Adventist Denomination to Restudy Principles of Bible Interpretation
From ANN, July 15, 2015: Top denominational leaders have agreed to work with the Biblical Research Institute (BRI) on a study that is intended to inform the Adventist denomination about the principles of Bible interpretation. The announcement came in response to a question asked by a delegate to the recent General Conference (GC) in San Antonio, Texas.
Pastor Myron Iseminger, GC undersecretary, made the announcement on Friday, July 10, the last day of business meetings at the GC Session. He also stated that the BRI “is already studying the issue and has plans to publish their findings” in an updated edition of a book on the subject. It has published at least two books on the topic, including Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, edited by Dr. George W. Reid, who was BRI director at the time, and Interpreting Scripture: Bible Questions and Answers, edited by Dr. Gerhard Pfandl, a current staff scholar.
Both sides in the discussion on women’s ordination had claimed that the Bible supported their position, and the majority of the denomination’s Bible scholars have stated that there is no decisive Bible teaching on the subject. On July 9, a delegate urged the denomination’s leaders to restudy its hermeneutics in light of the divisive vote on women’s ordination on July 8 so as to avoid similar conflicts of opinion regarding some verses from the Bible in the future. The delegates then voted to make the request official.
Hermeneutics, or the study of the principles and methods of Bible interpretation, strives to provide an underlying framework that may be applied across any and every analysis of particular verses of Scriptures. Even though Adventist scholars have often weighed in on the topic in the past, the delegate who raised the issue thought that a renewed stance was needed after the women’s ordination vote.
It is unclear what practical effects the study might have on future decisions or how it may relate to Ellen G. White statements that even though “the great truths of the Word of God are so clearly stated that none need make a mistake in understanding them” (Manuscript Releases, Volume 15, page 150), “we cannot … take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same shade of light” (Ibid. page 149).
A source has pointed out to Adventist Today that in the preface to the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy, White describes an approach to interpreting the Bible that is contrary to the fundamentalist position taken by many of the Adventists who opposed the ordination of women pastors. White was one of the cofounders of the Adventist movement who was credentialed as an ordained minister most of her life.
If someone doesn’t believe what I believe they must be reading the bible wrong, right?
So now we are setting out to create the official Seventh-day Adventist method of reading the bible.
I’ll be interested if there will be any acknowledgement of the role of the Holy Spirit in reading the bible. Actually the history of the Seventh-day Adventist church is rich with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the middle of one of the most dramatic misinterpretations of scripture in the historical record, save perhaps for Copernicus.
One can be sure that the results of this study will be measured against what is already believed as defined by the 28 fundamental beliefs of the church.
As the GYC president was recently quoted, ‘The role of the General Conference President is to protect the fundamental beliefs of the church.’
I’m thinking he is smiling.
Hopefully the committee will have the White Estate compile every letter or book chapter in which Ellen White addresses inspiration and scripture. There is no narrowing from her pen that I recall. Indeed, quite the opposite. Ellen White had been through the greatest possible misunderstanding of Scripture and survived. She was without differentiation opposed to painting the church into another corner with stand-alone Biblical passages.
How this turns out will be most interesting.
Bill: “As the GYC president was recently quoted, ‘The role of the General Conference President is to protect the fundamental beliefs of the church… I’m thinking he is smiling.'”
I agree he probably is smiling, given there have been more changes recently to the 28 FBs that in quite a long time. It’s like those who claim to be staunch defenders of the US Constitution but then claim it should be amended? Go figure.
“The role of the General Conference President is to protect the fundamental beliefs of the church.”
Our good friends in the Roman Catholic Church could not have said it better about the Supreme Pontiff of their church. In fact, I think that this is almost a direct quote from (I think) Vatican I (not Vatican II). By the way, Vatican I was where the infallibility of the Pope was declared as a dogmatic belief of the Roman Catholic Church. Adventists now have the “Council of San Antonio” as the source of the Adventist version of that.
Yes. Vatican II made the Catholic Church more open; undoing some of the insularity encouraged by Vatican I. The Holy Father has moved away from some of the dogma in his acceptance of people as they are. Witness his acts of kindness to the poor and imprisoned and his willingness to recognize the spiritual needs of homosexuals in the church and his willingness to recognize the intrinsic good in nonbelievers. When a loving attitude toward people in need is the focus rather than the purity of dogma, wouldn’t you be more likely to be drawn closer to the church?
Poor Jorge Bergoglio,
You couldn’t find a more addled and incoherent “Pope” if you tried. His recent encyclical Laudato Si on Global Warming and the Environment is totally contradictory.
According to Bergoglio; Global capitalism is turning the Earth into an immense pile of filth and a new Global government. “One plan for the whole world” will establish “honest & open debate,inclusion, transparency, raise awareness, diversity, dialogue – even best practices.”
All buzzwords even certain Adventists love. Laudato Si’s goal, the Earth Charter: “a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, global solidarity and a culture of peace”
Globalism is killing us – globalism will save us. Where is the Lord Jesus Christ in all this nonsense?
Vatican II has turned Roman Catholic theology into modernist mush.
I draw near to the Church because I draw near to Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer of Israel. That is pure doctrine.
He will say just enough conservative things to appeal to the conservatives and just enough liberal things to appeal to the liberals. A real politician, no doubt.
“If someone doesn’t believe what I believe they must be reading the bible wrong, right?”
That’s not even relevant, Bill. You can believe anything you want that you think the bible teaches. If it is not what the SDA church believes it teaches, you are free to “hit the road”. No one is twisting your arm and holding you as a member of the SDA church.
But you are not free to try to “force” your opinion of what you think the church should teach on any given subject. Why is this so difficult for people to understand and accept.
I accept it. Thus, I evaluate my relationship to the church now and then to decide if it teaches what I believe, or not. I have an honest duty to consider if my view is the same as the church’s stated view.
If not, at some time, the church and I must part company. Is this so difficult to comprehend? None of us have any authority to demand the church to accept our view or, to try to force our view on the church.
If I won’t leave, then they should dis-fellowship me. But if I have any Christian integrity, I will simply “go away” and let the church be. I am not suggesting that there should not be some probationary time on the part of both the church and myself. But to keep “cry babying” all over the church on and on is absurd.
I think Elaine is totally wrong, but at least she and so others have chosen to abandon Adventism. Why she hangs around is beyond me. But I guess she can do as she pleases on this issue.
Mr. Sorenson has a very limited, and may I say, simplistic understanding of the nature of church affiliation in the modern world.
He appears to think that it has only to do with belief. That is obviously false. He and others certainly may take that position as they have every right. But there are many others who stay as members of the Adventist denomination for other just as valid reasons.
These reasons include a network of social and cultural relationships and a particular life style.
May I suggest that the false idea of “belief-only” as the only valid justification for Adventist denominational affiliation should be disputed and rejected whenever it rears its unforturate head.
The SDA church is not a social club, Dr. Taylor. The social elements in any fellowship have a basis for the fellowship. For a bible believing SDA it is built on belief and doctrine.
Bill Sorenson is a good Protestant. Good Protestants divide and separate when they can not agree.
The Adventist who remains an Adventist but no longer believes is acting like a Roman Catholic. That’s okay – but it isn’t consistent with the Adventist tradition. We used to be Protestants.
The GC can vote for WO 99 to 1 and it wouldn’t change my mind – its unbiblical. If you want me to change my mind you are going to have to persuade me with an argument, not a tabulation of the vote.
Mr. Sorenson you demand that noone try to force the church to change but your opinions are always forceful. How can you demand from others what you do not practice?
Thie church ic Christ’s church and his goal is to love and care for everyone
Read his mission statement in Luke (quoted from Isaiah
Man is exclusive God is inclusive
How can you claim to be a Christian but tell someone to hit thr road?
Mrs White told us yrs ago how those that are proclaiming the third Angels message will be searching the scriptures. The quote is below. Look it up and read the read of it.From that quote i would say that most people just think they are proclaiming the third angels message.
“Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel’s message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted. In the little book entitled “Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology,” Father Miller gives the following simple but intelligent and important rules for Bible study and interpretation:– {RH, November 25, 1884 par. 23}
The father Miller she is referring to is William Miller.
Perhaps the most difficult part of establishing any method for Adventists to understand scripture will be to study scripture without viewing it through the lens of Ellen White’s writings.
Wm: Actually I don’t even think they are doing that. In her time period, she would have been thought liberal by many. We need to keep in mind the era in which she lived. She was not a scientist, so her explanation for earthquakes was based on what the science of that time said–not some mystical experience.
Her ministry was to be a messenger of the spiritual things of God and His plans for our world. Neither was she a politician or an expert on things outside the progress of the church. She did use a lot of common sense wisdom.
I agree, William, but don’t hold your breath.
Across Christendom there are a wide variety of biblical hermeneutics and many good books have already been written on the subject.
The BRI could shorten the process by simply recommending a handful of what they deem to be the better ones.
Publishing an SDA hermeneutic will attract just as much criticism as publishing our own version of the Bible. It gives the impression we need some unique scissors to cut our own cloth.
But no other non-SdA books include inspired commentary by their very own prophet who has interpreted much of the Bible already. The church would never recommend a book by “outside” theologians as a guide.
Considering 53 out of 54 Seminary teachers reject Headship theology, it is unclear whether Elder Wilson can bring himself to be satisfied with the work of ‘inside’ theologians, either.
I’m reminded of a retired aeronautical engineer member of our church in England, whose wife rented spare bedrooms to traveling church members. The rooms were nice and the family welcoming. I was traveling with my family, the summer before I entered college. Naturally conversation turned to the affairs of the church. Everyone in the room had a stake in the same church. I was taken aback by the engineer’s colloquialism about spiritual matters.
He was considering the plight of the church in the early 60’s, particularly in England. His observation was that it is surely beyond the capability of humans to achieve the goals of the church. “Clearly it is up to God. And I think it is time for Him to pull His socks up and get to work.”
More than 50 years later, as a church we seem caught up in using our candles through an arctic night to reread and reread the bible rather than lighting the world.
Elaine, there is a significant element of truth in your comment and I respect it.
There was a time when our college English classes would not use any non-SDA readings. Shakespeare, for example, was anathema. Instead, they would use EGW publications exclusively and promote them as the epitome of excellent prose. Earlier, our college history classes only used GC and Loughborough’s history of Adventism.
Today, thankfully, there is a different attitude. I’m not sure, but here in Australia as early as the mid-1960s my theology professor in one unit used as our main textbook a tome titled “Protestant Christian Evidences” by Bernard Ramm, a non-SDA. A long list of non-SDA books could be added that are used these days in our colleges.
I hope the BRI takes the eclectic approach and uses a variety of non-SDA books on hermeneutics, borrowing from all of them. Perhaps the best approach would be to outline a number of the major schools of hermeneutics (historical-grammatical, dispensational, existential, etc.) and argue their advantages and disadvantages. My chief worry is that the GC will impose their conclusions on the entire church membership to strengthen a clone mentality.
As you suggest, it is imperative we finish up with a hermeneutic that does not accommodate EGW. It should not be the Bible plus EGW but, instead, the Bible alone (as we already profess but never practise).
The prophetic voice of Ellen White is not an interpreter of Scripture. She didn’t claim to be. The church has never claimed she was. We have had our share of crackpots who thought that was what her gift was for – but it is not so.
When I went to Adventist college a long, long time ago, we read widely – I don’t remember many Adventist theology textbooks. Does Desmond Ford’s Daniel count? It was Pre-Glacier View.
The church has always encouraged me to read widely. As Ellen White said someplace, “Always avail yourself of the best science”
That is part of our problem to exclude ideas from other sources when EW herself used them. I wonder if some of her material would have been excluded for that reason by today’s conservative leanings. I understand she used children and youth material from other denominations. I believe our current leadership is becoming less progressive than our founder.
You may convince yourselves that bible Adventism is built on EGW, but it is not. I guess it makes you feel good to attack EGW, but in the end, those who do so, also end up attacking the bible.
It is true to some hold EGW as equal to scripture, and this is a false way to explain her ministry. She never endorsed this view.
What people really hate about EGW is she pointed out from the bible that all Christians will be judged by the law, and their eternal destiny will be determined by the law. But this is clearly scriptural and in harmony with both old and new testament.
In this light, the attack on 1844 is precisely because it simply states the timing this final judgment will take place. If you discard this judgment, then you also discard 1844 as having any relevance.
After Brinsmead was deluded by Dr. Ford and other apostate Protestant scholars, he wrote a book, “Judged by the Gospel”. The title itself is absurd. No one can be judged by an event, they can only be judged by how the respond to the event. So, people are judged by how they have responded to the gospel, and the law will determine if they have responded in harmony with the biblical mandate. If they don’t keep the law, then they have not responded in an acceptable biblical way.
May I say that I treasure Mr. Sorenson’s comments on this web site. Take for example his statement that “If [people] don’t keep the law, then they have not responded in acceptable biblical way.” If I, or anyone, had suggested that there are individuals in the Adventist church who still believe that, I would have not been believed. But Mr. Sorenson just comes out and plainly says it. I guess 19th Century Adventism is alive and well in various small isolated pockets in rurual areas.
That’s right, Dr. Taylor. Why beat around the bush. Either the law is “the law of the gospel”, or it is not. If it is the law of the gospel, if you don’t obey it, then you don’t believe the gospel.
How hard is that to comprehend? And this is the EGW view that is also the bible view.
Let’s cut to the chase. EGW explains how she understands the bible and she is the authority or “classic SDA” to explain the SDA faith. Do you see the bible teaches what she says it does? If not, hit the road. Don’t be a hypocrite.
I object to the GC sessions just as much as some others do, but not for the same reasons. We have a wimp president that won’t man up spiritually and state his position that he believes is scriptural. But he says he will simply go along with whatever the vote decides.
Kevin Paulsen sees him as a parallel to Abe Lincoln. Ridiculous. Can we imagine Lincoln saying, “Let’s vote on slavery, and whatever the outcome, I will support?”
Thank God Abe Lincoln and others had no such political agenda and demanded freedom for all people. They didn’t give a tinkers damn what the majority voted. They were elected to lead, not pontificate some political agenda and then affirm they would “go along” with the final outcome of the vote.
Modern Adventism is a disgrace to the Christian faith and historic Adventism in particular. So, the church has no definable identity. Just a bunch of blow hard politicians unfit for office.
Sad reality.
Bill,
What do you make of Ephesians 2 (verses 8 and 9 especially)? And 2 Timothy 1 (versus 8 and 9 especially) … and Titus 3 ( verses 3 through 7 especially) …
These seem wholly incompatible with being saved as the result of judgement finding either our heart or our behavior, when judged against the law, as confirming we have somehow qualified personally for salvation.
Please help us here if you are able.
What’s so hard, Bill. Faith in Christ is the mediam and avenue to salvation. Faith is not the end, faith in Christ is the beginning, middle and end. So, “By grace are ye saved by faith.”
Paul never ever suggested that faith in Christ did away with the moral law as the mandate for salvation. If we understood Paul, we would see he always contrasts faith in Christ vs. the ceremonial law. No one is saved by the ceremonial law. Neither can one be saved by the moral law if they reject the intercession of Christ.
The moral law is always the mandate for the human factor in salvation. Christ is the divine factor. Christ alone merits salvation and gives us a legal right to heaven by faith in His name. But they moral factor for man to fulfill is faith, repentance and obedience. Forget any false idea that the moral law can function as a legal code to merit the favor of God.
But don’t assume just because you can not merit the favor of God by keeping the moral law, you have no obligation to keep the moral law in the context and the purpose it was originally given to Adam and Eve. Neither did Adam and Eve merit the favor of God by doing His will. But they could forfeit the favor of God and be thrown out of the family if they rebel against God and His kingdom.
The keeping of the moral law is salvational. It unites us to Christ who is our legal right to heaven. So, we should see that faith itself is part of the moral law.
Bill, your stuck in the false SDA dichotomy between moral and ceremonial law. I know I’m never going to convince you otherwise but let me say it for the benefit of others —-
The so-called ceremonial law had much to do with atonement for sin and the gospel of forgiveness. You couldn’t get something more moral than that, could you?
The Hebrews correctly regarded the Mosaic law as one entity.
There is a unity between the two laws, Milton, but you deny the clear distinction in application and function. The ceremonial law represents the legal aspects of God’s government, and the moral law represents the moral aspects of it. The two working together make up “the law” in its comprehensive definition.
When David says, “The law of the Lord is perfect…..” he is referring to both aspects of “the law”, both legal and moral. So he sees the law of intercession and moral law as a complete whole. But for the sake of definition, it is imperative to define it as two laws that make up one complete whole.
“The Hebrews correctly regarded the Mosaic law as one entity.”
How good it is to hear it plainly stated. Additionally, sometimes, the entire OT was described as “law” as the following texts attest:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “has it not been written in your law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? Psalms
John 15:25 “but they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.’ Psalms
Romans 3:19 now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to god; [Referring to Psalms and other texts as “law”]
1 Corinthians 14:21 in the law it is written, “BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME,” says the lord. Isaiah 28:11
Galatians 4:21 tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? [Refers to Genesis and Isaiah 54:1 as “law”]
If the church isn’t built more on EGW than the Bible, why is it I can walk into a Sabbath School class just about anywhere and hear more references to her writings than the Bible? That some pastors use more EGW quotes in their sermons that Bible verses?
For example, several months ago I visited a church where I knew no one and heard several remarks about “doing the work of the Lord.” So I dared to ask the question about if anyone was actually doing any of those things that were mentioned. Immediately four different people attacked my question using EGW quotes! Two of them even listed specific references to EGW writings, which I was able to immediately look-up on my computer and see they weren’t even talking about what was claimed! Before the discussion moved to the teacher’s next point there was neither a single Bible verse mentioned or a single item described about what anyone was doing to grow the church.
People in general and Seventh-day Adventists in particular have a poor concept of balance. Regarding the writings of Ellen White, it is either overused or not used at all. While I don’t have a set ratio, I generally use between 6-8 passages of Scripture for every quote I use from Mrs. White. I think of it as salt. It is excellent seasoning, but too much spoils the “soup”.
William you might want to consider visiting another church. In my own local church, I can’t remember the last time Ellen White was even quoted.
William: This is common in many churches while other churches don’t quote her from the pulpit at all which is accordance with her stated wishes.
I am not excusing this, but partially it may be because she is closer in time and more easily understood than the Bible. Also her books are filled with Bible quotes.
When we read the Bible, we often lose sight of the fact it was written for Jews in their culture and reflects what they believed. The ten commandments, for example, are principles for living a good life for every human. However, the detailed laws in the ark beside it guided the lives of a primitive slave people in need of details for living and they changed over time to fit the situation.
It is the same with our church founders who primarily spoke to the people of their time. When we get too specific, we lose the meaning and principle.
“After Brinsmead was deluded by Dr Ford and other apostate Protestant scholars he wrote a book, Judged by the Gospel.”
This is an astonishing statement. The fact is that Brinsmead was an avid perfectionist prior to 1970 and then began to study the Protestant reformers in order to debate a RC priest. He discovered that his SDA perfectionism was akin to RC righteousness by works so he gave it up and accepted the gospel of salvation by faith alone, as the best of the reformers taught. Then he wrote “Judged by the Gospel” which defends justification by faith alone. The only part that Des Ford had in all of this was the fact that Des had encouraged Brinsmead for years to read the reformers.
Do you, Bill, follow the gospel of justification by faith alone or are you chained to a form of perfectionism whose only difference to RC righteousness by works is in the semantics? By that I mean, RC perfectionism is achieved through participation in their sacraments in contrast to a SDA perfectionism that is supposedly achieved by an indwelling Holy Spirit throughout one’s lifetime. Dare I get personal, Bill. But is anyone close to you prepared to testify that you are nearing perfection because of the indwelling HS? Would testifiers please form an orderly queue and let’s hear from you.
You are utterly confused Milton, about law and gospel in the legal and moral context. Thus, you can’t distinguish between merit and moral value. The Catholic church claims there is legal merit in human works. But Protestantism claims merit is in Christ and when you are united to Christ, merit is only imputed, not imparted to the believer.
This does not deny the moral law that has moral value in the believer’s response. But most people are confused on this issue, and Adventism is self destructing because of a failure to discern the difference.
By the way, I would guess I know about Brinsmead and his ministry than you do. I was converted by his ministry and was shocked an amazed that he became deluded by apostate Protestantism in which Dr. Ford was a major influence. He and Ford were more than casual friends. His sister, Hope Taylor, nursed Ford’s first wife before she died.
So, you probably know less about Brinsmead than myself. And you certainly know less about Protestantism vs. Catholicism than me. True Protestantism has always held that the moral law was instrumental in salvation. And the 3rd use of the law preserved Protestantism from any antinomian sentiments. Historic Protestantism has been abandon by modern Protestantism and Adventism now embraces the apostate Protestant view.
“So, you probably know less about Brinsmead than myself. And you certainly know less about Protestantism vs. Catholicism than me.” BS
Bill, excuse me but I recall you saying sometime ago that your knowledge of Reformation theology was based mainly on what you had read in RDB’s magazines. Perhaps I remember incorrectly. Isn’t that what you said?
I’ve done a bit of reading in the writings of the Reformers primarily Luther and Melanchthon but I’ve come to a very different conclusion than you have. Luther at his best is basically antinomian. That’s quite clear in “Freedom of a Christian Man”.
Note the following remark from his “Preface to Romans”: “And the Scriptures look especially into the heart and single out the root and source of all sin, which is unbelief in the inmost heart. As, therefore, that faith alone makes a person righteous, and brings the Spirit and pleasure in good outward works, so unbelief alone commits sin, and brings forth the flesh and pleasure in bad outward works, as happened to Adam and Eve in paradise, Genesis 3” (Luther’s Works vol. 35, 369).
Notice how he focuses on faith vs unbelief when defining sin. Contrary to your protestations, I doubt that you actually know what you are talking about i.e., more poseur than scholar.
You would do well to read more Melancthon than Luther. And as for Brinsmead, it was the material he published that informed me about Protestantism. He stumbled along like everyone else. He should have stayed with the historic Protestant confessions of faith instead of opting for the Dr. Ford delusion.
The fact is, he admits he abandon Protestantism. And of course, he eventually abandon the bible and any semblance of Christanity. He doesn’t profess to be Christian.
Bill, Melanchthon wrote a Commentary on Romans, one on Colossians, three editions of Commonplaces of Theology, the Augsburg Confession, and its Apology. That’s about all that have been translated into English. Which of those do you recommend reading?
Commonplaces and the Apology deal specifically with the theological issues of the Reformation, even articulating the exact issues of dispute. They are polemical works, influenced and informed by controversy.
Luther’s translated sermons, on the other hand, were given to the worshippers at the Wittenberg Chapel. They are of a often non controversial in nature, crafted primarily for the edification of people interested and willing to learn.
EGW said Luther expected the second Advent in ~400 years; consequently, his message could not prepare people for an imminent return. Luther’s sermon on the last days, to the contrary, anticipates a soon return, referencing local phenomena as evidence that Christ’s return is near.
Near or far, if SDA had simply crossed the street in Minneapolis and gotten some Lutheran works, the fiasco of 1888 and its aftermath could have been avoided.
I’m still curious Bill. How can you hold yourself out as an expert on Reformation theology? By your own admission, you read a few articles on the subject, written by RDB? Meh!
Hansen, try the formula of Concord where he outlined the basic Lutheran doctrine of salvation. Even some Lutheran scholars admit the church doesn’t think much of Melancthon. Read an article by John Warwick Montgomery entitle “3rd use of the law”.
He is a Lutheran scholar who admits modern Lutherans don’t embrace this idea. I think his article is in Christanity Today about 1975
Hansen, try the formula of Concord where he outlined the basic Lutheran doctrine of salvation. Even some Lutheran scholars admit the church doesn’t think much of Melancthon. Read an article by John Warwick Montgomery entitle “3rd use of the law”.
Bill, Who does “he” refer to in your comment? Certainly not Luther or Melanchthon. They were both dead or nearly so when the Formula of Concord was written to resolve Lutheran internal conflicts over various teachings. Why do you reference L+M and then source a work written by other authors?
If you like Montgomery, that’s your business but he isn’t a primary source. Normally eunuchs don’t get into whose is bigger contests, much less instigate them. Stop being ridiculous.
The vast amount of material published in the Present Truth magazine was not by RDB. Any examination of the Reformation and its theology will reveal a continual progression in explaining and re-explaining bible truth.
Most confessions of faith included first, second, and third use of the law. I think it was Melancthon, but it could have been Calvin who at least endorsed it.
The three uses of the law are the most fundamental explanation of salvation that was produced by the Reformation. The only confession of faith that transcends it is this, “The bible is the final rule of faith and practice.”
The true protestant goal is to build on this confession of faith and create a mature community of believers ready for Jesus to come. Man must know what his relationship to God is in its final stage. How we relate to God in this sinful world is important. How Adam and Eve and the angels of heaven related to God is also important. But how we relate to God after the sin experience is over is critical to actually bringing the whole fiasco to and end.
Those who do not understand the legal and moral aspects of God’s kingdom can never understand nor know what their relationship to God is, both now, or in the future.
A clue to understand is this, “The cross of Calvary is more of a revelation than an inovation.”
There is no inherent sinlessness in any created being. The angels fellowship with God by way of Jesus, we do the same.
“The three uses of the law are the most fundamental explanation of salvation that was produced by the Reformation. The only confession of faith that transcends it is this, “The bible is the final rule of faith and practice.”
That’s your opinion, Bill. People who have read widely in the primary sources disagree with you. The third use which enamors you might be described as a compromise position to thwart the charges of antinomianism, which Luther’s gospel often led to.
Apparently you read a few magazine articles 30, 40 years ago and now want to hold yourself out as a scholar of Reformation theology. LOLOLOL. How absurd, if that’s the case. Can’t make this stuff up!
The Catholics were legalists, Bill, not the Reformers. Naturally, Luther invoked the Decalogue, sometimes at length, in an effort to maintain social order. He wore several hats during his career and had considerable influence on society itself, not just the church.
There were times when revolution was in the air. The Decalogue was a concise rule of law which might have held the masses in check. When they refused to listen, he called for extreme measures, rather than have the Emperor send armies in to to keep peace.
Here’s a good summary of his thought: Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
No Decalogue at all!
“The third use which enamors you might be described as a compromise position to thwart the charges of antinomianism, which Luther’s gospel often led to.”
You are deluded on this issue, Hansen. The 3rd use of the law is a solid confession of faith for every Protestant communion. You deny it because it goes against your antinominan explanation of law and grace.
And you state, “Here’s a good summary of his thought: Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
No Decalogue at all!”
Typical of all the antinomian ideas and sentiments about law and gospel. But the 10 commandment law is the law of love. And love has no definition apart from this truth.
Try reading “God’s Way of Holiness” by Horatius Bonar. He refutes your false doctrine in no uncertain terms.
So he asks his readers, “What guides a Christian?” and some answer “love”. Ridiculous”, he says. “Love is not a law, love is a motive. Love does not tell us the will of God. It only motivates us to do it.”
Hansen, you will never deceive a bible believing Christian by antinomian ideas that love is the law. Love is the motive to do it.
“It is clear then that a Christian man has in his faith all that he needs,and needs no works to justify him. And if he has no need of works, he does not need the law. If he has no need of the law, surely he is free from the law, and it is true, “the law is not made for a righteous man.” And this is that Christian liberty, even our faith, which does not indeed cause us to live in idleness or in wickedness, but makes the law and works unnecessary for any man’s righteous and salvation.” M Luther, Christian Liberty
Here you go, Bill. Chew on this for a while and stop trying to craft Luther in your own image:
“For through Christ and his baptism we are to be so highly exalted and liberated that our conscience according to faith may know no law, but simply remain unmastered and unjudged by the same.”
“Nothing else may be so cheerful to us according to the internal experience of conscience, as though no law had ever appeared on earth, neither ten nor one commandment, either of God or the Pope or the Emperor. We may at all times stand in liberty and say “I know no law and do not desire to know any.”
M. Luther, A Sermon on the Lost Sheep, 1533. Delivered at Wittenberg in the presence of the Elector of Saxony, Duke John Frederick
Bill, what do you mean by the “moral law?” Do you mean the traditional 10 commands in Exodus 20? Or do you mean the 10 commands in Exodus 34:12-26? Which version of the 10 commands do you prefer? Read the whole of chapter 34 in context and think carefully about your answer.
As for who knows more about Brinsmead and Ford —- I’m not going to enter into that discussion except to say that I grew up in the Brinsmead/Ford era and know both men well and wrote the official Ford biography in which Brinsmead features prominently. ATODAY published the book. Have you read it?
And as for who knows more about Reformation theology, you or me? —- I’m not going to enter into that childish one either. My understanding of the gospel v. Roman Catholicism began when Dr Hans la Rondelle recommended that I read “Examination of the Councils of Trent” by Martin Chemnitz, Luther’s apologist. Have you read this classic?
Just for the record —- I recently visited Brinsmead at his farm. I found him to be a Christian, contrary to the gossip mill.
Brinsmead doesn’t even profess to be a Christian by any definition. He is a human moralist that believes in doing good. He doesn’t believe in the death, resurrection and mediation of Christ. On what basis would you define him as a Christian?
Come on Bill, this isn’t whack a mole, Horatius Bonar, the Formula of Concord, Montgomery, all written by not Luther or Melanchthon. Read a few articles and now you are an expert, informing us all about L+M? Hahaha. I prefer Seinfeld.
MR: Just a note about RC belief today. Their belief system depends on who you talk to. Just like in our church–there are conservative and liberal and moderate, and they are not all going to believe the same things, including RF.
And just because no one keeps the law perfectly does not mean the moral law does not function for salvation. As citizens of the USA, no one keeps the law of the land perfectly, either. But we don’t forfeit our citzenship because we don’t keep it perfectly.
If we rebel against the government and attack the law of the land, we may well be considered traitors to the government of the USA. And some in the past were hung as traitors. Adam and Eve were not thrown out of the garden for some slight failure in the relationship. There were thrown out for blatant rebellion against God and His kingdom.
Every true believer understands the necessity to obey the law of God to become a member of His kingdom and continue in obedience to remain so. Neither does any true believer object to be judged by his works. Only unbelievers object to this reality.
I want to be in heaven as a faithful servant of God, and I don’t want anyone there who is not. The angels in heaven concur with this idea.
The real problem is people think if you have to obey the law to be saved, this means you think you can merit heaven by obedience to the law. This false idea is destroying many who have opted to believe this lie, and are willing to think they can be saved without obedience to God’s law. The bible does not endorse it, nor does EGW.
She is biblical.
Bill: “And just because no one keeps the law perfectly does not mean the moral law does not function for salvation.”
Bill I get very confused with your statements. Paul tells us that the law certainly has a role in salvatoin, in pointing out sin. But it doesn’t in itself save us – on Christ death on the cross and our faith in Him through faith does.
I wonder if you simply think the same as me (and most others) but you just put a different emphasis on the matter. Do you agree with Ellen White’s statement in Steps to Christ page 64-65 about two major errors on this topic (quoted below)?
“Bill I get very confused with your statements. Paul tells us that the law certainly has a role in salvatoin, in pointing out sin. But it doesn’t in itself save us – on Christ death on the cross and our faith in Him through faith does.”
If you acknowledge that “faith” is salvational, and it is, because it unites us to Christ, you have added a moral human factor in the salvation process. The response of a believer does not pay, nor earn, nor merit salvation. But it is a moral imperative that includes, faith, repentance and obedience.
We save ourselves by responding to what God has done in the person of His Son. Our response may be less than perfect, and even faulty, none the less, on some level, it is adequate and a dynamic factor in salvation. It has moral value, not legal value.
And as I have repeated on and on, a failure to understand this distinction has created a false dilemma about the divine factor in harmony with the human factor in salvation.
If and when it is stated that you must obey the law to be saved, it is automatically assumed you are claiming you can merit heaven by keeping the law. If you are a Roman Catholic, then that would be the case. But a true bible Protestant knows the difference.
That’s because we distinguish the difference between the legal aspects of salvation that Christ alone accomplished for us, and the moral aspects of redemption that we participate in. Obviously, if you can’t see this difference, you will either opt for
legalism, or antinomianism. You have no choice. It will be one or the other. But if you distinguish between the legal factor (Christ alone) and the moral factor, you need not contend for a false dilemma of either legalism or antinomianism in doctrine and theology.
That Adventism has opted for antinomianism in its basic spirituality, is evidenced by the fact that all you have to do is state that it is necessary to keep the law to be saved.
Even the so-called independent ministries will not admit that you must keep the law to be saved. They will state that you keep the law because you are already saved. But it is not an either/or scenario. If you keep the law because you are already saved, you must have had to keep the law to actually be saved.
In the end, it is simply “word games” to avoid stating that you must keep the law to be saved.
Bill, It’s true that we must keep the law to be saved. To “keep the law” is to believe in Christ. The law refers to the OT Messianic message in its entirety, specifically to faith in Christ. That’s the message of Romans 3, illustrated by Abraham’s example in Romans 4.
Most SDA, following EGW on Genesis 26:5, believe that Abraham’s salvation involved obeying what became known as the Mosaic law. That’s bunk. The commandments, statutes, laws and precepts Abraham had were the ones given to him, prior to Moses. They involved circumcision, the offering of Issac, the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael, and so forth. The NT states plainly, at least three times that there was no [Mosaic] “law” until Moses.
Even the heathen kings Abraham encountered had some general knowledge of “right and wrong” but Abraham himself had no issue with polygamy, for example, something proscribed by Christ’s interpretation of the Decalogue.
The faith of Abraham, antinomian via a vis Moses, is the example Paul admonishes us to follow.
“Let’s learn to study the Bible.” I have a better idea. Learn to read your native language. When I say read, I mean read with comprehension so that you actually understand what the writer was saying to his original readers. I have become convinced, after years on these boards, that a significant number of not only posters but “leaders” are functionally illiterate when it comes to the Bible.
One of the major causes of this in Adventism is the influence of EGW. Her writings have so colored the minds of most SDA that it is just impossible for them to imagine that the Bible writers were saying something other than what she said. Even worse is that many SDA, once they sense that Bible study is leading them to a place that EGW did not venture, simply shut down and go into a “nut” mode, no different than a Mormon testifying to the veracity of Joseph Smith.
I have seen this phenomenon especially on discussions of Christ’s ascension [into what place], perfection, and the law in the NT among SDA.
Another committee is great for the guys who love off the sweat of others, going to meetings, word processing, studying, public speaking, etc. but until the average member learns how understand the sense of the Scripture, these committees are more or less Onanistic fraternities, primarily benefiting the participants.
There is much here that is helpful, especially the second paragraph.
We claim to use the historical/grammatical method of interpretation but so often it degenerates into a selection of historical facts to suit a pre-conceived conclusion and/or a rejection of the original meaning in Hebrew or Greek.
SDAs in the pew are not expected to know the original biblical languages but they could at least read a wide variety of those who do comment on Scripture with an expert background in those languages. Instead, there is a significant section of the SDA church that spurns scholarship, even calling it apostate, in preference for EGW.
My suggestion is —- Try William Barclay, for example.
For what I can sense, the next five years will be used to study how to study instead of studying how to preach and teach. Why is it that we always have to have an issue that distract us from the mission? Differences of opinions are like the poor: we will always have them.
So long as we continue focusing our energies on how we study the Bible and how we preach or teach, we’ll keep seeing the same results over the next five years as we have over the past five, ten, twenty or so years back. That result is declining spiritual vitality that is the result of a simple dynamic: we’ve become so focused on being right about doctrine and how to preach and how to teach and how to study that building an empowered relationship with the Holy Spirit has been forgotten. Revival and church growth become energized when we upend our spiritual priorities to put our relationship with the Holy Spirit first and foremost.
Sounds like we spend a lot of time naval-gazing on here; but its not unusual in a church that was founded on debate, study, and more heat than light. Some of us have to carry on this tradition, and that’s OK.
Dr Taylor (quoting Mr Sorensen): ‘”May I say that I treasure Mr. Sorenson’s comments on this web site. Take for example his statement that “If [people] don’t keep the law, then they have not responded in acceptable biblical way.”’
Law and grace is indeed a complicated issue. Millions died in the religious wars of the Protestant Reformation over it. I think Ellen White said it best in avoiding two extremes here:
“There are two errors against which the children of God—particularly those who have just come to trust in His grace—especially need to guard. The first …is that of looking to their own works, trusting to anything they can do, to bring themselves into harmony with God. He who is trying to become holy by his own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin. It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith, that can make us holy.
The opposite and no less dangerous error is, that belief in Christ releases men from keeping the law of God; that since by faith alone we become partakers of the grace of Christ, our works have nothing to do with our redemption. But notice here that obedience is not a mere outward compliance, but the service of love.
When the principle of love is implanted in the heart, the new covenant promise is fulfilled: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.” (Steps to Christ, 64-65)
I’d like to know if Dr Taylor and Mr Sorenson agree with that basic explanation from Mrs White, which to me seems completely sensible?
We don’t do good works to GET saved – that is the first error – as we are saved by grace through faith and not works. But equally, BECAUSE we are saved, as a RESPONSE through love we keep the law, not in a legalistic sort of way, but under the new covenant where it is written in our hearts. Being saved isn’t a licence to sin either – that is the second error.
A man does not keep a wedding anniversay to GET loved by his wife. He keeps that wedding anniversay because he IS loved by his wife, as a response to that love. A man who has the surety of unconditional love from his wife doesn’t use that as an excuse to forget wedding anniversaries, as if they don’t matter.
These issues illustrate some nuances here that are hard to grasp and even harder to explain. I wonder if Dr Taylor and Mr Sorenson perhaps believe the same thing, but simply express themselves with different nuances? I’d like to think so and give them both the benefit of the doubt.
Steve, Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics but “keep the law” just sounds legalistic. After conversion, Christians “walk in the spirit.” Adventists often qualify their naked appeals to legal obedience by prefacing it with “love” as in “loving obedience to the law” instead of “obedience to the law.” Doesn’t matter. Legalism is still legalism.
Much of this problem stems from EGW’s defining sin as primarily “transgression of the law” interpreting law as the Decalogue. That’s nonsense, more or less. Transgression of the law is actually lawlessness (anomia). The real issue for Christians is walking in faith, not obeying the Decalogue. Luther based his understanding of sin on Christ’s definition “The HS spirit will convince the world of sin because they don’t believe in me,” “Whatsover is not of faith is sin” etc.
SDA, following EGW, have defined sin as r/t works, not matters of faith. The result has been accusations of cultic legalism, which are usually true.
Hansen I don’t disagree with you. Is sin a state or an act? I agree it must be more than a mere act. It can also be confusing because even people who are morally innocent still feel the effect of sin, in terms of brokedness. Babies still die after all.
Steve, I’d like to try to answer you but at best, it will be incomplete. Sin is an estate. It is the realm of those who do not believe in Christ. Whatever an unbeliever does, no matter how righteous it seems, is sinful.
On the other hand, whatever a believer does is righteous, no matter how unrighteous it may seem. Believers abide in the kingdom of God. Sin is not counted against us because of the righteousness of Christ. Abraham provides a good example of this. All the NT recounts of Abraham’s life are his righteous deeds, not his failures, apart from Hagar.
I know this is a flawed and incomplete answer but on a very basic level, it is correct. Lots of nuances, no question but the fundamental precept is correct. Man stands or falls before God based on the justifying righteousness of Christ, not man’s individual works. We participate in that righteousness by faith, not works. Works do follow, no question but only as evidence of righteousness, not a cause of it.
That is the real and true understanding, of the Bible teaching.
Hansen thanks for your reply. I agree with everything you say 100%. Your admission that:
“I’d like to try to answer you but at best, it will be incomplete”
comes close I think to the nub of much of the problem here. The plan and method of salvation is in some respects beyond human understanding and explanation. All we can really be sure of is its effect.
C S Lewis used the analogy of eating. He said people knew since ancient times that when we get hungry eating stops hunger. Now people ate long before the science of gastroenterology existed. Modern gastroenterologists can study the mechanics of it all to hearts content, but that knowledge does not alter the simple understanding, known by the ancients, that when hungry – eat!
Bill Sorensen: [bob Brinsmead] and Ford were more than casual friends. His sister, Hope Taylor, nursed Ford’s first wife before she died. So, you probably know less about Brinsmead than myself.
Gwen Ford was invited to stay with Laurie and Verna Brinsmead to be able to be treated by a physician working in their area. She never stayed with Hope Brinsmead or was nursed by her. Des does not recall seeing Bob much if at all while there. Mind you, Hope and her daughters were/are remarkable people, and anyone being ministered to by them would be very fortunate.
Bill Sorensen: By the way, I would guess I know about Brinsmead and his ministry than you do. I was converted by his ministry and was shocked an amazed that he became deluded by apostate Protestantism in which Dr. Ford was a major influence.
Gill: Bob made a public statement once that you could be Des’s Ford’s friend and didn’t have to agree with him. Bob used to visit Des and talk to him about once a year in the 1970s. I used to follow them on their walks. It was all about theology and never about the politics of the church. Most of the time they disagreed. For a time in the 1970s they agreed on the gospel of righteousness by faith and, later on the sanctuary issues.
Before going to America in 1977, Des had written a Bible Question and Answer section in the Signs for many years. He was the head of the religion department at Avondale for 15 years and also on the Biblical Research Committee in Australia (and in 1977/8 in America). He was the person who mainly dealt with the Brinsmead issue as it affected the church in Australia. The college never lost anyone to the Brinsmead cause while Des was there, and the then Division officers were very appreciative. This was why they sent Des for a second church-supported PhD overseas. When we were in England in 1970/71 and Des was working on his second PhD, he was called to GC to a committee where Bob and John Brinsmead were present.
Bill Sorensen: So, you probably know less about Brinsmead than myself. And you certainly know less about Protestantism vs. Catholicism than me. True Protestantism has always held that the moral law was instrumental in salvation. And the 3rd use of the law preserved Protestantism from any antinomian sentiments. Historic Protestantism has been abandon by modern Protestantism and Adventism now embraces the apostate Protestant view.
Gill: continuation of previous statements: I ask you, can you not fellowship with people who disagree theologically if you believe they are sincere? Do you think a person who has a position of responsibility in the area of theology has a duty of care to make sure he gets his facts straight—to talk to people like Bob instead of damning them without finding out what they believe? If you cannot fellowship with such, how narrow, how exclusive, how unchristian!
It’s clear there was no collusion between Des and Bob because after Glacier View the anticipated joining together never happened. Des and Bob remain friendly, but you could count the time they have had contact the last thirty-five years on one hand.
If you think Des is an apostate Protestant, you clearly don’t know much about him either.
I appreciate your comments, Gillian. And I am sure you know more about the relationship between your husband and RDB than I do.
That Dr. Ford attack the 3rd use of the law when he attack the Investigative judgment is obvious to me and some others as well.
Also, it is beyond question that RDB abandon all that he had stood for in the early 70’s when he was still defending bible Adventism and publishing vast amounts of historic Protestant literature to show that Protestantism always defended the law as applying to the Christian community.
No doubt Paxton was more instrumental in Bob’s apostasy than Dr. Ford. None the less, Ford had a profound influence on Bob and whatever influences caused Bob to abandon bible Adventism, also led him to abandon Protestantism, the bible, and all the basic truths and confessions of faith he had held formerly so that no rational individual would claim Bob is any type of Christian today.
Bob was more “honest” than Dr. Ford, in that he simply took the theory to its final and inescapable conclusion. Dr. Ford tried to “ride the fence” and still does today.
Neither Ford nor RDB clearly understood the parallel and contrast between the legal and moral aspects of salvation. Nor the paradox of a Christian living in two overlapping ages at one and the same time. So, Luther said, “We are righteous and sinful at one and the same time.” Anyone trying to resolve this enigma is doomed to apostasy.
I was raised a SDA but didn’t know about salvation until I was 30 years old and confronted with the Brinsmead awakening, where I learn the gospel for the first time.
I had no understanding of original sin and most SDA’s have a very superficial understanding of it, or none at all. And Adventism has always been a novice “off shoot” religion from Protestantism.
I began reading the bible and EGW along with all the RDB material I could find. And here is the basis of how I studied.
If I read anything in EGW I did not understand, I would simply under line it and put a question mark in the margin, and assumed she knew what she was talking about, even if I didn’t.
This was also I had studied the bible, and this method has served me well for over 40 years.
The difference for Dr. Ford was this, he came to some conclusions that he could not harmonize with EGW and rather than assume he was ignorant, he assumed he was enlightened and she was wrong. This is how he must have also concluded about the bible.
Brinsmead eventually did the same. Such an approach to either EGW or the bible is self destruction in spirituality and the result is final apostasy. Better to say, “I am not sure what she means, but she does, and she is right.”
The same for the bible. People abandon this rule of study when they think they know more than EGW or even the bible and end up formulating some false theory based on human speculation and human reason. Brinsmead’s end is where it goes.
Bill, Please explain how Dr. Ford’s views on the sanctuary are an attack on the “third use” of the law. Melanchthon sets forth his “third use” thelogy in Locus 6 of the 1543 edition of Loci Communes. The “third use” is for the instruction and correction of the regenerate. He uses the word “law” in the same sense Paul does in Romans 3 i.e., a teaching regarding God’s will.
Melanchthon opens his discussion by declaring that the regenerate are free from the condemnation and curse of the law. He continues by saying that the law must be preached to the regenerate to teach obedience and point out remnants of sin which remain in the regenerate. He says we must be ruled by God’s word and not our own reason.
I never heard Dr. Ford teach anything which contradicts this, so again, please explain how his sanctuary views affect the proclamation of Scripture among believers. Aren’t they actually irrelevant to the third use of the law?
Sounds to me that your real issue is that he was willing to cut EGW’s apron strings and go somewhere without her, a place that SDA scholars like Richard Davidson and Roy Gane are are also going. Everybody should know Jesus went into the MHP at his ascension.
Some people refuse to grow up and become men. They simply won’t put away childish things like infallible extra Biblical commenters on Scripture.
” Everybody should know Jesus went into the MHP at his ascension.”
This is blatantly false if you are implying that the final work of judgment began at His ascension. But it is the view of Dr. Ford and others who have abandon EGW and the bible.
People are on probation, including Christians. The final atonement ends probation and the work of judgment is complete, not beginning. Thus in 1844 Jesus entered the MHP to do the work of final judgment, and make an atonement for His people.
Anyone who denies this is neither a SDA, nor in agreement with the bible.
While the gospel in some sense denies the historical process of time and events, it is only because God is sovereign and knows the end from the beginning. But in fact, this does not negate the historical process of time, even though a true believer can “by faith” claim forgiveness even before the final event. But it is “by faith”, which means it is not a fact by way of the historical process. Neither does it negate the historical process as many seem to assume.
Dr. Ford was and is a novice in theology even though he assumed he was “highly enlightened” and ended up deceiving many who assumed he knew, when he did not and still doesn’t.
It is an ant-law, anti gospel concept that he has formulated that attacks and negates the law as the determining factor of who is saved, and who is not. Thus, the third use of the law is abandon and its meaning and value to challenge and guide the Christian community.
“This is blatantly false if you are implying that the final work of judgment began at His ascension.”
Not implying anything here, Bill, Just stating a fact that is unavoidable in Scripture. Strange that with all your chat about theology, bottom line is that you are just a cultic Adventist eager to preserve the myth of EGW as an infallible interpreter of Scripture.
I heard that Neal Wilson even with the Glacier View debacle, still saw the issue as about the authority of EGW. Pretty much the same with you. Anyway, Bill, it’s such a big world. We can go into it and teach the gospel as we understand it. I hope you will be blessed in your efforts to teach the gospel as you understand it.
Even though your remarks concerning the relationship of 1844 and the “third use” are nonsense, God can still bless your efforts.
i had the opportunity to hear Desmond Ford’s 4 part series of Righteous by Faith, in Oshawa, Ont. Can. in the 70’s,and Robert Brinsmead once. Without a doubt, in my mind, both will walk with the Christ in Heavenly spaces. Both have traveled the Earth, generally at their own expense, letting their “LIGHT” shine for the Lord Jesus Christ. Man,s big problem is that he thinks he owns the mind of God. He confuses others, and makes the salvation issue complicated, and difficult, so few will be with the Lord in the everlasting infinite future. Man is continually making judgements of others, although the
Lord has cautioned, all, the penalty for doing so.
All are sinners and have fallen short of God’s measure of “LOVE”. The Bible is very specfic. Salvation in Christ Jesus is not a complicated issue.
Even Cradle Rollers know that “JESUS LOVES ME, THIS I
KNOW”, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO”. ROMANS 8:35-39, nothing, “NOTHING” can seperate us from the love of God. Even a small uncomplicated child knows and believes. Please don’t tempt others to believe a lie.
Salvation is easy, free, from a God who wants “all” of His creation to be with HIM eternally. He has made
this possible by providing HIMSELF as a sacrifice for
“every sin ever committed by every mankind. The “LAWGIVER, Jesus Christ”, died for you!! HE died for me!! You and i are promised eternal life. And this is how we have eternal life; only one simple step is required, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, the…
CONTINUED: Jesus, the Christ. Yes, the prize is ours, only believe that Jesus paid the price for “SIN”, for you, and for me, and by “FAITH, ACCEPT HIS GRACE”. And that’s it. Nothing else required.
Don’t listen to those who complicate the fact by adding requirements that make it impossible to be saved in Jesus. Believing hundreds of conditions is what caused Israel to ritual practices, causing them to refuse the Messiah, Jesus Christ, even though they expected His coming to their rescue.
Trillions of words have been written to complicate what mankind must do for Salvation. But Jesus Christ said “SURELY”,it’s yours, free, “BELIEVE IN ME AND ITS YOURS”
Earl, you can pontificate until the cows come home, and you are so far outside the biblical explanation of sin, atonement,and salvation, that according to you, Satan himself will be in heaven.
Ultimately, the only person you will deceive is yourself and anyone else who hopes to escape a judgment according to works. To free man from any obligation on any level in the salvation senario is the mind of Satan that he presented in heaven to the angels, and then Adam and Eve, and finally, anyone else in the world who is willing to be deceived by such a false view of man and his moral accountability in the kingdom of God.
You and others equate moral accountability with “legalism”. Just as Dr. Ford does. But the moral law is not a legal code or a legal mandate. None the less, you love your deception and get massive doses of affirmation from those who, like yourself, are equally deceived and deluded about God and His kingdom and the principles explained in the bible.
So, Jesus said, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
Bill, you make it so difficult for anyone believing your way, to come unto the Master Jesus. You are continually making judgements against those who believe Salvation in Christ Jesus is free to all who accept His Grace and Mercy by Faith. According to your belief mankind would have to have a PHD, and a precise clear view of everything involving God’s wisdom, to even begin to understand His Plan of eternal life for mankind. i appreciate your faithful studies, to understand the mind of God, but your quest is fruitless, and you have become a clanging cymbal. With your counselling style you will nor draw a soul to the Lord.
Sounds like we spend a lot of time naval-gazing on here; but its not unusual in a church that was founded on debate, study, and more heat than light. Some of us have to carry on this tradition, and that’s OK.
One problem develops. Too often one or two persons take over the dialogue. Unfortunately for them, we see their name so frequently we tend to skip their comments when they might have something interesting to add if they commented less often. I don’t know what do others think. I don’t have time to read all the comments.
Debate on theological issues was and is a known Jewish tradition as well. Questions are often responded to with stories as Jesus often did. This is called MIDRASH, described as homilies, stories to explain passages of the TANACH.
” I don’t have time to read all the comments.”
So? Neither do I. Who is asking you to? Read what you want and ignore the rest.
Well, we can wallow in our ignorance and pretend the bible is too complicated to understand, and then excuse ourselves from accountability.
But many of you attack someone that knows how it is, like EGW, or even myself, and especially the bible, and instead of admitting you don’t know you claim the gospel covers even willful ignorance and so you don’t need to know.
I do know you don’t mind attacking EGW and the historical teaching of the SDA church. And then claim you are more “highly enlightened” than EGW or in some cases, even the bible. And then call it “Adventist Today”. And I agree for the most part, it is Adventist today. And Spectrum is right in there with their 2 cents worth.
And hey, I am aware that Adventism is an “off shoot” movement from historic Protestantism. Just as Protestantism is an “off shoot” movement from the Catholic church.
While the bible is a comprehensive and challenging book, it is not beyond comprehension. If we come with a willing mind and open to instruction, the Holy Spirit will “Guide (us) into all truth.”
Before people get the mark of the beast, they will first have the spirit of the beast (a false spirituality). And those who receive the mark of God also have the Spirit of God (a true spirituality).
With this in mind, all the devil has to do is bring in a false spirit that undermines bible truth. And a final rejection of the Sabbath is inevitable. He doesn’t need to attack the Sabbath openly.
Bill, Why not come clean and admit that the passage below and what follows in Hebrews 10 is a direct reference to the DoA and proves that Christ entered the MHP at his ascension?
24 for Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of god for us;
25 nor was it that he would offer himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
26 otherwise, he would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Matthew 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mute point for us?
“Bill, Why not come clean and admit that the passage below and what follows in Hebrews 10 is a direct reference to the DoA and proves that Christ entered the MHP at his ascension?
24 for Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of god for us;”
Hansen, you more into Paul than he intends. He has one single point in the book of Hebrews that is his focus in all his letters. Namely, the ceremonial law no longer applies and the intercession of Jesus transcends the ceremonial law.
And this scripture states, “Christ has not entered into the holy places, (plural) made with hands, but into heaven itself…..”
Paul only wants to affirm the ministry of Christ in heaven and he has no other point to make in the book of Hebrews.
If a person expands on the ministry of Christ in heaven, then you can point out there is a holy place, and Most Holy Place as paralleled in the ceremonial law. And then you can see by the old covenant system a time element for each compartment.
You must study the old covenant system to expand on the new covenant ministry of Christ in heaven. None the less, the book of Revelation is far more definitive than Paul in his letter to the Church in Jerusalem.
But I again say to you, and any other SDA scholar, that the book of Hebrews has one singular point. And any objective open minded reading of this letter is so obvious as to what I have stated, that
“Wayfareing men, though fools, need not err therein.”
The time element of the two ministries are affirmed in Dan. 8:14. without Dan, we could not know when Jesus began His judgment ministry of and for the church.
John Calvin could not see or know how the cross functioned in the historical process. But he could see that everyone is not saved. So, he came up with his “limited atonement” and “unconditional election” theory to explain his limited view.
T.U.L.I.P. is a convoluted idea that has no inherent continuity. The “P” part of this scenario has no relevance if the first part is accurate.
What we should see is this, while the cross of Calvary is a provisional atonement for the whole world, and not limited in any way. The final atonement is only for believers and is the only “limited atonement” called by EGW the “final atonement”.
This atonement is only for believers. Had Calvin had the knowledge and insight we do, he never would have formulated his theory. In fact, we know his theory ends up with some “once saved, always saved” doctrine that is totally bogus and outside scripture. But it was the best he could do with what he perceived without the insight God gave EGW and the pioneers of our historic faith.
Bill, Apparently you miss the point of Hebrews 10. it’s purpose is to describe the difference between the Levitical System and Christ’s ministry. He uses the DoA service to illustrate his purpose. When Hebrews 9 refers to the holy place entered year by year, what do you think is being talked about?
Please don’t start a ridiculous discussion about the Greek and the sanctuary apartments. It’s talking about the DoA service when the priest went into the MHP. Hebrews 10:3 refers to a remembrance of sins every year [on he DoA].
Heb 9:25 “nor that he may many times offer himself, even as the chief priest doth enter into the holy places every year with blood of others;”
Can it be any plainer? MHP, Jesus entered with his own blood to take away sin forever. Worshippers will never again be confronted by their sin as they were each year on the DoA i.e., we are perfected forever, EGW be damned, if that’s what it takes to make the point.
I said, You are reading more into Paul than he is concerned with. He ends a comment in Heb. 9:5 with “of which we can not now speak particularly.” Or, in detail.
He is writing to people who already know the material he is covering, and there is no need to be overly definitive about the time element of the yearly service.
He has one single point, the ministry of Christ in heaven takes the place of the ceremonial law. He has nothing more to emphasize. Like many SDA’s, you try to read more into what Paul is saying than what it is.
The novices who tried to discredit the Brinsmead awakening, even tried to use this text to
claim “heaven itself” was the sanctuary because Paul says, “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself……”
Talk about twisted theology. All because they hated him and his ministry and would pervert any clear bible truth to try to discredit his ministry.
You are no better. You twist the clear and obvious meaning of Paul, who has no point to make except the earthly service is over and the heavenly service of Christ has begun. But you claim this means Christ entered the MHP at His ascension to make atonement. NOT.
He simply entered the heavenly sanctuary and began the service there as typified by the ceremonial law. Paul has no other point to make. You, like many, read more into Paul than he is affirming and then draw a bogus conclusion all to avoid the obvious…
the time element in the service that Paul does not deal with.
Bill, Hebrews 10 is about a lot more than the ministry of Christ vs the Levitical system It’s about its effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice. Jews had their sins recalled every year on the DoA. That’s why they were not perfected Hebrews 10: 1-3.
Christ’s sacrifice has perfected them forever (vs 14). In the context, that means they will never again be confronted by their sins, as the Jews were every year on the DoA. That’s a solid promise from God. The idea that God has an angel recording every mistake we make so he can throw it in our face on judgment day is pure Satanism.
Hansen you grossly DECEIVED with that sad explanation.
“But many of you attack someone that knows how it is, like EGW, or even myself, and especially the bible, and instead of admitting you don’t know you claim the gospel covers even willful ignorance and so you don’t need to know.”
Bill, While you obviously think you “know how it is” others are not so sure. Actually, some may think you haven’t a clue and are as confused and deluded as you think others are. Don’t take yourself so seriously, Bill. Others don’t. You are just as capable of being and likely to be wrong as the next person.
It’s great that you read some magazines 40 years ago, written/edited by a person you apparently openly detest now. I read some of those same articles. I especially appreciated an article RDB wrote about election in Christ. Great article. That quiz about being RC or Protestant really rocked me as well. I read more than a few articles on Reformation theology. Still reading.
I have Luther’s Works in my computer. Doing a search using various phrases and key words, I couldn’t find a single reference to the “third use of the law” in any of the more than 50 volumes, aside from an editors comment. I’d like you to provide a reference demonstrating that Luther embraced this perspective. If you can’t, you should bury it.
From what I can tell, Luther never used the term but I might be wrong. Easy to find in Melanchthon. Pages 72-74 in the English translation of the 1543 edition of Commonplaces. If you haven’t reviewed it lately,…
You are right, Luther did not use the phrase “third use of the law” and it was Melancthon who did. Melancthon was a more mature theologian than Luther. We all know that Luther had more than a few problems “doing” theology. Even consider the book of James as not being worthy to be in scripture. And this affirms his immaturity.
So let me explain the salvation issue from a slightly different slant. We are righteous and sinful at one and the same time. This was Luther’s evaluation.
As far as our sinfulness is concerned, the law always functions as a schoolmaster and we can only see the law as negative like an unbeliever. And this is a far as most of you go. You never really catch on to the fact that a Christian is also a born again believer. From this perspective, the law is not negative but positive. It justifies a believer who obeys God and keeps His commandments.
But you never see the law from a believer’s perspective. Only as an unbeliever. Thus, you see no third use of the law, only the second use that functions as a schoolmaster. So, you assume that when you come to Christ, the law has no further function, except of course, to continue as a schoolmaster since you are a sinner.
In this, you deny the real dynamic of the born again experience that a Christian is righteous. He is truly moral. And the law is his guide that he can and does obey as a child of God.
But, because we are still sinful by nature, it is still a schoolmaster and always functions thus.
The paradox is not resolved by human reasoning. It is accepted as a given fact and we deal with it without trying to formulate some theory that “makes sense”.
We can even go beyond this life and state that law continues to function as a schoolmaster, even in reference to the redeemed. But in the future sense, it functions as a schoolmaster to “keep us in Christ” not lead us to Christ.
Even the sinless angels must see the law in this context, and they do. So they never assume that they can be sinless in themselves. This was Lucifer’s contention that started the whole problem in the beginning.
None the less, the law justifies a believer as the evidence of true faith. And we are “saved” from the wrath of God by obeying His law. Jesus paid the penalty, we return to obedience. Both are required for salvation and justification.
The eternal principle is stated by EGW when she said, “In ourselves we are sinners, but in Christ we are righteous.”
And this applies equally to the angels who have never fallen.
They have never opted to claim they are righteous in themselves. And thus, they are not fallen beings.
Had the doctrine of original sin been embraced and understood by Adventist scholars and teachers, we would have matured to the Christian community God intended in the beginning.
Adventism is still a novice Protestant “off shoot” that “worships, they know not what.”
Bill, Before you start explaining Reformation theology to me, learn a bit more about it than 40 year old magazine articles. Here’s a short reading list for starters. After you have read these at least in part, we’ll have more common ground:
Christian Liberty, Luther
Preface to Romans, Luther
On Translating, Luther
Commentary on Galatians, especially chapter 3, Luther
Treatise on Good Works, Luther
Genesis Commentary on chapter 15, Luther
No doubt others are good too. Please feel free to add primary works you have found helpful. Secondary sources,apart from historical backgrounds, don’t interest me
Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon
Apology, Melanchthon
Commonplaces of Theology, 1543,1555 editions, Melanchthon
Bill, You make ridiculous assertions and expect to be taken seriously. “We all know Luther had a few problems doing theology. Melanchthon was more mature theologian than Luther”?
I can only guess it is because you have read so little of Luther that you make such remarks. In other words, they are the product of ignorance. Read 50, 60, 70 of his sermons. You might change your mind, or chapter 3 of his Galatians commentary.
His dismissal of James as an epistle of straw is not far from the mark. James was a curious guy and a source of division in the NT church. It was men sent by James who were judaizing in Galatia that were cursed by Paul. It is a problematic writing. Do you imagine for a minute that I would value your opinion above Luther’s?
Adventists have a long running hatred of Luther’s theology because it flies in the face of Adventist perfectionistic legalism. Graham Maxwell did a hatchet job on Luther, with apparent long range impact, at an Adventist forum meeting around San Diego.
The predominant theological voice in Adventism has been EGW, a woman steeped in Methodism; raised in a Methodist home, converted at a Methodist camp-meeting, mentored by a Methodist minister. I’m not convinced she ever got over her admitted confusion about justification and sanctification, which is why the denomination has been such a hodgepodge.
“His dismissal of James as an epistle of straw is not far from the mark.”
The fact you think Luther was not “far from the mark” when he claimed James should not be in the bible, only reveals your own lack of understanding of the bible that parallels Luther.
It is beyond a doubt that Adventism was built primarily on a 3rd use of the law system of theology. And that’s why the 1888 emphasis endorsed by EGW was important in her mind to make sure there was no misunderstanding about the law as some system whereby the Christian could merit salvation.
It was easy to fall into the error of legalism if people thought the Investigative judgment was for the purpose of determining who had merited heaven. She never taught that, nor did she think this was the function of the IJ.
People are so ignorant of the bible and EGW thy impute all kinds of false concepts because their own ignorance of how to interpret and understand the bible.
If we would rightly consider ourselves ignorant, and EGW enlightened, and come to listen and learn, instead of pontificating our own ignorance and false ideas all over the church and internet, we might actually learn something of value about the bible and plan of salvation. A false imputation of the meaning of the IJ will only affirm us in ongoing ignorance.
EGW presented no system of legalism as Dr. Ford and others claim. Novices would do well to “listen and learn”, instead of considering themselves highly enlightened.
“. Do you imagine for a minute that I would value your opinion above Luther’s?”
You obviously value no one’s opinion above Luther’s.
Any historic Protestant scholar is well aware that Luther was a real novice on many issues. He still believed in trans-substanciation in the communion, mass. He fought with Zwingli on this issue. To cling to Luther as though he is the final word in interpretation of scripture is off the wall.
God used him in a mighty way to expose the false doctrine of Rome that any response of man to God could not and would not “merit” or earn anything with God. In many ways, this is about all he knew, but it gave the beast a “deadly wound.”
He defended the doctrine of original sin against Erasmus and did a good job in that area.
But in the end, Wesley, JC Ryle, EGW and a host of other were giants in theology compared to Luther. He had a hard time seeing the salvational value in the human response. But man is not just saved legally, he must also be saved morally, and that can’t be done without man’s cooperation.
Bill, You talk about Luther as if you actually know something beyond a few magazine articles, which you apparently do not. Pointless to discuss a topic when a participant admittedly has little understanding of the subject. You call other people novices but what would you call a person who wants to talk authoritatively about a topic after reading a few magazine articles? Laughable, that’s all.
You prattle on about the “third use” without a single reference to its origin which is apparently Melanchthon in Locus 6 of “Commonplaces”. Melanchthon said that both the law and the gospel must be preached, one to point out sin and the other to present Christ, so that faith will grow. Ultimately, hs point is that we must be ruled by the word of God! Is that “news” to anyone, except those who want to be ruled by EGW? In a sense its absurd to say that Adventism is based on the third use when an extra canonical prophet rules the roost. It’s nonsense to suggest that Scripture rules Adventism. Ellen White rules Adventism and you know it.
All the hot air you blow is really about nothing more than preserving EGW. That’s the reason you hate Dr.Ford so much. He wanted to take away your love doll and you couldn’t bear it.
Do us all a favor, Bill. Become informed about what you represent. Buy Commonplaces, both the 1555 and 1543 editions. Study and compare them. It was Luther’s Roman’s Preface that led to Wesley’s conversion. As Hebrews points out, the less is blessed by the…
May I quote Mr. Sorenson back to him to ask him a question? “People are so ignorant of the bible and EGW thy impute all kinds of false concepts because their own ignorance of how to interpret and understand the bible.”
May I ask Mr. Sorenson a question with a kind of self-evident answer: “Pray tell, Mr. Sorenson, who is so enlightened and unignorant of the bible so that such an individual is able to to interpret the bible correctly?
“: “Pray tell, Mr. Sorenson, who is so enlightened and unignorant of the bible so that such an individual is able to to interpret the bible correctly?”
The bible is not so obscure, Dr. Taylor, that anyone who really wants to know, and comes with an open mind and willing heart can see as the Holy Spirit guides into all truth.
God used EGW in this context, and those who attack her ministry are woefully ignorant of scripture. This wouldn’t be so bad, but when they see the can’t harmonize their false and convoluted thinking with her teaching, they assume she is ignorant, and they are highly enlightened.
Any careful evaluation of scripture with her teaching will reveal a perfect continuity between them. My dialogue with Hansen on Hebrews shows how little he understands Paul in his affirmation of the ministry of Christ vs. the ceremonial law ministry.
He reads into Paul something Paul neither affirms nor denies. And then uses this convoluted idea to think he can discredit the teaching of EGW.
And you are right in this context, Dr. Taylor, I don’t anyone who knows the bible better than myself. But I am always looking for that person. Just as David said, “I am wiser than all my teachers, for I seek thy precepts.”
I don’t see any arrogance in David’s statement. He was a great learner and never ceased to learn. And so I am listening, teach me if you can. But no one will impress me with superficial ideas.
When men come in who would move one pin or pillar from the foundation which God has established by His Holy Spirit, let the aged men who were pioneers in our work speak plainly, and let those who are dead speak also, by the reprinting of their articles in our periodicals. Gather up the rays of divine light that God has given as He has led His people on step by step in the way of truth. This truth will stand the test of time and trial.—Manuscript 62, 1905, 6. (“A Warning against False Theories,” May 24, 1905.) 1MR 55.1
Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel’s message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted. In the little book entitled “Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology,” Father Miller gives the following simple but intelligent and important rules for Bible study and interpretation:
“1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.”
The above is a portion of these rules; and in our study of the Bible we shall all do well to
heed the principles set forth.
RH, NIV. 25, 1884.
The BRI has unquestionably and outrightly rejected Miller’s method of Bible study. Cottrell and others had made this absolutely plain….thus they, and anyone following, are disqualified from giving the 3 Angels Messages.