Followers of Jesus & the Torah Including the Ten Commandments, Pt. 2
by Dan Appel
by Dan Appel, August 1, 2014
In my last post we looked at the contrast between a life lived focused and guided by the Torah, including the Ten Commandments, and the Royal Law, the law by which Jesus lived his life. We discovered that it is this law which governed the universe from its inception and is the way of life to which God desires to return all who love and serve him.
But are those two commands, to love God with all of our heart and mind and soul and strength, and to love others as we do ourselves, sufficient for those who desire to serve and worship God? Therein lies the crux of the question. Just how powerful and effective do we really believe God is? Is the God who created and sustains the universe powerful enough to live in me the life he wants me to live? With my permission, can God heal my sinful heart and restore my desires and impulse to live in ways contrary to his will? Or must I make certain he gets it right? Surrendering, “letting go, and letting God,” focusing on my relationship with him and giving him permission to live in me just sounds way too simple! There has to be more! Can a life focused on getting to know and love God, treating others as he would, really be enough?
What are Jesus’ words? “Go to the whole world,” he tells his followers, “and make committed followers, disciples.” That is our mandate – to connect people with Jesus and to encourage them to follow him. He expanded on this mission in a number of places: “This is eternal life, to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent” (John 17:3). “If you have the Son, you have life; if don’t have the Son, you don’t have life” (1 John 5:12). So, God must think that it is enough!
Part of the reason we struggle with this issue is that, in our desire to defend the Sabbath, we have settled for a very narrow definition of sin found in 1 John 3:4 – “Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.” Then we define the “law” in this passage as the Torah, and especially the ten commandments, rather than the Royal Law, which Jesus taught his disciples (including John, who wrote 1 John) to keep.
Further, there are a number of other definitions of sin which we often choose to ignore – i.e., knowing something is right and not doing it (James 4:17); all wrongdoing (1 John 5:17); anything, even good things, even absolute obedience to the Torah, that is not of faith (Romans 14:23); anything that damages, deforms or destroys relationships (living contrary to the Royal Law).
Some might object that connecting people with Jesus so that they follow him, and encouraging them to surrender their life and will to him would lead to some kind of moral licentiousness and spiritual anarchy.
Boiled down to its essence, that argument says that Jesus isn’t enough and that we need some kind of human effort to supplement what he does in our lives. Can we really trust Jesus to always lead us to do what is right in his Father’s eyes? Can anyone possibly imagine that Jesus is really incapable of shepherding us in the right path, or that he ever would? If fact, the comparison between the Pharisees, who punctiliously kept all of Torah, and what Jesus taught about a life focused on following him, reveals that it is only in focusing on Jesus that we have any hope of living the life God wants us to live.
The reality is that Jesus demands far more of us than the Ten Commandments and the rest of Torah do. Not only does he want us not to kill – he calls us not to hate or to remain angry. He not only calls on us not to adulterate our marriage; he challenges us not to lust. Following him we not only do not covet and steal; we rejoice with others who have things we might wish we had. Rather than doing away with Torah, following Jesus supersedes and expands and extends it exponentially.
William Glasser, the American psychotherapist and teacher, in his book Choice Theory makes the case that there is really only one thing we all can do: We can choose. Our life is made up of constant choice. We choose to get up or stay in bed; we choose to eat Cheerios or scrambled eggs, we choose to sit in one chair or the other, or to stand; we choose to love this person or that one, to watch this or that, etc.
We Adventists spring from the Arminian tradition in Christianity, which contends that God created us as creatures of free choice. Arminianism says that we lost that choice when Adam and Eve sold us into slavery to Satan in the Garden of Eden, and that Jesus came to earth to restore to us the possibility of free choice. Anything which negatively impacts our choices or our ability to choose is sin.
Jesus and Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers made the case that the Royal life is the life of learning more and more about Jesus and choosing to live our lives centered on him, and that that is enough. We do not need, Paul contended in his pastoral letters, to live our lives based on a detailed set of rules and commands found in the Torah – including the Ten Commandments. We need to get to know Jesus, intimately, and he will lead us into a life that far transcends anything written on paper or stone. He, in fact, promises that he will write all that is necessary on our hearts so that such living comes naturally for us (Ezekiel 36:26; 2 Corinthians 3:3).1
There are really only three basic sins or areas of sin described in the Bible, and they are all centered on us and our desire either to be in charge or to take God’s place in our own lives or the lives of others.
The pride of thinking we are God, or wanting to be a god in our own lives or the lives of others. All of those were included in Lucifer’s sin in heaven, as well as Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden. In Eden, the issue was not an apple or some other kind of fruit. The issue was wanting to be like God – to be gods (Genesis 3:5). This sin gives us a distorted view of reality, making it appear to us that we can handle everything (or many things or anything) without God.
One consequence of our sinful nature is that we all, at one time or another, in one way or another, want to, in a sense, “kill” God, dismiss him, impersonate him, pretend to know more than he does, or seduce others into disobeying his Royal Law so that we can take control of them as a type of god in their lives.
A second basic sin, which affects our heart, our emotions, is “self-love.” This is a passionate attachment to the appetites and senses of the body which blanks out zeal for spiritual things and replaces it with lust for carnal satisfaction. When self-love takes over, the mind (in the pre-frontal cortex) abandons its executive function and relinquishes the reins of government to the desire itself, leaving the soul with no government.
The self-love of making the gratification of our own materialistic and sensory desires more important than what God wants or what is best for others is evidenced in things such as greed, lust, concern for oneself and indifference to others. The Bible makes it very clear that we are born with the predisposition to protect self and please and satisfy self at the other’s expense, or at the expense of ourselves, and that only God’s living in the surrendered life and will can change that.
The third sin is described by a word that appears in older translations of the Bible, “vainglory,” which literally means “empty glory.” (It is what is commonly called “people-pleasing” in the helping professions.)
People-pleasing involves a strong desire to impress other people rather than obeying God, so that they’ll approve of us. It is anything that focuses attention on us and admiration for us. It means being willing to say or do whatever it takes to impress or get acceptance and approval from others.
People-pleasers can’t easily tolerate being shunned. The thought that something about us may not be acceptable to others can make us feel very insecure, so we adjust our desire to theirs – wanting the praise of others more than the praise of God (John 12:43).
People-pleasing puts us on a personal stage, behaving as if we were professional actors, performing to win applause from those whose approval we crave and doing anything we can to avoid having them walk out. We are constantly checking on the responses we are getting from the audience.
(Ask a person who is captivated by people-pleasing, “How are you today?” and his/her first inner impulse is to say, “I don’t know; what do you think? Or “I don’t know; what have you heard?”)
When we are captivated by people-pleasing, we become shut off from obeying and serving God. Instead of being shaped by God’s will, our impulses and desires become dictated by the desires of other people as we attempt to please them, impress them, attract their acceptance and praise and avoid losing their approval by displeasing them.
Every other type of “sin” described in the Bible is an extension of and grows out of one or all of these. They are the real sin that leads to actions or attitudes that are contrary to the Royal Law. By focusing just on the smaller picture of Torah, we often miss the larger picture of what sin really is and where the battle really lies.
Only when we allow Jesus to lead us beyond the basic kindergarten concepts of sin do we really begin to discover and experience the truth and victory of the life of a follower of Jesus! Only as we allow God to point out those areas of our life where we attempt to be a god in our own life and the lives of others, where we live our lives focused on satisfying the cravings of our carnal nature, and where we find the opinion of anyone more important than God, and then confess and repent of them and allow God to empower us to grow beyond them that we will become everything God dreams for us to be.
This understanding is what made the 1888 General Conference such a watershed, or tipping-point in Adventist history. This understanding is also what caused the leadership of the Adventist Church at the time, when Ellen White supported A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner in their presentation of this view, to banish Ellen White to Australia in the hope that by isolating her they could keep it from spreading.
But, this is the place where God has desired to lead us since Paul wrote the gospel in his landmark epistles. This understanding became the passion of Ellen White’s life and ministry after she really discovered in a new and delicious way the righteousness of Jesus, and proclaimed it to be the very essence of the Three Angels’ Messages. It is what God has been waiting and waiting and waiting for us to accept and live so that we can finish the work he gave us to do on this earth. It is also the place of spiritual maturity where people in the 5th and 6th stages of spiritual growth truly become what God intends for them to be!
1“Enoch kept the Lord ever before him, and the inspired Word says that he "walked with God." He made Christ his constant companion. He was in the world, and performed his duties to the world; but he was ever under the influence of Jesus. He reflected Christ's character, exhibiting the same qualities in goodness, mercy, tender compassion, sympathy, forbearance, meekness, humility and love. His association with Christ day by day transformed him into the image of him with whom he was so intimately connected. Day by day he was growing away from his own way into Christ's way, the heavenly, the divine, in his thoughts and feelings. He was constantly inquiring, "Is this the way of the Lord?" His was a constant growth, and he had fellowship with the Father and the Son. This is genuine sanctification . . . The converting power of God must be upon our hearts. We must study the life of Christ, and imitate the divine Pattern. We must dwell upon the perfection of his character, and be changed into his image. .” E.G. White, Review and Herald, December 5, 1912
'The reality is that Jesus demands far more of us than the Ten Commandments and the rest of Torah do.'
A good practical example of this is the story of Zacchaeus. The Bible records Zacchaeus paid restitution in the order of 400% (Luke 19:8), even though the Law only required restitution in the amount of 20% (Num. 5:5-7). In this sense, far from Antinomianism, Jesus’ ethic is one held to an ‘ideal’ above the ‘minimum’ standards of the Law.
'We Adventists spring from the Arminian tradition in Christianity, which contends that God created us as creatures of free choice.'
'There are really only three basic sins or areas of sin described in the Bible, and they are all centered on us and our desire either to be in charge or to take God’s place in our own lives or the lives of others.'
Interesting. Do these three basic sins match up with the three basic temptations of Jesus, and in turn Adam before Him?
dan,
first of all, great to hear from you. i hope this finds you and charla well and prosperous. i might add, you embody what you write. i remember you as loving and lovable friend, which adds integrity to your post. i have a few observations. if we define legalism as 'salvation gained by good works,' adventists have been champions of this reality while denying it at the same time. i think you would agree. but i think your position might be advocating a softer, kinder legalism.
you write 'Jesus came to earth to restore to us the possibility of free choice.' since adam cursed ALL of us, and in which i had no choice in the matter, it would seem to me God could do better than just supplying the oportunity to choose correctly in order to be saved. just wondering. we have bought arminian's views, but are we sure he was right? many will not choose correctly because of their utter brokenness. many will reject God because of their blindness and flawed humanity. Could it be Christ's sacrifice just wasn't good enough for them? forbid the thought.
you strongly argue that it is Jesus who saves, and of course i agree, but your empahsis on 'believng,' 'trusting,' 'accepting,' are all passive verbs. they are things we must do to if we want to win 'the prize.' they are works we must do to be saved. So though we are doing things that emphasize Jesus, without doing them we are lost. we are still doing things in order to be saved, but we soften the legalism by shifting emphasis to Jesus.
if we're honest, salvation is a cooperative effort, according to your post. without our involvement, without our effort, without our trusting, etc., we are doomed. God needs 'our works' to save us.
more questions: could not the Creator reverse what the creature created? God has a responsibility in this mess; He created us, He placed (allowed) the snake to be in the garden to tempt the young and inexperienced couple, etc. and He must bear some responsibility for thousands or years of unchecked blood-shed and misery. why so long? i don't believe He is a sadist for a moment, but the accusation could be made. in my thinking, if God doesn't retrieve all his creatures, then He bears some responsibility for those who go to their eternal destruction.
Jesus who comes to share in our plight, is the only answer that gives me solace and hope. unlike the politician, God in His Son, comes to show us He is not removed from our predicament; He shares in the mess that emanated from His eden. in Christ, i find hope. i am a believer in Jesus, but nothing i do or believe or trust or accept, saves me; only He does. and i wonder, if this isn't real grace after all. (there is no such thing as 'cheap grace.' Jesus gave us His life, an incalcuable cost).
blessings to you, dan.
peace and beads,
greg
Greg are you effectively talking about Univeral Legal Justification ('ULJ') here – see my post above on that? Do we 'opt-out' rather than 'opti-in' to salvation? Otherwise, do faith and belief become "works" we must "do" to be saved?
And what about the innocent baby or far-flung Gentile who have never had the opportunitity to believe? Who might not even have the capacity to do such? That seem to be the fatal flaw in Arminian justification.
steve,
thank you for your post here and above. i am totally unaware of ULJ until your most recent post. i am just thinking that our traditional understanding might have a few holes in it. thank you for your introduction to to ULJ, i will look into it. my questions hail naturally from my experience with God and the sda church. i appreciate your experience and point of view.
greg
Greg there is a whole bunch about ULJ on the GC's Biblical Research Institute website. Of course all the articles are against ULJ – but you can reconstruct the arguments for from these articles.
I do NOT believe in Universal Legal Justification. I DO believe in universal forgiveness. Even the lost are forgiven. God does not torment them to exact revenge or retribution. Rather God honors their desire not to exist in the Divine presence, in the only humane way possible – by deleting them from existence.
Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I believe God forgave humans before we ever fell, certainly before we ever repented. Even repentance and belief are gifts from God.
The above is NOT Universal Legal Justification. Theologians love Paul's legal analogies drawn from Roman jurisprudence, but these are only analogies. Elsewhere in the Bible including in the teachings of Jesus Christ, are other descriptions of how we are judged, condemned and/or not condemned. Before you study Paul you need to study Jesus Christ, especially as He teaches in the Gospel of John.
We are made right with God by accepting everything that Jesus has done in our behalf (to whatever extent we are capable of accepting wich varies widely among individuals). Whether you consider this an opt-in or an opt-out system is a false dichotomy. It is not for us to define the manner of choices that God offers to other fallen humans. God works with each individual in the manner that has the highest potential of redeeming that person. Ultimately each of us makes choices with eternal consequences. When and how God effects that process with each individual is not subject to any universal human formulation. Better to believe that God will deal justly and lovingly and redemptively with each individual than to debate the precise process(es) that God uses to accomplish that purpose.
jim.
my point is the response of sinners is not from the perfect environment in which satan was created, but from a climate thoroughly contaminated and fouled. the response sinners make is from an environment soiled, broken, and sorely damaged, and their response is less than adequate because of that. they can be forgiven from the eternal ages, but they respond in a creation completely ebolaized. many will say 'no' because the know no better, because they are undone in a world unhinged. my question: can't God's grace reach even them.?
i never raised the 'opt in- opt out' dichotomy. i hold no stock in its meaning or claim.
if satan can fall when free from all sinful influences, how can sinners enveloped in sin, be held accountable? either Christ died for OUR sins, ALL of them, or He didn't. I claim He did.
but i like your point about God dealing with individuals. i think He does and you are right. i just consider that He might save them too.
greg
I raised the 'opt-in' and 'opt-out' dichtonomy, and I do hold stock in its meaning and claim.
The fundamental flaw I see is:
within Arminian theology, no one is deemed saved or justified unless they first do “something” like believe, repent, etc
Thus, far from Martin Luther’s discovery of salvation by grace and not works, faith itself becomes a type of “work”, which we must “do” to get saved.
If some Adventist theologians claim, ‘faith in the merits of Christ's atonement is the only condition upon which justification’[1] is afforded, if ‘true repentance, [is] the prerequisite of righteousness by faith’,[2] and ‘it is possible for God to justify freely only those who believe in Christ,’[3] then what of the person has no such capacity?
How should we then interpret John 3:17-21? Actually verses 17 and 18 sound definitive. I agree that God deals with individuals and that it is not for us to say how exactly He does this. I just have the impression, based on Luke 12:48, that John 3:18 will directly apply to most of us reading this.
How do babies go to heaven if they don't 'believe' in Him?
And why select proof texts? You need to look at the totality of them all. One could quite rightly look to the Calvinst texts such as Romans 9:13-21 to be case in point. And I could select Ex. 4:21; Rom. 8:21-33; Rom. 11:5-7; Gal 1:15; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:1-11; 1 Thes. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13; Tit. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:2; Tit. 2:11; Philip. 2:10-11; John 1:9; John 12:32; Rom. 11:32.
I agree that we shouldn't judge, but then I'm not an Adventist scholar on the GC payroll condemning ULJ – saying having faith is the 'only' way to get to heaven. But that is cold comfort to the parent who has just lost a newborn child who didn't have 'faith' or 'believe'.
Ellen White admitted she didn't know the answer either. I'm simply open to the idea that God doesn't reject people unless they choose to reject Him first.
How do babies go to heaven if they don't 'believe' in Him?
The more challenging question is how can those of us who have learned NOT to trust others, who have grown-up to trust nobody, not even our own selves, go to heaven?
Belief is a gift from God. Little babies are born in a position of complete dependence. Except as we become like little children, we cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.
Stephen,
John 3:17-21 is for me the most defintive answer to the question of "judgment". Yet few sermons are ever preached on these verses, and few books ever written about them. Why? Because professional theologians would rather debate the arcane concepts of "forensics", "justification" etc.
Jesus' answer is both clear and personal. And it sounds very much like an "opt-out" process to me. God does not condemn us because we are sinners. We condemn ourselves because we prefer darkness rather than the light of God's love and compassion. Why do we prefer darkness? Because we wish to hide our evil deeds. etc etc. It is all so plain if we are willing to simply accpet the unembellished teachings of Jesus.
It seems clear to from this and other teachings of Jesus Himself, that He came to save all that will not refuse. That how we choose to accept or refuse is very much a personal matter and not some abstruse theological formulation.
Like Luther, we have a strong urge to look for the dark clouds of God's wrath, rather than looking for the sunlight of God's love. Adam and Eve hid from Yahweh because they thought ahweh was coming to kill them. Yahweh called-out to Adam and Eve because Yahweh was seeking to save them.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts our fear, because fear has to do with punishment. Do we worship a God of love or a God of fear and punishment? Which is the more powerful long-term motivator for change? This is the central issue in the Great Controversy. I believe that in the end it will be shown that Love is more powerful than fear and punishment. This is the Glory of God that will be revealed to all (Revelation 11:19).
Yes Jim, it is quite true that Jesus’ teachings are very plain and straightforward. I agree that John 3:17-19 appears to describe an opt-out offer of universal salvation.
As for babies and those not capable of making any intellectual decisions, or others, we should/must leave them up to God. If John 3:16 is true, then they should be in Good Hands, shouldn’t they? I would suggest that if they don’t get to believe, then they also don’t get to refuse/reject, disbelieve or “[believe] not;” and therefore will have not opted out. But that’s not our call to make.
Stephen I totally agree. And that is precisely what the UJL model is, as promoted by a group of Adventists who claim to have come to this 'third way' view after studying the original 1888 message of Jones and Waggoner.
Seems totally logical to me, preserving God's justice and mercy, His desire to save all but also the need to preserve free choice. I've read about 5 articles on the subject, and the desire of the GC theologians to issue fatwas against this UJL seems quite astounding.
Precisely because the same GC theologians don't seem to be able to address those 'hard' questions themselves, like the issue of innocent babies or far-flung Gentiles who have never heard the Gospel. Go figure.
I do not believe that Christ died in vain. I believe it is God's purpose to save to the uttermost as many fallen humans as possible. Salvation is a gift. Belief in God is a gift. Free choice is a gift.
The mystery the Reformers grappled with, once they understood the magnitude of God's gifts, was how anyone could refuse? Paul calls this the mystery of iniqity. For two millennia Christian theologians have been constructing various explanations for this mystery. It is still a mystery. Being a fallen human I struggle in my own life with accepting vs rejecting God's grace. In Romans 7 and elsewhere Paul describes his own struggles very candidly. Luther described his own struggles very candidly. That God can save any of us is a miracle. I dare to hope that God will yet save many of us.
Yet Christian leaders don't see it a total mystery when they go to issue the fatiwa against the model they don't like! I've always approached all issue re atonement theory as an 'and' not an 'or' between various models.
The belief as often expressed is that if those who have heard the Adventist message yet do not accept, they will be held responsible for not choosing the correct belief. But, it is also believed that those who have not heard, will not be rejected for what they did not know and God can accept them.
If there is any truth in that common belief, it would be much better not to tell other about Adventism and risk they will reject and be lost.
elaine,
you are funny. from your point, it would be best to cease and desist from evangelism. you make a good argument. i recently learned the conference of which i am a congregant has a less than 1% growth rate in the last 20 years. and we claim we have the truth?! and God is on our side? really? pretty poor growth rate for the King of the kingdom to claim. is it the weakness of the Gospel, or the emptiness of church doctrine? church growth is the cop that discloses the real truth: our church growth is anemic; hardly the evidence of God's powerful movement. i guess we have to just try harder, believe more, study more, pray more, and witness more. we are just not doing our part, more works needed, and until, the kingdom languishes.
greg
Why would anyone want to join the SDA church? The motivating beliefs at its birth are virtually irrelevant today. The mindset of "the truth" and the pursuit of it, (I grew up with that two-word phrase used often as a collective reference for the SDA Church) is so widely challenged as to be meaningless. In fact "the truth" about SDA "truths" is that the core, historical, teachings are at best vacuous. Where once they were heart events, they are now mind events celebrated only by ingrained believers, without any real, convincing attraction for seekers.
The church has, historically, multiplied from within. Its school and medical system have been refuge and magnets for employment within its culture. Converts via evangelism seldom have been educated people, free of life crises, since emotion has historically been the operative technique of the traveling salesmen of the church.
I confess, my prospective is from forty years ago. However, from the information presented to me here and elsewhere, not much has changed. Evangelists, apparently, are still necessary hit and run artists, because, the truth be known, virtually no seekers show up at SDA churches on Saturday mornings and are so attracted to Adventist theology that they request membership. At "workers meetings" I never heard a victory proclamation by any of my associates announcing such an astonishing event!
There is a general decline of belief that is affecting all denominations, so the SDA Church is hardly alone on the downward spiral. Sorry, finely tuned discourses and related comments, such as this on the Torah including the Ten Commandments, provide nothing to retard the deterioration and or in any way enhances the attractiveness of the church. So, enjoy your church and its teachings, in its coping struggles, but don't pine for impossible growth under present conditions.
greg,
The perfect defintion of insanity": continuing to do over and over again what has never been successful, but hoping that this time, things will change.
Jim: 'I do NOT believe in Universal Legal Justification… Whether you consider this an opt-in or an opt-out system is a false dichotomy. It is not for us to define the manner of choices that God offers to other fallen humans.'
Hi Jim, not sure if you fully understand what ULJ is all about – maybe I don't myself. Jack Sequeira who promotes ULJ summarises the current problem in the following way:
'For four hundred years, Protestant Christianity has been divided into two camps regarding salvation. The first, Calvinism, confesses that Christ actually saved human beings on the cross but that this salvation is limited only to the elect–those whom God has predetermined to be saved. The second view, Arminianism, holds that on the cross Christ obtained salvation for all humanity, but that this salvation is only a provision; a person must believe and repent for the provision to become a reality. Both these views are only conditional good news. I believe that neither camp presents the full truth about salvation. I believe the Bible teaches that God actually and unconditionally saved all humanity at the cross so that we are justified and reconciled to God by that act'
Sequeira further observes Adventists have traditionally been in the Arminian camp. However, in reality many see:
within Arminian theology, no one is deemed saved or justified unless they first do “something” like believe, repent, etc
Thus, far from Martin Luther’s discovery of salvation by grace and not works, faith itself becomes a type of “work”, which we must “do” to get saved.
If some Adventist theologians claim, ‘faith in the merits of Christ's atonement is the only condition upon which justification’[1] is afforded, if ‘true repentance, [is] the prerequisite of righteousness by faith’,[2] and ‘it is possible for God to justify freely only those who believe in Christ,’[3] then what of the person has no such capacity?
What I take from ULJ, as explained Sequeria :
It is for this reason the Bible clearly teaches that no one will be lost for being born a child of Adam. The only reason anyone will be lost is because they have deliberately and ultimately rejected the objective facts of salvation in Christ [Mk. 16:15, 16; Jn. 3:18,36; Heb. 2:1-3; 10:26-29]. (emphasis added)
<https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/theology-salvation/analysis-doctrine-universal-legal-justification>, retrieved 30 Jul 14.
<https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/theology-salvation/justification-romans-321-24>, retrieved 30 Jul 14.
I believe that neither camp presents the full truth about salvation. I believe the Bible teaches that God actually and unconditionally saved all humanity at the cross so that we are justified and reconciled to God by that act
I also believe that neither camp presents the full truth about salvation. I grew-up with one foot planted in Calvinism my mother's family) and the other firmly planted in Arminianism (my father's family). There is much Godliness and much truth in both camps.
For myself I believe in universal forgiveness at the cross, arguably from the foundation of the world. "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing" was not an idle platitude. It fully expressed the sentiment of Christ on the cross. Did He later recant His prayer and restrict it to those who acknowleged what they were doing? In the words of the late Arnold Wallenkampf "Hell will be full of forgiven sinners."
The parables of the wedding banquet clearly show that all are offered the robe but some refuse to wear it. That God will scour the highways and by-ways and compel many to come-in. But that even those who have been compelled to come-in can be thrown-out if they refuse the wedding garment freely and graciously provided for them. And did you notice that God has stacked the deck in favor of a FULL HOUSE?
I have little interest in "forensic" theology. This is not a term found in the Bible. It is derived by professional theologians from Paul's legal analogies drawn from Roman jurisprudence. Since much of western jurisprudence today evolved from Roman jurisprudence (ditto for canon law and doctrine which evolved from the Roman tradition) this still has considerable appeal for Christian lawyers and theologians. But like any other doctrine built-up from analogies, "forensic justification" is a shaky edifice at best. Far better to simply accept the plain teaching of Jesus that we judge ourselves by our response to Him.
I wish the BRI would issue a fatwa debunking "forensic justification". Being made right with God is NOT a legal concept. It is personal and eternal liberation from my own destructive propensities and activities. It is finding someone I can trust when I cannot even trust myself. It is about a relationship based on trust, not about a relationship based on laws and penalties. It is about being LIBERATED from forensics.
There will be no physicians in heaven. There will be no lawyers in heaven. What will be the destiny of theologians?
Jim I totally agree. That is what I see those Adventists promoting UJL trying to do – it is to find a 'third way' precisely because Calivinism and Arminianism both don't seem to have the full picture.
And UJL proponents claim they didn't invent this. They claim they got this from Jones and Waggoner in the 1888 Message. I haven't studied it hugely, but I have to admit I really like what Jones and Waggoner said on this matter, which does indeed seem like a 'presumptive salvation' model to me.
For example, E. J. Waggoner did emphasise salvation was a free gift for everyone, not merely for an elect as the Calvinists would suggest:
By the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. There is no exception here. As the condemnation came upon all, so the justification comes upon all. Christ has tasted death for every man. He has given himself for all. Nay, he has given himself to every man.
The free gift has come upon all. The fact that it is a free gift is evidence that there is no exception. If it came upon only those who have some special qualification, [i.e. faith] then it would not be a free gift. (emphasis added)[1]
And this free gift was universal:
“Do you mean to teach universal salvation?" someone may ask. We mean to teach just what the Word of God teaches that 'the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men. (emphasis added) [2]
Similarly from A.T. Jones:
Gave all the blessings He has to every soul in this world; He chose every soul in the world; He chose Him in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinated him unto the adoption of children and made him accepted in the Beloved, did He not? (emphasis added)[3]
Yet Jones and Waggoner were not teaching predestination and universalism, as it is usually perceived. Rather, Waggoner made clear we still have individual free will to reject that birthright of full salvation:
God has wrought out salvation for every man, and has given it to him; but the majority spurn it and throw it away. The judgment will reveal the fact that full salvation was given to every man and that the lost have deliberately thrown away their birthright possession. (emphasis added)[4]
As did Jones:
The thought I am after just now is that no one can have these things and know they are his without his own consent. The Lord will not force any of these things upon a man, even though He has given them already, will He? (emphasis)[5]
God sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones.[1]
<http://www.gospelstudygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/MDLegalJustification.pdf>, retrieved 29 Jul 14.
Much of the modern concept of "Arminianism" is more properly labeled "Wesleyaninsm".
Arminius (aka Jacobus Harmenszoon) was a Dutch theologian schooled within the Calvinist tradition (under Beza who was a close disciple of Calvin) who taught the concept of "prevenient grace". In other words, God extends enough grace to both elect and non-elect, to allow them to choose whether to believe. Both grace and the faith to believe are free gifts of God. Arminius ran acropper of many of his fellow Calvinists because they could not accept the notion of any smidgen of grace being extended to the damned. In this latter regard some Adventists are more like the traditional Calvinists than they are truly Arminian.
I would not say that Arminius taught Universal Justification, but that he did teach Universal Grace. In this regard I probably hew more to Arminius than to either his theological successors or to his Calvinist detractors. I believe God is gracious to both the saved and the lost.
And the GC fatiwa against ULJ is partly bound in an article that Waggoner was later a pantheist, so we can't trust these teachings! Who is the heretic versus 'traditional' historic evidence here?
The reason I do not believe in Universal Legal Justification is because I do not believe in Legal Justification. Theologians seize upon Paul's legal analogy because it makes good fodder for their feed lots. Ironically, Paul uses his legal analogies primarily to explain life without Christ. Life with Christ is freedom from forensics (criminal law), not a new form of forensics.
PLEASE – Those who think I am claiming that law is abolished at the Cross read what I have written on other pages. Both Jeremiah and Paul say that in the new covenant relationship the law is written in our hearts. Jesus said the law would remain until heaven and earth pass away. Heaven and earth did not pass away at the Cross.
If I choose to be kind to my spouse, am I doing so because I am bound by the laws of marriage or because I love him or her? For my part I have not once consulted the laws of marriage because my primary focus is trying to figure-out how to relate to the woman that God gave me (not always easy or obvious).
Why then this compulsion to define salvation in legal terms? As if it is some sort of legal transaction? The Bible does use legal analogies. It also uses marriage analogies, parent-child analogies and many others. Is it any accident that Luther was studying to be a lawyer before his fear of God's condemnation drove him to a monastery instead?
If we consider civil law for a moment, we take recourse to legal measures when we cannot trust someone completely. So we draft a contract, enforce a contract, etc. And in the OT God uses this legal concept of "covenants" to help us understand. But if you bother to read carefully, God's "covenants" are a formal ratification of a relationship that already exists, where God has already taken the initiative to do good for us and by us.
Our problem as Adventists is that if our mission is to teach the world about God's laws, then our mission is threatened by any concept that God has already forgiven or saved people before they hear our message. If this is our sole or primary mission then we might as well go home and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict people of sin (now where did I first hear of that notion?).
The Bible teaches a different concept of our mission. We are priests and ambassadors, members of the royal priestly family. Our older brother is the High Priest and the Crown Prince. Our good news is that God loves everyone – even those who have not yet joined-up with the kingdom and bought-into the mission. God is not our enemy – God is our friend. God is throwing a Coronation Festival and all are invited. God is throwing a marriage feast and all are invited.
But what about that robe of righteousness? Nowhere in the Bible do I find that it is our job to provide people with new clothes. That is God's job not ours.
Abraham was called to follow God with the promise that through his family all of the world would be blessed. As part of the spiritual family of Abraham that is also our mission. Or using another analogy we are branches of the Vine so we can provide fruit to everyone around us. Our mission is to SERVE people and trust God to TRANSFORM people.
Jim I personally don't see it as an either/or with atonement models. However, if I must choose, I would choose Christus Victor, which is the 'cosmic struggle' theme that dominated as the 'classical' atonement theory for the 1st 1000 years of Christianity. I am suprised we Adventists don't promote it more, given it fits in nicely with our Great Controversy theme.
As I read this thread and others on AToday, I am impressed with the extent of what seems to me to be "over thinking." I wonder if this is not, in a sense, what can be thought of as "being lost." Endless speculation and rationalization seems to take the place of simple conversation. Are these various fine points our only reason to communicate?
As I have said before, it seems to me that the message of Jesus is quite simple and direct. It has to be simple enough for anyone to understand. Greater knowledge of details cannot get one "more saved." Is not the message something like this?
"You have been taught that God is a tyrant who will punish or kill you if you don't obey Him. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am here to tell you that God is love. Just believe me when I tell you that you have nothing to fear." So, Jesus, what am I supposed to do? "Treat others as you would like to be treated, and let other people know the good news that they have nothing to fear from God."
The message of Jesus does not include anything about forming churches, going to church here or there or on any particular day. There is some stuff about the "kingdom of heaven" to come. My guess is that much of this is just embellishment–mostly designed as part of a message of hope. Essentially, that "you will not always be oppressed. You are no longer in bondage. Be free. Live abundantly."
As it happens, I agree with some of what you have said here Joe.
The message of Jesus is pretty straightforward. The difference I have with your interpretation—other than the glaring omission of loving God and loving each other of course—is that I believe that His message is indistinguishable from what He actually said; and that what He said about everything, and what He did, constitutes His message.
His message, Joe, is not what we say; but is instead what He said. That may be too simple for many.
Dear friend Stephen.
We have a pretty different perspective in some ways. You seem to know what Jesus said, just as
you seem to know what Joseph said to Potiphar's wife. What we have, at best, is a story teller's version of what Joseph said and what Jesus said. I do not think we know (or CAN know) exactly what their words were. I think what we have at best is an attribution of a message.
It seems to me that the essence of the message attributed to Jesus was that "what you have been taught about God being an angry tyrant is not true." The good news is that you need not carry around a bunch of guilt and feel that you are condemned.
But, of course, as you know, I do not think we can know or understand God nor understand the mind of God. We can have a concept of God, based on our imagination and what we have heard and read. But I do not think we have any way of knowing whether our concept resembles anything actual or real. I don't believe in ghosts. I don't believe in spirits. So it is difficult for us to find common ground.
I do agree that it is difficult for us to find common ground Joe. My question is why do you try?
Now I know that sounds somewhat unfriendly; but what I mean is, since "[you] don’t believe in spirits," or that Jesus necessarily said what is attributed to Him, why do try to characterize/summarize what, to your way of thinking, His message was?
When you do this, you are literally engaging in a theological pursuit regarding Christianity. Christians who believe what you don’t believe are liable to weigh in or respond. Since you don’t believe what they/we believe there ultimately may be no common ground.
Any characterization/summarization of Jesus’ message must comprise the words and teachings attributed to Him.
The same would happen if I tried to characterize/summarize the Islamic message of Mohammad to my satisfaction, based on my philosophy. It would be difficult to find common ground with most Muslims I would think.
Adventism has never been simple. If anything, it is a very complex religious sytem demanding not only belief, but adherence to ethereal and ambiguous beliefs that can never be supported by the Bible, but must be taught carefully with all the various diagrams, symbols, false history, as well as false interpretation.
The SdA chuch sees the simple faith of many Christians as "cheap grace" and anyone can get it. While Adventists pride themselves on its exclusiveness; requiring long study and beliefs even before baptism, contrary to the biblical model.
While it may have been successful at the beginning when more people were deeply religious as well as troubled by signs that they were told pointed to "the time of the end," that has no traction today. People are worried about a coming apocalypse from the many wars around the world, homegrown terrorism, disease, famine and more. Religion offers no method to curtail these events and it offers a false sense of security that only following all the 28 will guarantee admision to heaven; no others need apply if they ONCE had the opportunity to join with Adventists.
Adventism has never been simple Elaine? No religion has ever been simple.
'The SdA chuch sees the simple faith of many Christians as "cheap grace" and anyone can get it.'
If I recall Elaine, you are actually the legalist. You actually think what matters is doing good works in the world as the ultimate thing of importance.
'The SdA chuch sees the simple faith of many Christians as "cheap grace" and anyone can get it.'
If I recall Elaine, you are actually the legalist. You actually think what matters is doing good works in the world as the ultimate thing of importance.
'While Adventists pride themselves on its exclusiveness; requiring long study and beliefs even before baptism, contrary to the biblical model.'
Actually in the early Church, catechenate was usually 3-years long, which is the period of time the Apostles had with Jesus. The 4 or 5 weeks study Adventists usually require is hardly excessive.
'Religion offers no method to curtail these events and it offers a false sense of security that only following all the 28 will guarantee admision to heaven'
It seems your proposing a salvation by works, or rather a salvation by knowledge here. And perhaps some Adventists do adhere to that idea.
Perhaps that illustrates my point, as to why this issue of soteriology is so important, not simply to be brushed over.
Theologians must publish. All academics must publish. That is why we have forensics in every subject under the sun. JESUS taught the basic lesson Luke 18:16-17 "INNOCENSE", trusting as a little child.
In totallity i agree with JIM HAMSTRA in his above words of wisdom. i agree with JOE IRWIN in his preamble "You have been taught that god is…..".
Grace has been given as a gift of our GOD OF LOVE, purchased with HIS BLOOD. How cheap is that. There is nothing more clear and so easy, a child can understand it, than, "believe on theLord Jesus Christ and you are SAVED. No ifs, ands, or buts. You are saved in the bosum of our Saviour, JESUS CHRIST. All will have a body and being, like His glorious Body and Being. The former hassles of Earth life, with the weaknesses of mind and body, have been cleansed and purified. No more pain, no more sickness, no more blindness, no more infancy, no more mental or physical diseases. Full powers of intellect, full knowledge of our God, full knowledge of the awesome wonders of God's working in the UNIVERSES. We now see through a limited powered microscope, but our heritage will see GOD as HE is, face to face. He is not haughty, or shunning, but LOVING.
Joe: 'As I read this thread and others on AToday, I am impressed with the extent of what seems to me to be "over thinking." I wonder if this is not, in a sense, what can be thought of as "being lost." Endless speculation and rationalization seems to take the place of simple conversation. Are these various fine points our only reason to communicate?'
Elaine: 'Adventism has never been simple.'
I agree Joe it is or rather should be. Yet Adventists are not the ones with elaborate theologies on this issue, replete with infant baptism and invented semi levels of hell like limbo. We are very much bystanders on this issue, in the 400-year old plus war of ideologies between Calvinists and Arminians.
On one hand it is indeed very simple. But then someone's child dies, and a well-meaning Christian says something truly stupid like, 'It was God's will, because perhaps God otherwise knew that when the child grew up it would be lost.'
Or when a non-Christian asks their Christian friend about the group of children killed in the Gaza bombing, they say (in a similar way Ellen White did once foolishly), 'They are saved if their parents were believers, but might be dammed if their parents were unbelievers.'
Or the preacher from the pulpit says, 'To be saved all you need is to have faith.' And then the 14-year old boy thinks, I don't think I have enough faith, so I'll have to try harder, creating a de facto salvation by works.
Is there a more important issue to Christians than the issue of, 'How do we get saved?' With respect, I wouldn't expect non-believers like Elaine and Joe to get it, and I do understand to them it must just seem pointless debating. But for almost a billion people on earth, and more if you count other religions, the issue of soteriology (teaching on salvation) is the most important issue in the world.
Why does this matter?
To me personally, I wholly agree with Jack Sequeira:
'This understanding of the objective and subjective aspects of salvation will dramatically change our whole approach to evangelism and witnessing. No longer will we preach the gospel as good advice but as good news.'
It seems very different telling someone they are saved as opposed to they might be saved if they "do" something like believe.
The suggestion, as some have made above, that God just wants us to love one another and be good people is, with respect, still a version of salvation by works. God will save us even if we don't love each other and are total a-holes – that is the raddical message of Christianity no other religion has.
regarding this 'opt-in/opt-out' idea, i have an observation: if one subscribes to this 'opt-in/ opt out' thinking, and we are all IN unless we opt out, and all children are innocent, then why not kill all children under age of 12 to secure their place in heaven. that indeed would be a loving thing to do; that would actually save them for certain. otherwise, if we let them live and grow up, and they 'opt-out,' how horrible would that be? we could have saved them and we didn't.
Maybe that explains the genocide of Joshua's conquest? Or do you think those children murdered at God's command are destined to hellfire instead, because their parents were heathens and the children were not officially part of God's people (as in Jewish circumcision or Roman Catholic infant baptistm)?
It fundamentally comes down to this. Do you think God automatically rejects people, including those innocent babies or far-flung Gentiles who lack the opportunity or capacity to choose Him in faith or belief – that God put the onus on us to get saved? Or do you think God automatically accepts people, including innocent babies or far-flung Gentiles, and God puts the onus on us if we are to reject Him?
What better exemplifies God's character, balancing notions of justice and mercy? And again, don't say this doesn't matter, because I frankly can't think of an issue that matters more. It affects everything we do as Christians, including when and how we baptise (adults vs infants), and exactly what type of Gospel we are preaching (one that you can get saved vs one that you are saved)?
steve,
if that be true, why hasn't God destroyed all children since? if He is all loving, and death before 12 saves certainly, not to kill would be cruel and wrong. (twisted thinking). the genocide stories' emanate from tribal thinking and primitive understanding. of course a loving God didn't destroy those people and children. would Jesus, who invites the children to His lap, say, 'come little children, and if you don't i will kill you.' no, the OT stories don't reveal Jesus, they disclose a god from the minds of an evolving humanity. and they lead us Jesus to show who the Father truly is. John 14:7. Jesus makes clear what a Loving God is like. (thank God)!
try a marriage where you tell your bride, 'i love love but i will kill you any time i want.' will she love you from the heart or from fear? all those OT stories of a god (small 'g') who kills sinful people, are stories of a fallen humanity's paltry view of the true God. they are important because they reveal a God who meets where we are at, no matter how screwed up we might be, and they lead us to Jesus.
i dismiss the 'opt-in/ opt-out' notion, though better than what we were raised on, still short of what makes sense….to me. Jesus died for us, as our REPRESENTATIVE. He died 'as us' and therefore died in our place. period. result? He gives us His life, to ALL of us, which we never earned or deserved. that's grace and that is indeed 'gospel.' and that is what i believe. but thanks for the exchange and your point of view.
greg
"My question is, why do you even try?" [Stephen]
Well, my reasons for visiting this site include trying to understand how people think and how they can think what they say they think. A part of this involves attempting to recover and characterize what I believed and thought when I was an SDA/Christian, and to contrast that with my current perspectives. My ethical proposition of "due consideration" and "treating others as I would wish to be treated" requires that I try to progressively improve my understanding of others and myself. That is, I require of myself, a continuing process of gaining knowledge and understanding.
But this chatting-by-blog process is akin to the "participant observer" method that is common in cultural anthropology. Each situation is a "reactive arrangement" in that the participation of the observer alters the phenomena being investigated. That can be practiced in several different ways. One can attempt to interact as little as possible or one can interact in very direct and purposeful ways. I tend to do the latter, which results in reactions that might be more telling than passively waiting to see what is said.
I tend to be a peacemaker and integrator. I like to solve problems. One way I motivate people to constructively cooperate with each other is to try to find common ground and common goals. I do not like to see people working at cross purposes and I do not like to see unnecessary and wasteful strife. I have an impression that there are many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., and non-religious people who care about many of the same things and who follow essentially the same general ethical principles (e.g., what is often called "The Golden Rule").
Why should so many people be fighting over religious and ethnic issues? This is largely a result of fanatical extremism–the development of too tightly held concepts, such as concepts of God and what God wants, the reading of God's mind by people who deceive themselves and others into believing that extremely trivial matters are of earthshaking importance. The belief that one has access to special knowledge by virtue of listening to "voices" or other revelations fuels notions of being right while everyone else is wrong. Being raised in traditions in which ones religious or ethnic group is seen as special and chosen and exclusive or elite also tends to promote the worst of mental health in those who are vulnerable to paranoid thinking and violence.
So, I understand a little bit about feeling "special" or at least unusual. I am a person who was on the inside of SDA Christianity for about the first 1/3 of my life. I took it very seriously. In a way, I still do. The ways I relate to religious people in the real world have some foundations in my own religious experiences–but I have come to recognize that the experiences of others differed substantially from my own. If I ask others to tolerate people who have views different from their own, I think I need to try to understand how to tolerate the views of those from the tradition in which I was raised. It is a very challenging task.
Sorry Joe, when did I say 'Why do you even try Joe?'
Sorry Steve. Not you. Stephen Foster asked "why do you try?"
Look up "ideas of reference." Just kidding. This is a recurring problem, one you have addressed
by using "Steve" while S. Foster uses "Stephen."
I'm addressing the issue of the fragmentation of religions. Why does that happen? It is quite clear that unity is even out of reach within adventism. Why is that?
Sorry Joe you are right. My mistake – you clearly said Stephen. That is why I changed my log-in name to 'Steve' to try and avoid confusion with Stephen Foster.
That response was interesting, and telling to. You could have taken the softball question “why do you try?” and left it at that; or you could have also addressed my point about you interpreting the message of Jesus as someone who doesn’t necessarily believe that Jesus actually said or taught anything that is attributed to Him. (Disappointingly you took the latter option Joe.)
Clearly, if you re-read my post, that was the larger point I was making. I even explained my question “why do you try?” within that larger contextual framework. I could (and perhaps should) have also said that Jesus’ message is only taken seriously by most Christians in the larger context of who they believe He is.
Joe, I like you a lot man; but your approach seems phony to me. You think that you are right just as much as deeply religious people do. I admire and applaud your desire to be “tolerant” of the views of others; but by trying to tell Christians what the message of Jesus was, you condescend.
I think that you’re a nice guy. Clearly you are nicer than I am. But maybe you can see my point.
Stephen, my friend, I like you too. I imagine we would get along pretty well just talking over old times, and such. We get on different paths when we discuss our impressions of faith-related issues. My beloved brother, Jay, and I have similarly differing views, and yet, we love and value and respect each other. That might be true for you and me too.
I hope my approach is not "phony." That is about as far from honest as one can be, and I try very hard to be honest with myself and others.
I think you are probably correct about my tendency to "condescend." I'm sure it come across quite clearly that I feel that I am in a more accurate and authentic and supportable place than I was when I was an adventist. As for being RIGHT, well, I know I am not right all the time by any means–I change my mind about things pretty often as I find evidence convincing. I do not find that much flexibility in the most religious people–Christian, or otherwise. I suppose my point is not so much that I am right as that those who DO think they are right all the time, surely are not.
Anyway, my brother, I wish you peace and fulfillment, and I'm fine with you believing whatever you can. And I'm confident that you are a nice guy and that being a nice guy is its own reward.
When certain individuals on the AT website and elsewhere use the terms such as "believer" or "unbeliever," I would think that it would be helpful to always add to both terms what precisely someone else is supposed to be a "believer" or "unbeliever" in. You can neither be an unbeliever nor believer until one knows what he/she is supposed to not believe or believe. Same thing when the term "faith" is used. In the New Testament, the same Greek word is translated into English sometimes as "faith" and sometimes as "belief." Some individuals use faith when they are talking about "spiritual" things or are using "God talk" about some topic and "belief" when they are talking about secular topics. But it would be helpful to know what is the difference between "faith" and "belief" that is supposed to be communicated when you do that.
More than once I have proposed that we use the term Adventist to describe someone who believes that God has and/or will literally come to earth (which of course presupposes that an Adventist believes in a supernatural God that is capable of going to and from earth).
Some here do not seem to agree with this definition (basically the dictionary definition of the word). If we cannot agree on even simple dictionary definitions of words, then the plea for better definitions of words rings a bit hollow to Yours Truly.
I am wondering what definitions Dr Taylor himself would offer for a word like Adventist and a phrase like Adventist Today? Are these intended to convey any specific meaning or are they merely marketing slogans to promote a web site or a magazine?
Dr Taylor: 'When certain individuals on the AT website and elsewhere use the terms such as "believer" or "unbeliever," I would think that it would be helpful to always add to both terms what precisely someone else is supposed to be a "believer" or "unbeliever" in.'
If people were forthcoming with what they 'believed' or didn't 'believe', then one could more easily do that. Instead we are left to glean. People are happy to attack 'traditional' Adventist-Christian beliefs and practices, which is totally fine, but then are reluctant to offer up what they propose instead.
Jim: 'I am wondering what definitions Dr Taylor himself would offer for a word like Adventist and a phrase like Adventist Today?'
Totally agree with Jim here. The same problem goes with those who seemed to attack 'traditional' Adventist-Christian beliefs and practices, which is totally fine, but then insist they are still 'Adventist', and offer no qualification as to what an 'Adventist' is exactly then?
Unfortunately labels are a fact of life. They are the basis of communication. After all, the very first thing God had Adam do was label or the animals.
First rule of conversations: Define your terms!
Which is impossible when people are not forthcoming with information, which is a problem I have conintually been annoyed with (and complained about) in this place, for those who want to attack 'traditional' Adventist-Christian beliefs and practices.
Greg: 'i dismiss the 'opt-in/ opt-out' notion, though better than what we were raised on, still short of what makes sense….to me. Jesus died for us, as our REPRESENTATIVE. He died 'as us' and therefore died in our place. period. result? He gives us His life, to ALL of us, which we never earned or deserved. that's grace and that is indeed 'gospel.' and that is what i believe. but thanks for the exchange and your point of view.'
Thanks Greg, I agree the main reason I like 'presumptive' salvation of 'opting-out' is because it sounds far better than anything else we were raised with.
But what are you promoting instead? Is it a type of universalism? Where then is the free choice, or how do you deal with the texts talking about the second death?
Surely a loving God likewise respects our choice to reject Him? Or does God effectively torture us in pergatory until we come round, like a man who locks his ex-girlfriend in a basement until she changes her mind and agrees to love Him?
How do we balance these conflicting ideas? How can we say God wants to save everyone, and will if possible save everyone, especially people like children, but at the same time say God respects our free choice, including a free choice to reject Him?
Does the notion of a God of love require both concepts, even if they are in tension? Only the 'opt-out' model comes close to explaining that.
steve,
great questions that have plagued me as well. i will try to be pithy, but there is so much to address. first, in rev. 22: 2,3, mentions the 'tree of life' for 'the healing of the nations.' why?' if we are already changed 'in a twinkling if an eye,' why the healing? this leaves me wondering.
next, we make human free-will a kind of 'God,' which even the God of the universe bows to. i wonder about that too. free-choice very needed in a broken world but not in heaven. we were taught that sin will not rise up again. well then, how did it rise up in the first place? in a perfectly sin-free environment, satan develops selfish thoughts? how? and what will keep us from doing this again in another sin-free environment? if you say because we learned our lessson, then i say, sin must have been necessary, to teach us our lesson and to never sin again. preposterous. and if we are free and never say 'no' to God again, what determines our freedom? if we never say 'no,' how are we different from the automatons we so fiercely feared in our orthodox explanation of the sin story?
who is in charge? God or free-choice? God destroys His enemies and we are to love ours? what is with that? steve, i have too many questions that are not adequately answered by the orthodox, conventioanl evangelical attempts. i have other questions, but there is not enough space or time here.
I believe in a God of Love. that sustains me. Jesus gives me hope. all else is mellenia of answers supplied us of which i find wanting. in any case, i am adored by heaven, and in that i have rest and peace.
sincerely,
greg
I find it troubling that not accepting any or all of the vast legend that has been built up around Jesus is equated with rejecting the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. In fact, it seems to me, that many people here and elsewhere carry in their minds a special and unique concept of Jesus that is mostly legendary and mythical (by this I mean, based on tradition, hearsay, gossip, and, to some extent, on delusions, and without basis in demonstrable evidence). Then, such people require the rest of us to line ourselves up with their imaginary Jesus, and if we don't, we are "rejecting" Jesus and God and all things good and righteous. Because we do not accept their special idea of who Jesus was and what Jesus did, we are on the wrong side of The Great Controversy and we have deliberately chosen an alliance with that old serpent, The Devil, and Satan. By not accepting some human construction of Jesus, we have "opted out" of "salvation." Really? Seriously?
Clearly, opinions vary regarding the "message of Jesus" or the message attributed to him. The "good news" may be simple, or maybe it isn't. My impression is that the "Jesus of Nazareth" portrayed in the stories of the NT is a composite character composed of legendary stories about various radicals from the area around Nazareth–some of them named Jesus. They seem to have had a variety of messages, ranging from rebellion against the Romans to rejection of Jewish traditions. They assembled crowds and fomented unrest. They were seen as radical extremists whose ideas threatened peace, security, and stability. Some promoted conflict and terrorism. Others rejected violence and sought alternative pathways to freedom. Perhaps only one or a few simply declared victory and claimed emancipation. And that is what I think of as the powerful "message of Jesus." "You have been told that God hates you and that you are lost. I'm here to tell you is not true. You are free. All you have to do is believe it and it becomes true for you."
Am I claiming to read God's mind? Not at all. I do not accept the idea that I can understand God or know what is on God's mind. My best guess is that a loving God would understand why it is all a mystery to me, why I am so passionately fascinated by the wonders of nature, and why I imerse myself in efforts to value, respect, understand, and conserve wildlife and natural places.
'In fact, it seems to me, that many people here and elsewhere carry in their minds a special and unique concept of Jesus that is mostly legendary and mythical (by this I mean, based on tradition, hearsay, gossip, and, to some extent, on delusions, and without basis in demonstrable evidence).'
Yes many people, many, many people.
Joe there are many people who believe the same as you. And about one billion Christians, and another billion Muslims (who likewise don't see as a mere myth of composite legend but the Jewish Messiah and one of the greatest prophets) who don't.
Does it help you that some ideas are popular? I'm not going for popularity. Of course people
are looking for answers. Of course people respond to those who are charismatic or claim authority.
Being reared as an adventist got me pretty used to being in the minority, so I don't mind it.
No Joe, but your last comment read as if you were suprised by how popular the idea is.
Steve, I don't quite understand what you mean about my being "surprised by how popular the idea is."
There are a couple of billion people who are identified as "Christian" and more than 1 1/2 billion identified as "Muslim." The third most popular religious affiliation is "none," followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, and "other." "Other" includes Sikhism, Judaism, Bahaism, Confucianism, Jainism, Shintoism, etc., in order of estimated number of affiliates.
So, what is "the idea" that unifies all these organizations? Even if there are more Christians than any other single group, how do the Protestants feel about being identified as being in the same groups as Catholics? Roman Catholics outnumber Protestants by more than a 2:1 ratio, without counting Eastern Orthodox or Anglicans. Christians, Muslims, and Jews account for less than half the world's population.
But most of these groups are fragmented to some degree–certainly, all the Abrahamic groups are. Even though we seem to rather glibly stereotype Muslims, few of us probably know many adherants to Islam. For every jihadist Muslim extremist there are millions of decent, moderate, and peaceloving Muslims. I know and have known many. They contrast with those of my neighbors who are hateful racists but identify themselves as Christians.
The generality that I can find in large numbers of people identifying with religions is that many people follow the traditions of their parents. They say they believe what their parents said they believed. They remain connected with the ethnic and religious groups in which they are born and reared. All the more so if intensive efforts are made for within-group enculturation, along with special standards of dress, diet, and conduct, etc.
My own estimate is that about 1 in 100,000 Muslims is a terrorist or jihadi. There might be 10 times that many sympathizers? Still this is a very small fraction. havins spent quality time in Asia and worked closely with many Muslims, I cannot recall meeting any who were not peace-loving people simply trying to get-on with their lives and take care of their families. But if I were in the Middle East where there has been so much more turmoil, it might well be different.
Jim, your estimate may be closer than mine. Even 1% of the 1.6 billion Muslims would be 16 million, so if the most extreme 1% of Muslims were jihadists or sympathizers or supporters, that's quite a few people. Kind of on the same order of magnitude of the global population of SDAs. Even so, I hate to see groups of people stereotyped.
Jim, I'm interested in learning more about your experiences in Asia. I had a field research project in Indonesia for about 15 years (in Sulawesi), and have visited several other Asian countries. I sure met some fine people, and many of them are still friends.
For a number of years I worked for an international electronics manufacturer. Most of the employees were in Asia. I commuted back-and-forth to India and Malaysia. India has a substantial Muslim minority. Malaysia has a substantial Hindu minority. So I rubbed shoulders with a lot of Muslims as well as a lot of Hindus.
I have also been to non-Muslim Asian countries including China and Japan.
“Then, such people require the rest of us to line ourselves up with their imaginary Jesus, and if we don't, we are "rejecting" Jesus and God and all things good and righteous. Because we do not accept their special idea of who Jesus was and what Jesus did, we are on the wrong side of The Great Controversy…”
None of us can require anything of you in this regard Joe. As you’re fond of saying, you have every right to believe whatever you can.
None of us has a heaven to take you to or a hell to which to send you; that’s for sure. Only God knows what anyone really believes, or doesn't believe; and He knows why.
Besides, He would only take you to heaven if you'd want to go anyway.
Here is some interesting statistical information: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
(Apologies Steve Ferguson, this is about America.)
Jesus, Son of God, lived, born in Bethlehem, crucified in Jerusalem. Yes, there obviously were a large number of others named Jesus, in Palestine at the time, but they did not recruit apostles, spend 3 years teaching them about His heavenly Father, teaching them to love their God, and their neighbors, gaining their belief and loyalty, to such a degree they travelled the known Earth teaching the Good News of Jesus, suffering hardships and death to proclaim the message of this Jesus. This message of freedom and Salvation proved so desired, that today we have approx one and a half Billion people, in various versions, proclaming Jesus as the Saviour of the world. What other religion has this notable documented origin?? The majority of people ever to live on Earth have had a fervent desire to search for their reason for being. How is that possible, an itinerant carpenter, having that influence over the millions and billions of dead Christians, and 1 1/2 billion living who call themselves by His name. Amazing, truly amazing. No TV or Internet or Journalists following Him around to record His every word. Even unknown outside Gallilee. Yet His influence has built hundreds of thousands of churches, massive cathedrals and edifices, worldwide, how can it be that those other rabble rousers of Jesus time have not a footnote to history?? Yet the documentation is available in the Holy Bible attesting to His reality and teaching, but some wish not to validate it, saying it could be only myths, or hearsay. If the Bible had been written by only one person, there would be that possibility, but where countless contributors are involved for approx 100 years after His ressurection, all giving evidence, some firsthand, having been personally involved living with Him, and others with a need to publish the good news, after being inspired by the Holy Spirit, the chances this was a comspiracy are billions or trillions to one, and i don't like those odds. By the way all of those contributors involved never made a cent. How can it be that this enterprise was generated by His apostles, who were frightened nearly to death by His death, and huddled together sealed off, until the HOLY SPIRIT inspired them to witness their faith, by harrowing experiences throughout the known world, not travelling by luxury liners, jet airplanes, but by walking, mules, and leaky old boats, hungry and harrased continually, in prison, crucified, heads cut off, stoned, many without names, witnessing and dying for their faith in a reality, Jesus the Christ, Son of God.
Earl, my friend and brother, I have great respect for your views. You express yourself well, and with generous consideration of others–even those of us who see things differently. You have described a remarkable phenomenon, and you may well be correct. It is my impression that the other people who were crucified for sedition also had followers, but that the message of victory, nonviolence, and freedom was the strongest (and most unusual–and hence most salient) message of the time. Many stories, filtered through many storytellers and editors, is how legends are built–whether they are built around real people and real events, or not. It certainly would be a miracle if the actual words and conversations in scriptural accounts were preserved exactly as they came from Jesus. As far as I am concerned, anyone who can believe that is what happened is certainly welcome to do so.
Jim, interesting about your travels in Asia. While in Malaysia, did you ever get over to Borneo (Sarawak and/or Sabah)? I got over there a couple of times and really enjoyed the visits. My experience in India is limited (mainly just around Chennai/Madras and Hyderabad), only in Yunnan province in China, but a bit more extensive and frequent travel in Japan (I especially like southern Kyushu). While Indonesia has the largest Muslim population of any nation in the world, some provinces are predominantly Hindu (Bali) or Christian (North Sulawesi and others). "Unity in Diversity" is the national motto, which I think is pretty cool. Of course, the motto does not prevent Christians from destroying mosques or Muslims from destroying churches–but many of the conflicts that currently exist have some foundations in traditional tribal rivalries. Colonial missionary zeal has sometimes added fuel to these conflicts, but western contributions to health and literacy have been largely positive influences.
Wishing you well….
Dan, I found your blog post above late in the game. It is magnificent. Nail on the head. Your sentence "Rather than doing away with Torah, following Jesus supersedes and expands and extends it exponentially" expresses my view exactly.
You might be interested in my article over on Spectum (Yikes! Can I say that?) a couple of months ago titled "Remnant Redux." Very similar thoughts.
Yes very interesting. That certainly is the impression when reading the Sermon on the Mount.
Sometimes I get the feeling that the conflict between works and faith, i.e., legalism vs. love, is all about some sort of parent-child, or even militaristic, preoccupation with rigid autoritarian discipline and slavish obedience, in contrast to free choice based on careful consideration, reason, and gracious love.
"…theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die…."
[Alfred, Lord Tennyson, "The Charge of the Light Brigade," re: the Battle of Balaclava, Crimea, 1854].
I agree with Steve that the message attributed to Jesus seems to very much emphasize that the ideal is to go far beyond legal requirements or other expectations. If asked for your coat, give also your cloak, etc. There seems to have developed a kind of legalism in his day in which people sought to "split hairs" and comply technically with what was required, rather than acting in "the spirit" (or reason) for which the requirement had been designed (what the law was intended to accomplish).
A part of my vocation over several decades has been a focus on laboratory and zoo animal care–aimed at ensuring a decent quality of life for captive primates. My advice along the way has been to not merely meet, but to exceed regulatory requirements. Don't be even close to the line. Avoid being vulnerable to charges of animal cruelty by ensuring that you do much more than is required. And this is just an application of what I believe to be a "best practice" generally–throughout one's life. This attitude/orientation might well be a result of my early training as an adventist Christian–but the part in which there was an emphasis that went beyond authoritarian legalism into careful consideration, loving generosity, and exceeding expectations. It seems to me that this is a constructive way to live–one that seldom leads to confrontations with people or laws or those charged with enforcement of laws.
But many questions remain. This does not always work. Not everyone operates on these principles.