think this insight does help us to understand a lot of the behavior we see around us. We humans have invented a lot of gods and theologies as salves for our guilty conscience. And if someone is in the business of inventing a god or a religion, why shouldn't they just make up one that pleases them?
May we repent from trying to make the Creator in our image! May we surrender and be made in His image.
Assignment #7
The both/and approach we are looking at in class is the view I came to very clearly in my undergraduate education, and from that background I feel that we might need even more of a both/and approach than what we are discussing in class with the both/and approach to the substitutionary and influence views of the atonement. Though I agree that both of these are involved, I think that the picture may be even bigger and more inclusive than these two approaches. I think that the atonement encompasses aspects of possibly all the views of the atonement, though each cannot just be syncretized without evaluating the biblical foundation of each view. But I believe I have mentioned something similar to this before in a blog reflection so I will now move on.
From reading the BRI documents, I thought it would be nice if they had a format similar to that of Spectrum where they would allow people to comment upon and discuss the documents. I think that it is important that we allow all people to be involved in the thinking of the church, because when we have documents without discussion we draw closer to a creedal approach with the high-ups saying what is appropriate to believe and then the masses follow. Though the challenges of disinterest of the masses will often lead to this automatically, I believe we should do whatever we can to include as many people as possible in the working through and discussing belief and doctrine. But if we are to go this route we will have to accept more diversity in thought and this may seem scary. But what if we become so locked into our way of thinking that if there were a new movement similar to that of early Adventism we would we kick them out of our churches? What if a radical liberal person from a poor town started preaching a different perspective, would we like the Jews rejected Him out of hand because His views didn’t fit into their fundamentals of belief? I just think that we need to move out of an elitist approach to religion and include the whole body of Christ, involving all that are willing to put in the time and thought necessary for a sincere and well-founded Biblical worldview approach to life and exploration.
Response to Reed
I have been dealing with the idea of removing our glasses of worldview which clouds our interpretation of the Bible in a paper this semester. And I have come to experience a similar desire: to truly be able to see the Bible for just what the Bible says and not what I bring to it.
But then I have discovered in thinking and researching that truly it is impossible to leave behind all things as we approach scripture. To truly leave all behind and come with a totally fresh perspective we would have to be babies who don't know how to read yet. So I think the thing we should work towards is not somehow totally removing all perspectives and ideas as we approach scripture but instead removing, as far as possible, all un-biblical thinking that is contrary to a biblical worldview. The challenge is that we are reading the Bible through what we think to try to evaluate what we think and are thus incredibly limited in our ability to understand how we should interpret scripture.
John Coaxum
The Nature of Christ is no menial subject. Whidden deals with this controversial subject in his book. However prior to my reading of chapter eight I had the opportunity to read another book of his called Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ. I found much to be considered in this work of which he briefly hinted in the current book we are reading for class. Allow me to provide a quote that really began to help me understand the nature of Christ as it pertains to salvation: “On the one hand He was pre-fall in the sense that His humanity was not “infected” with sinful corrupt tendencies, or propensities to sin, such as we are born with. On the other hand, He was post-fall in the sense that His humanity was “affected” by sin, in which he never indulged.”(p. 15). Whidden went on to use the analogy of a man whose arm was broken, and who would be hindered from some normal functions because of it. And he would describe that as “affected”. But in contrast someone who has HIV/AIDS would be described as “infected”.
For me this clarifies so much in terms of salvation. Christ was not born with a bent, but at the same time that does not make him unaffected by sin. And some people including Arianists would remark that He is somehow not able to procure us or redeem us if this is the case. However again I agree with Whidden that Christ’s temptation was the same as ours every single day; the temptation to go alone and “depend on self”.
Also I read the Biblical research institute’s article about “Why did Jesus Die? How God saves us?”. The article states that Christ’s desire to please the Father only was paramount to our ransom and redemption for it was His yielding to the Father that allowed the Father to raise Him up on the third day and leave the devil with simply an empty tomb.
Through the Moral influence theory it would seem that all that Christ did was simply an example of how we should be without any saving merit in and of itself. But Christ’s death was more than that His sinless nature, that bore our sins was what was needed to procure our salvation. It was a task to high for humanity alone to accomplish it took the unique unity of the infinite and the finite.
Matthew Shallenberger
Assignment 5
Reading chapter six in Whidden’s book reminded me again of how balanced Ellen White’s views were. She kept a proper perspective because her theology was rooted and grounded in the Word. This chapter talked about her views on sin and the human condition. As we discussed in class, if we’re going to understand the “good news” of salvation, we first have to understand the “bad news” of sin.
One area where we can see Mrs. White’s balanced view is her beliefs on free will and human depravity. She rejected the Calvinist tradition, which taught that all human beings are predestined either for salvation or damnation. We have no say in the matter; our omniscient and omnipotent God makes the choice for us. One reason why the Calvinist tradition required predestination is because of their understanding of human nature. They viewed human nature as totally depraved. Sin has completely destroyed the image of God in man. We are utterly incapable of responding to God. Thus God has to step in and choose to save (predestine) those that He will. We cannot make the choice to be saved. In the Calvinist view, exercising free will to choose salvation was seen as something akin to a work. Since salvation is by grace alone and not by works, they reasoned that any human action in salvation must be ruled out altogether.
In contrast, Mrs. White followed the Arminian tradition, which affirms that humans do indeed have a choice in their salvation. We choose either to exercise faith in Jesus and so be saved, or to reject God’s free offer and thus be lost. Faith is not seen as a work, but rather as the means by which we lay hold of God’s grace. It is His grace alone which saves us. However, Mrs. White still affirmed that human nature was indeed twisted and depraved by the Fall. While not going as far as the Calvinists did, with their idea of total depravity, she still acknowledged that the image of God in man has been terribly marred. She even goes so far as to say that if God had not provided a way for Adam and Eve to resist Satan, all humanity would have been hopelessly lost forever. In other words, the plan of salvation went into effect as soon as Adam and Eve sinned. God preserved some measure of humanity’s free will so that we can choose to accept salvation. Without God preserving our free will, we would be utterly without hope (see the BRI article by Ángel Rodríguez, “Adam and the Human Race in the Writings of E. G. White”).
Another thing I noticed about Mrs. White’s views on salvation is that she is not always specific in her definitions. This is not to say that her writings are ambiguous; Whidden describes them more as “elusive.” She does not describe and define in exact detail every element of the way in which God saves us, nor does she nail down the exact nature of human depravity. She leaves room for mystery in God’s marvelous plan of salvation. I think there is a lesson for us in her approach. Perhaps there is a danger in being too quick to define salvation. Maybe we can’t actually understand in exact detail what fallen human nature really is. And it certainly seems impossible for finite human beings to completely understand the miraculous salvation plan of an infinite God. Ellen White talks about how we will study salvation for the endless ages of eternity. We’d be rather arrogant if we assumed that we have a thorough understanding of it now, while we’re still in our fallen state. It seems as though we need to approach this subject prayerfully and humbly, with a willingness to admit that we can’t absolutely define every element of God’s wonderful plan of salvation. With this attitude, perhaps we won’t get caught up so quickly in arguments over the nature of salvation.
Response to Chester Clark’s Assignment 5
Chester, I appreciated your thoughtful reflection on our class discussion of atonement models. Like you, I have found my own views stretched by Dr. Hanna’s lectures and by my classmates’ comments. Broadening our horizons is part of the educational process, and I am enjoying this class immensely because of the opportunities for learning that it presents.
I agree with you that the Adventist model of atonement is actually different from all other models. It is not a strict substitutionary model. There are, in fact, elements of moral influence and elements of other models. As you pointed out, though, those other models are often taken to extremes; the Adventist model certainly avoids that. But perhaps an appreciation for the contribution of the moral influence theory to our understanding of the atonement can help us have a positive dialogue with those who subscribe to that theory. We can affirm the biblical aspects of the moral influence theory in good conscience without accepting the elements that are taken too far.
Reflection 4
I really enjoyed the class discussion we had on the various models of salvation. I like the fact that God uses different models to highlight various aspect of salvation. Growing up I have always encountered these theologically loaded concepts but never really understood its significance. These models of salvation are biblical. Though some models have been overemphasized/under emphasize in the history of the church; together they present a grand picture of the gospel. When these models are exegetically studied and explored I believe it will unleash the power of the gospel in our preaching and practice. As I reflect on the various images of salvation, of particular interest to me is Paul’s concept of justification in Romans 5. Reading the BRI documents really got me thinking about the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Since then I have been wrestling to find a proper balance between the already accomplished saving activity of Christ on Calvary and the role of humankind faith and freewill. It is this subject that is tackled in Romans 5:12-21. Here Paul discusses how Christ as our 2nd Adam undoes the failure of the 1st Adam. According to the text all where condemned in Adam and in Christ all are made righteous. This is mind blowing to me. I guess in a sense this is saying that though all are condemned due to the effect of Adam’s sin, at Calvary Christ took our condemnation and extends to man His gift of righteousness. This was where my apparent struggle began. On one side we can say everyone was justified at Calvary through Christ, and all we need to do is simply believe this fact and experience new birth. Thus the issue is not that we need to do something to be righteous, but rather refusal to accept that God has made us legally righteous causes us to be lost. On the other hand we can say all men were not legally justified at Calvary, rather the provision was made. Yet in order to be justified we must exercise faith, and without this faith we cannot be declared legally righteous. So, have all already been justified and it is our heart appreciation of this fact that produces faith and the new birth in our heart for God, or have we been provided with Christ righteousness yet it’s only when we receive it by faith (that we are given) that that we are justified and born again. I believe that both of these sides of justification are true. On one side God has done all possible to justify all of mankind and yes the provision has been made, but he also provides us with the faith to receive His righteousness as our own. Though we are provisionally justified by
Reflection 4
I really enjoyed the class discussion we had on the various models of salvation. I like the fact that God uses different models to highlight various aspect of salvation. Growing up I have always encountered these theologically loaded concepts but never really understood its significance. These models of salvation are biblical. Though some models have been overemphasized/under emphasize in the history of the church; together they present a grand picture of the gospel. When these models are exegetically studied and explored I believe it will unleash the power of the gospel in our preaching and practice. As I reflect on the various images of salvation, of particular interest to me is Paul’s concept of justification in Romans 5. Reading the BRI documents really got me thinking about the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Since then I have been wrestling to find a proper balance between the already accomplished saving activity of Christ on Calvary and the role of humankind faith and freewill. It is this subject that is tackled in Romans 5:12-21. Here Paul discusses how Christ as our 2nd Adam undoes the failure of the 1st Adam. According to the text all where condemned in Adam and in Christ all are made righteous. This is mind blowing to me. I guess in a sense this is saying that though all are condemned due to the effect of Adam’s sin, at Calvary Christ took our condemnation and extends to man His gift of righteousness. This was where my apparent struggle began. On one side we can say everyone was justified at Calvary through Christ, and all we need to do is simply believe this fact and experience new birth. Thus the issue is not that we need to do something to be righteous, but rather refusal to accept that God has made us legally righteous causes us to be lost. On the other hand we can say all men were not legally justified at Calvary, rather the provision was made. Yet in order to be justified we must exercise faith, and without this faith we cannot be declared legally righteous. So, have all already been justified and it is our heart appreciation of this fact that produces faith and the new birth in our heart for God, or have we been provided with Christ righteousness yet it’s only when we receive it by faith (that we are given) that that we are justified and born again. I believe that both of these sides of justification are true. On one side God has done all possible to justify all of mankind and yes the provision has been made, but he also provides us with the faith to receive His righteousness as our own. Though we are provisionally justified by
Reflection 4
I really enjoyed our class discussion on the various models of salvation. I like that God uses different models to highlight various aspect of salvation. Growing up I have always encountered these theological concepts but never really understood its significance. These models of salvation are biblical. Though some models have been overemphasized or under emphasize in the history of the church; together they present a grand picture of the gospel. When these models are exegetically studied and explored I believe it will unleash the power of the gospel in our preaching and practice. As I reflect on the various images of salvation, of particular interest to me is Paul’s concept of justification in Romans 5. Reading the BRI documents really got me thinking about the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Since then I have been wrestling to find a proper balance between the already accomplished saving activity of Christ on Calvary and the role of humankind faith and freewill. It is this subject that is tackled in Romans 5:12-21. Here Paul discusses how Christ as our 2nd Adam undoes the failure of the 1st Adam. According to the text all where condemned in Adam and in Christ all are made righteous. This is mind blowing to me. I guess in a sense this is saying that though all are condemned due to the effect of Adam’s sin, at Calvary Christ took our condemnation and extends to man His gift of righteousness. This was where my apparent struggle began. On one side we can say everyone was justified at Calvary through Christ, and all we need to do is simply believe this fact and experience new birth. Thus the issue is not that we need to do something to be righteous, but rather refusal to accept that God has made us legally righteous causes us to be lost. On the other hand we can say that all men were not legally justified at Calvary, rather the provision was made. Yet in order to be justified we must exercise faith, and without this faith we cannot be declared legally righteous. So, have all already been justified and it is our heart appreciation of this fact that produces faith and the new birth in our heart for God, or have we been provided with Christ righteousness yet it’s only when we receive it by faith that that we are justified and born again. I believe that both of these sides of justification are true. On one side God has done all possible to justify all of mankind and yes the provision has been made, but he also provides us with the faith to receive His righteousness as our own. Though we are provisionally justified by Christ act at Calvary, we must receive it by faith personally and it is these two aspects together that captures a more balanced understanding of justification.
Reflection 4
I really enjoyed the class discussion we had on the various models of salvation. I like the fact that God uses different models to highlight various aspect of salvation. As I reflect on the various images of salvation, of particular interest to me is Paul’s legal model of justification in Romans 5. Reading the BRI documents really got me thinking about the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. Since then I have been wrestling to find a proper balance between the already accomplished saving activity of Christ on Calvary and the role of humankind faith and freewill. It is this subject that is tackled in Romans 5:12-21. Here Paul discusses how Christ as our 2nd Adam undoes the failure of the 1st Adam. According to the text all where condemned in Adam and in Christ all are made righteous. This is mind blowing to me. I guess in a sense this is saying that though all are condemned due to the effect of Adam’s sin, at Calvary Christ took our condemnation and extends to man His gift of righteousness. This was where my apparent struggle began. On one side we can say everyone was justified at Calvary through Christ, and all we need to do is simply believe this fact and experience new birth. Thus the issue is not that we need to do something to be righteous, but rather refusal to accept that God has made us legally righteous causes us to be lost. On the other hand we can say all men were not legally justified at Calvary, rather the provision was made. Yet in order to be justified we must exercise faith, and without this faith we cannot be declared legally righteous. So, have all already been justified and it is our heart appreciation of this fact that produces faith and the new birth in our heart for God, or have we been provided with Christ righteousness yet it’s only when we receive it by faith (that we are given) that that we are justified and born again. I believe that both of these sides of justification are true. On one side God has done all possible to justify all of mankind and yes the provision has been made, but he also provides us with the faith to receive His righteousness as our own. Though we are provisionally justified by Christ act at Calvary, we must receive it by faith personally and it is these two aspects together that captures a balanced understanding of justification.
Reflection 5
The Lord recently used an experience to clarify my view of justification, though this is not a detailed attempt to oversimplify this subject. A simple act of kindness by a lady who deposited some money in a money gram account in my name gave me a a deeper appreciation of justification. Sis. Smith first told me her intent to deposit the money, second she confirmed that she actually deposited the money and later provided me with the pin number to receive it. Similar to this lady's action, God out of the kindness of his heart in his eternal purpose made provision for me to have the righteousness of His Son. The good news is that at Calvary, Christ righteousness has been placed in our 'life saving's' account with our names on it. God then proclaim in the gospel this good news of what He has done for every one of us. The question now is, how do we response? When this lady placed money at money gram, I had it provisionally, it was for me in my name,yet days went by and the money stayed where it was. Without any response to this lady's kindness, I could not make use of the funds that was provided, available and already written out to me. In reality Sis. Smith's gift was there objectively (in my name at Money Gram) but it needed to be received subjectively (by her act enacting me to go to Money Gram and take the gift). For a few days however I did nothing about the money that was given. One reason for not getting the money was that I had no vehicle to go to Money Gram get it. In a similar way all of us have been provided with the righteousness of Christ. His righteousness has been deposited, and signed over in our name. We however must believe God's word that Christ righteous is ours. Though I did not initially have transportation to go and receive the money, the vehicle provided to receive God given righteousness is faith. When I went to money gram I had to use the pin # the lady provided to take hold of the money. Similarly just as the lady provided me with the pin to receive her gift, Christ also provides us with the faith to receive his gift of righteousness. Through this lady self-initiated act of kindness I receive her money as my own, and through Christ self-initiated kindness I receive Him as my righteousness. My physical hand grabbed hold of the money the lady provided at (Money Gram), (that i desperately needed) and with the hand of faith we receive the righteousness provided us at (Mount Calvary) that we are seriously lacking. This story provided me a clearer grasp of objective and subjective justification. I was provisionally given money that was available for me at money gram, but I am declared to have it when I receive in my possession. The greater news is that I have been given the righteousness of God available in Jesus, but I am declared to have that righteousness when I receive it as my very own. Yes! Mankind are to be told they have $100 dollar money gram in their very names(yet this is only objectively). In order to have what is there in our names, we must use the vehicle available to us (faith), use the pin provided (faith), and use the hand of faith given us, to take hold of Christ infinite worth and receive by faith (subjectively) the righteousness of Christ as the basis of our personal worth.
Reflection 5
The Lord recently used an experience to clarify my view of justification. A simple act of kindness by a lady who deposited some money in a money gram in my name gave me a deeper appreciation of justification. Sis. Smith first told me her intent to deposit the money, second she confirmed that she deposited the money and later provided me with the pin number to receive it. Similar to this lady's action, God out of the kindness of his heart in his eternal purpose made provision for us to have the righteousness of His Son. The good news is that at Calvary, Christ righteousness has been placed in a 'life saving's' account in our name. God then proclaim in the gospel the good news of what He has done for all mankind. The question now is, how do we response? When this lady placed money at money gram, I had it provisionally, it was for me in my name, yet days went by and the money stayed where it was. Without any response to this lady's kindness, I could not make use of the funds that was provided, available and issue to me. In reality Sis. Smith's gift was there objectively (in my name at Money Gram) but it needed to be received subjectively (by her act enacting me to go and take the gift). In a similar way all of us have been provided with the righteousness of Christ. His righteousness has been deposited, and signed over to us. Though I did not initially have transportation to go and receive Sis. Smith’s gift, the vehicle provided to receive God given righteousness is faith. When I went to money gram I had to use the pin # the lady provided to take hold of the money. Similarly just as the lady provided me with the pin to receive her gift, Christ also provides us with the faith to receive his gift of righteousness. Through this lady self-initiated act of kindness I receive her money as my own, and through Christ self-initiated kindness I receive Him as my righteousness. My physical hand grabbed hold of the money the lady provided at (Money Gram), and with the hand of faith we receive the righteousness provided us at (Mount Calvary). This story gave me a clearer grasp of objective and subjective justification. Though I was provisionally given money available to me at money gram, I am declared to have it when I receive in my possession. The greater news is that I have been given the righteousness of God available in Jesus, and I am declared to have that righteousness when I receive it as my very own. Yes! Mankind are to be told they have God’s righteousness provided in Christ (yet this is only objectively). In order to receive this gift, we must use the vehicle available to us (faith), the pin # provided us (faith), and the hand of faith given us, to take hold of Christ infinite worth and receive (subjectively) the righteousness of Christ as the basis of our personal worth.
Reflection 5
The Lord recently used an experience to clarify my view of justification. A simple act of kindness by a lady gave me some funds through a money gram exchange gave me a deeper appreciation of justification. This lady first told me her intent to deposit the money, second she confirmed that she deposited the money and later provided me with the pin number to receive it. Similar to this lady's action, God out of the kindness of his heart purposed and made provision for us to have the righteousness of His Son. The good news is that at Calvary, Christ righteousness was placed in a 'life saving's' account in our names. God then proclaims in the gospel the good news of what He has done for mankind. The question now is, how do we response? When this lady placed money at money gram, I had it provisionally, it was for me in my name, yet days went by and the money stayed where it was. Without any response to this lady's kindness, I could not make use of the funds that was issued to me. This sister;s gift was there objectively at Money Gram but it needed to be received subjectively in my possession. I did not initially have transportation to receive this sister’s gift, yet the vehicle provided to receive God’s righteousness is faith. When I went to money gram I had to use the pin # given me to take hold of the money. Similarly we have to use the faith God provides us to receive his gift of righteousness. My physical hand grabbed hold of the money the lady provided at Money Gram, and with the hand of faith we receive the righteousness provided at Mount Calvary. This story gave me a clearer grasp of objective and subjective justification. Though I was provisionally given riches in a money gram deposit, I am declared to have it when I receive it in my possession. The greater news is that I have been given the righteousness of God available in Jesus, and I am declared to have that righteousness when I receive it as my very own. Yes! Mankind is to be told that God’s righteousness is provided to all in Christ (yet this is only objectively). In order to receive this gift of righteousness, we must use the vehicle available to us (faith); the pin # provided us (faith), and the hand given us (faith) to take hold of Christ infinite worth as the basis of our personal worth.
Assignment # 5
I am responding to Chapter 13 of Whidden, “Justification after Minneapolis - Maintaining Gospel Balance.”
This chapter focused on different statements by EGW after 1888 related to justification and sanctification. According to Whidden’s perspective, she was trying to keep a balance between the two. He also shared some statements of hers that were clear affirmations of the traditional view of justification being based solely on the merits of Christ. He also shared that in her view of sanctification, it was equally the merits of Christ that were able to work a change in the life. I really appreciated the following quote:
“The people of God can experience real victory over sin only if they know they are fully accepted in Christ’s merits and righteousness.”
Clearly I have not read EGW’s statements on this issue as much as Whidden, but I do wonder if he is making more of a distinction between justification and sanctification than EGW herself would have made. She sees the whole process as being based on the merits of Christ, both the initial salvation which brings about an entirely new relationship to God and eternity and the ongoing salvation that deepens that relationship.
I am often uncomfortable with the use of the term “balance” to describe these sorts of things. I think they encourage a false dichotomy. When you are balancing something, it is because they are on opposite ends of the spectrum and each draws you in a completely different direction. If I have too much of one, I need to back off from that and go to the other. I don’t think salvation is like this because I think that justification and sanctification (so called) are both applying force in the same direction (when rightly understood).
Justification involves identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and by so doing becoming a new creation. Sanctification involves the same things. Justification involves an awareness of sinfulness, so does true sanctification. We are helpless to achieve either. It is all based on the merits of Jesus and his drawing of us. All we have to do is turn to God. All of this is true of both justification and sanctification.
I think that the splitting of the two concepts tends to make us think that God doesn’t change anything in justification other than our “legal status,” but the Bible clearly says we are new creations and are born again. That sounds a bit more holistic to me. On the other hand, we begin to think that sanctification is something we achieve as a response of love to God. No it isn’t. We are powerless to achieve this, no matter how much we love God, without God’s redemptive power. Sanctification is more of God’s response to us because he loves us. Our part is only ever to turn to God with everything, our sinfulness, our creatureliness, and the love that he has given us.
Assignment # 5
I am responding to Chapter 13 of Whidden, “Justification after Minneapolis - Maintaining Gospel Balance.”
This chapter focused on different statements by EGW after 1888 related to justification and sanctification. According to Whidden’s perspective, she was trying to keep a balance between the two. He also shared some statements of hers that were clear affirmations of the traditional view of justification being based solely on the merits of Christ. He also shared that in her view of sanctification, it was equally the merits of Christ that were able to work a change in the life. I really appreciated the following quote:
“The people of God can experience real victory over sin only if they know they are fully accepted in Christ’s merits and righteousness.”
Clearly I have not read EGW’s statements on this issue as much as Whidden, but I do wonder if he is making more of a distinction between justification and sanctification than EGW herself would have made. She sees the whole process as being based on the merits of Christ, both the initial salvation which brings about an entirely new relationship to God and eternity and the ongoing salvation that deepens that relationship.
I am often uncomfortable with the use of the term “balance” to describe these sorts of things. I think they encourage a false dichotomy. If I have too much of one, I need to back off from that and go to the other. I don’t think salvation is like this because I think that justification and sanctification are both applying force in the same direction.
Justification involves identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and by so doing becoming a new creation. Sanctification involves the same things. Justification involves an awareness of sinfulness, so does true sanctification. We are helpless to achieve either. It is all based on the merits of Jesus and his drawing of us. All we have to do is turn to God. All of this is true of both justification and sanctification.
I think that the splitting of the two concepts tends to make us think that God doesn’t change anything in justification other than our “legal status,” but the Bible clearly says we are new creations and are born again. That sounds a bit more holistic to me. On the other hand, we begin to think that sanctification is something we achieve as a response of love to God. No it isn’t. We are powerless to achieve this, no matter how much we love God, without God’s redemptive power. Sanctification is more of God’s response to us because he loves us. Our part is only ever to turn to God with everything, our sinfulness, our creatureliness, and the love that he has given us.
Assignment # 5
I am responding to Chapter 13 of Whidden, “Justification after Minneapolis - Maintaining Gospel Balance.”
This chapter focused on different statements by EGW after 1888 related to justification and sanctification. According to Whidden’s perspective, she was trying to keep a balance between the two. He also shared some statements of hers that were clear affirmations of the traditional view of justification being based solely on the merits of Christ. He also shared that in her view of sanctification, it was equally the merits of Christ that were able to work a change in the life.
Clearly I have not read EGW’s statements on this issue as much as Whidden, but I do wonder if he is making more of a distinction between justification and sanctification than EGW herself would have made. She sees the whole process as being based on the merits of Christ, both the initial salvation which brings about an entirely new relationship to God and eternity and the ongoing salvation that deepens that relationship.
I am often uncomfortable with the use of the term “balance” to describe these sorts of things. I think they encourage a false dichotomy. If I have too much of one, I need to back off from that and go to the other. I don’t think salvation is like this. Justification and sanctification are both applying force in the same direction.
Justification involves identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ and by so doing becoming a new creation. Sanctification involves the same things. Justification involves an awareness of sinfulness, so does true sanctification. We are helpless to achieve either. It is all based on the merits of Jesus and his drawing of us. All we have to do is turn to God. All of this is true of both justification and sanctification.
I think that the splitting of the two concepts tends to make us think that God doesn’t change anything in justification other than our “legal status,” but the Bible clearly says we are new creations and are born again. That sounds a bit more holistic to me. On the other hand, we begin to think that sanctification is something we achieve as a response of love to God. No it isn’t. We are powerless to achieve this, no matter how much we love God, without God’s redemptive power. Sanctification is more of God’s response to us because he loves us. Our part is only ever to turn to God with everything, our sinfulness, our creatureliness, and the love that he has given us.
Response to Jasmine Johnson
Assignment 1
I agree that we are saved by grace.
I like the fact that you presented other people's beliefs on the issue.
Good job.
Landon Schnabel
Assignment 2
I like the fact that you read all of Romans in a short period of time. You were able to get more whole view of the writing.
It is very true that a lot of fanantic practices are not very founded in the Bible.
If we are Biblically based and rooted, it will keeps away from craziness.
Response to Lavina Seawright
Assignment 1
I think this is the best article I read on this page so far, because you were clear in your writing, and you had good things to say. Your writing sounded personal, because you weren't trying to impress anyone with fancy writing. Keep that quality. Now, if that's not a positive comment, I don't know what is.
I agree that Salvation simple, but yet so deep. That's part of what makes it amazing.
Response to Jason A. O'Rourke
Assignment 1
I like how you had an intro to your article. It made me intrested in what you had to say.
I truly liked that you took "slave to righteousness" as a "slave". I like your interpretation. Sin binds us and we have no choice. Righteousness binds us by love. "I'm slave to love!" I think of how in many cultures. When someone saves your life, you are forever indebted to him-- not as a burden, but out of gratitude. (Refer to the movie, Prince of Persia lol)
Reflection assignment 6 Oct. 12 Michael Liu
Reflection on the reading of Blazen ,Ivan T.. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Work.s continued
The judgment according to works in relation to justification by faith gives expression to the wholeness and unity of salvation seen in the relation between Christ as Saviour and Christ as Lord, between the gift of God and the claim of God.
Christ's lordship is the rule of His love. To speak of His lordship is only to say that His sacrificial love is meant to prevail in all the earth. As Lord He claims our entire life for His love. EGW join the two ideas together as follow.
"The religion of Christ means more than the forgiveness of sin; it means taking away our sins, and filling the vacuum with the graces of the Holy Spirit. It means divine illumination, rejoicing in God. It means a heart emptied of self, and blessed with the abiding presence of Christ. Rom.6: When Christ reigns in the soul, there is purity, freedom from sin.” Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 419,
When Paul says “dying to sin”? He means, in brief, an exchange of lordships. Previously sin had been lord, and now Christ is. To have a new Lord is at once to be freed from the old lord (this is the gift) and to be enlisted in the continuing service of the new (this is the claim).
we can readily see that there is an inner connection between what Christ gives to us and what He claims of us. All that the Christian is to do is revealed, and is the product of, what Christ has done for him. His gift is both the content of His claim and the strength to fulfill it. "Forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." Eph. 4:32: "Love one another. . . as I have loved you." John 13:34: To see and accept what Christ has done for us is to know what He wishes to do through us. To live in harmony with His claim, as a consequence of the reality of His gift, is not to save oneself by one's own works. It is rather to accept the Messiah truly and to have one's life shaped by His deliverance.
The event that secures our acquittal also secures our renewal. Forgiveness is linked with a new creation. Without forgiveness renewal is not possible, and without renewal forgiveness is truncated, ineffective. David had the true conception of forgiveness when he prayed, 'Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.' Psalm 5 1:10 Without complete assurance that God forgives and accepts us we cannot possibly live for Christ and in harmony with His claim. If we do not fully realize our acceptance we cannot be freed from preoccupation and anxiety over self to have sufficient interest and time to concentrate on others.
____________________________________________________________________
In response to Alicia Johnston Assignment #4
When we will stand before God without a mediator, we may still have a Savior as believer. In that time we are so settled into God and sealed by Him to a point that we will not moved by any circumstances. And all the case is settle once for all. It just wait to show the real character of both side to the on looking universe.
Wayne Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
12 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #2:
Salvation Is Not About Feelings
I read what Ellen White on Salvation, chapter 2. It talks about her early salvation experience. It started when she was about 9 when a rock was thrown at her face. It was during this dramatic period in her time that she wanted to make herself right with God. Later she did find a peace, but that joy later died down because she felt as though she needed the “second blessing”. She wanted the assurance of sanctification.
Many of us are like this, we get so caught up in emotions. We think that if we don't feel good, then we're not experiencing salvation. After all, we're saved. We are suppose to be all hyped-up all the time. Even though that would be nice, it is not always the truth. The relationship with God is not about emotion. It's about commitment. Think of it as a marriage. Not everyday, you're going to be feeling all mushy and lovy-dovy. But you're still married. It's not as though you stopped loving each other. You are still love your partner, even when you don't feel in love, because love is a choice. A choice to put the other first. With God, we don't need to be feeling the spiritual high in order to know that we are right with God. That's where faith comes in. We need to trust God that we are good to go, because we committed ourselves in His hands.
Response #5
@Kevin
I've struggled with this issues a lot myself. I like what you said about multiple pictures together giving a more full picture. I have a CS Lewis quote on my desk that reminds me of this...
"But never, here or anywhere else, let us think that while anthropomorphic images are a concession to our weakness, the abstractions are the literal truth. Both are equally concessions; each singly misleading, and the two together, mutually corrective."
I think this can be applied to more than the abstractions vs. anthropomorphic images. It can be applied to a lot of things, especially the multitude of metaphors we are given to understand salvation. Thanks, Kevin :)
As I was reading The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, by A. T Jones
Chapter 15 —The Cleansing of the Sanctuary, I noticed something interesting. Talking the meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8, he said:
“The service in the earthly sanctuary shows also that in order for the sanctuary to be cleansed and the course of the gospel service there to be finished, it must first be finished in the people who have a part in the service. That is to say: In the sanctuary itself, transgression could not be finished, an end of sins and reconciliation for iniquity could not be made, and everlasting righteousness could not be brought it, until all this had been accomplished in each person who had a part in the service of the sanctuary. The sanctuary itself could not be cleansed until each of the worshipers had been cleansed. The sanctuary itself could not be cleansed so long as, by the confessions of the people and the intercession of the priests, there was pouring into the sanctuary a stream of iniquities, transgressions, and sins. The cleansing of the sanctuary, as to the sanctuary itself, was the taking out of and away from the sanctuary all the transgressions of the people which, by the service of the priests, had been taken into the sanctuary during the service of the year. And this stream must be stopped at its fountain in the hearts and lives of the worshipers, before the sanctuary itself could possibly be cleansed.”
There is that one thing that I got in this text is that, if we are in the business of sin-forgiveness, sin again forgiveness cycle, and think that that is all the Lord has provide in Christ then He died in vain. Salvation is regard to sin, first. It is to save us from penalty, its power and the when Christ from its presence.
God is looking forward to end the activities of sin in us. We cannot just keep on going on with sin. We must believe that God has provided a way to escape its power. This is the message that cries loud and clear from the sanctuary services. Without the Yom Kippour all the daily services would have been in vain.
But let no one forget that God alone knows what perfection is like, and He alone can take us there. Our work is to depend faithfully on Him. ! THess 5:24 “ The one who called is faithful, He also will do it”
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
13 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #3:
BUY ME OUT!
In the article, “Why Did Jesus Die? How God Saves Us” by George W. Reid, he talks about being ransomed. I praise God for ransoming me.
People get so caught up in minor details sometimes that they miss the message. Metaphors are good, but are not meant to be taken to the extreme in the minor details. We need to think when it comes to metaphors, what does this metaphor mean literally? Then we must ask ourselves, What does this mean spiritually? We must look at the meaning as a whole. Some people wonder, “To whom was the ransom paid too?” Who cares! The point is, it was paid. I personally figure that it was paid to justice. Justice, which God created, demanded that death be the punishment for sin. We were a slave to that curse, until Christ paid the price with His death.
And it goes beyond that. He buys us, with His blood, from the slavery of sin. Yes, we just mentioned that we are freed from the penalty of sin, but He also buys us from the bondage of sin. Many of us are bound by sinful habits and mindsets. Jesus’ death, somehow frees us from that slavery. I say “somehow”, because I can’t explain it. How can you explain a miracle?
We need the miracle of redemption. We need to be redeemed from the penalty of sin and the bondage of sin. That’s why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 says that we are “bought with a price therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's”(1 Cor 6:20) and “be not ye the servants of men” (1 Cor 7:23). We need Jesus to buy us out.
Nick Clark
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #6
I liked how this chapter on Whidden pointed out that Ellen White’s view of atonement is pretty comprehensive. It doesn’t take just one popular theory in its entirety, but lie Whidden says, it’s like Ellen White “went on a shopping trip at the doctrinal supermarket and was able to get all the choicest fruits without picking up a single rotten theological apple.” I like how he illustrates it in that way. It is also awesome that Ellen White was able to do that, to be distinguish the good from the bad within different atonement theories. It’s always easy to take things as a package, in fact we usually prefer to buy things as sets, or whole packages, then time is saved from having to put together a package ourselves. Even if that package has something we don’t think is best we will sometimes still get it in the name of convenience. But Ellen White had the discernment and the passion for God’s word to not buy into a pre-wrapped or pre-packaged theory of atonement, she went for what the Bible says about it. It was also good to see the different theories brought up again, as they were in class, but in a little different light.
Romans Chapter 6 has some good stuff, as does the whole book. Every time I read through it I am amazed and impressed with the depth of Paul’s teachings in this epistle. I have been noticing so many different things in my reading and our discussions from class that I haven’t thought of before. I love how in Romans 6:20 says, “When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.” And Paul keeps making the point in this chapter those who are in Christ died to sin and as a result we are now free from sin. So if “when we were slaves to sin” we were “free from the control of righteousness” then now if we are “slaves to righteousness” we should be free from the control of sin. That’s awesome! I like also were Paul says that Christ “died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” We are alive to God, that is why Paul argues that we should no longer be “instruments of wickedness”, because the sinful way of life really did nothing for us, but Christ did everything for us so be “alive to God” we should be doing all we can to enjoy the newness of life we have. We should rejoice in the fact that the benefits we receive in Christ lead to holiness, “and the result is eternal life”. (6:22). I think the illustration of slavery that Paul is using is a good one, but he even points out that he is using a human argument, that it’s not as good as it should be, but it still shows how great the news is that we are dead to sin and “alive to God”.
About the online article that we had to read for this assignment, I thought it was cool that it came about because the GC President got a group together to study tough theological issues. That, to me, is a beautiful thing and says a lot about that President for one, and it also speaks a great deal about the Adventist church; that we are not afraid of tough issues. We should be making this known even more today, we shouldn’t shy away from the tough issues, instead we need to be studying and keep studying so we can keep growing and learning.
Response to Reed Richardi
Assignment #6
I like the idea of reading the BIble with a clear mind, like you said its a cool thought. I have thought about this too, but at the same time I am constantly amazed when I find something new even after reading the same thing hundreds of times. I like how you point out that Adventist theology is built on some solid work done by those who have come before us and I am also thankful for that.
As I reading the account of Jesus’ birth in Matthew, I realize the simplicity of the message of salvation for those who approach it with humility. But for those want to approach it a sophisticated way they will find it hard. The simplicity of God somehow escapes them.
The gospel is humble and simple enough for any peasant to grasp and complex enough for any sophisticated mind to understand. Jesus was worship even while he was a baby; before He opened up His mouth in righteousness, before He walked on water, before HE gave the promise of the Holy Spirit, he was small enough to be approached by the simple ones.
I don’t know if we should talk about the power of faith or amazing grace of God. Christ given to us even before any faith was expressed.
The most important part as far as my read in was concerned, is Matt 1:21. “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
He would not have been called Jesus had not it been that He literally saves His people. He saves HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS…I like that!
We may be right hermeneutically according the principles of hermeneutics that we had established, but if our doctrine of salvation is not efficient and effective to save the sinner from His sins, then it amounts to nothing, however logically the doctrine is right. This is the message clearly expressed in Matt 1:21.
As I reading the account of Jesus’ birth in Matthew, I realize the simplicity of the message of salvation for those who approach it with humility. But for those want to approach it a sophisticated way they will find it hard. The simplicity of God somehow escapes them.
The gospel is humble and simple enough for any peasant to grasp and complex enough for any sophisticated mind to understand. Jesus was worship even while he was a baby; before He opened up His mouth in righteousness, before He walked on water, before HE gave the promise of the Holy Spirit, he was small enough to be approached by the simple ones.
I don’t know if we should talk about the power of faith or amazing grace of God. Christ given to us even before any faith was expressed.
The most important part as far as my read in was concerned, is Matt 1:21. “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
He would not have been called Jesus had not it been that He literally saves His people. He saves HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS…I like that!
We may be right hermeneutically according the principles of hermeneutics that we had established, but if our doctrine of salvation is not efficient and effective to save the sinner from His sins, then it amounts to nothing, however logically the doctrine is right. This is the message clearly expressed in Matt 1:21.
Comment on Justification by Faith before 1888
As usual I enjoyed many of Whidden's insight on the theology of Ellen White as it relates to justification by faith. I was particularly impressed with his straightforward approach to addressing her understanding of the subject. I appreciate that he shares his convictions even with the possibility of being labeled as a legalist for some of his more conservative statements about her beliefs. The area that I thought he did the best job on in this chapter was the section entitled “Christian Assurance.” In this section he stresses the assurance of the believer in Christ's divine acceptance of them. Also, he seems to counter any idea of perfectionism by reminding his readers of her comments concerning the believers "need of divine strength." Apparently, he is attempting to help his reader understand the fine balance between a false sense of security and a legalistic perfection. Yet, he does not back down on the importance of obedience as he understands it in her writings. As he terms it "objective obedience" is a necessary component to the Christian faith that will be seen as the result of an abiding faith and trust in Christ. He also, articulated well the importance of the believer accepting Christ's merits on their behalf. He seems to want to stress the importance of the reader understanding that it is not a 50/50 transaction between them and God, but rather it is a 100/100 transaction where God pays the full ransom completely rescues them and saves them from their sins. While he does not see a two part process between the believer and God he remains clear on Ellen Whites position that faithful obedience is the “natural” result of a loving relationship with the Master. On another note, I was not in full agreement on his use of the term "safety net." I thought he used this term rather ambiguously in his understanding of the relationship between the believer and God. His description of the "safety net" gives the impression of a believer walking a tight rope with God attempting not to sin. This kind of analogy could be potentially carried to far and seems to be suggesting that the believer must walk a fine line through the Christian life in order not to offend God in an attempt to be saved. Although I believe he was attempting to make a positive point, I think that point would be better made with more appropriate analogies.
Response to Alicia Johnston
Hey Alicia, as always I enjoyed your comments. They are both insightful and enlightening. I specifically appreciated your comment concerning the matter of balance between justification and sanctification. While it does seem to serve as more of a technical term than a natural expression of the issue, it does appear to convey that there is a dichotomy between the two. I agree with you that such a dichotomy would be problematic for the life of a believer seeing that our lives are not compartmentalized in this way. Rather a more holistic approach as you suggested is to be preferred because it acknowledges the humanness of our lives and our need for Christ in a full and complete way. For the believer, life is simply in process and justification and sanctification are realities in that process.
Tyler Rosengren
Assignment #4
Well, here we go ☺ Was Abraham justified by faith or justified by works? It may seem rather easy if you only read one or two texts. However when you compare these verse with the classic Adventist favorite James 2:21-24 you find a different understanding. Now, since taking this class I have learned that I should not say that these verses are ‘contradicting’ each other. Instead I should be asking the question of how these shed light on each other in regards to salvation. This is a good concept because I truly do believe that the Bible is the word of God and in that sense I should be approaching it with confidence rather than with doubt (the Historical Critical debate). That being said when I look at Romans 4 and the discussion of Abraham I am able to see what Paul is trying to emphasize here when he is speaking to those in Rome. I realized that Paul is speaking to a group of people who had problems with trying to do certain things to be saved and that that caused them and the people around them trouble. James, on the other hand, is speaking to different people with different problems so he is emphasizing another aspect of the process of salvation. This minor discovery helps me to understand proof texting in a more hands-on way and how it could be very dangerous without a in-dept study of the text.
Also as I read Romans 4 I found a lot of comfort in v7-8. I have found peace with these verses before as they provide me great assurance that God has forgiven me. I would even consider these verse along the same lines as 1 John 1:9 with their importance. I will continue to use these two verses together with people who need to find peace with Go regarding their sin and forgiveness.
Tyler Rosengren
Assignment #4
Well, here we go ☺ Was Abraham justified by faith or justified by works? It may seem rather easy if you only read one or two texts. However when you compare these verse with the classic Adventist favorite James 2:21-24 you find a different understanding. Now, since taking this class I have learned that I should not say that these verses are ‘contradicting’ each other. Instead I should be asking the question of how these shed light on each other in regards to salvation. This is a good concept because I truly do believe that the Bible is the word of God and in that sense I should be approaching it with confidence rather than with doubt (the Historical Critical debate). That being said when I look at Romans 4 and the discussion of Abraham I am able to see what Paul is trying to emphasize here when he is speaking to those in Rome. I realized that Paul is speaking to a group of people who had problems with trying to do certain things to be saved and that that caused them and the people around them trouble. James, on the other hand, is speaking to different people with different problems so he is emphasizing another aspect of the process of salvation. This minor discovery helps me to understand proof texting in a more hands-on way and how it could be very dangerous without a in-dept study of the text.
Also as I read Romans 4 I found a lot of comfort in v7-8. I have found peace with these verses before as they provide me great assurance that God has forgiven me. I would even consider these verse along the same lines as 1 John 1:9 with their importance. I will continue to use these two verses together with people who need to find peace with Go regarding their sin and forgiveness.
Reed Richardi
Assignment # 7
I Just read the chapter in Whidden’s book on the nature of Christ and salvation which I appreciated for the following reasons. First I am thankful for Whidden’s acknowledgement of the mysteriousness of the nature of Christ. Just yesterday I was reflecting on what a good thing it is that there are mysteries in the Bible that we don’t understand because it humbles us and leads us to seek wisdom from above. But with the nature of Christ it is not just that there is much we don’t understand but that there is much that we can’t understand. “Man cannot define this wonderful mystery—the blending of the two natures…It can never be explained” (7 BC 904 as quoted by Whidden). God is awesome. He is infinitely greater than what we can imagine. I agree with Whidden that when we talk of the nature of Christ we must recognize that we are on holy ground, we must tread with caution, reverence, and humility.
Secondly Whidden made clear the tension in Ellen White’s writings (also evident in the Bible) between Christ being like us and being unlike us. Like biblical writers Ellen White does not try to resolve this tension, she holds both poles to be true and simply lets the tension exists. But we so often run into trouble when we try to resolve what the Bible holds in tension. We want need tidy truths that we carry in our pockets and use for our own purposes. But we must come with humility. We must let the truths of the Bible be bigger than us. It is not necessary for truths to be in our grasp in order to be true. May the truths that are not neat and tidy serve to humble us and cause us to glorify God in His wisdom and seek for greater understanding through Him. “The problems in understanding Ellen White have arisen when interpreters have wanted to stress one aspect of His humanity to the neglect of the other or when the have wanted to totally solve a mystery that cannot be solved by Human minds. If there was no mystery, what need would there be for faith?” (Whidden pg. 62). Amen, preach it brother. God has certainly revealed enough to us for salvation. We know that Christ was enough like us to be our priest but enough different from us to be our substitute. This is a mystery that I can believe by faith, and a truth of which I will be eternally learning and grateful.
(By the way, someone recently gave me a copy of another book by Whidden: Ellen White on the Nature of Christ, which I look forward to reading when my stack of seminary reading is not so towering.)
Reed Richardi
Response # 7 to Nick Clark Assignment # 6
I am in agreement. I too am in amazed at the depths of Paul's insights about salvation! Certainly Paul was right when he said the Lord showed him the gospel. What an amazing truly inspired bookbook
Tyler Rosengren
Assignment #4
Well, here we go ☺ Was Abraham justified by faith or justified by works? It may seem rather easy if you only read one or two texts. However when you compare these verse with the classic Adventist favorite James 2:21-24 you find a different understanding. Now, since taking this class I have learned that I should not say that these verses are ‘contradicting’ each other. Instead I should be asking the question of how these shed light on each other in regards to salvation. This is a good concept because I truly do believe that the Bible is the word of God and in that sense I should be approaching it with confidence rather than with doubt (the Historical Critical debate). That being said when I look at Romans 4 and the discussion of Abraham I am able to see what Paul is trying to emphasize here when he is speaking to those in Rome. I realized that Paul is speaking to a group of people who had problems with trying to do certain things to be saved and that that caused them and the people around them trouble. James, on the other hand, is speaking to different people with different problems so he is emphasizing another aspect of the process of salvation. This minor discovery helps me to understand proof texting in a more hands-on way and how it could be very dangerous without a in-dept study of the text.
Also as I read Romans 4 I found a lot of comfort in v7-8. I have found peace with these verses before as they provide me great assurance that God has forgiven me. I would even consider these verse along the same lines as 1 John 1:9 with their importance. I will continue to use these two verses together with people who need to find peace with Go regarding their sin and forgiveness.
Tyler Rosengren
Assignment #4
Well, here we go ☺ Was Abraham justified by faith or justified by works? It may seem rather easy if you only read one or two texts. However when you compare these verse with the classic Adventist favorite James 2:21-24 you find a different understanding. Now, since taking this class I have learned that I should not say that these verses are ‘contradicting’ each other. Instead I should be asking the question of how these shed light on each other in regards to salvation. This is a good concept because I truly do believe that the Bible is the word of God and in that sense I should be approaching it with confidence rather than with doubt (the Historical Critical debate). That being said when I look at Romans 4 and the discussion of Abraham I am able to see what Paul is trying to emphasize here when he is speaking to those in Rome. I realized that Paul is speaking to a group of people who had problems with trying to do certain things to be saved and that that caused them and the people around them trouble. James, on the other hand, is speaking to different people with different problems so he is emphasizing another aspect of the process of salvation. This minor discovery helps me to understand proof texting in a more hands-on way and how it could be very dangerous without a in-dept study of the text.
Also as I read Romans 4 I found a lot of comfort in v7-8. I have found peace with these verses before as they provide me great assurance that God has forgiven me. I would even consider these verse along the same lines as 1 John 1:9 with their importance. I will continue to use these two verses together with people who need to find peace with Go regarding their sin and forgiveness.
Assignment #8
I am seeing a very strong theme of balance in Whidden’s book on Ellen White’s views on salvation. It makes me happy that this balanced view is being proposed, but the challenge I see is that this is the view of those who are taking the time to learn but getting the people as a whole to see it this way can be hard sometimes. People tend to polarize, especially on such important topics because they feel that they are right under God and thus others must be wrong and they consider belief without questioning/exploration to be the highest of virtues. I wish all the people would get excited about exploring God beyond the Sabbath School quarterlies, and I also wish that the Sabbath School quarterlies.
Now as to how I am thinking through how I would present the balance of salvation I believe that what I would put before people would be based upon their views. In seeking to move people towards balance I would probably present different aspects of salvation to different people. To those who feel that they can (or have to) earn their way to heaven I would present the fact that we are saved by grace alone. If people are living however they’d like without regard to God’s law and saying that they are saved by grace I would want to move them towards a deeper understanding of the faith that is the foundation of the salvation by grace. I might fear the repercussions of what I might say and avoid dealing with controversial issues on the macro level (such as from the pulpit) in this manner of presenting corrective views. From the pulpit I would present the importance of balance, and any corrective re-balancing would take place on an individual basis.
In regards to Romans, I am finding more and more that we as Adventists may have been reading what we want to see into the text. Not that I am saying our beliefs are incorrect, I am just concerned that there seem to be times that we twist more texts to conform to our view than actually support it. I have seen evangelists present valid topics but throw out verses left and right that may or may not support exegetically what they are saying. We need to make sure we understand our views and that we present them correctly or we will run into all sorts of problems. If we spread an incomplete message to the ends of the earth, will we have to go do it all over again if we realize that our understanding of the gospel was off-base?
Response to Reed
I liked your focus on the word tension. There are so many things that we can explore, but won't be able to understand. At least anywhere near completely.
I also appreciated your astute awareness of the issue of a desire for neat and tidy truth that is so prevalent in the church. We want to use the Bible to support our presuppositions, rather than using the Bible to reshape our presuppositions.
Dario Ferreira
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #7
If I could give a title to the seventh chapter of Romans, I titled “Free the Law”. It’s exactly what this chapter describes. The chapter begins by illustrating the freedom of law in terms of the relationship between husband and wife (7:1-6). In verses 7-13, talking about the law and sin, it is obvious that the law is good (7:12) and it certainly could not make this bad situation. Sin is the true enemy. He is spoiling everything. And finally, the verse 14-25, Paul describes an internal conflict between the law of sin and death and the law of his mind approving the will of God (7:23).
For me, Paul is talking about himself, his own experience in an inner conflict against sin. From verse 7, Paul begins to speak in first person singular and continues until the end of the chapter. What I found interesting in this narrative, through a closer look at the original Greek, is that I could see that verses 7-13 are in the past tense. And verses 14-25 are in the present tense. Perhaps this difference of tense can refer, respectively, at different periods of Paul's experience before and after his conversion. I see that Paul's experience parallels the reality experienced by all believers. Every Christian has had actual experience in this unequal struggle against the law of sin, which is in its members - as Paul calls it (7:23). Paul recognizes the fierce struggle within himself. A fight between good and evil, between light and darkness.
Whidden, in the Chapter 8 of his book, he explains on Ellen White’s understanding of the relationship between human nature of Christ and Christian perfection. He made it clear that Ellen White believed “in the full deity of Christ.” Whidden admits that there “elements of mystery and seemingly irregular features in Ellen White’s view of Christ’s humanity.” He concludes that there is a delicate balance in his view of doctrine of Christ's humanity and that “expressions such as ‘pre-Fall’ and ‘post-Fall’ are simply insufficient to get at the richness of Ellen White's understanding of Christ’s humanity.” And Whidden exemplifies saying, “When It came to Christ as a fully sinless, sacrificial substitute, she was ‘pre-Fall,’ but When She spoke of His ability to sustain in times of temptation, she stressed largely His identity and spoke in ‘post-Fall’ terms.” It’s clear from reading this chapter that Ellen White constantly battled against the extremes, with the understanding some mystery and tension, always using the terms identity and uniqueness in a balanced manner.
I thought it was very clear and profound manner in which Edward Heppenstall addresses the issue of Christian perfection. Edward presents arguments that identify what type of perfection encourages the Bible, perfection in nature or character. The perfect righteousness of Christ is the only way to live as Christ lived, because our righteousness is “as filthy rags” (Isa 64:6). Real holiness and victory over all known sin are possible but does not mean sinlessness. Those who remains in Christ, has in everyday life counteracting the power of God against their sinful tendencies and their sinful natures. As Christians, we continually walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-18). The most solemn warning against the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life, is the text of 1 John 1:8-10, which says that “... If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness ... “. Salvation by grace means that sinlessness and absolute perfection can not be achieved in our reality here and now. Our victory over sin is the exclusive work of God in Christ, through the continuous control of life by the Holy Spirit. Through daily union with Christ we can participate in Christ’s holy life.
Response to Reed Richardi: Assignment 7
I agree with you when you remember the mystery that is the nature of Christ for our limited human understanding. Really, we should be silent before this great mystery. Surely, our limited understanding leads us to bow before the infinite greatness of God and accept what He has decided to reveal.
You're right in saying that Ellen White recognizes the mystery of divine-human nature of Christ and yet not try to resolve this tension ... In my opinion, you expressed it well when he said that “we must recognize that we are on holy ground” when dealing with matters like this.
Assignment 6
Questions. That’s what Romans 6 presents to me. There are many things that are difficult to understand. Paul uses a number of terms and phrases that have been interpreted in various ways. For example, he says that we have “died to sin.” What exactly does this mean? Have the sinful parts of us ceased to exist? Have we suffered the punishment for sin (through Christ’s death)?
What does Paul mean when he says that we were baptized into Christ Jesus? Or that we were baptized into his death? What does he mean when he says that “our old self was crucified with him [Christ] so that the body of sin might be done away with” (NIV)? He can’t mean that we no longer have sinful natures, because he already said, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (vv. 1-2).
What does it mean that the death Christ died, he died to sin once for all? In English, the idiom “dead to me” means that I act as if the thing is dead. If a friend grievously offended me, I could say, “he is dead to me.” In other words, I am pretending that he is no longer alive. But is this the sense in which Paul talks about Christ’s death to sin, or our death to sin? He does not say that sin has died to me, he says, “we have died to sin,” and “count yourselves dead to sin.” Perhaps we could understand him to mean that we should not consider ourselves to be in the same realm as sin, or no longer under its control. This makes sense in light of v. 12. Paul says, “Therefore [since you consider yourself dead to sin], do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, resulting in heeding to your [or: its] desires.” In other words, it seems that Paul is saying something along the lines of, “Though you may commit sin, you are no longer controlled by it. You have freedom to choose. Don’t live as though you don’t!”
“Sin shall not be your master,” Paul says, “for you are not under law, but under grace.” This is another statement that is difficult to understand. We are not under law, but under grace. It seems that what Paul means by this can be understood when we examine it in the context of the rhetoric which follows. He says, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” He then proceeds to argue that though we used to be slaves to sin, we have been set free and are now slaves to righteousness. Thus, if Paul means that we no longer need to keep the law because we are under grace, why does he immediately infer that we are now to avoid sin? What is sin if there is no law? On the other hand, if being under grace vs. law is a reference to the means whereby we are saved, Paul’s comments are much more logical. If I am not saved by adherence to the law, I might naturally think that I no longer needed to keep it. But that would mean being a slave to sin, from which I have now been set free.
Slavery and freedom is a major theme in Romans 6. Paul’s point in this chapter seems to be that because of Christ’s death, we are no longer in slavery to sin. It is no longer our master. Instead, we are slaves to righteousness. The benefit we reap is holiness, and the result is eternal life.
Matthew Shallenberger
Assignment 6
This week I read chapter seven in Whidden’s book, which dealt with Ellen White’s view of the atonement as well as briefly surveying various historical views of the atonement. I also read George Reid’s BRI article: “Why Did Jesus Die? How God Saves Us.” Both of these make strong arguments against the moral influence theory. While Whidden and Reid both accept that Jesus’ death on the cross does indeed have a moral influence, they maintain that His death also served as a substitution for ours.
It seems like both Whidden and Reid accept a big model of salvation. Whidden notes that Ellen White took elements from many different atonement models. However, she only took the best and accepted nothing that was contrary to Scripture. Thus, her views cannot be limited to a single model (although Whidden does argue that the predominant view in Mrs. White’s writings is the penal substitution model, he recognizes elements of moral influence in her soteriology).
Likewise, Reid discusses Peter Abelard’s moral influence theory and acknowledges there is truth in this theory. It is simply taken too far. Jesus’ death on the cross was indeed a manifestation of God’s love for humanity. And this wonderful example of God’s love does have a powerful moral effect on us. But in Scripture and in Mrs. White’s writings, this moral influence drives us to repent of our sins and to accept the sacrifice of Jesus in our place. In the moral influence theory, however, the moral effect of Jesus’ death seems to stop short of convicting us of sin and our need of repentance. It merely convinces us that our perception of God has been wrong and moves us to change our view of Him.
Clearly the moral influence theory is insufficient to describe what Jesus really did for us at Calvary. Yet this theory continues to attract Christians, even Adventists. I am wondering if the reason for this is that we have overemphasized penal substitution and underemphasized the moral influence aspect of the atonement. Perhaps we have spoken of Jesus’ death in dry, theological terms. Yes, Jesus came to die in my place and to pay the penalty for my sins. But how will that ever move me to love Him, how will it ever persuade me to accept Him as my Savior, unless I know that the reason Jesus gave His life for me is because He loves me so very much?
Perhaps the moral influence theory does pose a threat to a correct understanding of salvation. Its conclusions do seem to lead down dangerous paths to unbiblical ideas. But maybe the proper way to combat the moral influence theory is not to argue more strongly in favor of penal substitution. Instead, as Dr. Hanna has so often pointed out, perhaps what we need is to accept a bigger model of salvation. Perhaps the way to deal with the unbiblical ramifications of the moral influence theory is to emphasize (within a model which accepts penal substitution) a very biblical idea—the matchless love of God. The Gospel is about a God who came to this earth, lived as one of us, and died in our place—all because He loves us so much. (And, as Paul would say, it’s much more, too.) It’s the realization that God loves me which changes me. I can know that Jesus died for me; but it doesn’t really make a difference in my life until I know that He loves me.
Response to Ryan Kilgore’s Assignment 6
Ryan, I can relate to the questions you raise about Romans 6. Paul is hard to understand sometimes. But we shouldn’t feel too bad, I guess; even Peter thought Paul was hard to understand!
About Paul’s statements that we are to consider ourselves dead to sin: maybe one way to look at it is this. We are to consider ourselves dead to sin. Does a dead person respond when you call to him? No. So when sin (temptation) comes knocking on our door, we just say, “Nobody’s home; I’m dead to sin. I can’t respond to temptation beckoning me because I’m dead to sin, but alive to Jesus. I can only hear Jesus beckoning me.” This would fit in with Paul’s statements about sin no longer being our master. Sin ain’t our boss no more! We don’t do what it tells us to do. We follow a new Master—Jesus—and we only do what He tells us to do.
And like you said, even if we stumble and fall from time to time (which we are likely to do—1 John 2:1), we can get back up in the power of Jesus and keep fighting the good fight. We no longer have to be controlled by sin, even if we occasionally give in to temptation.
Alexander Rybachek
Assignment #5
Evaluation on Justification and the Cross
by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez
Romans 5:12-21 is very discussed, since it brings the idea of two Adams. I always thought of us being sinful in Adam as us being viewed in the first Adam. So when Adam committed sin we were in him. Thus I understood the deliverance from sin in Christ. When we are in Christ we are delivered from sin in Christ.
Very first thing: Originally Sin and Death Were not Part of the World.
As I was reading the article by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez on Rom 5:12-21 I was surprised by the research results. The sin of Adam was unique in the history of the human race in terms of its consequences or results. The sins that we are proclaimed guilty of along with Adam are not Adam’s sin transplanted into us. The sin came into the world by means of Adam. Adam became channel of sin into his descendants.
The problem of sin was the issue for a young boy who was sick with diabetes at very fragile age. Problem of sin was an issue for a father who had lost his 16 year old daughter. Problem of sin is an issue for many molested children. It is difficult to explain to them why sin entered the world and why by disobedience of one we have so many consequences.
Until I have read Roman 5 I could not get the biblical perspective of why God was silent to many evils. Actually He was not silent. He gave an answer in His Son Jesus. Verse Paul describes in Rom 5:12-19 the event of the cross as an act of divine grace. The manifestation of this gift has as its only objective the human race. Through Christ God provided enough grace to save the whole human race, since the time of Adam to the end of mercy. But this gift must be accepted in order to be ours. The gift is justification by faith and those who accept it are the "many" who are in Christ through faith in him. The text says Romans 5:14-15 4 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! (my emphasis). Gift is not like the trespass. many died by the trespass of one man, HOW MUCH MORE DID GOD’S GRACE … OVERFLOW THE MANY. This is the answer of God to fallen humanity – you suffer because of one trespass of Adam and you really do. He started the thing and you just follow, BUT in My Son you will find more than life – you will find Me as the source of life.
Yes, there is an answer to all that have suffered from sin and its consequences. God have send His Son in order to suffer all the way with us, but His sufferings along the way has saved us greater than sin has damaged us! We are overflowed by God’s grace and His gift. Christ is not just the answer to the problem of sin – He is the true meaning of life if there would be no sin! Christ is too much! Thus in Paul’s view when he sees sufferings he sees the One who not only is able to reconcile in sufferings, but give joy of life and bring true sense of life.
In this small passage in Romans I found my peace. The person of Jesus is not simply answer to the problem of sin – He is the sense of life throughout Eternity.
Tyler Rosengren
Assignment #5
Romans 5
Well, this chapter was loaded! There is so much good stuff in here to think about that I don’t really know where to begin. It seemed there was just sermon after sermon coming to my mind as I read through this with the goal of trying to think of what jumped out at me while I read. Verse 1 is of prime importance to me because I was thinking recently of how to reach the post-modern mind. As I was thinking about this I realized that most post moderns believe in “the Divine” of some sort but just not necessarily Jesus. I also realized that when they believe in ‘the Divine” they are welcome to the term “God”, just not necessarily in my sense. Nonetheless I think a great question to pose to a post-modern would be “are you at peace with God?”. Interestingly this is exactly the concept that Paul starts out chapter 5 of Romans with. He states that because of justification by faith he has “peace with God” through his Lord Jesus Christ. It is also interesting to note how Christocentric this entire chapter is. Is seems that the name “Christ” is used a lot in the chapter, possibly even more than any of the other chapters in Romans. I found that those two themes worked really well together in this chapter because Christ truly is our peace with God and without Him we cannot have peace with God. I think in the future as I discuss various things with post-moderns I will continue to ask if they have peace with God and now I have a Bible reference to work together with this idea.
Alexander Rybachek
Comment on Tyler Rosengren,
I agree with you Tyler that these verses in Romans 4:7, 8 are giving peace. The man who is forgiven is the blessed man. We are blessed people when we know we are forgiven. It is like having the mountain off your shoulders. The life starts making sense when you are forgiven. These words written by David after sin with Bathsheba are deeply rooted in the sense of gratitude. Just this phrase of forgiveness may bring many to Christ, because the world is not only full in sin, but also in desire of forgiveness. Thanks for post, Alex
I wanted to go back to what we studied last time in class in Romans. Here is the verses we read:
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
I just noticed that we usually jump into this text with some presumption; we already have e debate between predestination and free will going on in our minds so much such that we as Adventists don’t usually read the text as it is but react to the attacks against our beliefs. I don’t think because these text has been used to promote predestination as led by Calvin that we should use it in the same way to defend our belief for by doing so we might miss the really issue in these verses. And I believe that it’s the enemy who is keeping our mind from the real blessing that our Father intended to bestow upon us. I don’t think that predestination was the issue in this chapter if we really look at it I the context and the purpose of his writing to the Christians in Rome.
I wanted just to put something in the picture here. First of all verse 29 starts with “ For”, “”, indicating that the Apostle is about to explain or justify what he has just said, which is verse 28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose”.
If we consider these verses in their context we will understand that the all idea was give more ground to the Christian believer to keep on putting their trust in God. Paul exhorting them so much that he went to the extent of telling them that God has a plan though things maybe though He still has control. And this can be a great lesson to us. The road on which the Lord is leading us might not be smooth, but t is safe. As E. M. Bounds puts it “The ed of every trouble is good in the mind of God”
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
We do all agree that these verses apply primarily to the Christians in Rome, and therefore to any Chrsitian who has and will evr lived in this world. But could we go beyond this to apply this to every person whos has ever lived or will live? such that, that God did forknow, predestinate, call, justify, glorify, everybody in Christ? I belive if Paul was given the a different recipient he wouild have said the same thing. This truth expressed in Ro.8:29,30 goes beyond the walls of Christianity and embrace the whole world. We can know that by noticing the fact that Paul is even talking about glorification to people in past tense, suggesting that this work goes even beyond human response to God in his salvation,; that is this things are true already in Christ even if there would have bee no any response.
Reflection assignment 7 Oct. 19 Michael Liu
Reflection on Who’s Got the Truth by Martin Weber
The book mention about the Christ-centered legalists will pursue a relationship with Christ for the sake of strength to fulfill the law so they can be saved. The problem is their trusting in their own attainments rather than in Christ’s accomplishments on their behalf. The issue is not whether they depend on Christ’s strength or their own; the fact is they are trying to become good enough to go to heaven. Even they can be desiring to love Jesus with all their heart, but they worry more about their own love for him than they rejoice in His love for them. Steps to Christ say this kind of religion worth nothing because their heart are not deeply touched by the love of Christ. When Christ dwells in the hearts, the soul will be so filled the joy of communion with Him, self will be forgotten. Love to Christ will be the spring of action. We will yield all and manifest interest proportionate to the value of the object which we are seeking. Religion with this deep love is just dry and burdensome.
What’s the problem with the legalists is that their defining sin in a behavior term. They are working on the outside but only God can transform people from the inside. Legalists obey the law for self advancement not out of love and appreciation for God. If they can see the law demand the kind of loyalty and love even in the omotivation level, they will know they will never good enough for the salvation but the kind of peace with God only Christ can provide.
It’s so interesting in the discussion of the freedom of choice in Christ’s earthly life in class. He could choose to walk the other way and risk the eternal lost. The kind of risk for our salvation was so great beyond our imagination. But he demonstrate a sinless life as an example not only on this earth but also is a kin of assurance for us that in heaven we will be so settle into the truth and like Christ will never choose to sin again with still possess the freedom of choice.
____________________________________________________________________
A response to Landon Schnabel assignment #4
It is interesting to mention the balance of the Law and grace in the context of the salvation view. Concerning the Second Coming and the obedience as believer’s discussion is very insightful. If we view the obedience and the Seconding Coming in the Great Controversy context, our behavior have a effect on the vindicating God’s law that can be perfectly obeyed. The motivation for doing that is for the glory of God. To show what God can do through us by His Holy Spirit. The cleansing of the sanctuary is about the vindication of God’s reputation before the whole universe. Not we want to achieve something by our obedience but what God wants to accomplish through us if we cooperate with Him.
Assignment #7
Youngkyo Suh
Perfection is the word for God. God is the only one who is perfect in nature and character. He is the source of perfection. But there has been a question on this 'perfection' in Christian lives. Some people seem to believe that once you are saved you are going to live in perfection as God is perfect. And this is why some of the early Christians and present time desire to be perfect by doing what God wants them to do. And there is another question for this matter. That is on how perfect is perfect in Christian perspective. It is impossible for me to understand without thinking about different phase of salvation or the dynamics of salvation. We all know that God can't accept what is unclean or what is sinful at all. This means that there is no exception when it comes to salvation. This is how serious God deals with salvation. If you are not perfect as God is perfect you can't go to the kingdom of heaven. This is exactly why Satan was thrown out of the kingdom of heaven. God couldn't keep Satan in heaven because he was against God's law and his government. In order to keep the kingdom of heaven perfect place, God had to throw Satan out of the kingdom. Sinners cannot go to heaven unless they deal with sin problem which means that they have to somehow make themselves to be perfect to be accepted into heaven. However, there is no way for us to make ourselves perfect because we are sinful and that is it. Unless there comes power from outside to get us out to be perfect, we are who we are. That's why Jesus came to get us out of the sin so whosoever believes in Jesus, we have power to be perfect as He is perfect.
Some may raise a question saying, 'what does being perfect in Christ?', 'how does it work?'. These questions are classical questions that have been out there. Romans 8 talks about this clearly. Living perfectly means living according to the spirit of Jesus. Every moment is our opportunity to exercise living according to the will of God which is the spirit of Jesus. I may not live all the time because of Satan's assaults but I get up again and keep following Jesus.
Response to Kuo Hsang
by Youngkyo Suh
Thank you for your insight on legalists. Like you said, their behavior are based on how they act or respond out of duty or responsibility for keeping the law of God in order to get any benefit to be saved. We need to do God's will out of love that Jesus has shown. One's motivation on something is very hard to say because that motivation can be known to God only for he is the only one who read what we think.
Comments on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter Ten...
I personally found this chapter to be both interesting and extremely informative, particularly as it relates to the historical context surrounding the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference. The area that caught my attention the most was the "Holy Flesh" movement and what was later referred to as the "Adventist Pentecostalism." This is of particular interest to me considering my Pentecostal heritage, of which my father was a Pastor for some 12 years during my childhood. It appeared to me from the limited information cited by the author that this movement caused considerable unrest within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I also gathered that the Prophetess Ellen G. White had some very clear views on the matter. What appears to have been absent during this time was a clear position on the movement from the leadership of the church. While it is clear that they did not support the movement and apparently they were not in agreement with the basic tenets of the teachings of the movement, it did not appear to me that they offered a clear theological exposition defining their views on the matter. In my experience in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I have often found that when we disagree with various views whether within or without of our organization that we often denounce the movement without offering a clear biblical response that positively addresses the issue. While it is obvious to see why there were some fears concerning the movement, it is still necessary that Christian comportment and humble understanding be demonstrated toward those who may have potentially erred. By doing this it allows the church to appropriately correct the error as well as restore and reconcile those who were in error. Unfortunately, by not taking this approach the church loss of some of its more prominent members and perhaps alienated many more both within and without. I think we should use this as a “teachable moment” within our church history, where we realize that the proper way to handle error with in the church is not simply to denounce it but to present a more biblical approach to the subject that provides grace for both the individuals involved as well as the community of faith.
Response to Landon...
I really enjoyed your perspective on the apparent balance in Ellen G. White's writings on the topic of salvation. I particularly agreed with your sentiments concerning the need to open the bible in a more honest way. It seems to me that there are a lot of misunderstandings about what the bible really teaches and sadly this can be seen both in our pews and in our pulpits. I believe that the church needs to go back to basic bible study with a humble heart and a teachable spirit prepared and willing to learn under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am personally concerned with the clear disconnect between the learned members of our church and those who think they already know everything. I know I'm risking being a bit bold when I say this, but I really do believe that this needs to be corrected in our church. I personally believe that it sends a confusing witness to the world when we’re so divided on the basic issues of the bible and the elementary teachings our faith. This must come as a surprise to those who come into contact with Adventist, a people who say that they highly esteem the bible and yet seems to be so unclear as a church as to what it actually says. We need to determine to truly be people of the book and go back to the book to see what it really says. Then people will be able to determine for themselves if they agree with our understanding of the bible, instead of us telling them this is what the bible says, especially if that’s not what it says. The world needs a witness that is clear and honest and that reflects the truth of the bible rather than the traditions of our faith.
On a more personal note: My mother told me that when she first became a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church one of the things that surprised her the most was the lack of bible study going on in the church. In Pentecostal church which she was formerly a member of she was accustomed to studying the bible several times a week with the church pastor, yet when she became a Seventh-day Adventist, the church suggested that Sabbath School was the appropriate time and place for bible study. Interestingly though, there was very little bible study taking place and just a lot of empty discussions that never quite came to any clear conclusions. My mother shared with me that for sometime she was considering leaving the church until, some concerned individuals in the church assisted her with better understanding the teachings of the church. Truly it would have been a tragedy of immense proportions for a genuine seeker of truth to discover that the truth she was seeking was unknown by those who proposed to have the truth.
Just my thoughts on the matter...
Thanks again!
Assignment #9
I have been thinking that the issues of theology, and most importantly salvation, must be thought about on a deeper level if we hope to explore them theoretically rather than just practically. God has made salvation available for all and a theological framework is not necessary for that salvation, but this is the practical level of salvation. As we work on degrees in theology we work largely on the theoretical level, but we oftentimes keep of discussion at the level that takes place in Sabbath School without going beyond into the presuppositions and philosophical underpinnings on which we base these discussions. I feel that we all too often discuss at too surface a level, with the danger of coming to a conclusion at this level that is based upon faulty presuppositions and thus of no more worth than a debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a needle in which we come to a clear and lucid conclusion that is able to convince the masses but will not hold water at the presuppositional level.
Reading Whidden’s chapter this week was a very different experience because after hearing seeing and hearing him at the Arminian Symposium I imagined him reading the chapter while I read it and could hear him as I went along. I found the exploration of Ellen White’s renewed focus during the time following 1888 as interesting, and that there were many interesting things happening at this time rather than just the conference. I had not known about this particular strain of Adventist holiness movement and found it alarmingly similar movements that have arisen within Adventism. As Ecclesiastes says, “there is nothing new under the sun,” and it would seem that this is definitely the case in regards to heresies. Though some movement will think their ideas are new and unique, they are probably going off in some direction similar to another person or group of the past.
The chapter provided a better understanding of Ellen White’s view of perfection for me because she talked of perfect forgiveness, a perfection based upon the person of Christ that we are claiming in us rather than our own flesh which seemed to be the view of the Adventist holiness movement.
Response to Michael
I really liked your suggestion of using possibly eruptive moments of disagreement as a "teachable moment." We should strive to be restorative in all that we do.
I also found your comments and history with Pentecostalism to be interesting. I think that though we should avoid anything where we call ourselves "perfect" in the sense they we are now sinless, there is always a value in understanding the other viewpoint so that we can come to better balance and maybe incorporate the Holy Spirit more into our thinking. I noticed from the chapter that though Ellen White was opposed to the holiness movement in Adventism, she did have a greater emphasis on the Holy Spirit during this time. She is an example we should look to for balance and understanding of others.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
20 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #4:
TIME WELL SPENT
In the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” by Woodrow W. Whidden II, there is a chapter called, “James and Ellen: Their Compelling Personal Testimonies”. This chapter talks about how Ellen White admitted that she wasn’t perfect. However, she sees that one should be striving for perfection, but being humble about it. I like what this Whidden said— high aspirations, but modest testimonies (paraphrased).
However, there was something that caught my attention. James White wanted ministers to “preach Christ more”. In a dream that Ellen White had after James’ death, she saw James saying (in the dream) that they made a mistake in going to so many meetings, when they could have spent more time writing on things that people needed to hear. They could have benefited people for years on things that they knew that others did not.
Sometimes we get so caught up in meetings, when we could be ministering. Also, sometimes it’s good to take time to write. Yes, perhaps writing time may take away from preaching time, but a written message can be a sermon to perhaps more than the spoken word. Of course today you can also record sermons so it can be passed on to others that you may never come in personal contact.
The point is, I need to do more when it comes to ministry. Too much time is wasted in waste of time activities, and even in activities that are not bad in and of itself (like the meetings that James and Ellen attended), but many times, these activities together take away from the overall mission.
I need to pray for guidance so God can lead me in the ways I use my time.
Dario Ferreira
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #8
After speaking of the freedom won by those who are in Christ Jesus (8:1-11), and now walk in the Spirit (8:12-17), Paul calls on believers to have hope in the midst of suffering, based on freedom achieved the death and resurrection of Jesus (8:18-25). The certainty of our hope is confirmed both for those who love God and to those who are called according to His purpose (8:28).
The 8th chapter of Romans is, to me, one of the most remarkable chapters of the Bible. He has served as a comfort to thousands of Christians from the early Christian church, when Paul told us this message. I have experienced the power of those words in many moments of struggle and spiritual instability or even suffering. Knowing that nothing can separate us from the power of God at our disposal to help us in our Christian journey is to know that nothing can separate us from this love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. God's love surpasses any distress or calamity. This and the nature of our God and this gives us a lot of security and helps us keeping our faith.
The first chapter of section 3 (chapter 9) of Whidden addresses the subject of justification by faith - before 1888. The most important presentation on justification by faith has happened in the 1883 General Conference session in Battle Creek, Michigan, November 9-20.
Ellen White emphasized the importance of obedience, showing that faith and works are never separated. The Christian should not look at himself, but keep a continuous and conscious dependence on power and acceptance of Christ.
The concept of the merits of Christ is always related to Christ's intercessory ministry, because:
1. Christ’s Merits make acceptable our obedience;
2. Christ’s Merits make up for our “deficiencies”;
3. Christ’s Merits provides the Christian's proper response to the devil’s taunting accusation;
4. Christ’s Merits reflects the attitude of God – especially toward the believer. God is willing to forgive.
I could sum up the vision of Ellen White’s justification, even before 1888 was that “Justification is the excuse for sin, but it does provider for the penitent Christ’s merits that are a perfect atonement for the failures of the faithful.”
In the eighth document on salvation, Ángel Manuel Rodriguez, talks up the “Justification and the Cross”, making an accurate analysis of Romans 5:12-21. He said the apostle Paul is making a contrast between the result of the sin of Adam and the salvific action of Christ. Paul argues that Adam’s sin had a universal impact. When he sinned, sin and death came automatically into the world. “We are sinners because we came ... under the power of death”. The event of the cross is an act of divine grace. This gift that came by Christ is enough to save the whole human race, but must be accepted to be our.
Response to Landon Schnabel: Assignment 8
I agree with you about the balanced way that Whidden presents the vision of Ellen White on Salvation.
Indeed, many of us preachers, especially evangelists tend to drive only on text that is consistent with the goal we want or what we believe. I see no problem with it, necessary and specific situations. The problem is we can’t make it a rule but an exception. It is certainly a big challenge looking at the text as a whole and extract the truths contained in it even if they supporter all you want. Therein lies the balance honesty with the biblical text.
Response to Matthew Schallenberger, assignment 4:
Matthew, good post and reflection on Romans 4. You noted that it is important to keep a proper relation of faith and works in mind. Abraham’s works (circumcision, etc.) were the result of the faith he already had, and which justified him. I wonder what this says about assurance of salvation. If I commit a sin, is that evidence that I don’t have saving faith? Is this concept even addressed by Romans 4?
Assignment 7
It seems that there are few theological issues within Adventism that can stir up as much volatile debate as the issue of Christ’s human nature. Was it a sinless, perfect nature akin to Adam’s before the Fall? Or is it just like yours and mine, sinful and naturally inclined to evil (though, of course, Christ never actually committed any sinful acts). Until you get into the debate, it seems like this shouldn’t be too big of a deal. We don’t know what his human nature was like, Scripture says nothing explicit about it. Why is it important? Isn’t it enough to know that Christ overcame sin by living a perfect life and dying for our sins on the cross?
However, what might be a minor issue, relegated to the realm of obtuse theological discussion, has become a lightning rod. In my experience, Adventists tend to fall into two groups on this issue (or perhaps it is more accurate to say that there are two extremes on this issue, and Adventists tend to fall somewhere along the spectrum between the two).
Those who staunchly believe that Christ’s human nature was like Adam’s before the fall (sinless) seem to be trying to reconcile what they find in Scripture with what they find in the world around them. Human beings—all human beings—are sinful. There are many pious and holy people to be sure; there are many kind and Christlike people. But none of them have seem to have managed to overcome sin entirely so that their characters were perfected. And certainly none of them have ever abstained from sin for the entirety of their lives. So, since the Bible tells us that Christ never sinned, that he was a lamb without spot, there must have been something different about him. He must not have had the natural inclination to sin that we have. This explains how he was able to be perfect from the time he was born, and we started sinning as soon as we could speak (or earlier!).
Those on the other side of the debate, who valiantly defend the idea that Christ’s human nature was like Adam’s after the Fall (i.e. that his nature was like ours from birth) seem to be reacting to the idea that Christ had any kind of advantage which allowed him to live a sinless life. If Christ had an advantage, then how can human beings be expected to overcome sin? The fear is that people will use this idea to justify or excuse their wrong behavior.
It is easy, especially when discussing a subject that lacks clear biblical teaching, to become defensive and reactionary. However, it seems to me that it will be helpful to affirm foundational teachings so that fear can be minimized. For example, when we remind ourselves on the one hand, that the Bible teaches that no one is perfect or without sin, and on the other hand, of the innumerable biblical injunctions to obedience and right living, we can discuss the human nature of Christ without fear that it will affect our basic biblical faith.
Response to Wayne Jamel, assignment 4:
Wayne, I liked your personal reflection on the chapter in Whidden. I, too, could benefit from spending more time on the important parts of ministry, and less time on the urgent parts. Especially when I’m out of school and back in full-time ministry, the pressures to deal merely with what is right in front of me will tend to lead me to neglect the things that are not urgent, but important.
Assignment #6
Whidden, Chapter 8 “The nature of Christ and Salvation”
I was a bit disappointed that this chapter used very few EGW quotes, or even many references, so we are dependant on Whidden’s interpretation of the issue. Nonetheless, I appreciated the chapter.
I have noticed the way that Christology seems to underlie Soteriology. It seems like a rather natural association that those who emphasize the change in our characters and Christian perfection want to talk about Christ as an example to us, therefore there is an emphasis on his closeness to us. And those who want to emphasize the substitutionary aspects of grace completely apart from works want to emphasize Christ’ otherness and divinity.
There was a time in my life when I took a pretty one-sided approach to this issue, but now I can see the value of balance. I don’t think that either of those prospectives is wrong, necessarily. Though sometimes either one can stray too far. One can lose track of the fact that we are perfected only by the work of God in us, and we are powerless on our own. The other can slip into thinking salvation is all about getting into heaven and not about being saved from sin.
So when I read what Whidden says about Ellen White emphasizing both aspects of Christ in different contexts, it really makes sense to me. Unfortunately, this also makes sense of why it is so easy to go to EGW’s writings to find support for whatever viewpoint you already hold. I think the Bible is like this too. It’s so important to approach any study with a spirit of questioning and openness and to allow what you are reading to challenge you.
Whidden also said that EGW always being clearly trinitarian from the beginning. I really wish he would have offered more support for this view. I guess I’ll have to check out QOD, which he referenced. I have heard before that she didn’t really take either side on the matter until 1888 when a strong view of Christ’s righteousness demanded a strong Christ. Anyone have any insight on his? A quote in which she is clearly trinitarian early on would be appreciated if anyone happens to have it.
Response #6
@ Landon
I love what you said about resonating with the ransom model of salvation because of CS Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." That has often crossed my mind as well! I always think about what that book says about "deeper magic" being those principles that ultimately triumphed. I think what I like about this phrase is that it aptly speaks to the mystery of the whole thing. I also appreciate what you said about both/and. I'm with you. There is a reason why we have so many different analogies given us in scripture.
Gasp!! Someone actually commented on something I said. Thank you Ryan.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
24 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #5:
“PERFECT, JUST PERFECT”
Perhaps you’ve made that statement, “No one’s perfect.” Is that true? Is it possible to be perfect? After all, Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” Matt 5:48. Jesus commands us to be perfect, but yet Jesus also said, “there is none good but one, that is, God” Matt 19:17. So we have a dilemma here. We are suppose to be perfect, but yet no one is perfect.
Edward Heppenstall’s article, “How Perfect Is "Perfect" Or Is Christian Perfection Possible?” is an excellent article. Many of the texts that I use to talk on this issue are here. Noah and Asa were said to be perfect, but yet they were not. Abraham was declared right in the sight of God, yet he was definitely not perfect. Romans 4:2 says, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God” Romans 4:2. He wasn’t right in God’s eyes because he was good guy. The next verse says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” Romans 4:3. This word “believed” comes from the greek word “pisteuo” which deals with “trust”. Abraham trusted in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Abraham was right in God’s sight, because He put His trust in God.
Paul says “For he (The Father) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” 2 Cor 5:21. We receive the righteousness of God when we are in Christ. Isaiah said that God “clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness” Isaiah 61:10. When we put on Christ, we have His perfect record. Paul says that he wants to “be found in him (Christ), not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” Phil 3:9. When we are in Jesus heaven doesn’t see our un-perfect record. It see the record of Jesus.
So we can be perfect— perfect in the record of Jesus. And then ” if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” 2 Cor 5:17. We are perfect in the perfect life of Christ, and our life can become better. All this when we are in Christ.
Response to Ryan Kilgore’s Assignment 7
Ryan, I seem to comment on your posts a lot. I always enjoy reading them. I appreciated your breakdown of the two sides of the Christological debate. I thought you did a good job of explaining what’s at stake for each side and why they insist on their view.
You pointed out that the Bible teaches that all men are sinful and imperfect, yet it also calls us to live holy, obedient lives. You said if we keep this in mind, we don’t need to have such a phobia of Christological issues. I agree, and I think this is another example of the tension of biblical theology. We’re not perfect, yet we’re supposed to strive for perfection. We’re saved already, yet we’re not saved all the way yet; that won’t happen till Jesus comes. And Jesus was like us, yet He wasn’t like us, too. These all seem to be paradoxes, but this is what the Bible teaches. We have to learn how to be comfortable with tension in our theology.
Also, a few observations regarding your comment about Romans 4: Although this chapter doesn’t seem to address assurance of salvation directly, vv. 20-21 can help us understand assurance. Here Paul tells us that Abraham “did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.” So our assurance that Jesus has saved and will save us comes from our unwavering faith in His ability to save us.
What about sinning, then? If we sin after placing our faith in Christ, does it mean our faith is ineffectual? I think we have to go outside Rom. 4 to address this. Rom. 7 might help us, but that depends on how one interprets it. Is Paul saying that he, a believer, strives to do good yet still struggles with sin? Or is he using the first-person “I” more as a rhetorical tool to explain the unconverted person’s dilemma: trying to overcome sin but not being successful, to which verse 25 offers the solution?
One verse that might help us with this issue of assurance is 1 John 2:1. John says that he’s writing so that the believers may not sin. But if they should sin (and Paul’s use of the subjunctive here seems to indicate that sinning is in the realm of probability), they can still rely on Jesus for forgiveness, as John has already explained in 1:9. What do you think?
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
24 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #6:
SINFUL BABIES
I once heard a preacher say, “Ever since birth we are sinful. Look at baby. From the moment its born, it’s crying. It’s selfish. Whenever it wants something, it cries until it gets what it wants. By the time it can think, you tell the baby ‘no’ don’t touch that, and the moment you’re not looking, the baby touches it.” Is this true? Are we sinful from birth? In the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” Woodrow W. Whidden II has a chapter called “Sin, the Human Condition, and Salvation”. This chapter brings up the issue of original sin and being guilty from birth. Are we guilty of sin from birth? Are we lost because of Adam even before we are born?
Jesus tackles this issue in the gospel of John: “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” John 9:1-2. The disciples had the concept of original sin. They thought that it was possible for sin and its guilt to be passed down from parent to child through birth. What was Jesus’ answer to this, “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents” John 9:3. This man was suffering guilt because of his parent’s sins. But you may wonder, doesn’t the Bible say that we are “born in sin and sharpened in iniquity”? No. That quote is not in the Bible. Those are two phrases taken out of context and put together. In fact, we get that from this same chapter, dealing with this same blind man whom Jesus healed. After Jesus healed the man, the Pharisees got upset as usual and we interrogating the man. The once blind man was saying that Jesus was of God. In anger, the Pharisees said to the him, “Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out” John 9:34. What a terrible source to base original sin and guilt. Who do you want to believe? The Pharisees or Jesus, who said that neither this man or his parents’ sin brought this blindness on the man?
Yes, because of Adam’s sin, sin entered the world. And yes, the effects of sin is passed down to the third and fourth generation, such as drug addictions. However, guilt does not pass through the umbilical cord. Sin is a choice. But we can also choose the gift of Salvation.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
25 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #7:
till death do YOU part
I heard someone mention how he would call his friend and invite them to go hang out, and the friend would reply, “Sorry man, I can’t.” “Why not?” “It’s my finger.” “What’s wrong with your finger?” “There’s a ring on it.” When someone gets married, they are locked down. The ring is the smallest handcuff. Talk about being “wrapped around someone’s finger”. For such a small rock, it really weighs you down. You know, at the altar, you say all those fancy words, “For richer, for sicker; for poorer, for healthier; to have and to be bold, till death do us part.” After that… it’s a waiting game.
But seriously, when a woman gets married, by law she is bound to her husband until he dies. If she gets with someone else while he is still alive, she is an adulterer. Romans 7 talks about this, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband” (Romans 7:2). So when her husband dies, she can free to get married again, but she can’t roll with two guys. “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (vs 3).
So why am I saying all this? Why is Paul saying all this? “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God” (vs 4). So, just like how we are bound to our spouse until that person dies, we are bound to the law and to the consequences of the law until death. Now, the law can’t die. It cannot be abolished, but we can die (ye also are become dead). When we are crucified with Christ, as talked about in the previous chapter, then we can actually marry Jesus (him who is raised from the dead). Just like how you can’t have two people in your life in the married sense, in the spiritual sense you can’t have two people in your life. You can’t have Jesus and yourself. When you die, then you can marry Jesus and then we can “bring forth fruit unto God”, just like how a couple has babies. With Jesus, we can give birth to a fruitful life. The law becomes natural result (a birth) of our marriage with God. When I am dead, then I can be one with my spouse. What about you?
nancy thomas assignment #5 I have been reading Romans chapt 8 and I found some interesting points that I'm not sure if I am grasping onto it right or not. I've always heard that because was able tolive sin free in his human form we too are able to live sin free. But as I read Romans chapt 8 it is saying something different. It seems to me that Paul address the fact that Jesus came in human form, but his sin free body was used as a sacrifice, and the only way that we can live sin free is to submitt to Jesus, and give the Holy Spirit control. So it is only through Jesus that we are able to live sin free not that we can live sin free if we follow his example. nancy
John Coaxum
Assignment on the BRI article Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Works by Ivan T. Blazen. And chapter 9 in “Ellen White on Salvation”.
In his article Blazen makes a solid comment: “We need to be clear: Justification and assurance of salvation are not achieved by human works or by faith plus human works. Justification and assurance come only by the all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ as Savior.” When reading this statement some may refer to it as upholding the concept of cheap grace. Which is basically the acceptance of salvation without any obedience because that obedience can never merit us salvation. John Wesley and Ellen White at first were afraid of stating this openly because they feared that these types of statements would open the gates for “presumptuous sinning”. Because it led to the notion of the Calvinistic: “Once saved always saved”.
Its often confusing when we think about it. Because when new Christians come to faith, they wonder what is their role in salvation after accepting Christ. How much do I need to do before I am justified and then I can progress to the stage of sanctification and then Glorification? I think that a lot of novice believers are thoroughly confused by what their role is. And moreso than that they have trouble distinguishing nowadays between what is salvific and what is not. In a phone conversation with a friend she wanted to know what are some of the things that would cause someone to be lost. And while I was formulating a response in my mind I was struck by the thought that it is actually quite hard for anyone to be lost. As we look at the gospel Christ has done, is doing, and will do everything in His power to save us. Which again leads me to believe that if anyone is lost it will be by decision and not deception. God simply asks that we accept Him and we will be saved, according to John 3:16. Anything less than this acceptance and belief in Christ and we fall short of salvation.
Furthermore I also appreciated what Dr. Hanna presented in class last week regarding salvation. He basically stated that the only perfection that is attainable here on Earth, is of the progressive kind. It simply means that we will never be exactly where God wants us to be here on Earth. Salvation is like a continuum as long as I stay unsatisfied with the position I am in and always striving to go higher and deeper with Christ than I am, in some sense, perfect. Because I am never satisfied and always trying to do better. And it is the motives and the intentions and the desire of the heart that God looks at.
Assignment on the BRI article Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Works by Ivan T. Blazen. And chapter 9 in “Ellen White on Salvation”.
In his article Blazen makes a solid comment: “We need to be clear: Justification and assurance of salvation are not achieved by human works or by faith plus human works. Justification and assurance come only by the all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ as Savior.” When reading this statement some may refer to it as upholding the concept of cheap grace. Which is basically the acceptance of salvation without any obedience because that obedience can never merit us salvation. John Wesley and Ellen White at first were afraid of stating this openly because they feared that these types of statements would open the gates for “presumptuous sinning”. Because it led to the notion of the Calvinistic: “Once saved always saved”.
Its often confusing when we think about it. Because when new Christians come to faith, they wonder what is their role in salvation after accepting Christ. How much do I need to do before I am justified and then I can progress to the stage of sanctification and then Glorification? I think that a lot of novice believers are thoroughly confused by what their role is. And moreso than that they have trouble distinguishing nowadays between what is salvific and what is not. In a phone conversation with a friend she wanted to know what are some of the things that would cause someone to be lost. And while I was formulating a response in my mind I was struck by the thought that it is actually quite hard for anyone to be lost. As we look at the gospel Christ has done, is doing, and will do everything in His power to save us. Which again leads me to believe that if anyone is lost it will be by decision and not deception. God simply asks that we accept Him and we will be saved, according to John 3:16. Anything less than this acceptance and belief in Christ and we fall short of salvation.
Furthermore I also appreciated what Dr. Hanna presented in class last week regarding salvation. He basically stated that the only perfection that is attainable here on Earth, is of the progressive kind. It simply means that we will never be exactly where God wants us to be here on Earth. Salvation is like a continuum as long as I stay unsatisfied with the position I am in and always striving to go higher and deeper with Christ than I am, in some sense, perfect. Because I am never satisfied and always trying to do better. And it is the motives and the intentions and the desire of the heart that God looks at.
Jinsoo park 141314
Assignment 4
Roman 4 tells us about the faith that should be applied in our Christian life. And also it tells us that through the faith we can become a happy human. We are not a worker. If we a worker, if we would do something for only getting the salvation, if we obey God’s law only for salvation, we would claim our salvation. In fact it is wrong to claim to God our salvation. Bible tells us the salvation is gift for us from God. If we claim our gift for our birthday, it would be so funny situation. The gift is based on the person who giving, but not receiver.
This chapter includes my most favorite verses in the Bible, 4:18-25.
Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, so shall thy seed be. (4:18)
“Believed against hope” this sentence impressed me. What do we call the faith? It is to believe something. But this Bible verse mention that the important thing is not only how do we believe but also when do we believe. And also I could find why Abraham could be called the father of faith. He believed when the situation he never believed. And it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. (4:22)
and finally Roman chapter 4 tells that it is not only Abraham’s story but also our story. We are living as a Christian. And the most important thing as a Christian is Faith. And the faith that we must have is the faith that Abraham had. Believed Against hope, I hope that is ours.
Assignment #10
I had heard a good deal about 1888 and its relation to Ellen White and her focus before, but I was happy to see it again in Whidden’s book which laid it out in a simple and organized manner. What I appreciated most of what he said was probably the relaying of other people’s past perspective on the conference and Ellen White and then the distinction he draws with those views which includes making clear the differences between Ellen White and Jones/Waggoner. Also, his suggestion that Ellen White was unique in being the only Adventist clearly laying out an objective view of the atonement before 1888 was intriguing.
The way in which history unfolds amazes me sometimes. It makes me wonder if this last General Conference Session will end up as a turning point in Adventism in the future, or if it will just be another GC Session. It is only with hindsight that we can clearly (or relatively clearly) see what events mean for the development of history. It is strange to think that for us the present is the only time in actuality (at least in our ability to experience it) because it is always now and never yesterday or tomorrow. But it is through remembering yesterday that we can move forward tomorrow. Once something happens it almost becomes a thing, though an abstract thing, that we can look back at, deconstruct and analyze so that we can learn from it. Though history can be contained in books in some sense which allows us to learn from it, it is also completely gone in the sense that we are only left with the perspective of the person (or video camera) which remembers it. Because of its nature I think it would be safe to say that history is one of the hardest (and most elusive) and most important things that could be studied. The nature of history/time becomes even more complex in the Biblical worldview because of typology which links time and space to the will of God in a way which brings together the mind of God into actuality which is continually unfolding. It is also interesting that humanity’s preferred forms of entertainment are closely tied to narrative and the unfolding of truths in either history (or even fiction) in a way that we are able to relate to others who have gone before us. Truly there is nothing near under the sun, but those things are constantly being expressed in different ways.
Response to Wayne
Wayne, I really liked your analogy. It really brought home the idea of law, and being under law now. But the challenge is when we die to self, at the point of conversion/baptism, we are reborn in Christ as new people. I agree with your analogy, but then there is the wrench in the gears of "What happens at baptism?" Are we still married to the law, or are there two types of law, or are we married to two things at this point? I don't know the answers to these questions now.
Again, I really appreciated your analogy of until death do you part and the things it gets us thinking about. It really is quite interesting in the Bible how well marriage represents our experience, and how God used marriage in the time of the exile to illustrate the fact that His people were being unfaithful to Him.
thanks Landon for your comments. To answer your questions. We are not married to two things, because the text says the opposite. We are freed from the law, but now there is a new law, Romans 3:27 tells us that its the law of faith (putting our trust in God. When you trust someone you follow them). There is more that happens at baptism, but I'll present that in class for my research paper.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
26 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #8:
JESUS DIDN’T HAVE AN ADVANTAGE
In the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” Woodrow W. Whidden II has a chapter called “The Nature of Christ and Salvation”. This chapter deals with whether Jesus had the propensity to sin or inclination. What kind of nature does he have? If He was fully man, then was He sinful or just had a sinful body?
These questions have bothered me for some time. Ellen White doesn’t talk much on it. It wasn’t really her focus. However, she does support Christ as being fully man and fully God. These questions bother us, because we know that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, but can He really relate to us?
I see the situation as this. Jesus was similar to Adam’s pre-fall state. Adam never sinned, therefore he didn’t have a natural inclination to sin. However, he was tempted, and the temptation was strong enough to have the victory over him. Jesus never sinned and He had the Holy Spirit from the beginning, therefore he was in the same situation as Adam. We on the other hand, when we are born, have never sinned, but we don’t have the Holy Spirit to strengthen us.
However, Jesus wasn’t exactly the same as Adam, because He didn’t have a perfect body like Adam. Jesus was operating at a disadvantage. An unperfected body is weak a frail and has a yearning to satisfy the flesh. The difference between us and Jesus is that we yield to that yearning, but Jesus didn’t. (this theory is to not be confused with us having sin and guilt from birth. We receive that through choice. See my previous blog, “Sinful Babies”) Every time we yield to sin, the tendency for sin becomes stronger.
But you might say, “that’s not fair. Jesus had an advantage over us.” Well, He definitely didn’t have an advantage over Adam. Besides, do you think that Satan tempted Jesus the way he temps us? Satan perhaps only sends his rookie demons to mess me us, and I’m constantly falling down like a new born giraffe. Its some tough temptation. Imagine Jesus to go through. Satan didn’t send the rookie demons. He sent legions (I’m sure) of the best, headed up by himself personally to tempt Jesus. Also, God doesn’t allow us to go through temptation that we can’t handle. Jesus, could handle any temptation at any level, so Satan must have gone crazy in tempting Jesus. Jesus did not have an advantage over us. He handled temptations as a man, and as an example to us on how we can not fall to temptation, He simply relied on the Father. He said, “the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” John 14:10.
Comment on Ellen White on Salvation: Chapter 11
Once again, I appreciated Whidden's balanced perspective on Ellen Whites relationship to the 1888 Meeting. The two points that he attempted to elucidate concerning the matter centered on the churches “spiritual needs” and “doctrinal confusion” concerning the meaning of justification by faith. In this section he was extremely careful to demonstrate that Ellen White's understanding of the issue was not the primary focus of the 1888 meetings, but rather he attempts to demonstrate that it was her intentionality in being more “theologically precise” on the issue for the sake of the church and the individual believer which seems to be the main focus of the meeting. He also makes it very clear that she did not lean toward a more “subjective” view of Salvation as it relates to the individual experience of the believer but rather she attempted to correct the doctrinal misunderstanding in its “objective” sense in order that the individual believer might experience the “living faith” that comes from being justified by faith through Christ. Of considerable importance in this section is his distinction between Ellen Whites understanding of justification and the later theological developments of Waggoner and Jones, while he sees that Ellen White shared agreement with Waggoner and Jones in several important areas of their presentation, he suggests that it was in no way a whole-sale approval or commendation of all of their later teachings on the subject. He suggests that this is where the primary misunderstanding appears to have derived; mainly that Ellen White shared "all" of the views of Waggoner and Jones, which he strongly rejects. What appears to be important to Whidden's study was Ellen White's previous Christ-Centered Ministry that served as the basis of her understanding and which he suggests she further clarified in “theological” and “technical” terms after hearing the presentation of Waggoner and Jones. I personally appreciated his quotations from her writings establishing her view on justification. Particularly, there were two points that caught my attention. First, that Christ became a curse "for us" and took our sins, and second, that He "imputed unto us" His own righteousness. These two points appear to represent the crux of her view on the doctrine of justification, at least as it relates to the work of Christ. From this perspective, as well as the many statements she made concerning the bestowing of the "merits of Christ" on behalf of the sinner, we have a clearer understanding on her personal view on the matter. Finally, throughout her ministry of consistently uplifting Christ as the great redeemer she reminded the individual believer of their assurance of salvation and their acceptance before God.
Response to John Coaxum...
I really enjoyed your balanced comments on the BRI document concerning faith and works. I agree that there is real danger for people to look for a Jesus + model of salvation. As you mentioned, this particularly becomes an issue for new believers attempting to discover their role in salvation and their responsibility in relation to God. I also see the potential for a sort of cheap grace to develop "once saved always saved" or "its all about the heart" almost as if obedience doesn't matter. I think it is always important to remember when talking about salvation there are two sides to the coin: God's part and the believer's part. In this sense, I'm not suggesting that the believer plays a role in salvation but rather that the believer has a role in living out the salvation he has received. I think these are two very different things. On the one hand, God has done everything necessary to save me; on the other hand my life should reflect the salvation I have received. In other words, the believer’s part is to simply live by faith in the righteousness of Christ, striving toward perfection in Him as Ellen White stated having a "living faith." I believe this aligns with the idea of "progressive perfection," where the believer is on an "upward" path toward growth in Christ. In this way the believer is daily growing in Christ and continuing to experience the grace of God that leads to growth in Christ. I believe this is what the Apostle Peter had in mind when he admonished us to "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To "Him" be glory both now and forever. Amen (2 Pet. 3:18) [Italics supplied]"
Assignment #7
Romans Chapter 10
Paul begins by drawing a distinction between those who are seeking righteousness from God by faith and those who are seeking it through their own works of the law (most Jews). Paul says that those who are seeking righteousness by works of the law are have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” This is tough for me to take. How can you have zeal for God but be lost because you got the facts wrong?
Maybe Paul thinks differently about knowledge than we do. We seem to approach knowledge in what we think is an objective manner. We talk about proofs and systematic theology as if the truth will be clear if we get the arguments clear. I don’t think that Paul thought of knowledge in this way.
Paul was a pharisee and very well established in the law. He probably had at lease the Torah memorized. The study of it had been his life, and he got in completely wrong. It wasn’t until Jesus opened Paul’s eyes that he was able to understand it rightly. All the sudden he saw the same scriptures in a completely different life, and his theology changed completely.
Romans chapter one talks about Pagan who had a clear (though incomplete) revelation of God, but they did not act on this revelation, and eventually they lost what knowledge they had and became even more ignorant. And now in chapter 10 it does not appear to matter even when you have a much greater amount of information on which to try and construct knowledge. It is still so easy to get it wrong. But maybe that failure in knowledge isn’t so much about a theological failure.
I think that what Paul came to understand about knowledge is that we can only really have it when God reveals it to us. This is why the Jews were accountable for getting it wrong, because they had not humbled themselves before Jesus who would have shown them all they needed to know.
response to nancy thomas assignment # 5
I agree with you that in order to live a better life, we must submit to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit take control.
Also, it is true that a lot of times we try to follow his example and we get messed up. Jesus doesn't want people to try to be like him. He wants people to let the Holy Spirit be like himself in them. We can't be imitators. Jesus needs to live the real thing in us and through us.
response to Nick Clark assignment #5
Hey Nick, I don't know who you are but I would like to respond to what you said.
There is a passage similar to Romans 5:3-5. It's James 1:2-4. I have a question though. How does character produce hope?
I like the fact you talked about freedom of choice. Thats the great thing about God.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
26 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #9:
MATRIX PREDESTINATION
I never saw the movie, “The Matrix”, but someone told me about one of the scenes. Oracle is talking to Nero and for no apparent reason states, “and don’t worry about the vase.” “What vase?” Nero responds as he turns to look for the vase. In the process he knocks over a vase. “I’m so sorry.” Nero says. “I said, don’t worry about already.” “How did you know?” “The question is, would you have broken the vase even if I didn’t mention it.” In this scene, Nero knocks down a vase, because Oracle mentioned it. It was as if Oracle predestined Nero to knock over the vase. Does God predestine us to mess up? Because God knows what we are going to do, is that the reason why we do it? Does God predestine some to be saved and some to be lost?
The Calvinist view is that salvation is like riding a bull. The bull that you are riding can either go to heaven or hell, and you have no choice which bull you can ride and you can’t sway that bull or get off that bull. However, is that the Biblical meaning of predestination? The article “Predestination, Foreknowledge and Human Freedom” by Kwabena Donkor has very good explanation on these questions. Predestination is a preplan, a goal, a desire that God has for us. God plans for all of us to be saved. However, not all of us will be saved, because we have freedom of choice. How else do you explain the fact that someone can follow God for part of their life and not the rest? Why is it that someone who is lost can still have a yearning for Christ? If we believe the Calvinist predestination view, then we believe that God and Satan are partners.
Yes, God does have a foreknowledge of our futures. That does not mean however that He is making us do it. A parent may know that the child will steal the candy even if they tell them not too. Just because the parent knows, doesn’t mean that the parent is making the child steal. However, the parent can have a preplan to influence the child and guide the child on not stealing the candy. But at the end of the day, the child has the choice whether to obey his parent or not.
God preplans for us to be saved and to make the right choices. He has backup plans if we make wrong choices. We have freedom of choice. Therefore, we have freedom to love.
response to Wazoua Serge Roger (9/26/10)
I agree with the fact that Jesus' sole purpose of coming to earth wasn't just to live moral life as an example for us.
However it was important, because if Jesus was only suppose to die, then he would have died as a baby or at the age of 12.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
27 October 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #10:
“ROW, ROW, ROW YOUR BOAT”
This church is like a ship. We are moving to understand the Bible more. I read the chapter, “Ministry After Minneapolis— 1888-1902” in the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” by Woodrow W. Whidden II (wow, his initials are WWW. Like the internet). This chapter showed a lot of drama going on during that time. Pantheism, emotionalism, perfectionism, Adventist Pentecostalism, Daniel 7 confusion, Galatians 3:19-25 confusion, faith healing through the cross— it was just a lot of drama.
I guess, if we are a movement then we are going to have bumps. If we don’t move, then bumps won’t happen, but that shouldn’t stop us from moving. That makes me wonder. Why does it seem like we stopped moving? It seems as though we had all this movement in the study of the scriptures, but once that time past, we relaxed, and printed out a baptismal checklist. I’m not saying that we are suppose to add more to the checklist (in fact, that checklist has too many things that are not related to baptism [but I understand we want people to understand the beliefs of the people they’re joining]). I’m saying that there are still unanswered questions in the Bible. We don’t understand the Bible in its entirety, but we fool ourselves in thinking that if we know the 28 fundamental beliefs, we know the Bible.
On a more positive, we do have the Bible Research Institute that helps to keep us moving in understanding the word of God more. However, we can’t leave it to the guys in the basement of the James White Library to move this huge church along. We need all hands on deck. Everybody grab an oar row!
This message is for me, because before I can start moving in uncharted waters, I should sail the known seven seas (28 in our case). I should be studying to show myself approved, because why should I be ashamed. I need to be able to rightly divide the word of truth. I pray to God for the motivation and the strength to study His word, and the wisdom to get understanding.
But before we can really start sailing, we need to be in the boat. That’s where Salvation comes in. We need to be in Jesus and have the Holy Spirit be in us. Then, we can really “row, row, row our boat”.
Assignment 8
The chapter in Whidden’s book for this week is, I think, my favorite so far. I appreciated the balanced, non-inflammatory approach to justification. Or perhaps I just liked it so much because it built on conclusions I had already tentatively come to, but supported them with additional evidence and expanded my own preliminary understanding.
Whidden points to a number of Ellen White’s statements from the post 1870 period “to the effect that only the ‘merits’ of Christ could be the basis of salvation, not the human works of obedience” (72). She said that “The true follower of Christ” “will see more clearly his own defects, and will feel the need of continual repentance, and faith in the blood of Christ.” This statement follows ideas I wrote about in an earlier blog post. As we come closer to our perfect example, Christ, we recognize in ourselves not more goodness, but less.
Whidden notes here that all the good works of human beings are polluted with sin and need the objective, accounted merits of Jesus to make them acceptable. Interestingly, this seems to harmonize partially with the philosophy that says human beings are basically selfish and that everything we do comes from, at some deep level, self-interest. Later in the chapter, Whidden references Zechariah’s vision of Joshua the High Priest. Joshua is standing in court, condemned, and wearing filthy garments, which represent the righteousness of Israel. Only when the Angel of the Lord orders that he be clothed with clean garments is Joshua accounted righteous. This whole idea is affirmed by Paul’s famous statement in Rom. 3:23 that “all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.” Paul says that everyone has sinned. Perfect tense. It’s a matter of historical record. But then he says not that everyone has fallen short of the glory of God, but that they are falling short. Present participle. This is the strongest way to describe an action as ongoing in Greek. Everything we do is tainted.
What are the implications of such an understanding of human sinfulness? It seems to me that being more aware of my own deep-rooted sinfulness (in spite of the fact that I am growing in obedience to God) will produce in me greater reliance on Christ’s righteousness, and less reliance on my own. I will cling to Christ as my intercessor more firmly, because I know that without him, I have nothing. In my mind, this is much more important than the idea some people stress that we need to be overcoming all sins (coffee, cheese, jewelry and the like) in order for Christ to return. Ellen White’s description of the last generation seems to be those who strive to be obedient, but struggle deeply with the weight of their own sinfulness. Whidden notes that she picture’s God’s last people as pleading “for pardon and deliverance through Jesus their Advocate. They are fully conscious of the sinfulness of their lives” (5T 473, qtd in Whidden, 74). The testimony of my own experience tells me that I feel closer to God and have a greater capacity for kindness and selflessness when I recognize the horror of my own sin and the damage it has caused, and then throw myself on Christ, begging for mercy, than when I spend hours trying to dissect whether it is permissible to swim on Sabbath, just wade, or whether I had better stay dry.
Response to Wayne Jamel, assignment 10:
I got such good thanks for my last comment on your blog post that I figured I had better post another. :P
I concur with your comments on our ship. Why are we not still moving? When was the last time you heard people talk about “present truth?” It’s been a while (aka, before I was born). I’ve questioned why this is also. Is it because there is such a separation between the theologians and the laity? We don’t speak the same language any more. How can people in the pews get excited about new developments in exegesis or theology if they can’t understand the language? But many Adventist theologians also write for a popular audience, so that can’t be the whole reason. Perhaps it’s because our major denominational magazine never seems to publish new theological developments. Then again, I rarely read it. Yawn! That thing is boooo-ring!
I wanted to put something across the idea present eschatology whereby there is way one can experience in small scales events that God has set for the end of the world. Things like resurrection can be experienced even before the end of the world; Moses experienced it, and didn’t need to wait for the last days; even before Christ offered Himself on the cross.
In this sense let’s consider the text in Nahum 1:9
“What do ye imagine against the LORD? He will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.”
Could be that, we may get an assurance in text, that somehow sins which buffet us will not rise again a second time? I know what may run into our minds while we I reading these lines; one may really take this far and then come up with an idea of sinlessness. This is not what I am saying here. God is able to save us and completely deliver us from our sins which have been frustrating us; He can do an utter destruction of it to the extent that they will not rise again to haunt us. God has the ability and the ability to cease the work of sin. We may not be able to notice it, and we may even be able to seek for such experience, but the truth is that God is able to bring to an end some wrong practices in our lives that they “shall not rise the second time.”
He is forgiveness is more that excusing sin, and letting us experience this infernal cycle of sin- forgiveness-sin forgiveness.. He is really in the business of ending the activity of sin the lives of His people before destroying sin with fire when He will come back.
I think this idea is what has been exposed to us during the Yom Kippur. Each year the High Priest went beyond the curtain for the purification of the sanctuary. This service was different from the daily ones. And if we do believe that Jesus is our High Priest today, we may also be sure that He is in the business of making those who trust in Him overcomers as He also did overcome. Christ id cleansing us from sins that we may really rest and have that fullness of life He promised in John 10:10.
We should people who really believe in the power to save us from the power of sin, its oppression, its slavery, and to keep us for His glorious appearing. It is sad we believe that our life is summarized by sin and forgiveness sin and forgiveness, when Jesus gives more than that. We believe that sin is more powerful than Jesus.
If can make a complete destruction of sin at the end of the world He can also make it now. If He will walk with us in heaven He can also walk with now.
This is what I mean by present eschatology.
Response #7
@ Wayne
Awesome post, Wayne! I'm totally with you. We need to keep moving. I wonder if part of that movement might include being more responsive the the kinds of issues we have in our culture today. Your post brought to mind a specific issue where I think that staying put has been a problem. Before I mention the issue, let me say that I don't think we should be changing our basic position, but we need a deeper theology because the issues is so prevalent. We need a theology that will meet people where they are and help them. So how about we work on deeper and more developed theology in the area of divorce. It is really ripping so many families apart, and so are terrible marriages. It seems like we just say that people should live in their terrible marriage, for years and years, causing problems for their kids, and just tough it out because divorce is wrong. Well, terrible marriages are just as wrong, and realizing this, most people will eventually get a divorce anyways. So we need a deeper theology to address this that not only addresses the evil of divorce but gives some type of guidance and help to people who are terrible marriages so they don't get that far. Instead, we are afraid to touch the issue. I'm even a bit nervous to post on it for fear that people will think that I am implying divorce is not so bad, which I am not at all. We have become so afraid of appearing not to hold up the traditional beliefs that we are afraid to help people address the pain they are experiencing. So we need to keep moving to help these people because divorce is epidemic in our society and our churches. What do you think, Wayne? Is this the kind of thing you were talking about?
Tyler Rosengren
Assignment #6
Romans Chapter 6
Here we have the beginning to of Paul’s dichromatic theology. The wonderful blue of salvation by grace alone but now a little bit of the yellow of works is added to the mixture and Paul’s theology is starting to look a little green. And the beginning theologian they might feel a little green as well. In the previous chapters Paul has hinted to the fact that we are saved by faith alone and refers to Abraham’s belief in God as an example. That may have led one to believe that that was all they needed to do, just believe and they were assured of salvation. However here in 6:15 Paul asked us the question if we should still sin, to which he highly emphasizes a resounding “Certainly not!”. Although this may not seem like works based salvation yet it is some what of a fulcrum for Paul because here he is alluding to the idea that somehow your works/deeds/actions play a role in your salvation.
He continues on from this verse and explains that there is a responsibility that we have regarding whom we “present ourselves to”. He says that we have the choice to either present ourselves to sin or present ourselves to obedience. To which I ask the question, is not presenting yourself to something an ‘act’ or ‘work’ of some sort, thus making salvation linked to works in some way. I would answer ‘yes’. Have often wondered if Paul is able to walk the fine line between faith and works, however I have come to the conclusion that he has not. There are times where emphasizes faith (thus not walking the fine line) and other times where he is emphasizing works (again, off the line). Nonetheless, he is the inspired writer and those of us who are trying to walk the line should take note to Paul’s teachings.
Tyler Rosengren
Assignment #7
Romans Chapter 7
Wow, what a great chapter! I still remember the first time I read this and it spoke directly to what was going on in my life. The highlight for me was especially vs15-25 where Paul laid out the struggle he had between what he wanted to do and what he found himself doing. It was as if Paul knew in his mind what he wanted to do but found himself doing the exact opposite. However, I think that the English translation doesn’t come through as clear as it could. Here Paul says that he wants to do good, but ends up doing bad. What is missing is the idea that Paul is really saying that he knows what is good and wishes that he wanted to do it. The reason I say this is because if you really want to something bad enough you will do it. You have free choice and will over your life and actions. It was not as if Paul was actually physically taken over by sin, but rather his heart and mind were sinful, due to the sinful nature, and thus he ended up doing what he really wanted to do because he wanted sin. The English translation does not show the idea that it was more the knowledge of good and evil that Paul now had and that he knew what was good and thought he ought to do it. I believe this is what Paul is really saying. This takes a little bit of the edge off because it does seem as if there are some physical impossibilities going on in the translation from Greek to English.
That being said, I completely resonate with the essence of what Paul is saying, not only have I experienced that in my own life, but have talked with many people who have. I think it would be fair to say that every Christian has this battle going on once they have invited Christ into their heart. In fact, this is one of the first texts that I share with newly interested and newly converted members to the church. So that they know it is normal to have struggles.
The highlight to the whole chapter is obviously v25. I find it a little ironic that the answer to the questions that is raised in the previous 11 verses is simply put into 1 verse. It seems that there is a lot of inner turmoil going on and the answer seems to be so simple to Paul, Jesus Christ. I appreciate his answer and the simplicity yet depth it offers.
Assignment #8
I read the article by Frank Hasel entitled “The Wrath of God” found at: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Wrath%20of%20God.htm
I appreciate his addressing this difficult issue, but I found a lot of problems with his article. He began by saying that wrath is out of style. This may be true in the Adventist church, but it is certainly not true outside of the Adventist church. The wrath of God is alive an well in Reformed (Calvinist) Theology which talks about Jesus’ propitiation to satisfy the wrath of God. I wish he had addressed this as I find the doctrine find it very problematic. Instead his article could actually be taken to support Reformed Theology since it was fairy blanket in favor of talking more about the wrath of God.
I appreciated his comments about anthropomorphism. He said that some argue against God’s wrath on the basis that it is an anthropomorphism and pointed out that this same argument could be used to discredit the idea that God loves us. Good point. He also pointed to verse after verse which uses anthropomorphic images to talk about God. So the Bible clearly has no problem with it.
I did find another inconsistency when he said “God’s wrath is not wrathful.” Earlier he had pointed out that Hebrews do not separate action and character, and then he wanted to differentiate between action and character to say that God has wrath but is not and angry or wrathful God. Blatant inconsistency. If God has wrath, he must be wrathful.
I wish he had talked about what God’s wrath actually is. Paul talks about his wrath in terms of giving people up to their own impure desires when they have not chosen to follow him (Romans 1). Essentially he says that if you want to live apart from Him, he will let you do so and face all the consequences that such a separation results in. This is not a wrath that needs to be appeased, but rather a wrath that acknowledges the reality of rebellion.
Had he talked defined wrath in these terms and addressed the problems of responding to Reformed Theology, I think the article would have been much better and more pertinent to what is happening right now. In a world where most Christians believe in eternal torture for the damned, we need to be careful to address mischaracterizations of God’s wrath as well. The wrath of God is real, but it is not what Jonathan Edwards made it out to be.
Assignment 8
I read the BRI article by Frank Hasel entitled “The Wrath of God.”
I appreciate his addressing this difficult issue, but I found a lot of problems with this article. He began by saying that wrath is out of style. This may be true in the Adventist church, but it is certainly not true of the Christian church at large. The wrath of God is alive an well in Reformed (Calvinist) Theology which talks about Jesus’ propitiation to satisfy the wrath of God. I wish he had addressed this as I find the doctrine find it very problematic.
I appreciated his comments about anthropomorphism. He said that some argue against God’s wrath on the basis that it is an anthropomorphism and pointed out that this same argument could be used to discredit the idea that God loves us. Good point. He also pointed to verse after verse which uses anthropomorphic images to talk about God. So the Bible clearly has no problem with it.
I did find another inconsistency when he said “God’s wrath is not wrathful.” Earlier he had pointed out that Hebrews do not separate action and character, and then he wanted to differentiate between action and character to say that God has wrath but is not and angry or wrathful God. Blatant inconsistency. If God has wrath, he must be wrathful.
I wish he had talked about what God’s wrath actually is. Paul talks about his wrath in terms of giving people up to their own impure desires when they have not chosen to follow him (Romans 1). Essentially he says that if you want to live apart from Him, he will let you do so and face all the consequences that such a separation results in. This is not a wrath that needs to be appeased, but rather a wrath that acknowledges the reality of rebellion.
Had he talked defined wrath in these terms and addressed the problems of responding to Reformed Theology, I think the article would have been much better and more pertinent to what is happening right now. In a world where most Christians believe in eternal torture for the damned, we need to be careful to address mischaracterizations of God’s wrath as well. The wrath of God is real, but it is not what Jonathan Edwards made it out to be.
Dario Ferreira
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #9
Chapters 9-11 of the Epistle to the Romans, is quite distinct from the previous chapters (1-8) as well as the rest of the epistle (12-16). They form a parenthesis in the development of Paul’s argumentation. The apostle, in these chapter deals with a problematic situation: his own people, the Jews had mostly stopped accepting salvation proclaimed in the gospel proclaimed by him, although they have been first submitted to them. What could be done for his people? Paul even suggests that if he could exchange his own salvation by them (9:3), he would. It was inconceivable to the fact that the nation that had been specially prepared for this time the nation in which the Messiah came to be born, not recognized when it came, while others who had never enjoyed such privileges, readily accepted the gospel when they were announced.
Chapter 10, Whidden, explains about the most critical period of Ellen White’s teachings about salvation. It was a period of 15 years (1888-1902) who greatly influenced the meaning of salvation in the ministry of Ellen White. Whidden, in this chapter suggests three events that shaped greatly the understanding of Ellen White concerning salvation: 1. The Minneapolis General Conference session; 2. The "Life of Christ" writing project, and 3. The “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost” movement of the Latter part of the 1890s and the first two years of the new century. Adventists were divided in understanding the meaning of Galatians 3:19-25 and one of the 10 horns of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 symbolic. In the same time, the prophetic authority of Ellen White was being questioned, especially among the church leaders, because Ellen White was agreeing with the ideas of E. J. Wagoner stressed that justification by faith. The “Life of Christ” project resulted in the publication of her most important books on the life and teachings of Christ: Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing (1896), The Desire of Ages (1898), and Christ's Object Lessons (1900). The “Receive Ye the Holy Ghost” was a perfectionist movement that emphasized a mystical vision of God and manifested itself from the more sophisticated version in Philosophical Pantheism to the most spectacular expression in the “Holy Flesh” fanaticism in Indiana. In short ... to Ellen White, perfection and holiness should not be overly emotional, you should always involve a correct understanding of justification by faith in Jesus, we could involve the perfection of character, but not of “Flesh” or “Nature”, and always the result of dedicated obedience to the Ten Commandments.
In the ninth document on salvation, Ivan T. Blazen presents a series of articles showing the relationship between justification by faith and Judgment according to works. These two doctrines are apparently contradictory but the truth is that Scripture teaches both. Ivan Blazen describes that there is an internal unity among them, as well as the unity that exists between Jesus Christ as Savior and Jesus Christ as Lord. The Justification and the assurance of salvation are only achieved by self-sacrifice of Jesus as our Savior. Jesus Christ as Savior gave his life for us, as the Lord leads us to live for him.
Response to Ryan Kilgore: Assignment 9
I appreciated the aspects that you've highlighted and balanced conclusions you've arrived.
I agree with you that as we acknowledge our sinfulness, we feel the continued need for repentance and a longing for the righteousness of Christ to cleanse us and make us acceptable in God's presence.
This deep understanding of our sinfulness drives us to become less dependent on ourselves and a greater confidence in the justice of Christ.
Assignment #11
In chapter 12 of his book Whidden continues to explore the implications of 1888 on Ellen White’s views upon salvation. The number of chapters he has upon 1888 reveals the importance Whidden accounts it upon Ellen White’s understanding of salvation and the continuing conversations that take place in regards to this.
Again he shows the balance she places upon faith and works. These are incredibly hard to balance, but it would seem that Ellen White accomplished this. I am happy that she declared the existence of “unavoidable deficiencies” that we have as humans in our current fallen condition. She seems to be very clear on the fact that only Jesus is perfect, proclaiming that “no one is perfect but Jesus.” So whatever people may say within debates upon “perfectionism,” it is impossible to say that Ellen White did not differentiate between any shade of perfection that humans may possibly have versus that of Jesus. Salvation cannot be through our own works, and therefore anyone who declares themselves perfect upon their own merit has a sure outcome, but probably the opposite outcome that they would think they have. We can only be saved through reliance upon Jesus, which involves admission of our sinfulness and a imputation of His perfection as a white garment in place of our filthy rags.
Though she does have balance, it would seem that it is a different balance than that of Armianism. She seems to be clearly Semi-Pelagian. This can be seen in her obvious statement, “When we do our best, He becomes our righteousness.” This could be equated to what Roger Olsen spoke about in one of his plenary talks where someone explained salvation as possible by just reaching as far as you can and then Jesus reaching the rest of the way. This is Semi-Pelagianism, where what the person does apart from Jesus determines whether or not they are saved. He then explained Arminius’s view as basically just not fighting what Jesus is trying to do. Rather than doing anything to gain salvation, all we do is stop fighting the Holy Spirit. Though Adventism says it is Arminian, it seems relatively clear to me that we are in actuality Semi-Pelagian. Personally I tend to agree with Arminius, but this probably puts me on the liberal side of Adventist debates on salvation, even though it is technically what we are officially.
Response to Wayne
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we are a progressing (a possibly inflammatory word to use, I admit) movement. This is what present truth is all about, and I appreciate your expounding upon what it means to be moving forward, especially what you said about the need for everyone to join in.
Maybe we should start an Adventist wiki to complement what BRI is doing so that everyone can join in. Yes, this could get out of control and people could fight, but it wouldn't hurt to try.
And I think we should start a a scholarly wiki that would have multiple levels of access - everyone could see what was selected as viewable by all, equivalent to "published." This information would be put together by access to all Adventist scholars with pre-determined credentials who could edit like a regular wikipedia, but with a requirement of peer review before it can be "published." This would be challenging, but I think it would be a good way to get conversation going and make the work that scholars are doing more readily accessible and visible to the church at large.
Assignment 9
There is much in Romans 9 that warrants discussion. After the important chapter 8, Paul addresses the problem of God’s justice surrounding Jewish/Gentile acceptance and rejection. “What shall we say, then?” he asks, in v. 14, “Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” There are more issues surrounding Paul’s rhetoric here than I will address at the moment. Paul also goes into God’s sovereign election in the following verses. There is much that could be addressed there as well (in fact, it touches on the whole Calvinism/Arminianism debate, which we have already discussed in class).
I will leave these issues be, and focus instead on a different (though obviously related) question that seems to be Paul’s main point in chapter 9: How can we understand how God chooses to accept some and reject others? This is the question that every person asks at some point in life because it is essentially the same as the question, “How can I be saved?” and every other variant of it.
It is in the conclusion (vv. 30-33) that Paul sums up his answer. He says that “the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works,” (emphasis mine).
I think Paul’s point can be made clear by referring to a parable Jesus tells, recorded in Matt. 22. It’s the passion week, and Jesus is back in the temple the day after clearing it out when he made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The embarrassed and angry religious leaders come to confront Jesus, who is teaching in the courtyard. When their confrontation fails, he begins to tell parables to both them and the crowd of hearers he had been teaching before their arrival. One parable that Matthew records is of the Marriage Feast.
The king is throwing a marriage feast for his son, and sends his servants out to call those whom he has invited. The invitees rebuff his servants twice, even abusing and killing some. Enraged at the dishonor and the murder of his servants, he puts burns the towns of the murderers and puts them to death. Then he sends his servants to call anyone who will come. Matthew records that they brought everyone they could find, “both evil and good.”
The religious leaders are obviously spoken to as those who rejected the King’s invitation. Many of the other listeners are represented by those who came. The difference in acceptance by the King was the invitees’ response to the invitation.
This is what Paul addresses here. Israel (i.e. those who have not become followers of Christ) has declined the invitation, while the Gentiles (new Christians), have accepted the invitation.
Response to Dario Ferreira, assignment 9
Dario, I liked your summary of the three readings for this week. However, it would have been nice to read your assessment of the issues or how they impacted you.
You present an interesting summary of Ivan Blazen’s article, which I have not yet read. How can we hold two contradictory doctrines (justification by faith / judgment by works) at the same time? I have reconciled these in my own mind with the understanding that we are judged by works, but if we are covered by Christ’s righteousness (justification by faith), our own lack of works is made up for or overridden by Christ’s perfect works. It has been a while since I thought this through or evaluated it. Is this a good way to reconcile those two doctrines?
Ellen White said that the humanity of Christ is everything to us. It is not only to talk about it as just mere information. It has all to d with our salvation; and it is so sad that it has become the most controversial issue our church has.
We talk about it not even with carefulness but rather fear to be labeled under a certain categories of church believers.
I was reading the Consecrated Way to Perfection, by A. T. Jones, to get his view on the nature of Christ, I realize something very interesting.
HE does not fear to say that Christ took our sinful nature. I wonder why today, the phrase “sinful nature” has many meaning among Adventists. Where have gotten all those different meanings from? The word is from the bible, what cant we just take it simply as the Bible puts it? Why should someone have another theological meaning to that phrase while the author of that phrase was clear about it? Paul was not trying to confuse us. He knew what sinful meant and could have used a different word for it.
But it also true we cannot just ignore the fact this has brought a lot of confusing in the church. I do believe that Christ took upon himself our sinfulness, but was not affected by..it. We might not get the right word to explain it how He managed to be sinless at the same time sinful as far He taking our sinful nature is concerned. We say, all that we want, the Bible is clear, He took our flesh, and there was only one sinful flesh that ever existed, the sinful one.
I think we will have trouble to explain this as we do also have trouble to explain Jesus fully human and God at the same time
Kevin Solomon
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment 6
Romans chapter 7 is a passage that speaks to me. Paul struggle is my struggle. The more you see the good standard in God’s law, the more you see the sinful depravity in yourself. The more you will to live for God, the more you subscribe to live for the ego. The law is not the problem; the law is just here to point out ours. And like Paul says, it’s an ugly picture, when you see what God see’s. Yet when we see our evil, then we can be open to God’s good. Roman 7 is mankind’s battle. Though I am declared right legally I act humanly wrong. I am grateful however that God does not leave me in Romans 7. He brings me to Romans 8. I am not left with God’s law to condemn me, but introduced to God’s Son who covers me. The law showed me my awful disgraceful but Christ shows me God’s amazing grace. The law indicted me as continual failure but Christ enables me to be a continual victor. What the law could not do Christ did. Christ kept the law I could not keep and carried out the sentence of the law by dying in my stead. Jesus thus puts out the old law of sin, and puts in the new law of His Spirit. At first I stood condemned before the law, but in Christ I have no condemnation. I am standing before God as a criminal sitting beside Him as His son. God then lavishes on me the spirit-filled life of learning to love as the essence of learning to live. In Romans 8, I find a new life, not one of failing to live up to the law, put the great privilege of learning to live out the law, not out of fear of condemnation but as the assurance of having no condemnation, “to those who are in Christ who walk not according to flesh but according to the Spirit.”
Tyler Rosengren
Assignment #8
Romans 8
It is great to understand that the chapters in the Bible were not there when the original authors wrote the letters. This is especially important here in the book of Romans. As I was doing this assignment I only limited myself to one chapter per reading. However, on my last assignment, Romans Chapter 7, I got to the end of my reading and just wanted to keep reading because it was as if what Paul had just said wasn’t over yet, he was only beginning. Well, sure enough, Romans 8 was very important to the continuation of Romans 7. Romans 7 ends with the very simple solution to the problem of struggling with sin, “Jesus Christ our Lord” and then Romans 8 continues with greater details what exactly it is that makes Jesus so wonderful to us. The climax is right there in verse 1, “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”. This is great news considering Paul was just extremely worried about all the bad things he was ding in his life (even though he didn’t want to be doing them). This also spoke to me because as I was reading Paul in chapter 7 I was imagining my life and the hopelessness I have felt at times was very similar to his.
Verse 1 is a great verse that explains how we can be free, but it also raises a little question. If we have no condemnation if we are in Christ Jesus, how do we ‘get in Christ Jesus’ so that we are no longer condemned. This is answered a little more in verse 10 when it talks about “Christ who dwells in you” and also verse 11 when it emphasizes “the Spirit of Him” dwelling in you. Again, these are ‘spiritual’ topics and require a little faith, but at the same time it does show how we can be free in Christ.
Assignment #7
Alexander Rybachek
Romans 7 is all about the process of salvation (sanctification). First it states that the law requires faithfulness and death alone can release person from responsibility of marriage. Paul goes further saying that the same thing happens with the law. We are all under the law and in order the law to be fulfilled we must die first by the law since we all have sinned. The next step in Paul’s theology of salvation is the constant battle between two powers in his life – power of life and power of sin. It seems to the majority of commentators that the struggle between sin and evil leaves the sinner in disadvantage. Sin always wins, because the author in desperation cries out – who will deliver me from this body of evil. Then later he will say – Jesus, Christ alone is the Redeemer of sinners in this desperate situation.
If I follow Paul’s logic correctly the 7th chapter is the climax of the problem of evil in Romans. He started with judgment of the world – both Gentiles and Jews. Later on he explains the principles of justification by faith. He clearly explains the means of justification – cross of Jesus Christ, and sanctification – consecration of entire life to Christ Jesus in a new resurrected life in Him. However here in chapter seven we have real life situation. On theory everything looks peaceful and perfect, but the true life of genuine Christian is always a fight. We fight with sin and sometimes loose. True Christian hates sin and runs from it, but sinner always will struggle with sin as long as Jesus would not come for the second time.
The problem of evil is very complex. Because of sin we are separated from God’s presence; however we may serve God in our mortal bodies. Our lives were supposed to be sinless and in harmony with God, but we see that we are far from harmony with our Creator. Two realities: with Christ, and not yet without sin are the difficulty of Christian life. We are with Jesus, but before He transforms us we will be in troubles with sin. This makes the expectation moment even more desirable. I thank God that Paul did not stop on the agony of wrestle with God and sin. I thank God he went further to express his gratitude to the Lord Jesus Christ who saves us permanently from what we are.
Indeed – praise the Lord for Jesus.
Assignment 9
Alexander Rybachek
Romans 9:30-33 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.
It is always frustrating when you are looking for something in a wrong spot. I felt the same many times. It is even more frustrating when you are looking not just for keys from a car, but for salvation and finally realize that someone who did not seek for it has it right now, but you missed all the point and now are frustrated because looked for it in wrong place.
Question for me as SDA member, SDA Seminary student: am I looking for salvation in a right place?
For me salvation varied from time to time. Sometimes I thought salvation is there if you only do not eat pork and keep the Sabbath (do not go to school). Later it increased into many restrictions: no smoking, no alcohol, no dances. Thus salvation equivalency was about something I always do or do not do. I never thought of salvation in terms of relationships. The word faith for me was equivalent to the knowledge of doctrine. And finally I found out that I am in the world with all my perfect knowledge. It took me a while to get to the point where I realized that I need personal relationships with Jesus. Only when I was in the ditch I have realized that I need a PERSONAL Savior. I was looking for the salvation in wrong place. I was looking for the law of righteousness, but what was needed is righteousness by faith.
When I think of a Jews who were blessed with Holy Scriptures and were in great advantage in terms of light in comparison with Gentiles I say – this is impossible! How can I lose the battle having an army 10 times greater and better equipped to someone who does not even know how to fight! This is what happens when we miss the essence of God’s character. He gave us faith to trust Him that He is able to save us from our sins. Instead we always together with the Jews invent tools for our own salvation like works of righteousness. It is nothing wrong in good deeds, but it is wrong to trust them as your means for salvation. I have to remind myself this paradox - That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith.
I wonder whether I am still looking for the righteousness that is true according to Scripture. For my personal testing I just allow the Holy Spirit reveal me what is my assurance of salvation – what I have done for others, or what God has done for me? There is no contradiction here – when I realize what God has done for me I do not count how much good I do for others, because in comparison with what God has done for me my good deeds are no way means for my own salvation.
Matthew Shallenberger
Assignment 8
Romans 8:1 contains some of the most encouraging words in all of Scripture: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Earlier in Romans Paul has laid out the bad news: all men—Jews and Gentiles and everyone else—are sinners and are condemned to die. Then he started giving the good news: God has a plan to save lost, condemned-to-die sinners. That plan involves Jesus, the sinless Substitute for sinful human beings. By placing our faith in Jesus and His sacrifice for us, we can be saved from certain death; in fact, we can have eternal life!
In chapter 7 Paul discussed the relation of the law to salvation. He also talked about the internal war that rages in the hearts of humans. We try to do what’s right, but our flesh is held hostage to sin. We find ourselves not doing what we want to do, and doing what we don’t want to do! Again Paul lifts up Jesus as the only solution to the sin problem. He’s the only one who can save us from this unwinnable battle with our sinful selves.
Now in chapter 8 Paul drives home even harder his message about victory in Jesus. Our situation might seem hopeless, but Jesus can do the impossible. Not only can He save us from the penalty of sin (death), He can deliver us from continued bondage to sin. When His Spirit lives in us, we are empowered to live according to His holy law, something we could never do in our own power. I love the focus on Jesus in Paul’s letters. He is always pointing to Christ as the answer to all of our problems.
Sadly, our human nature drives us to try and solve our problems ourselves (self-sufficiency was at the heart of the first sin). When we’re struggling with sin, so many times we’re tempted to think, “If I just try harder, I can beat this thing!” This method of overcoming sin, while it may occasionally work for a time, is ultimately futile. When we finally fail again, we become disillusioned and wonder if it’s even possible to have victory over sin.
The good news is that it is possible to have victory over sin! But we’ll never achieve it by gritting our teeth and trying harder to “be good.” It is only by submitting ourselves to Jesus and letting His Spirit transform us that we can win the battle. He’s already won the war; Satan is a defeated foe. Our individual battles with sin are no match for the power of Jesus. When we unite our efforts with His transforming power, we will achieve victory.
And if Jesus has won the victory, if He’s saved us, what reason do we have to fear Satan and sin? “If God is for us, who is against us?” God gave us His own Son; He spared no expense to save us. Won’t He see our salvation through to the end? “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” If we have Jesus in our corner, nothing the devil throws at us can knock us down. Jesus died to save us from sin, and now He’s interceding for us to keep on saving us from sin. Praise God!
Matthew Shallenberger
Assignment 8
Romans 8:1 contains some of the most encouraging words in all of Scripture: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Earlier in Romans Paul has laid out the bad news: all men—Jews and Gentiles and everyone else—are sinners and are condemned to die. Then he started giving the good news: God has a plan to save lost, condemned-to-die sinners. That plan involves Jesus, the sinless Substitute for sinful human beings. By placing our faith in Jesus and His sacrifice for us, we can be saved from certain death; in fact, we can have eternal life!
In chapter 7 Paul discussed the relation of the law to salvation. He also talked about the internal war that rages in the hearts of humans. We try to do what’s right, but our flesh is held hostage to sin. We find ourselves not doing what we want to do, and doing what we don’t want to do! Again Paul lifts up Jesus as the only solution to the sin problem. He’s the only one who can save us from this unwinnable battle with our sinful selves.
Now in chapter 8 Paul drives home even harder his message about victory in Jesus. Our situation might seem hopeless, but Jesus can do the impossible. Not only can He save us from the penalty of sin (death), He can deliver us from continued bondage to sin. When His Spirit lives in us, we are empowered to live according to His holy law, something we could never do in our own power. I love the focus on Jesus in Paul’s letters. He is always pointing to Christ as the answer to all of our problems.
Sadly, our human nature drives us to try and solve our problems ourselves (self-sufficiency was at the heart of the first sin). When we’re struggling with sin, so many times we’re tempted to think, “If I just try harder, I can beat this thing!” This method of overcoming sin, while it may occasionally work for a time, is ultimately futile. When we finally fail again, we become disillusioned and wonder if it’s even possible to have victory over sin.
The good news is that it is possible to have victory over sin! But we’ll never achieve it by gritting our teeth and trying harder to “be good.” It is only by submitting ourselves to Jesus and letting His Spirit transform us that we can win the battle. He’s already won the war; Satan is a defeated foe. Our individual battles with sin are no match for the power of Jesus. When we unite our efforts with His transforming power, we will achieve victory.
And if Jesus has won the victory, if He’s saved us, what reason do we have to fear Satan and sin? “If God is for us, who is against us?” God gave us His own Son; He spared no expense to save us. Won’t He see our salvation through to the end? “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” If we have Jesus in our corner, nothing the devil throws at us can knock us down. Jesus died to save us from sin, and now He’s interceding for us to keep on saving us from sin. Praise God!
Response to Tyler Rosengren’s Assignment 8
Tyler, I agree; Romans 7 and 8 have to be read together. I always try to do a quick overview of the previous chapter when I’m reading Romans because Paul’s arguments are all so closely connected.
I like how you connected us “being in Christ” to Christ “being in us.” Like you said, that concept is a little difficult to understand; it’s a bit of a mystery. It reminds me of what Jesus says in John. He says that we have to remain in Him and He has to remain in us.
I was considering the effect of sin be it in heaven or on earth. Sin took place in heaven and those who were upholding it were defeated in the war that took place in heaven as portrayed by Revelation 12. We do not really have a picture of what the heavens look like after sin was found in Satan; we do not know if heaven was affected also in the way earth was. But I tend to believe that the impact of sin in heaven was minor compared to the one of our planet, maybe due to the fact that angels did not come out of on archangel as we are out of Adam.
But we can consider this issue in a different way; who defines the consequences of sin? is it God or sin itself?
If God is the one who defines them then, we will understand better that the consequences or the curses given to us in genesis 3 are God's work and not sin itself. One can argue that the consequence of sin is death, and that Adam could have died without any delay, but God to create a probation time to accommodate any opportunity or chance to save mankind.
Or we may say that all the consequences of sin are defined by sin itself but God just has the control of them,; so that He could define the extent or the damage sin could cost t us.
The story of the paralytic at the pool in John 5 would be a good illustration for that. The statement Jesus made when He met the man who has been healed can help to get an idea: ‘'Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee"
- This statement suggests that the paralytic was sick as a result of sin.
- We can see here that Jesus has the power to control even the consequences of sin. (It's sad that today we can hear that God can forgive but you will bear the consequences of your sins. Jesus did more than forgiving this man; He haled also from the consequences of His sin)
- He was really or directly involved n bring the curse upon this man ( he might maybe have allowed to happen to him)
So to come back to my point, there is a way in which God is involved in defining the consequences of sin that we commit, ( in controlling them maybe) but we have to say that sin in itself bears death and enough chaos and is capable to produce its own consequences
Ryan, thanks again for the comments. lol
Yeah, before birth, pretty present.
What you said makes me thing... it would be cool for us as pastors to educate our members in studying the Bible. Make a good after church activity.
Yeah, those magazines are boring... unless the article is written by Hanna. :/
Alicia, thanks for commenting on my post. Yayy! I couldn't agree more. We are not trying to change our positions, but to get deeper, and learn more. There are issues, like the one you mentioned about bad marriages, that we are dealing with today. There are others, like media. We need to study to get answers. You know, Harry did a research paper reguarding that topic of divorce. From his presentation in class, I didn't agree with him, but it did open my mind to the subject. Maybe his actual paper has better arguments than his verbal ones.
Landon, thanks for your reponse.
YOOO!! That is hot! An Adventist Wiki. Like a SDApedia, or a Wikiventist. But seriously, that would be so good, to be able to see things from the average perspective. And it would be an easier read.
And that levels things, is mad smart. The lower level, is the average thought. And the upper level would be pastors, and the upper upper level would be phd scholars.
Yo, did you think of that just now or you had this on your mind before?
Either way, you can make mad money off this. I'm serious, that would get popular real quick. We should grab some people and start this.
Wait... we should delete these comments b4 someone steels you idea. lol
response to Matthew Shallenberger Assignment 8
Thanks Matthew for reminding me of Romans 8:1-2. I felt today that I was unworthy. But this reminded me that I'm good in Jesus.
Also, your right. Jesus is the fighter in our life. With Him, we win. But the thing is we need to be surrendered completely to Him.
Response to Alexander Rybachek, assn. 9:
Sasha, I liked your personal testimony in response to Romans 9. When I was younger, I thought that salvation was all about rules and obedience. But in my experience, this produced a tendency to give up. Neither reaction is right. It wasn’t until I fell in love with Jesus that I accepted salvation and began to want to do what was right.
Assignment 10
In Romans 10, Paul is answering the question that comes up in reading chapter 9. Why did the Israelites reject Christ? The short answer is this: “They did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own” (v. 3).
There is much to ponder in this statement.
The implication here is that if I do not know the righteousness of God, I will try to establish my own. This righteousness, then, will fool me into thinking that I am saved. How many people are there in church today who have found their own righteousness, but are unaware that they need something else? This statement gives me pause. I am forced to go to God again and submit to his will and ask for him to save me. But fortunately, as Paul reminds us, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Then, as Paul says in this chapter, “It is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved” (v. 10). There is both a cognitive and emotional assent as well as an acting out. The acting out of faith that Paul refers to here seems to be the confession of Christ. A public statement and way of life that communicates that I am a follower of Christ.
These words are very broad. I must be active in sharing my faith, but my life must also match my words. Thus, confession is wholistic. If I live in such a way that people do not get a good picture of Christ, or think that I must not be a Christian, then I am not “confessing” Christ. Confession, then, is always evangelistic in nature. All of life is evangelistic.
The people Paul is specifically concerned about being saved, as we read chapter 10, is the Israelites. The very people who have not submitted to God’s righteousness, but established their own. Who are the Israelites that Paul would be writing to today? They are Christians. The people inside the Church, not outside. They are the people who have heard the gospel, but have not understood. The gospel may have penetrated the thick calcium covering of their heads, but their hearts are covered by something much more difficult to penetrate.
How can such people be reached Paul does not address in this passage. Perhaps an answer is coming in chapter 11.
Nick Clark
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #7
First off, I like Paul’s illustration of marriage. I like how shares the idea that the law has no authority over those who have died to the law. Not only are we released from the authority of the law, but we live because of the One who overcame death, we belong to God. I love how Paul also says we serve differently now, he doesn’t say that since we died to the law we no longer have obligations or we no longer serve, we just serve differently. “By dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Rom 7:6. We as servants of God serve God in a new way, the way of the Spirit, and this way leads to joy and life.
Paul does a good job of confusing me, often. He says, “once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.” Rom 7:9,10. Now he is talking about dying, but not dying to the law and living in Christ, but just dying. I am not completely sure what he is talking about here, at least I am not sure why he says it this way. And he seems to know that what he is saying is confusing so he clarifies: “Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.” Rom 7:13. So, basically Paul is thankful that sin has become what it should be to him, disgusting, because he has been shown that it leads to death. Seeing sin for what it is, this is something that unfortunately is not always seen. But sin is seen as sin the closer we are to God and the more and more we are growing in Him. This is how we can gain a clearer vision and are able to spiritually discern what is good and what is bad, what will lead to life and what will lead to death. Honestly, the fact that I can read through this chapter and be confused by it is the reason I love the Bible. I love that by reading over a broad section I can understand certain things while at the same time some things don’t quite pop out at me and leave me with questions. I like this about the Bible because that means everyday is new, I am reading old things, things I have read hundreds of times before but all of the sudden God speaks to me and shows me something I never noticed before. That is why I love the Bible, because it is always fresh, always new, always inspiring.
response to Alexander Rybachek
Response #7
I like how you point out that we are at a disadvantage when facing sin, sin always wins and the only way to overcome is in Christ. Christ steps in makes up for our weakness all because of love. Thanks for the reminder of that.
Billwayne W. Jamel
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
THST540 Doctrine of Salvation 2 credits
04 November 2010
Weekly Blog Assignment #11:
DO I HAVE TO GO TO WORK
No one likes working. It would be nice just to get a paycheck for fee. Some people feel that being a Christian means loving Jesus and that it. Works have nothing to do with it. I read the chapter, “The Significance and Meaning of 1888” in the book, “Ellen White on Salvation” by Woodrow W. Whidden II. This chapter touched on good works and sanctification. Now, we know that good works doesn’t save us. However, good works aren’t bad. That would be an oxymoron. “Ellen White never denied the high goals of sanctification and perfection” (pg 88). We should want to have a better character. We should want to live better lives. We should be working with God to make these changes. We know that James says that works are important. So we can not dismiss the idea of living good lives.
Yes we are justified when we give our life to God. We are reborn as a brand new baby in Jesus and we receive the perfect record of Jesus. Then, that’s where sanctification comes in. God starts to mold us and make us like potter. Justification is the transformation from rock to clay. Sanctification is the molding of that clay.
But how does this sanctification occur. Is it going to happen by just wishful thinking? Can a leopard change its spots? Can an Ethiopian change his skin? No- with a capital N. So can a man have a better lifestyle by just wishful thinking? No. So we need to try harder right? Put our back into it? No. No matter how hard a leopard may try it cannot make its spots into star shapes. The Christian life is impossible without God. We need God to make the transformation and the sanctification. He needs to work in our heart changes that will be reflected on the outside. He needs to give us the strength to make these changes. However, we need to intentionally work with God.
We know that the Bible talks about how a good tree bears good fruit. If we are with God, then that means we are good tree, and we would be having a good life (fruits). However, the fruit doesn’t make the tree. The tree makes the fruit. We must first be transformed into the right type of tree, in order to produce the right lifestyle.
Dario Ferreira
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #10
In chapter 10 of Romans, Paul shows that he understands very well the mental state of Israel, when he says: "They have a zeal for God, but not with understanding." This was also his own attitude before his encounter with Christ. He, Paul, had also stumbled against the stumbling block, until the scales fell from his eyes and his life was redirected. Now he just wanted to magnify Christ in his life (see Philippians 1:20). The two paths, the path of law and the path of faith, are illustrated by Paul, using quotations from the Old Testament (Lev. 18:5, Deut. 5:11-14, Isaiah 28:16). Paul also magnify the office of apostle or evangelist who proclaims the good news of salvation (Isaiah 52:7). The message was intended to produce faith (10:16). Israel had heard the gospel and the very well understood, but they refused to obey him.
I appreciated the reading of Chapter 11, “Ellen White on Salvation” where Whidden contextualizes “The Significance and Meaning of Minneapolis and 1888”. This reading I came into the impact that this new emphasis on the doctrine of justification by faith has caused the ministry of Ellen White. I had never understood so clearly, as discussed in this chapter, the cloth-of-fund and the reactions of all, brought about by the new understanding of Jesus as the “SIN-PARDONING SAVIOR.” I found it interesting the way that Ellen White with emphatic preaching this message and have not been deterred by those who suspected that she harbored feelings anti-law. Ellen White was keen to clarify and expose the message of justification by faith, with intense brightness, especially in the four years that followed 1888 (1888-1892). What also impressed me was the fact that Ellen White had preached and written about 45% of what she said in that aspect of salvation in only four years of 58 years of his ministry. Undoubtedly, 1888 'was a clearer understanding of the much neglected subject of Justification by faith.
In the tenth document on Salvation, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, comments about the "Justification in Romans 3:21-24." It presents a contrast between a prior reality when Jews and Gentiles were in a state of sin and a new reality - a new way of salvation totally independent of the law - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ. All sin, and salvation through faith in Jesus is for all human beings, without distinction (3:22). Is God justified freely by faith who believe in Jesus. I could express my understanding of reading this document Ángel Manuel Rodríguez in the following words: Justification is God's free gift of God's grace brought within reach through Jesus who paid the price for our salvation.
Response to Alexander Rybachek: Assignment 10
I appreciated your reflection on Romans 9:30-33. You put this in a very personal message. Their experience often was also mine. When I was born, my parents were already Seventh-day Adventists as a child has become accustomed to seeing religion as what can or can not be done... As you well expressed, faith becomes equivalent to knowledge of doctrine. We seek a better sense for our spiritual life and it seems that nothing we do in meets. We fight until we despair in search of a new meaning for our existence and it turned out that what we need is Jesus and only one significant relationship with Him
I see now, how much wasted time, effort and unnecessary, how much frustration we experience when we seek salvation in the wrong place when we needed was only faith in Jesus. Indeed, faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the only means of salvation.
Nick Clark
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #8
“So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” Rom 7:25. Paul doing his typical thing ends chapter 7 with this crazy phrase that is a little confusing. It gives the impression of a dualistic understanding of himself by saying that in his mind is a slave to God, but his body is a slave to the sinful nature. But then you read on and find that awesome promise in Rom 8:1, 2 that says “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” and that the “Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. So when taking in context Paul is leaving us with the impression that a part of him is a slave to the “law of sin” and he is o.k. with that, but he goes on to point out that in Christ the Spirit has set him free from the “law of sin and death”. This is a prime example of how the chapter divisions can make things read in a weird way and that it’s always important to look at context. In Rom 8:9-15 Paul is saying some awesome things to contrast the life of the Spirit and the life controlled by the sinful nature. He says, “we have an obligation – but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.” The reason Paul gives for this is that the sinful nature does nothing for us, it leads to death. When put this way it is crazy to think that we still fall to temptation, even small things. Those temptations and sin do nothing and have done nothing for me so why do I keep doing them? Which is the same thing that Paul was wrestling with in chapter 7. God has done everything for me and has given me the Spirit to set me free from a destructive way of living, God’s way leads to life and freedom, but too often I forget or get side tracked. And Paul gives us hope by reminding us to keep on pressing on, to persevere because “our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” Rom 8:18. He says that even creation is waiting, it’s waiting for the same thing we are waiting for, it has been aching and feeling the sting of sin just like us. So we “wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved . . . But if we hope for what we do not yet have we wait for it patiently.” Rom 8:23, 24. I can’t wait for Jesus to come, but I honestly have to ask myself do I wait eagerly and patiently? Everyday? Do I live my life with expectancy of Jesus’ return? Unfortunately it isn’t always a thought that is at the forefront of things, and I want it to be because if it was it change my life, it would change the way I approach life and the way I interact with people. I can’t wait for that future glory.
I love the reminder that even when “we do not know what we ought to pray . . . the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.” Rom 8:26. God is so good! Even in prayer He makes up for my weakness, so that even when my words fail, the Spirit knows and explains what’s on my heart. Wow.
Assignment #12
In chapter 13 of Whidden, I have felt the focus of the book clearly – and am starting to feel like I’ve got the point and could move on. Ellen White was balanced. Works and faith. Faith and works. We are saved by Jesus, and being saved by Jesus will lead to us doing good things. So I am feeling that this aspect of the book is quite redundant, though I know this is the point since that seems to be his thesis.
I found the bit on impartation, imputation and infusion and how these terms related to the pantheistic movement at the time. Also, I found it interesting that Whidden considered her thinking on justification to be largely developed by 1892 and the lack of much further “embellishment” from 1893 onwards.
Reading this book makes me think of Alden Thompson’s book, Beyond Common Ground, which deals with how the church needs both conservatives and liberals. It seems that Ellen White could be considered both a liberal and a conservative which illustrates that she was balanced. The challenge is whether or not we will be balanced when quoting her. I find it interesting that she seemed to be disdained by some conservatives in her day, especially in the matters that led her to Australia. Now that what she is no longer here and what she wrote is so far in the past conservatives seem to like it more. This makes me wonder if this is tied more to the fact that conservatives want to look to the past and liberals like to look to the future (generally). Therefore liberals would like a living person who is applying their connection with God in the contemporary context and conservatives like to do what has worked in the past. This can even be seen in the fact that conservatives like Ellen White’s earlier writings and liberals like her later writings.
Just as it is interesting to think about how Christians would respond if Jesus were to show up today as an extreme change agent without the proper background, it would be interesting to know how Adventists would respond if a modern female prophet would arise today. It is also interesting to think about what Ellen White would think about different aspects of current Adventist thought and practice if she were alive today.
Comment on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter 12
Once again I enjoyed Whidden's balanced approach to the topic. Although I do not always agree with his use of terminology as I find some if it not quite adequate in addressing some of the issues, nonetheless he's very clear about his position on how he understands Ellen Whites views on salvation. In this chapter he continued to maintain that balance that he ascribes to Sister White as it relates to her understanding of law and grace, faith and works. His emphasis in this chapter is on the sinner’s sinful nature and God's unmerited favor. What becomes even clearer in this chapter is Ellen Whites position on "unintentional sins." Whidden uses the terms safety net, which I do not particularly care for because of its potential implications, nevertheless he makes it clear that Ellen White believed that the sinner who fell could find grace with God. He also, gives particular attention the idea of “creature merit” which he extrapolates from Ellen Whites writings in order to demonstrate her understanding of the creature’s hopeless condition before God. Here he attempts to demonstrate that the “creatures merit” is with out value before God without the “merit of Christ” to cover the merits of the creature. This has profound implications from Whidden’s perspective because it demonstrates even more the sinner’s great need for God and Ellen White’s position that the sinner was in need of the saving “merits of Christ.” It also enables him to demonstrate Ellen White’s position on works righteousness, that is, that a sinner stood righteous before God not based on any merit of their own, but rather on the righteousness Christ and His merits alone. From this perspective it is clear that Ellen White desired that the believer would have no doubt concerning their acceptance and assurance before God.
Response to Nick Clark
Hey Nick... I really enjoyed your comment on Paul's statements in Romans Chapter 7. I too have wrestled over these statements and found comfort in Paul's explanation of the paradoxical relationship of the new believer to the law. I also enjoyed your comment concerning the new way of life. I too think this is a profound statement by Paul where he illustrates through the marriage relationship the radical new way of life for the new believer. He makes it clear that as the new believer enters into a new relationship they also enter into a new reality. Although this can sometimes be difficult to fully understand and even be quite confusing at times, we discover that it is here where God meets the new believer in order to confront them with the new reality of their new life in Him. We find that this is in Harmony with God’s words to John in his Revelation, “For behold I make all things new.” I also appreciate that the Bible reveals things both old and new and that we continue to discover the voice of God afresh. I believe that it is this fascinating quality of the Bible that enables it to speak with unrivaled authority as the living word of an Eternal God.
Response to Matthew Shallenberger
Assignment 8
Matthew, I agree Romans 8:1 is an awesome promise. I can read that over and over and it never gets old. I really like how you pointed out that Jesus can do the impossible. It's so easy to look at our situation and feel as if there is no hope or redemption possible, but Jesus is able and is and always will be all that we need just when we need it. Jesus specializes in the impossible, thanks for the reminder.
Assignment 11
Romans 11 is a chapter that Adventists should be able to see themselves reflected in. Paul addresses Jewish/Gentile relations to ward off any Gentile Christians who may find themselves tempted to boast about their superiority over the Jewish Christians. The Israelites, Paul says in the previous chapter, have rejected the righteousness of God in Christ, and have substituted their own, which consisted in keeping the law as a means of salvation.
Though the Israelites have a long history of disobedience and rebellion, Paul says that God has certainly not cast away his people (11:1). He reminds his readers of the story of Elijah, who fled from Jezebel, thinking that there was no one faithful in all of Israel. God’s reply, Paul reminds us, was that he had reserved for himself 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. These faithful people are God’s remnant. And according to Paul’s argument, God has always had a remnant.
Further, Paul uses the metaphor of the olive tree to describe Israel. He says that some branches have been cut off, and that the Gentiles have been grafted on. However, lest the Gentiles begin to boast about their new status in God’s kingdom, Paul reminds them to be faithful, for “if God did not spare the natural branches, he may not spare you either” (v. 21).
In v. 18, Paul urges the Gentiles not to boast against the branches, and to remember that “you do not support the root, but the root supports you.”
It seems to me that we Adventists would do well to learn from the situation Paul addresses here. Adventists have often exhibited this same attitude of boasting toward other Christian denominations that Paul describes in the Gentiles.
We would do well to remember that God always has a remnant. The remnant Paul refers to here is a remnant among the Jews. In the same way, God’s remnant exists also outside the Adventist Church. There are many, many faithful Christians in other denominations. We should remember that if those in the past who have rejected the righteousness of God and substituted their own were cut off, we too must remain faithful and accept God’s righteousness. The truth is that we who have come last do not support the history of God’s work on earth. Rather, it is the other way around. Those who have come before us serve as lessons for us, and are thus used by God to fulfill his redemptive plan.
Response to Nick Clark, Assignment 8
Nick, good thoughts and reflection on Romans 8. You point out well how weak we humans really are. Not only do we live with divided selves, in part slaves to sin and in part slaves to God (7:25), but even the longing for God to restore us to glory can be fickle. My prayer is that God will romance us with love so strong that we are overwhelmed and fall head-over-heels for him.
Assignment #13
At least according to my thinking based upon Whidden’s analysis, it seems to me that the key to understanding Ellen White’s view of “perfection” is based upon definition. I would say this is true in most discussions in regard to perfection. I would agree that perfection is possible if we are saying that Jesus is perfect and that He stands in my place, but if we say that I am perfect in any sense of “having arrived.” It would seem that the idea of “having arrived” is often the sense of the word when we say something is perfect, and whenever this definition is taken I will say that even after glorification I will not have arrived completely and perfectly, but my fallen nature will be completed. As long as we live in time, there is no arriving at the end unless we are destroyed – and that is not somewhere I want to “arrive” at. Now if we mean “not under the effects of sin” by perfection, we cannot say we are perfect in that way. Not even Jesus was totally immune to the results of sin. External maladies were possible for Him (He could have scraped up His knees, caught a cold and in the end, die). However, in the sense of the committing of sin, He was sinless. However, the temptations would seem to indicate that though He did not have the same propensities and tendencies we have (He’s the only one who never fell) it was possible that He could have sinned (or at least Satan seemed to think so) though I would question whether or not He would have been sent by the Father to earth if He would have fallen anyways. But here we must admit we are deep in the realm of mystery.
Again, it seemed to me that Ellen White was Semi-Pelagian, and thus not Armenian, at least before 1888. I’ll have to see after reading further whether or not her definitions change, but it is clear that she believed we need to do the best that we can. I agree if the best we can do is to submit to the Holy Spirit and stop fighting God. But if the best we can do somehow merits us any value beyond the covering of Jesus, it goes into the realm of salvation by works and I cannot agree with this. Yes, salvation will lead to good works, but works will never lead to salvation on their own.
Response to Ryan
I appreciated your comments about the similarities between the position of Adventists today to that of the Jews in early Christianity. I often wonder if (some) Adventists might respond in a similar way to Jesus as did the Pharisees. What if Jesus were to dance? What if Jesus were to eat mustard, pepper, drink tea or even chat with His followers over coffee at Starbucks? What if Jesus didn't keep the Sabbath the way we do?
And would He accuse us of being white-washed tombs?
Response to Alexander Rybachek’s Assignment 9
Alexander, that was a great testimony! I especially like how you applied Paul’s teaching to us as Adventists. Are we as Adventists looking for salvation in the right place? Or are we, like the Jews, a bit confused about the whole thing? Sometimes we are! I think there are quite a few parallels between the Jews of Christ’s day and Adventists, not the least of which is our status as God’s “chosen” people. How frustrating it would be for us if we suddenly realized that all around us Baptists, Methodists, and even Catholics were receiving salvation (because they were looking for it in the right place), but we as Adventists missed it because we looked for it in the wrong place! Now, none of that means I don’t value the Adventist message; I do value it greatly. But as you pointed out, it’s not my knowledge of doctrine that will save me. It’s a relationship with Jesus. Even as an Adventist, a member of God’s last-day remnant church, I have to constantly keep in mind where my source of salvation comes from. It does not come from my status as part of the remnant, but from my relationship with Jesus Christ.
I really enjoy the presentation by Kilgore on the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of both the believer and the non-believer.
We always point point out how the Holy Spirit has a different role in the lives of the unbelievers and the belivers, emphis which usual puts more clouds around the simplicity of the message of salvation.
The Holy Spirit really does not change the role as such. the purpose for which God has appointed Him to do in us is the same, it is just we are the ones who have given less access to our hearts and forcing to have a seemingly different work form the one He was to perform.
there is away in which even the believer is experiencing the same relation with the Holy Ghost like the one in the non-believer. there are areas in our lives which we have not really surrender to Christ righteousness and leadership there fore the Holy Spirit is convicting us of sin, of righteousness and of judgment.
there is also a way in which, the Holy Spirit is is acting in the non-believer as if he was acting in the believer. I will take the example of the verse in roman 8:16, where Paul says ' The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God", i do believe that The Holy Spirit gives the same witness to the non-believer about the sonship given to the whole world through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
Through this I really understand the importance of getting in both side of the picture; such knowledge really humbles me!
Response to Michael Micken on Ellen White on Salvation Chapter 12.
I agree with you that Whidden does have a nice approuch to the issues.
Yeah, unintentional sins are different. That's why I don't agree with the statement "sin is sin". All sin is not at the same level, because people people's hearts are different.
Chester Clark III
Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna
Week 6 Reflection
Perhaps the fact that my research paper for this class is on the topic of the nature of Christ, I particularly appreciated the penetrating and thoughtful approach that Dr. Whidden brings to the topic in the chapter “The Nature of Christ and Salvation.”
Growing up in a conservative Adventist environment where some Adventists I knew certainly “tended to read Ellen White emphasizing the similarities, seeing Christ sinful in nature,” I remember the prevalent idea that anyone who believed in pre-lapsarian Christology had to be a justification-only, cheap-grace, live-as-you-please Adventist INO (in-name-only).
This perception of pre-lapsarian Adventists as those who saw Christ as Substitute but not example was reinforced by some proponents of this view. I distinctly remember one conference evangelist who came to my church and towards the end of the series was teaching a Sabbath School class. “What type of human nature did Jesus have?” he asked. It was interesting to hear the responses from the mostly Adventist class, who mostly had no idea and if they did had no evidentiary passages to back them up. The evangelist in discussion settled the matter with pure experiential inspiration, without even attempting to provide biblical support. “If Jesus had a fallen human nature, that would mean that we could stop sinning. But since we know that we can’t, we can be sure that Christ came with the nature of Adam before the fall.”
It happened to be at a time in my own spiritual experience when I was grappling with matters of faith and inspiration. If I was to be completely honest, I would have to concede that my view of what the Scriptures taught and what I was living were far from synonymous. There were already doubts tumbling in my mind: if this is the truth, then why isn’t it my experience? There was something attractive, something blissfully attractive, in accepting a theology that matched what I was experiencing rather than being dissatisfied when my experience fell short of what I believed God wanted. To put it bluntly, I began to question, Perhaps my belief in God’s desire to give victory over willful sin is simply naïve and unrealistic?
A couple of passages which I was in familiar with were also circling my head. “To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy….” Jude 24. “Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” John 8:34-36. “Through defects in the character, Satan works to gain control of the whole mind, and he knows that if these defects are cherished, he will succeed. Therefore he is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with his fatal sophistry that it is impossible for them to overcome.” Great Controversy, p. 489. “He who has not sufficient faith in Christ to believe that he can keep him from sinning, has not the faith that will give him an entrance into the kingdom of God.” Review and Herald, March 10, 1904. These statements obviously needed to be taken in the context of the rest of Inspiration’s teachings on salvation. But how could I accept a theology that flatly contradicted such direct and unequivocal statements?
This launched me into a deep heart searching of not just what I believed, but why I believed it. What would my faith be based upon? Matters of revelation/inspiration became the real issue I was grappling with. For me the matter of the nature of Christ would have to wait until after I arrived at conclusions here.
To be continued….
Chester Clark III
Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna
Week 7 Reflection
Last week I wrote about my personal journey wrestling with matters of personal experience versus what inspiration seemed to plainly teach. What should I do with the disparity between them? Some Adventists seemed to have arrived at a rather attractive solution to this problem – that of adapting theology to match experience. Yet certain passages in Inspiration seemed inevitably to be contradicted, particularly some rather unambiguous statements in the Spirit of Prophecy.
One thing was fairly clear in my mind: Ellen White was clearly an instrument of supernatural power. The battle in my mind became not just a matter of the human nature of Christ or soteriology – I began to question everything. If Ellen White was an imposter, and her well-attested supernatural experiences were not of God but the devil, then I really had to call the entire Seventh-day Adventist Church into question. But I really couldn’t stop there. My study of Daniel 2 convinced me that the historicist hermeneutic was Biblical, but I couldn’t deny the links between Daniel 8 and 9: if the first 70 weeks of the prophecy were so exactly fulfilled in Christ, then 1844 seemed inescapable. Perhaps the “intellectual” critical views of Scripture (though conflictory) were more realistic? Maybe the Bible wasn’t so dependable after all, and personal experience was more reliable?
I can’t in the space of these few pixels do justice to how I sorted out and resolved all of these questions, but I can share a few of my conclusions. Briefly I could summarize as follows:
Jesus is Everything. The only hope that I have of eternal life is found in Jesus. Period. Instead of focusing on overcoming sin I need to focus on Him, including trusting His mercy and grace to forgive me even when in my human weakness I willfully stray from His will. “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” 1 John 2:1. My best evidence for God’s grace and mercy is found in the Word of God! It is inconsistent to believe the Bible to be reliable on this point but unreliable elsewhere.
My Humanity is Unpredictable. Unlike the nature of God, who never changes, my feelings and beliefs and impressions are fluid and changing. This part of my experience I find to be in harmony with the clear teaching of the Word. To choose my (or anyone else’s) personal experience for defining truth in place of the Word is to step onto a roller coaster to an uncertain destination.
Weakness is Strength in God’s Hands. 2 Corinthians 12:9; 1 Corinthians 10:12. This is not to say that it is God’s will for us to sin – but it does mean that an awareness of how far I fall short of the glory of God (coupled with a faith in the sufficiency of Christ) is not a sign of failure in the Christian’s life. Rather than leading to a cavalier attitude towards sin, it leads to a deep sense of the sinfulness of sin and of my human inability to do anything but sin. But it seems that here again my experience and the Bible agrees: only through a real sense of my weakness (coupled with a belief that God wants me to overcome) will lead me to ever seek for closer and more consistent dependence on His strength. Part of the problem with the “sin-and-live” theology is that it teaches me some sort of an intellectual assent to faith in Jesus (Pray this prayer after me – You’re saved!), the end result of which is I don’t feel much need for moment by moment dependence upon Jesus. My dependence was decided back when I accepted Christ, and (in their view) He covers everything regardless of my present choices. Ironically, they appeal to the Bible for their evidence for this desirable teaching but find higher critical exemptions for the passages which cannot be harmonized with it.
To be continued….
Chester Clark III
Doctrine of Salvation – Dr. Hanna
Week 8 Reflection
The problem with a dependence upon experiential revelation is that our experience teaches us (in harmony with the Word) that our experience is unreliable. One must only observe the plentitude of opposing and waffling opinions held by religious theorists to recognize the folly of finding truth through this method. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Proverbs 14:12. One constant within human nature is the desire for sinful gratification and the inability in our own strength to follow through with what we purpose to do (see Romans 7). While some Adventists pragmatically (and often popularly) teach a theology that matches a naturally very prevalent human experience, making it seem plausible and truthful, this approach is fraught with logical inconsistencies.
The testimony of personal experience teaches us that we are weak and prone to sin, but is equivocal at best on the matter of overcoming. To look to our experience to determine what should be expected of the Christian life is inconsistent since we do not look to our experience to find confidence in a Savior from sin. Many confidently declare, based on Scripture, that Jesus’ grace saves them unconditionally, but deny the same Bible’s authority to define how Jesus saves them.
I really appreciate Dr. Whidden’s insistence throughout Ellen White on Salvation that Jesus saves from not just in sin. Ellen White’s teachings on this are clear, and I believe that a holistic understanding of the Bible’s teachings are in harmony with this understanding.
Those who take the post-lapsarian view and focus on perfection may have an element of truth that is being neglected by their counterparts, in the concept of God wanting to give victory over sin. But too often they consciously or subconsciously define perfection as externals – and neglect to recognize the Bible’s entire treatment of the matter, that the overcoming Christian will have a deep sense of unworthiness and weakness, leading them to seek an ever more consistent dependence upon a Savior who can change their hearts and habits, and (Hallelujah!) cover their mistakes and inadequacies and failures as they grow in Him.
As I sorted through the quagmire of doubts I came to a new, intimately personal, and treasured appreciation for the faith that I had without my choice been born into. I became convinced that the most coherent, logical, and consistent worldview is the biblical teachings of Christianity, and that the most intellectually consistent Christianity can be found within Adventism. I concluded that the most important understanding is to be gained through first a knowledge of the matchless charms of Jesus and second a knowledge of my own weakness and constant need of Him. And I found the Bible, just as it reads, to be a consistent and reliable revelation of both.
Dario Ferreira
Doctrine of Salvation
Assignment #11
The study of Romans 11 has led me to conclude that all the time, God's purpose in choosing his people was safeguarded by its preservation of a faithful remnant. So too were the days of Paul, a small minority who do not faithfully rejected the gospel. Paul himself was one. Even if Israel had failed as a people and stumbled, he would not fall to the point of being unable to rise further. And because they stumbled, the blessings of the gospel were extended to the Gentiles. The reference to the root and branches, in Romans 11:16, Paul takes to develop his parable of the Olive Tree (11:17-24). Paul speaks of a cultivated olive tree (Jews) getting the branches of a wild olive (gentiles). It is possible that Paul was not trying to use the principles of grafting, but has adapted to his illustration that would better serve their purposes. For Paul it seems, through this comparison trying to make a warning to Gentile Christians do not boast the expense of Israel, or not to show disdain for the Jews. This image was suggested by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 11:16,17, saying that Israel was the tree that God planted. Hosea also expressed a similar thought: “His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive-tree, and his smell as Lebanon”(ASV). The purpose of God is revealed to the world in giving His undeserved mercy for both Jews and for Gentiles. Paul recognizes this as a reason for an unceasing praise of God, and concludes the chapter and the whole argument of chapters 1-11, so glorious in the words of the doxology in verses 33-36.
Whidden in Chapter 12 entitled “Justification After Minneapolis - Late 1888 to 1892” examines the explanation of Justification made by Ellen White during this period. Whidden shows that the fact that Ellen White did not show marked changes in their understanding of salvation, compared to the previous period shows the importance of balance between Justification and Sanctification salvation in the teachings of Ellen White. Whidden’s conclusion, based on the teachings of Ellen White's salvation is that justification is necessary for believers, all the way through your experience. And to better illustrate it uses the electric trolley car illustration Compared with the bus. The trolley traveled through to stay connected with the source of power from above. The bus moves depend on the power it receives from its own fuel tank. So Whidden says: “We must be trolley car all the way to the kingdom – every moment and mile of the way!” (Whidden, 104).
In the twenty-first document on salvation, Kwabena Donkor focuses on two core concepts - predestination and foreknowledge. To say that predestination is the cause of salvation, Donkor says, makes salvation becomes “a matter of God choosing discriminatorily to give grace to some while denying it to others”. Identify foreknowledge with predestination is to deny any notion of free will and human responsibility. Donkor also briefly examines the biblical passages that speak directly to these two concepts. And finally, he concludes that the Bible teaches a doctrine of predestination which is based on foreknowledge of future individual choices. And remember: “God’s ability to know events that have not yet occurred in a way that does not condition outcomes is perhaps the key unresolved problem in predestination. But isn’t this capacity that which distinguishes Him as God?”
Response to Landon Schnabel: Assignment 11
Landon, I agree with you that Whidenn seems really speak more in his book on 1888 than any other subject. Maybe because Ellen White was keen to clarify and expose the message of Justification by faith, with intense brightness, especially in the four years That Followed 1888 (1888-1892). What impressed me was the Also That fact Ellen White HAD preached and written about 45% of what she said In That aspect of salvation in only four years of 58 years of his ministry. Undoubtedly, 1888 was a ‘clearer understanding of the much neglected subject of Justification by faith’.
The perfect balance between faith and works, demonstrated by Ellen White in her writings impressed me very well. Another important point mentioned by you was that only Jesus is perfect, but we carry “unavoidable disabilities” in our fallen condition. Which brings us once again to acknowledge our dependence on Jesus and his robe of righteousness to cover our filthy rags.
Arthur Jennings
Doctrine of Salvation
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
November 13, 2010
Response Assignment 2
Response to Landon Schnabel – concerning reading from Whidden
Landon, you bring a unique perspective in your views concerning Romans. I have never really thought about how it transitions from chapter to chapter because of the fact I see it as a parental letter from Paul to his children (metaphorically speaking). I do realize that in a letter there are various topics and subjects depending on the nature of the letter. However; I decided to re-read Romans from your viewpoint to understand your analysis. My conclusion is that I agree with you that there is a shift in Ellen White’s thinking that brought new revelation as well as compromising circumstances. Paul’s love for Christ and his love for his brethren is revealed in Paul’s letter to the Romans .Paul’s message concerning Christ is maintained throughout the letter.
It is easy for me to see how holiness and perfection moved away from the bible. The biblical message concerning these topics is often taken out of context and there is no support of it. There are a few texts like ‘be ye perfect as I am perfect’ but it must be taken contextually. Lastly there are and will always be fanatics ready to bring confusion to the truth for their own purpose.
Arthur Jennings
Doctrine of Salvation
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
November 13, 2010
Response Assignment 3
Response to Michael C. Mickens – concerning Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians.
Well said Mike, It was Paul’s desire to bring a proper understanding of the Gospel as it related to the recent death of Christ to both Jew and Gentile. Paul’s message of a Christ-centered faith was not only emphasized by his study but it was now Paul’s personal testimony concerning Christ. Paul approach to his audience was a bold claim to what Christ had done for them as well as all humanity.
I agree that Paul wanted the Roman Christians to know that the Gospel message came from God testifying about His son the Christ, and this message was transformative to all nations (Greek and Jew). In addition to that, this message was for anyone who believed and accepted the truth regarding the revelation of God through Christ. Paul’s commitment to the Gospel concerning Christ is revealed by his faith. Paul’s declaration of not being ashamed of the Gospel demonstrates the power of God which had brought salvation to him and was free to all who accepted the work Christ had done.
Arthur Jennings
Doctrine of Salvation
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
November 13, 2010
Response Assignment 4
Response to Kevin Solomon – concerning Ellen White and Salvation
Kevin, I have heard so many people talk about how the book “Steps to Christ” change their lives and/or opened their understanding to new revelation concerning Christ. It is a powerful book as are many other of her writings. Ellen White does an excellent job in sharing her views on salvation. I agree with her views because it is true that when we understand the love and holiness of God; our own unrighteousness is revealed before our eyes therefore; we see that we are in need of God’s saving grace.
Also, I am not willing to say that Ellen White had a high view of sanctification as it relates to her run in with fanaticism and how she dealt with perfectionism. We must remember that Ellen White came out of the Methodist Church. Perfection was their viewpoint; Ellen’s background came from a Methodist theology. This is what led to her studying and having the thirst for knowledge concerning perfectionism. She realized that all would continue to fight with sin however; it would be their constant relationship with Christ that carried them.
Arthur Jennings
Doctrine of Salvation
Martin Hanna, Ph.D.
November 13, 2010
Response Assignment 5
Response to Alicia Johnston – concerning chapter 4 reading of Whidden
Yes! Alicia I love that statement by Ellen White “I wish that self should be hid in Jesus…” This statement should be our definition of self when we look at ourselves and others. It is a statement of humility that is intended to bring restoration in our relationship with Christ.
You are also right when you say it is rare in leadership and people do not want their leaders to confess their short comings. When I was at Oakwood, I had a professor (let’s call him Professor E.) who was against Ministers sharing or confessing their short comings to the congregation. In fact, Professor E. told my entire class that we should never, ever tell members our problems because they may never respect us and/or look at us in a different way that does not reflect Christ. It might also do damage to your ministry. Professor E. said it is hard for members to see Christ in you, if you confess to being a wife abuser (in the past) or a prostitute or any damaging image that they cannot replace in their minds or associate with Christ. I agree that it might pose a problem for some people although I believe that pastors need to be seen as human beings with real problems in front of their members. None of us should be put on a pedestal as some are still doing to Sister White.
Post a Comment