Adventists May Exist, but So What?
by Herbert Douglass
Seventh-day Adventists are always one generation away from oblivion. Not that they should cease existing but that they could lose the fire of purpose and mission that inspired their founders for 160 years. They could fall prey to simply doing a lot of activity without the reason for its existence.
Seventh-day Adventists are a Movement, not just another church. They do not look back upon a famous leader, such as the Lutherans or follow the strict pattern laid out by the great Methodist leader, John Wesley. These men were great for their time but God wanted more to be said on this earth before He returned.
The Seventh-day Adventist Movement was formed by Bible-studying men and women from most of the main churches in the middle 1800s. They realized that Bible prophecy was meant to be understood, especially Daniel and Revelation when those books focused on the Second Coming of Jesus.
The more they studied, the more they were impressed that God was returning for His people, especially those “who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12). This central theme opened up new questions such as the real meaning of “obedience” and “faith”–two words that are terribly confused in most established Christian churches.
All this serious study opened the door to the lessons to be learned in the Old Testament sanctuary doctrine and how it became better understood after the death of Jesus on the Cross and after considering what He is now doing in Heaven. The great lesson: Keep our eyes on Jesus, Paul's message in Hebrews.
After a few years of conferences and after the rise of a young woman who was recognized as God's Messenger, all these fresh biblical studies fell into an integrated, coherent picture that we call The Great Controversy. From beginning to end, it became clearer that God was patiently permitting Satan to do his best to rule the world in his own deceptive way.
All the while, God was gently leading out a people who were listening to Him and saying, “No!” to Satan. Jesus called it the difference between wheat and tares, the wise and foolish. The Controversy would be ended when the wise were so committed to truth that they could not be moved by anything Satan threw at them. And the foolish will live out their choices as the world is convulsed in the Seven Last Plagues.
Seventh-day Adventists are to do their part in the Controversy—telling the truth about God who has been so terribly misrepresented. The best way that is done is by living as His witnesses to this truth. The Controversy ends when the whole universe sees/hears the difference between God's way for living and Satan's way of so-called freedom to do as one pleases.
Thus nothing is more important for Adventists than keeping the purposes of the Controversy clear, fresh, and appealing in both preaching, teaching and living in all that Adventists think and do.
That is why the circumstances of 1957, for instance, became a “fork in the road” for Seventh-day Adventists. Here were good men and women trying to convince other good Calvinists that we too were Christians. Then they fell into the dialogue trap where each party reframes its position so that there could be conclusions with which both could agree. Hegelian dialectics—thesis, antithesis, synthesis—a place where some at the beginning cannot really recognize themselves in the end. Every dialogue always ends that way, all through history.
The main subjects that drifted away from general Adventist thinking in this 1953-57 dialogue were the humanity of Jesus and what He is now doing in the Heavenly Sanctuary. If we do not understand why Jesus came to earth and what He is doing now, the Great Controversy becomes a mystery and we would have no clue as to how it should end. Further, getting right these central truths about Jesus has everything to do with how one understands “righteousness by faith” and whether “overcoming” has any real meaning.
Thus, Adventists can lose the heart of their message and purpose for existing if they merely try to baptize Saturday-keepers without passing on the Big Picture of all that is involved in the Great Controversy between God and Satan.
It doesn't take long until Christian bodies become entranced in focusing on “Jesus” as a Friend but not as Lord. Relationship becomes a warm, emotional thrill coupled with zingy choruses.
When it comes to understanding why He died, the answer is usually nothing more than “He died for my sins.” If that is all we believe, Satan could not be happier! If all we think of when we claim “faith” is that we are saying the right words and raising the hand in the right meeting, again Satan could not be happier!
All I am saying is: Assuming the name Seventh-day Adventist is far more than saying we believe Saturday is the biblical Sabbath and that Jesus some day is returning to earth.
Cheers, Herb Douglass
1844 has been considered as "face saving device" by non-adventist scholars who don't see a smattering of evidence for our contrived reading.
I don't fully agree with that description. I believe the subsequent explanations for the great disappointment were in line with the historicist/jewish "pesher" approach taken by William Miller in which biblical prophecy is interpreted as predicting the exegetes' very existence and purpose.
Thus when first century B.C. jewish sects such as Qumran read the prophecies of Daniel and Ezekiel, they read them as referring to themselves especifically. Miller and the Adventist pioneers did EXACTLY the same, they read Daniel and Revelation with their own lenses. Thus Rev 14 became the story of their rejection by the other churches and gave them comfort amidst rejection.
So I don't believe the investigative judgment was a product of dishonesty, it was a tradition of interpretation stemming from the 18th century theologians. Today we know better, much better. The last 25 years have seen an explosion of scholarship on Revelation and Adventists scholars are too slow to catch up. The greatest discovery: Revelation is Christian psychology, not futurology.
Today, Adventism desperately needs to maintain the ONLY viable apocalyptic approach for our movement, the one JESUS proposed: His imminent, sudden and universally visible Second Advent. All the whistles and bells we've been adding since our inception have only muddied the waters of the pure gospel, they complicated NT views of forensic justification by faith, sapped assurance of salvation, confused people with the heresy of last generation theology, perfectionism and legalism. All of this has been packaged nicely with the "great controversy" theme which is nothing but another product of the historicist school of apocalyptic interpretation, now discredited among scholars. We need the Great Controversy them to be devoided of its sectarian ring, it will them be much more attractive.
So I agree partly with Knight in his book "The Neutering of Adventism". The only future for Adventism is to keep its apocalyptic outlook on life. But that will only work as a return to the pure New Testament eschatology of an already inaugurated kingdom in the Cross of Christ and the not-yet final establishment of God's kingdom on Earth.
The church still needs apologists. And there is nothing wrong with them arguing over different points of view. I disagree with some things both of you say, but can still believe we need to have you say them, and that you should be heard and your POV considered. That you both disagree with me on some significant issues – although not the most significant, which is an apocalyptic focus that keeps Jesus front and centre – is unfortunate, but these things happen 🙂 Keep up the good work.
Kevin Riley,
I agree with your post and especially that we should be free to express our ideas. I suppose what I object to (and maybe it is a part of all of our human pride problem) is that we often say without apology that we are right. (Does John Andrew come through like this to you?) I agree with him that we need to progress in our understanding and yet cannot take the stand that all the theologians out there are more right than we are. We can learn from other churches, but they also come from a different tradition that has opposed some basic biblical beliefs for centuries and turned a blind eye to the persecutions of the Roman church from whence they came.
Herbert Douglass
I don't agree that the QD book was a mistake. I think it went a long way in getting our church out of the cult category. Knowing some of those men who worked on it, I believe in their integrity. As for the nature of Christ, I do not have a conclusion on that one but tend to lean in your direction after reading many different views. However, I am not convinced at the difference it makes in our salvation story. I do think the subject has not been treated fairly by some in high office who oppose it when the church has never taken a stand on it. It is one of those things that need not be in concrete for every member to beleive. (my opinion which is also not in concrete)
No one writer or speaker can represent the Adventist beliefs: there is not one that represents true Adventism, as anyone can observe from reading the different writers, hearing the preachers, and watching SDA TV programs.
That may be good. It means that there is still more to be learned if people have open minds, not shared by everyone
Do you mean open minds are not shared by everyone, or things to be learned? Never mind – I know the answer to that question 🙁
It is always easier to chat with friends around my fireplace. Wish you were here! I can always count on my ol' friend Elaine to be the court agnostic. I know she has her tongue in her cheek most of the time. Of course, good friends may have difficulty agreeing, especially when they may have elected to resort to different world views and presuppositions. All that really depends on whose classes or books they have enjoyed. Part of my doctoral program in the 1960s was to trace the genetic stream of particular theological viewpoints–it was a rare treat to have time to set the table of any, and I mean, any, theological discussion. Sure saves me a lot of time today and helps me to where most anyone is coming from. I simply let people know that my assurance of salvation rests on the words of Jesus that promise that those who respond with faith (a relationship of authentic trust and willingness to let His Holy Spirit transform my life), knowing that His promises are as sure as the rising sun–He can be trusted to indeed be my Savior, saving me from my sins when I repent and saving me from repeating those sins, when I obey His leading. For me, it all rests on trusting the Jesus who convinced those disciples, eventually, that He is what He promised. And He doesn't play word games when He says He will save us from our sins–He means it. And Paul changed the Mediterranean basin by passing on this good news–and changed it was. That is how genuine righteousness works. Thanks for being patient. Cheers, Herb
Isn't theology the study of God? Do we know God only through our subjective lenses? It seems to be entirely different than the study of history when there are multiple subjects and documented sources for review; or the sciences with established principles. and constant new discoveries.
How can theology be compared to the other subjects that may be studied? God has been studied for thousands of years by the Hebrew rabbis and later Christians, but what possible new discoveries have been made? For we who are agnostics it appears to be a rehashing of all the authors who have written about this subject since books were printed, but have modern theologians made any advancement in all that time?
This is why theology is so vastly different from all subjects that can be studied: no new disoveries, nothing that has been a major change since God became a subject of conversation.
I expect shortly to be corrected and given rebuttals.
Elaine's comment defines the generation that followed her-that is-gravitation to the many truths and rejection of any
single Truth. She is precisely correct which explains why Jesus came. His statement, "I am the way, the truth and the light"
was more than a clever triplet of prose. From the time of Heraclitus the world grappled with the meaning of "logos", the
reason, the connection between the cosmos and the realities of earth. Jesus was saying I am the way, truth and life in the
midst of a plurality of ways, truths and lives. Much the same as today, but, alas, we seldom examine history to learn our
own propensities, only the future to sate self-generated hopes.
How intelligent people cannot see the effects on this culture on the way they think, merely believing that the old
ways are insufficient, affirms the effectiveness of Satans few modes of operation.
We discuss Darwin's natural selection as the method of gradual speciation change and don't recognize
the same strategy in the gradual evolution of truth seen in the Hegelian (Galopogos) Islands.
Hmmm…
I would say, "makes you think," except it doesn't appear to be working.
Rick surely has been on this road before. I know that Elaine expecte, and wanted, someone to note that Jesus called Himself "the way, the truth, and the life." Exactly the issues on which giant philosophers speculated and still do, whenever the singular, unrepeatable invasion of this Earth by Jesus is dismissed. Rick, if he had time I suppose, would tell us how presuppositions generate all kinds of notions that have no substance except adding to the suppositions of the ages. Obviously, some concepts do work and are proven, and not only in the natural science world. Without the words and presence of Jesus, this world would not ever have any formula or plan to bring peace and health, at least, to those who accept His words and try them out. Happy Sabbath everyone! Cheers, Herb
How's that plan been working out? It's pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye.
If His followers always had peace and health, how come it's gone unnoticed these thousands of years?
Elaine,
They lost connection with the Holy Spirit.
Ah, Elaine, just look and listen. I have plenty of friends who were once deep into the druggy world, drunk into senselessness, and now elders in our local church, both he and his wife, great leaders to old and young. For 25 years, in and out of jail, especially when her father was the city major (!), living in a dirt floor garage, but today leaders in their professions–yep, the gospel is powerful with its promises when rightly presented. Thanks for asking, dear Elaine. Cheers, Herb
Reading blog responses is often like a checklist of the characteristics of postmodernism- from Kant’s phenomenom/noumenom- all is a construction in the mind, to Barthes “Death of the Author” and structuralism/poststructuralism’s denial of the contribution of the author, only the framing of text in one’s mind according to context, culture and so on, to examining the contributions of Baudrillard(who?). We often believe that we have thought it all through and have come to our own conclusions-even though today that conclusion is often that a conclusion is impossible to know- and congratulate ourselves in our enlightenment. Baudrillard’s contention that we live in a culture so overwhelmed with images and signs that we are unable to differentiate between our reality(whatever that is) and the fabricated hybridized reality in which we live-the so called simulacrum ( see The Matrix series). So, we’ve dismissed text as unreliable, adopted a culture of the image, which we don’t understand and can’t negotiate and in the midst of all this find comfort in conflict, peace in confusion. Maybe it’s that uncertainty provides respite from conviction. Jesus’ words, “…sanctify them through your truth, your word is truth,” often falls on deaf ears because we don’t trust the Word and we’re not interested in truth or sanctification. Derren Brown’s youtube clip, http://youtu.be/FEpdTZGfxCQ
might help us see that our culture is full of suggestions which lead us to behave certain ways, buy certain things, and think certain ways-sometimes with our permission, sometimes without our awareness. Just a suggestion that to know the impact of contemporary culture might help us see that we’re not quite the intellectual towers we might have hoped and our thinking is often hopelessly and ignorantly entangled in the web of today’s “Babylon.”
Herb, I would not for a minute discount your stories. But was it God's love represented by humans or was it the Great Controversy that converted them? Is God limited to any one religion? Many find him in the other thousands of denominations.
The title of your essay: "Adventism Exists: So What"? is preaching the Great Controversy theme: "Nothing is more important for Adventists than keeping the purposes of the Controversy clear, fresh, and appealing in both preaching, teaching and living in all that Adventists think and do" If that is the great converting factor, is it through fear to avoid the plagues and persecution that will be coming, plus the second death and barbecue? How is that not just a milder version of hell that was the prevailing fear converting millions in Christian history?
Which comes first: conversion to the G.C. theme or seeing Christ and his love? How are they combined if, as you write, nothing is more important?
Elaine: You asked the right question.
Ella and Elaine are right: we must ask the right question! Elaine knows that her reduction of the GCT has no resemblance to that all-important theme. And Rick's contribution surely gives us a clue as to why there is so much misunderstanding when the GCT is mentioned. You can find all this in other places but in brief: The GCT unfolds why Creator God created freedom before even love and why He does not use the methods of His chief rebel in permitting evil to have its day and display the consequences of misusing freedom. Jesus, One of the Godhead, chose to humble Himself in His attempt to help angels to understand the character of God on terms they could see/feel; He further humbled Himself to become a human, to continue His work of Self-Revelation so that human beings could understand better the kind of God who is running the universe. In this grand earthern laboratory, two principles are on display, the consequences of willing, loving obedience to their Creator and the consequences of willing, self-fulfilling conseqences of rejecting their Creator's principles of life, health, and happiness. Everybody in the end will get the results of what they each have chosen. And, in the end, God will be honored for being fair and Satan will be seen as the Awesome Liar. And of course, this is merely the outline of a Beautiful Story. Cheers, Herb
Herb, I like this version much better than as was stated in your essay. It is much more palatable when the eschatology does not take center stage.
Elaine: Anyone who poses to talk about the GCT and makes eschatology its main theme is no better than those featuring Cohn's Harbiners, or Mayan Calender guesse, or Nostradamus freaks. We should emphasize what our hopes are, not what we fear. Cheers, Herb
Herb: absolutely! Would that all those apocalyptic TV evangelists would follow that plan. But it's not sensational.
Herb,
As you point out, we are not just here to baptize Saturday-keepers. Our faith as a whole is to be shared. Our faith as a whole shapes us. The canvas and the paint and the strokes–all of them–of the painter, make the finished product. God shares much; we must reflect much. We are not the product of some generic faith only, but of all of our Christianity. We can share in a gentle way all that the faith God has given us has made us. Truncated sharing can misrepresent the gospel. We should not limit God. When I am not ashamed of the gospel I am not ashamed of any part of it.
Elaine: Note how Larry fleshes out the kind of apocalyptic emphasis on which Adventists should be devoting their personal and congregational energies. We are all surely in the last of the last-days. I know many will say that they have heard this since childhod, but! No one today can say that 2012 is anything like 1960! Check out Red Alert from PPPA. At the same time, God is honored only by people who really love their neighbors enough to winsomely share what God has on His mnd regarding those days just before His return. A great time to be alive! Cheers, Herb
Herb, you and I most certainly realize that 2012 is far removed from the '30s. But that "knowing that we are in the last of the last days" is no different than when it was said in the NT, and the years since. Every generation has been convinced that the "last days" are here and now. It loses its urgency and the strengh of the punchline is easily brushed off. If there was evidence to the apostles that they were in the "last days" what additional evidence justifies saying that today is so much closer than the first century? "No one knows the day nor hour."
"No one knows the day nor hour."
It always seemed to me as if this was an admonition to make the best of life. Live fully. Live abundantly. Live as if The End could be soon. And that's not bad advice, even if this is the only life we have–maybe especially if this is the only life we have.
The date-setting and the hand-wringing over IJ, and all that, it just seems entirely uncalled for. Just fluff. Just a distraction from living and experiencing a full and productive and adventurous life. I surely am glad I haven't spent my life worrying about sin and salvation.
Truthfully, Herb, you and I are in our "last days." 😉
Larry and Herb, who can disagree. Too bad that it seems to be put on the back burner as apocalypticism is so much more exciting. This is what is used to draw crowds: pictures of winged beasts and frightening affects. It's called "bait-and-switch" in retail markets.
Elaine,
Here is a reply in two parts. . .
1.
You make me think of two persons who came to two meetings we are holding. Dave came to a meeting led by one of our laypersons. The topic that night was God's care for us. But Dave came to tell us about a “giant event” that is coming in Dec 2012 which he has been studying out. He treats as Scripture a wide variety of documents, and has concluded that Mayan Quatzequatel was Jesus. In contrast, we just finished health meetings at the other church in our district. Another fellow, whom I will call “Smarter,” was so impressed that he told a member he is considering attending our church this coming Sabbath. Smarter said that in his own (non-SDA) church he is turned off by so many persons coming to him trying to pitch goofball health products. He was impressed because our presenter offered serious science-based lifestyle health principles. Our physician was trained in Loma Linda. I can tell you, I hope that Dave gets sraightened out but if he does not return to our meetings I will not be troubled. He was there to teach us and to conspiracize us, and not to learn from us. He was bored by the friendly Bible-based topic of a loving God we presented. On the other hand I am very interested in Smarter, and hope he comes this Sabbath.
Elaine, people are who they are and they are interested in what they are interested in. We could advertise publically the meetings which I give monthly to my church where we are working through Bible study principles for the different genres of Scripture. (We do two months on each; right now we are finishing “narrative.”) But I don't think we would ever have seen Dave or Smarter at those meetings even if we had advertised them. The reality is, we are dealing with people where they are at. Prophetic beasts are part of Scripture and the prophetic phenomenon is a legitimate interest. What would be wrong would be to be, as a church, a one-trick pony, and only and forever dwell upon apocalyptic. We don't do that. I don''t know of any SDA church that does that. When people join the church they then experience a wide variety of biblical teaching. And so, for example, in the past several months I have been teaching members of one of my churches principles of interpreting wisdom literature, epistles, psalms and poetry, and presently narrative. . .
2.
If someone comes to visit our church, and holds a one-eyed myopic view of reality, praise God! At least he has come. Hopefully he will meet well-rounded Christian persons and hang around long enough to become more well-rounded. But we are also glad when someone like Smarter comes, and is impressed because of the level-headedness and the Christian character he sees exemplified in our members. No, this is not always the experience people have when coming to our churches! Yes, as a pastor I want to see those among our own members who have a conspiracy-video view of the world replace that with a Scriptural one. Here in Idaho there are some who think that way! But I don't think bait and switch is what we are doing. We are meeting people where they are, whether in prophecy-based meetings or health meetings, etc., and then trying to help them have an increasingly well-rounded Scriptural approach to Christianity. Is there really anything objectionable about this? Adventism without the prophetic would not be well-rounded, just as Adventism without the remaining 99% of Scripture would not be well-rounded either. In my view of the world, I endeavor to give 100% of Scripture influence as a guide for my life. Only thus would I even anticipate that I would represent anything approaching offering a well-rounded Christian witness.
Ah, what a breath of fresh air! Larry surely has the seasoned approach to how the Adventist purpose and message reflect the example of our Lord. I can't think of another word to add to this common sense explanation of why Adventists exist in 2012. Cheers, Herb
I will just have to try to be more disagreeable!
My purpose is to point out that neither the Adventist church nor its pastors are a bunch of filthy trolls under the bridge trying to corrupt everyone (although one might infer this based on the way some seem to speak of us). Doing church and pastoral ministry is about helping people keep back and let God do the work in them that will make them a blessing in a planet much in need of blessing. Stubbornness of ourselves and of others too often interposes. May our Lord help us and save us from ourselves. To do that will take a whole gospel–not an abridged one.
Not surprising that perfectionists and LGTers would be high-fiving each other in this forum.
I'm amazed at how they are able to always tinge the Gospel with our need to "improve ourselves". They drag the GCT as the prime defense of their untenable position and thus diminish GCT's meaning and strength. EGW would be ashamed.
They don't get it: it's because we CAN'T improve ourselves that Jesus had to die. Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for that ideal by the power of Holy Spirit but perfection is not a point in time in the future, it's more like a process by which I'm constantly being covered by the merits of Christ in humility and penitance. Thus the antithesis of perfectionism is not presumption, it's sanctified humility.
I'm afraid perfeccionists diminish both the power of sin and the meaning of the cross. Theirs is NOT the Adventist worldview we should have.
Dear John,
Here is a simple suggestion, cheerfully offered. Sit down and engage in a serious read of Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. You might be surprised at what you discover there. The material will be difficult in some places for most readers. Do not despair. The important thing in your reading (unless I miss my guess) will be to clarify to you that the basis of your understanding of forensic justification may be very distant from that of the NT. You will be at risk of discovering that what some hold to be a conventional view of the gospel is a quite recent development in historical terms. Indeed, you may find yourself on the wrong side of the eisogetical line.
Unless you are different from other LGT-hostile persons I have interacted with, your starting point includes a cluster of false assumptions. You might be surprised that I agree with most of your premises after all. True: we cannot improve ourselves. True: we should strive to be surrendered to God so that He can improve us. True: “perfection” (your choice of wording) is progressive rather than punctiliar. True: there can be no place for nor compromise with presumption; it should be wholly rooted out. But I would like to gently nudge you to reevaluate on what biblical basis you prescribe a forensic understanding (which too often becomes a behavioral anesthesia). Nor do I understand for what cause you have ungenerously slimed myself and others who love the Lord but who may differ from you.
(I don't see where it was the intention on the blog author or of myself to veer into a discussion of Last Generation Theology, so I do not plan to advance further here in that direction.) Have a day filled with rejoicing!
John: You speak with clarity and conviction and worthy of attention. I just need a little help–what books are you reading? What theologians are you recommending? I agree that what you have written is fundamentally at odds with what I have written above–but help me understand what you understand NT faith to mean. Cheers, Herb
Herb
I base my statements as an Adventist on NT view of justification as forsensic atonement and Ellen White's complete and mature view on justification as expressed in SM volume 1.
I believe Christ died because we could never offer anything of worth to God, not even my penitence and obedience have any weight towards salvation. Doesn't mean they are not important, they are but only in light of the Cross. I think Ellen White said it all when she said:
"Oh, that all may see that everything in obedience, in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving, must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ. The fragrance of this righteousness ascends like a cloud around the mercy seat. {1SM 344.3}"
God bless.
The theory of the doctrine of justification was developed several years after Christ died. No one at that time had an explanation for his death or that, somehow, this event was the one point in history where man's salvation was made.
The Hebrews knew nothing of it; the apostles during Christ's life could have known nothing, because the Gospels were not written until some 30 years later. At the earliest,
Paul appears to be the first one to give his explanations: there is not just one, there are several, which is why there is still confusion seen in Adventism. There is no coherent and convincing consensus within the church of the meaning of Christ's death, so why would there not still be various reasons presented by theologians? Who can explain this to a child; one who is a candidate for baptism? How do they understand it? Do the theologians ever speak to little children on this topic, so important to them, or to prospectives who may be interested.
Randomly ask 20 long-time Adventists to explain the doctrine of justification by faith or the theory of the atonement; that will indicate where it is simple and understanable.
Elaine,
How do you explain Habakkuk when he says:
This was Paul's outline for his teaching of justification by faith.
If it is so simple, why do the theologians keep endlessly trying to explain it? Is it supposed to be a difficult concept? Every Christian can say: " I am justified by faith," but ask what it means and how it came about–there's the rub. Baptists can say "once saved, always saved," Adventists have a far different view, as do other Christians yet we all read the same Bible, don't we?
Explain the meaning of "just" in the verse quoted above.
Just = lawful / righteous. Justification by faith is the major thrust of Paul's gospel. But where did he get the idea from?
Paul states that he learned it from Jesus personally. The Old Testament clearly teaches justification by faith clearly, but it is easily missed in the attempts to make the scriptures teach what fits ones personal ideology… whether it be "keeping the commandments" to be saved, or "once saved, always saved."
Paul could not have learned it personally from Jesus as Jesus was crucified before Paul experienced conversion.
Does "justification by faith" mean that our faith justifies us, or is it God that justifies us? What part does faith play? Does the SDA church not teach that keeping the commandments is necessary for salvation? IOW, it is not one of the essential qualifications for salvation?
Elaine,
Why couldn't Jesus teach Paul through revelation? Paul in 2 Corinthians 12 says:
What does "justification by faith mean?" No, our faith is not the reason God justifies anybody. Justification by faith comes thru the faith of Jesus as a free gift to all who receive Jesus Chrsit as their personal Savior from sin (Romans 3:21-31; 4:1-5; Galatians 2:16; 3:21.22). What justifies the believer is the acceptance of Christ's obedience, without failure, to all of the legal requirements of the law as mankind's representative… which includes perfect obedience in terms of the law, and paying the full penalty for that law broken by those whom Christ came to save.
When God gave you and I His Son as a free gift, all of this comes with Jesus, which gives us the full assurance of faith that God has saved us, is saving us, and will ultamately save us? How so? By what Christ accomplished in the past, and by what is available to us now… peace from God, and power from God, and what He has promised to give us at the end of the prophetic day… the redemption of our bodies unto the glorious body that Jesus has right now, is ours to experience here and now. The Bible for the most part always speaks of God's work in the 3 dimension terms of… past, present, and future.
If you are trusting in Jesus for everything concerning your salvation from sin, whether it be performance daily (loving God and your neighbor as yourself), as well as your sins in the past, the gift of justification is your to have and to hold by faith until it becomes real when Christ comes to make all of His beleivers righteous for all eternity.
Justification by faith is: standing before God as though you have never sinned. How so? Because Jesus has never sinned as your Savior / Representative, and when you trust in Jesus for your past, present, and future… God looks at you as He looks upon His Son Jesus… and will continue to do so as long as your faith in Jesus stands.
This doesn't sound like the LGT that is written about. What does the G.C. have to do with JBF?
Your right, for the most part LGT is a thing of the past, in the sense that to grasp the concept with a reasonable expectation of being a part of it all… a proper understanding of JBF is absolutely necessary. Short of that, it can become a rather daunting / frustrating endeavor.
How is JBF related to the GC? Let's take the Investigative Judgment. You and I grew up with the idea that when our names would come up in the judgment, the verdict would be dependant upon our good works out weighing our sin, and, whether or not we have confessed / repented of all our sins. There was no way to escape the horror and insecurity afixed to this framed concept. But when you take JB and apply it to the IJ, when our names come up in the judgment, Christ will stand on our behalf and present His righteousness (perfect obedience / perfect judgment – His cross) on our behalf, and the God the Father will accept us and declare us free from all offense for ever as a result… AS LONG AS OUR FAITH IS FIXED UPON CHRIST AS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
So the GC boils down to a handful of concepts that are critically linked: the character of God, how and why He saves mankind, and what is mankind's proper response to God. I am quite aware of many of your previous posts concerning Satan / the devil, but in the framework of your question on the GC, without his place in it, the GC doesn't exist. Satan / the devil is the initiator of the GC. He is the major instigator in propagating ideas / concepts that will lead mankind to misconstrue God, who He is, and what He is all about… that's the GC. Christ is the polar opposite figure in the conflict, representing the heart of God, and His created / redeemed brothers / sisters. Satan has been twisting things since the war in heaven, and the garden of Eden (Revelation 12:1-11; Genesis 3:1-5).
How is JBF related to the GC? A proper understanding of JBF will lead one to become free from all sin, and by that I don't mean "sinless." But I do mean, that the ultimate experience of JBF will lead people to the point by which they will choose not to sin… period, trusting that Christ will keep them in the same way that He trusted in His Father to keep Him when He walked this earth. Satan on the other hand is busy convincing people that not only is this impossible, it's fanatical. And I would dare say that you are more then familiar with all the dialog that takes place between these two diametically opposed concepts…
LGT rightly understood points to a people who will finally decide / determine to follow Christ no matter what the cost, they would rather die then disappoint Him ever again… not out of a fear of being punished for doing so, but out of a heart filled with gratitude and appreciation for such a love that would never let them go.
The GC only ends when everybody has made their own free / independent choice once and for all, for, or against Christ. We are ultimately saved, or lost, by what we choose / believe, our behavior / performance is only the outworking principle of the choosing / believing or unbelieving. And in the judgment, that behavior will be used as evidence of who we have trusted / believed, and who's side we have chosen to be on. God will at the end of the day only give us what we have chosen.
And had Jesus not died, no one could be saved? What effect did his death have on humans? Can God not forgive unless Christ died? Did the explanations and meaning of Christ's death begin emerging only after he was resurrected? Did the apostles have any inkling of its full meaning? How can we be certain they understood and did not simply begin trying to understand the implications of his death and the atonement or ransom theories came about?
Is God not innately forgiveness? The God in the Hebrew Bible as described, is most difficult to correlate with the NT descriptions. There is no evidence that the Israelites when offering sacrifices had the slightest idea that one day God's son would similarly be offered for the removal of sins, or did this only emerge as one explanation?
"Had Jesus not died, no one could be saved?" That's about the size of it, one size fits all.
"What effect did his death have on humans?" Every human born since Adam & Eve live because of the death of Christ. The OT promised it, and the NT testifies to it. 2 Timothy 1:9.10; Revelation 13:8
"Can God not forgive unless Christ died?" NO! Hebrews 9:22;
"There is no evidence that the Israelites when offering sacrifices had the slightest idea that one day God's son would similarly be offered for the removal of sins?" Quite the contrary, Paul makes it very clear that the only reason Israel missed what the sacrificial system was designed to teach / portray… in a personal / collective interactive environment… was there own personal misgivings.
"Is God not innately forgiveness?" NO! God is innately LOVE. And love will take the risk of giving the one loved the freedom to choose a different path then the one set out by the lover. God can not forgive those that choose to see salvation and eternal life thru any other means then that which come thru Jesus Christ, His birth, life, death, and resurretion. He freely forgives, but who chooses to receive it… fully?
laffal,
You are supporting my statement that the Israelites had no clue that their sacrifices pointed to Christ. in your quotation:
"Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is removed in Christ."
These verses could not be more clear: Moses and Israelites were blinded.
Please give an OT verse that the Israelites knew that their sacrifices were pointing to Christ. This was the analogy drawn by Paul in the NT, not found in the Hebrew Bible. Retrospecton can change one's perception, someething not previously seen.
Elaine,
Just because Isreal could not see, because of their blindness, Christ in the law and the sacrifices does not mean, does not mean that it was not their to be seen. Paul and the Apostles on had 2 versions of the scriptures (the Old Testament), the "Hebrew Bible, and the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint / LXX). In the book of Luke we have Jesus, after His resurrection, showing the disciples what the Old Testament says about Him:
Daniel 9:24-27 give us the details and timing when Christ / the Messiah would come to thru the sacrifice of Himself, being cut off, would bring the sacrificial system to an end. Isaiah 53 gives us a clear picture of Christ / the Messiah coming as the suffering Servant, the One who was to come to offer Himself as a the sacrifice for the sinful and wayward. The 22nd Psalm gives the details of what Christ's experience would be like in His heart / mind while actually experiencing wages of our sin on His cross… and there is much more…
"Just because Isreal could not see, because of their blindness, Christ in the law and the sacrifices does not mean, does not mean that it was not their(sic) to be seen."
How was it possible for them to see something that was not exlained until hundreds of years later? Where is there evidence that the Israelites understood that their sacrifices were really foreshadowing Christ and the sacrifice of his life? Luke, as well as other NT writers explained this to audiences that did not previously know this. Had they understood it, the writers would not have had to inform them.
What recognition did the Hebrews write that they fully understood Daniel and the Psalm as Christ? This is only a later re-interpretation of these OT writings; the original was never applied to Christ; it came hundreds of years later.
They simply chose not to see it. Just like many people today, the Hebrews wrote what they wanted things to be, as opposed to what they had learned from be taught what the sanctuary and it's services was really all about. Choosing their own way is at the heart of why the 10 tribes of the north went into captivity, never to be restored, and Judah going into captivity a 100 years later. Yes, the came back to Canaan, but they continued to choose their own way, hence the crucifixition of their promised deliverer.
And why can't the New Testament be the proper interpretation of the Old Testament? Especially when you take into consideration that the Hebrews got it wrong by their own willfulness to make it what they wanted it to be?
I am thrilled with the thinking that is going on above. This is exactly the kind I am thinking that God foresaw when he made created intelligences. The greatest gift that God gave to all his creation is 1st, freedom. Only after giving freedom could there ever be even a sense of what love means. The great controversy began when an intelligent created being, Lucifer, the one nearest to God himself perhaps even his vice president for communications. No one can understand why anyone could possibly be jealous or envious of his Creator unless one of the heavenly trio was willing to step down, empty himself as Paul pointed in the book of Philippians. We call that the beginning of the great humiliation that God was willing to express, hoping that by becoming an Angel would help all other angels understand better the real character of their Creator. That, is precisely the purpose of this human incarnation. The basic issue is that what we call sin is simply a misunderstanding (1) the character of God and (2) the nature of misusing freedom and (2) the consequences of defying the principles of God's creation that is founded on mutual trust. What a great story the gospel is! Cheers, Herb
John Andrews: I apologize for for not responding earlier not responding earlier to your comments regarding EGW's "mature" views regarding justification by faith. Of course, you realize there has been a great difference between Luther's definition and Calvins's– which has caused all the commotion ever since. For Luther, and a clear translation of Romans and the rest of the New Testament, the English word faith means the wonderful combination of the human response of trust, appreciation, and obedience to the unspeakable mercies of a forgiving Savior. However, too many settle for confession but not repentance, which means a change of mind about for which you are repenting and doing something about what you are repenting of.
If we were in a college class we would Manuscript 50, 1900 as replicated in 1SM:340-344. This is a remarkable and wonderful overview of our Lord's High Priestly gift to us. When Jesus said that without him we can do nothing, He was so right. But with Him, He can "enlighten the understanding and infuse His life-giving properties through the soul dead in trespasses and sin." (341).
The law drives us to Christ that we "might be able to impart His righteousness to fallen, sinful man and thus present men to His Father in His righteous character." (341)
In His earthly ministry, Christ proved that God has never asked from His created intelligences anything that He Himself would/could not do for His creation. Jesus proved that any man or woman can endured anything that Satan will aim at them. That the whole universe now saw to be a fact, contrary to the lies of Satan (as well as man's miserable record that Satan could point to. 342.5-8.
EGW reemphasized that nothing man could do in any way "liquidate" our debts. Only the life and death of Jesus plus the mighty, overpowering gifts of the Holy Spirit can eliminate sin from men and women. 343
EGW loves to emphasize throughout her writings the full, wonderful Gospel story–The life and death of Jesus and the subsequent, constant work of the Holy Spirit "upon our hearts."344.3
That is why she sings, that in the life of the "true believer," our repenting plea for forgiveness and empowerment passes "through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless prified by blood, the can never be of value with God."
And then she concludes with that marvelous refrain: "Oh, that all may see that everything in obedience, in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving, must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ." 344.5-9. This will be the song for all those who trust in this Gospel Plan because the growing Christian will constantly pray in repentance as he/she continues to overcome those weaknesses of habit and thought that he/she will continue to meet every day until Jesus comes. The overcomer is promised wonderful gifts in Revelation. The overcoming Christian will be trophies from Planet Earth, proving that God is fair and His promises are precious and believable. Cheers, Herb
Recognizing that this discussion has probably run its course, I will venture a few thoughts that have been bubbling of late.
God chose to create this world, even though he knew, presumably, that sin would follow, leaving a trail of billions of victims. None of these victims chose to enter this fray. It happened to them. It was an inherited quality that they would be sinners.
Why did God do this? Why did he go ahead with creation anyway? A lot of humans could have been spared a lot of grief and an inevitable end in death.
I think it must have been that God chose to go forward with creation of planet Earth because there had to be a laboratory somewhere, sometime, to play out the opposing principles of love and selfishness. The gauntlet was down. Beings were watching. God could have decided to take a pass on this one. But some might have thought he was waffling. So he went ahead. Here we are.
If this scenario is right, then I believe God bears some form of responsiblity for the whole mess playing out. He chose to engage in the experiment. Thus, in my mind, God has some sort of obligation to provide a way out for humans who had no choice but to be subjects in the experiment. Ergo, Jesus.
Now, if any of the above is true, does it then follow that God would make the journey out of this morass a difficult journey? Would he make it tough for the victims of sin to struggle to escape? Would it be just and righteous for God to toss men and women into the laboratory and then demand that they work their way out through achievements that are impossible, given their sinful nature?
I think not. I think that is why righteousness – and salvation – is by faith. I believe through Jesus God tossed a lifeline, saying, If you just believe, I 'll save you from that mess. I'm sorry you had to go through that and I want to redeem you. Please just believe me, because I've paid the price. I'll take care of the rest."
A good post, but it still doesn't answer the question for the billions that never heard of Christ, let alone believe in Him. This is a top question in the public mind, yet Adventists are ignoring it. It doesn't make God sound fair if the saved are only those who had a chance to know about Jesus. The above only works if Christ's salvation covers everyone regardless of knowledge. There are very few teaching this and their messege has been ignored and/or rejected. Just as the Pharisees, we think we know about the second coming and who will be saved. But do we?
We also have to believe that His death is retroactive to those in the past before His sacrifice and that it went beyond the Jews. There has to be more to the Good News than what Christians are teaching or else it is not such good news for most of the people who have ever lived.
Ella, great questions. A couple more questions arise.
First, unless those billions who never heard of Christ are just ignored and left permanently in the oblivion of their death, do you think God has some yardstick by which he would determine who of the billions would be saved and who lost?
Second, do you think Adventists will bear the guilt of those who never heard the Good News and are subsequently lost, but who could have heard the Good News if we had only made a stronger effort?
Edward,
The answer to both of our questions are a qualified yes.
1) If we understand Matthew 24:14 & Revelaton 18:1-5 correctly, the time will come by which every person with free will and the ability to choose for themselves will, not will have heard of Christ, but convicted / convinced of Christ and His salvation as a free gift of God.
2) Why hasn't this day come yet? SDA's for the most part are guilty to a very specific extent. How so? We're still fighting over what the Good News actually is, therefore the power of the gospel / Good News is neutralized by the lack / want of knowing what that power actually is in experience. Acts 8 gives us an interesting picture of how the gospel was disseminated in the days of the early church, when persecution came, wherever they were scattered, they preached (the Greek word for Good News that we translate = evangelism) the word wherever they went. To a very specific degree, we SDA's have become very comfortable with our denominational standing as God's chosen people for the last days, with our apologetic arguments to prove it… Yet, so many of our members are looking to somebody else to proclaim the Good News… And until we get it right, to a very certain degree we are guilty for what the world does not know of Christ and His salvation, because we've kept it to ourselves.
How does the saying go; "if your not a part of the solution, your part of the problem?"
Edward,
The Bible says over and over that God is merciful, and He is love. I believe that–he is fair andjust and more wonderful than we can imagine. My personal belief is that Jesus did die for all humanity whether they know Him or not. A couple of returned missionaries named Wieland and Short preached this for many years–that Christ's sacrifice was from the "foundation of the world" (see text). To God there is no such thing as time. How were all the patriarchs of old saved? By Christ, of course, and they didn't know Him by name or history. It is the same for every person who allows themselves to be guided by His Spirit and the moral law of love. This is the only way God can be fair.
The Bible centers only around the world in the middle east where the Judeo-Christian religion developed. To those who heard and yet rejected God's love, which was later seen in Jesus, their names would be taken out of the Book of Life. (Have you ever wondered why the Bible talks about names being taken out but never put in? Perhaps they were there at birth)
But there are even more "heathen" who have made no decision or are even quite wicked, yet they would accept Jesus if they were told the Good News; that's why we have missionaries.
You ask about "Adventists" being responsible, and to me that sounds a bit arrogant. No, all who claim Christianity or even Judaism should seek to have a relationship with God. I think He will speak to many people of differing religions. I think it possible with today's technology that the whole civilized world could hear the Gospel ("even the stones would cry out" a metaphor??). This is not "thought control" but in reality. It is logically impossible for the saved to have their names on some Adventist church roll–this is not about an organization. People who have never heard of SDAs will give up apostate ideas. It's not about us! I know we think so, and this is why we have a leader who wants to close every door that would allow us to bring the Gospel to people where they are! It's not even about Sabbath but the Lord of the Sabbath and His rest that it represents.
The Lord knows our hearts. No denomination has a copyright or monopoly on the Gospel. When men have been convinced that they have ALREADY been saved by Christ, that is the Gospel in essence. The IJ, Sabbath, and all the pecularities of any church are meaningless. The Holy Spirit moves where it wills and like at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals, their response is their acknowledgement of a power greater than human. There are no doctrinal tests, no consent to obey a set of doctrines. All that is necessary for salvation is just a simple: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." If it was good enough for the jailers, it's good enough for everyone.
No, there aren't doctrinal tests. The only reason for doctrines is to show the character of God. If a doctrine doesn't present God as love, then it is either not being interpreted rightly or is false (like the ever-burning hell, we know is false). Doctrines are a frame around a picture to point to the object in the picture. Unfortunately people tend to interpret doctrines in their own image.
With the exponential population growth of the planet to even suggest that there may come a day in the future when "every person with free will and the ability to choose for themselves will, not will have heard of Christ, but convicted / convinced of Christ and His salvation as a free gift of God" is frankly, an astronomical impossibilty–wishful thinking and nothing more.
Millions are born and die daily. How is this miraculous event to occur where those millions who have not previously heard of Christ, but become convinced in a span of 24 hours? Such a scenario could be the fantasy of science fiction, so maybe there will be a message "beamed" to all the world by a simultaneously mental "message" system that will "convert" the whole world (or millions) instantaneously.
This would be an exciting religious science fiction book and movie, far better than the "Rapture" series. Think of the possibilities!
Elaine,
I can only say that, from man's point of view, you are absolutely correct, but I will simply take Jesus at His word: "with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)
Jesus also said that those hearing his words would not see death until he came back in the clouds. He has given to his followers the work of spreading the Gospel. If he did it himself, man would not be necessary.
God's power is not limited. But only he can decide if and when he chooses to convert the whole world. Some believe that only when Christians have reproduced his character will he return. This puts humans in charge of the time of his coming, not God's.
I am one of those who believe that Christ will not return until His character is reproduced in those who follow Him. But I also believe that this is "the witness" that will go to the world that brings the end.
No, humans are not "in charge" of the time of Christ's return, but it is a co-operative effort. Without "the witness" God can not convict / convince the world of what their salvation in Christ looks like. When the time comes when His character is reproduced in His followers, He will gladly declare, "here are they that have the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus."
Until then, we sit around and debate about the reasonability of it all… Which I believe leads us back to Edwards question about our culpability as it relates to those who know nothing of Jesus.
@Elaine: Have you ever heard of nuclear and biological weapons? That is the difference between now and the 1st century, or for that matter all centuries previous to man's ability to kill everyone on planet earth. And regarding 7 billion people on planet being judge fairly whether they be Pagan, Atheist, Christian, Hindu, Buddist, etc, etc. is summed up in Romans 2:12-16;
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Yes, I believe that God is absolutely fair. But how does that square with LGT? Or that everyone saved will be keeping all the commandments of God? (as often interpreted). Do all Adventists truly believe that?
For the most part, that is what we believe… "here is the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Revelation 14:12
Under LGT, whether or not is seems doable, the everlasting gospel will go to every kindred, nation, tongue, and people… as a witness, that they may freely, intelligently, and ultimately choose for or against Christ for their salvation and eternal security. That's when the end will come.
Since there are a variety of beliefs about God, how can there be a uniformity that must be achieved before Christ can come?
That does not even take into consideration the millions of non-Christians who have no belief in Christ but may be leading noble and generous lives. Is it essential that they become believers in Christ–Christians, before the Second Coming?
If only Christians, and as some believe, only Adventists, will be saved, count me out. I tend to Universalism in believing that Christ died to save the whole world, not merely those who knew Him. It would be more delightful to live in heaven with a wide diversity, but for some who find it difficult here to tolerate other religious views, it will not meet their expectations. I want to be happily surprised.
Lots of light in these contribtions! Elaine brings out the best in others. Laffal is valiant as well as beautifully clear. How does the Perfect Storm pull all Last Day Events together? Not one event, but a coalition of many until the nations generally recognize that great plans and ideas of the past are powerless to bring peace–peace within the troubled cities, peace between age-old enmities within and between different countries. But the recognition that something must be done to over-ride these fractious issues will lead Christians, Muslims, etc., to unite on "common values" for the "common good." We all can see where this is leading. Deciding which side we will be on, freedom or coercion, will be the choice for all on Planet Earth. Decision time will come after each person has faced enough light to make an intelligent decision–God is the Judge of each person's integrity, even under the worst of conditions. The End will Come. Cheers, Herb
Herb, your compliments are much appreciated
Naturally (?) your comment brings a question:
"We all can see where this is leading."
Similar confluences and conclusions have been drawn since the first century.
What is so different today?
Ella, I agree with you regarding the implied arrogance of the idea that people are being lost because our efforts may be insufficient. That is why I asked the question. The idea, clearly existing in Adventism, that we are responsible for the destiny of souls effectively removes from God the responsibility for the laboratory that is this earth.
I also cannot come to terms with the use of 2 Peter 3:9 as the reason why Jesus' return has been expected for 2,000 years, and 168 years since 1844. In my experience, this text is the reason cited most often by Adventists for the delay of Jesus' return. That may have seemed reasonable at the time it was written, but does it make sense all this time later?
If God delays the 2nd coming in order to give more people opportunity to be saved, it only makes sense to me in the context of one generation where there is a finite number of people to make up their minds. As Elaine points out, the population of the earth increases exponentially. That means there is a constant stream of billions of additional people who are faced with choices leading to salvation or not. That means billions of people are born, suffer and die, many if not most of them destined to be lost (or so we have traditionally thought), while God looks for a few who will say "yes." In my mind, this means God is willing to see many, many additional people suffer through the slings and arrow of human existence just so He can find a few to save. Is this consistent with the idea of a just, loving God? I think there must be some other reason for the delay.
Ed, you are putting your finger on the right dot: 2 Pet 3:9 seems irrelevant. The question of how much responsibility anyone must assume for the lost of another must be answered in a different paradigm. Everyone from birth has been blessed with the Holy Spirit and we call Him our conscience (Rom 2). At the same time, that child is a target for Satan's devices–it is a constant war that we call the Great Controversy on the local level. Of course, everyone influences many every day and to the extent that we poorly misrepresent truth (that is, what God wants us and them to know) to that extent each of us is responsible for anoher's choices. But the bottom line is that each person's future rests on his/her own freedom to choose–that person's choice trumps all the gracious help that others are giving. Cheers, Herb
"each person's future rests on his/her own freedom to choose"
That caveat cannot be repeated too often. The majority of this world's population who have ever lived have not had freedom to choose. Even today, freedom includes the ability to be independent of the culture in which one was born.
It is a luxury for those who live in countries where individual religious freedom is respected; but most of the world knows nothing of such freedom; some are condemned to death for changing religion. Others are thrown out of the family and village.
"Freedom to choose" is a great idea, not possible for most people.
Elaine,
But that is the point and purpose of the everlasting gospel proclaimed by the 3 Angel's message in connection with the angel of Revelation 18:1-5. The masses who have not heard what God has had to say to them in clear, distinct, simple terms, will then be enabled, for / by themselves rightly, and intelligently decide for themselves who they will serve, and who they will live for. The place for seeing that everlasting gospel, it's power / love actively working in the lives of it's adherents is paramount for heaven's agenda to meet it's fulfillment for the salvation of all who will accept the free gift of salvation in / by / thru Christ… Why? The question… what does that look like? will have to answered in the lives of those who proclaim God's plan for all mankind in the gift of His Son. That's the witness of Matthew 24.
laffal,
But that doesn't address the question of the applicability of this proclamation. How is this to be done? Believing it should be, and that it will be done, does not suggest how such a message can reach the entire world while millions are born, and millions are dying every 24 hours. What about those who are dying without hearing? Or those who will not hear before they die?
This scripture has been read for 2,000 years and during that time both the deaths and births are increasing daily.
Elaine,
For the most part, SDA's understand the book of Revelation to be an unfolding of parallel historical developments from the time of Christ's ascension to the earth made new. Therefore, the texts that are 2,000 years old had their relevence in the time written, but as the book says within itself, it was written for those living at the end of time, as was the book of Daniel. So that fact in and of itself easily addresses the 2,000 year time frame.
As for the propagation of this message on a global, culteral, economic, regional, dialectical scale can only be executed by the means of a human / divine cooperative. The book of Acts is the outline. It's the people who do the work, it's the Holy Spirit who supplies the power. There will come a time when I believe that the world will be talking about Jesus and what He's done, and or, not done to the same degree the world is now talking about economics. It will be front page news, nightly news, with commentary and all.
As for those that die before all of this takes place? I am one who believes Christ is working to secure as many souls as possible for His everlasting kingdom. Herb paraphrased Romans 2:14.15 when speaking of the individual's conscience and their freedom to choose according to that God given conscience. All along throughout the passage of time and the process of the Great Controversy, people have been making their own decisions levied upon their conscience by the Holy Spirit… How was it said when we were younger: "let your conscience be your guide. But since 1844, God has been making decisions about people's eternal destiny based on how faithful they are to the light that they do have, not on what they don't have. So for those who pass on before this grand, global, cosmic event takes place that will bring Christ back to this planet, their souls are in Christ's hands, and I can without a doubt trust that He will do everything He can to secure them for His everlasting kingdom. If He can't, for the most part it will be easily, clearly demonstrated to them at the appointed time.
But, laffal, my conviction grows that the "everlasting gospel" must be far, far more about a demonstration of love than it is about prophecy or doctrine.
Ed
Edward,
Agreed!!! Prophecy should only be a means by which we understand the issues of the time in which we live. The demonstration of love is the only means available to the world to know that we are in fact Chrsit's disciples, and children of the God who is Love.
Doctrine… should always be the Biblical means of revealing Christ and all of His matchless charms.
..but a secondary means in my book.
I think 2 Pet 3:9 is important, because it says to me (putting the best interpretation of God's character on it) that God is waiting to fill His earth with more and more humans that are being born. He is not putting them through suffering needlessly (see the parable of the Richman and Lazarus) but to reward them with eternity. Though we seem to have taught that God is trying to keep most people out of heaven and save a few, I reject this. I feel there will be more in the new earth than we thought possible.
As for Revelation, I find it amazing–one of my favorite books. I recognize that it's journey through time is repetitive and mostly symbolic like Pilgrim's Progress. But like Pilgrim we know Who meets us at the end. It is a great deal of fun to read and fit together. The numbers are particularly interesting.
Understanding the Bible can be fun; some here seem to want it to be a scientific text book–how very boring! It transcends time and space; runs the gamut of human experience; hundreds of writers brought it into existence each with their own touch; it inspires, it lives, it breathes the Holy Spirit.