For Such a Time as This, Part 2
by Cindy Tutsch
And he swore an oath in the name of the one who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and everything in it, the earth and everything in it, and the sea and everything in it.
Who created the earth? Who spoke creation into existence? (Heb 1, Col 1, John 1) Here Christ references the six literal, empirical, historical 24-hour days of creation, culminating with a literal 24-hour Sabbath day of rest, with the implication that human life on earth was non-existent before the literal creation week described in Genesis. Interestingly, to chase a rabbit here, Ellen White was aware of ideas similar to uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism. Yet, she continually repeated her clarion call to elevate a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 over humanity’s ideas of science. Therefore, if Adventist pioneer Ellen G. White were alive today, there is no evidence that she would accept reconstruction of either a historical creation week or a global flood.
Back to the oath. Here Christ swears by His own name. No more solemn oath could He take. And what was this oath, this declaration, this sworn statement? Time will be no longer. Oh, yes, some of our favorite translations say, "There will be no more delay." Delay is probably an unfortunate translation of the Greek word chronos. Certainly chronos is not translated “delay” anywhere else in the New Testament but here. For the sake of the argument of our pioneers, let’s translate chronos as time. What time is Christ alluding to here? It can’t be earth time, because earth events are yet to unfold in the 7th trumpet. It can’t be probationary time, because we will see that people are still to be invited to make a decision for the Lord Jesus. So we have prophetic time, which ties nicely to the little book of verse 2, which our pioneers identified as Daniel, particularly the prophetic portions, now to be understood by the people of God upon whom the ends of the earth have finally come. Our pioneers understood this to mean that after the fulfillment of the Scripture’s longest time prophecy of 2300 years culminated in 1844, there was to be no more time setting. Persons who announce Jesus’ coming on January 12, 2014, would be identified by our pioneers as false prophets!
But when the seventh angel blows his trumpet, God’s mysterious plan will be fulfilled. It will happen just as he announced it to his servants the prophets.
What is God’s greatest miracle, His greatest mystery? Is it the raising of Lazarus? The creation of millions of galaxies? According to Ephesians 6:19 and Colossians 2:2, God’s greatest miracle, His greatest mystery, is the gospel! The renewal of my heart, and your heart, to be like the heart of Christ, that the things we once loved, we now hate, and the things we once hated, we now love. . The fulfillment of God’s mysterious plan is taking out from the nations a people for God’s own name. The opportunity to be among God’s people is almost over. The gospel will be finished, according to our pioneers, when the number of God’s people is made up, when mercy ceases to be offered, and probation closes.
This is urgent! This is critical! There is importance connected to the finishing of any of the works of God.
Then the voice from heaven called to me again, Go, and take the unrolled scroll from the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land. So I approached him and asked him to give me the little scroll. “Yes, take it and eat it,” he said.
Jeremiah says, “I did take the word of God and I did eat it, and it became to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart.” What does it mean to “eat the word of God?” I can tell you what it doesn’t mean! It doesn’t mean a quickie devotional with our hand on the doorknob on the way to our quickie life! Time with God, time with Scripture, will open our eyes and hearts, according to our pioneers, to expand on, build upon, and further clarify biblical understanding.
“Yes, take it and eat it,” he said. “At first it will taste like honey, but when you swallow it, it will make your stomach sour!” So I took the little scroll from the hands of the angel, and I ate it! [And sure enough,] it was sweet in my mouth, but it made my stomach sour.”
Our spiritual ancestors saw these verses as a graphic description of their own experience of intense disappointment when Jesus, the center of their heart and hopes, did not return on October 22, 1844. They imagined the intensity of the heartbreak the disciples endured when Jesus did not meet their expectations of a deliverer from Roman oppression, and instead died, crucified, surrounded also by mocking mobs.
For our spiritual pioneers, the resurrection of hope came October 23, as Hiram Edson pointed to the true significance of October 22, 1844, that our Lord and Savior began a new and beautiful and saving ministry in the Most Holy Place. Our pioneers met in Bible study to consider this interpretation. Ultimately their study of the Scriptures confirmed and expanded Edson’s insights.
Nonetheless, if the vision ended at verse 10, we might, like the proverbial dog, run yelping back to our doghouses with our tails between our legs. It is sometimes in our failure and mortification that God calls us once again to be agents to teach and proclaim the mystery of Himself.
And so it is with Chapter 10.
Then he said to me, “You MUST –[note the emphatic Greek, no ambivalence here!] — You MUST prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages, and kings.”
And what is to be the burden of our message this time? The second coming? Oh, yes! Referenced hundreds of times in Scripture, it is the hope, the holy expectancy, of every believer. The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is Good News! It’s a “must-share!” But this time, central to that Good News is the ministry of our Lord and Savior in the Most Holy Place.
Ellen White states it so wonderfully in Ms 40, 1900. “The gospel that is to be preached to all nations, kindreds, tongues and people presents the truth in clear lines, showing that obedience is the condition of gaining eternal life. Christ imparts His righteousness to those who consent to let Him take away their sins. We are indebted to Christ for the grace which makes us complete in Him.”
Precious Savior! Is He and His present work to be presented only to the unchurched? Oh, no! In Revelation 18:1-4, the angel declares that those systems, including religious systems, including ostensibly Christian religious systems, which teach confusion, false doctrine, are fallen. It is the privilege of our Adventist community of faith to call God’s people out of Babylon, so that they will not receive of the seven last plagues, and so that they can be part of one faith, one Lord, one baptism. (Eph 4:5)
This is our sacred heritage, our holy calling. Our pioneers were on fire with a passion for introducing people to Jesus Christ. That inner fire changed what they talked about, what they did in their spare time, how they spent their money, how they planned the church budget, how they did youth ministry—in short, the gospel commission was their mission!
What about us?
Yes – what about us? This article is a breath of fresh air. Thank you Cindy. I would only add one point … While, "It is the privilege of our Adventist community of faith to call God’s people out of Babylon" we also need to take heed of the Laodicean message of Revelation 3:14-22. The call for God's people to come out of Babylon must be proclaimed and heeded within SDAism before we can, with complete credibility, call other Christians out of the fallen churches of spiritual Babylon.
Looking for a part III
There are several problems with this article.
First of all, Tusch said: "Ellen White states it so wonderfully in Ms 40, 1900. “The gospel that is to be preached to all nations, kindreds, tongues and people presents the truth in clear lines, showing that obedience is the condition of gaining eternal life. Christ imparts His righteousness to those who consent to let Him take away their sins. We are indebted to Christ for the grace which makes us complete in Him.”
Here Tusch has committed the grievous "sin" of quoting a passage of EGW which shows one side of the coin. The passage which she considers "wonderful" is highly problematic and can be easily aligned with the Catholic notion of imparted righteousness which works out salvations IN the believer and thus, needs works as part of the salvation "process". But grace working in the believer does not make us "complete in him" only imputed grace makes us complete in Christ since we need nothing short of absolute acquittal to be totally accepted before God. The difference is striking and ever so important. This is not EGW at her best, I'm afraid. The Gospel of acquittal and substitution is far superior to the Gospel of "obedience" for salvation. EGW has better statements for the gospel than this.
Revelation 18:1-4 says nothing about "religious" systems. Revelation was a book for first century Christians in the Roman empire primarily. The invitation to leave Babylon is a command to leave the Godless world, not a particular "church" or "denomination". This Adventist us against them" mentality is becoming increasingly tedious and suspect.
Then Tusch goes to say that Hiram Edson understood the "true significance" of 1844. Well, I don't know where Sister Tusch has been for the last 30 years at least… Is she completely oblivious to the problems of 1844 from all aspects of biblical studies, from original languages of Daniel to the overall understanding of the book of Hebrews? The investigative judgement has been knocked out since Ford and the severe deficiencies of the DARCOM series has helped crystallized Ford's (and others') conclusions to many Adventists.
Another problem of this article, the notion that "time" in Revelation refers to the end of "historical, sequential" time periods. This is fallacious since it's based on the presupposition that Revelation needs to be understood from the historicist approach of set time periods etc. But what if Revelation was not meant to be understood as a newspaper written in advance, a detailed historical record with symbols standing for entities and persons? Then the strength of the angel's speech hits us with full force: Revelation deals with events that must "soon" take place, in fact, that were already happening in John's time (see Rev 17, "one now is"). How contradictory that the angel says "there's no more chronos" to John, and yet, from the Adventist perspective, there would still be the 1260 "years" within the 2300 "years" etc etc? The whole argument is exegetically fallacious in my view.
The absence of "time" in Revelation means no more CHRONOLOGIES already in the 1st century A.D. This is precisely in line with what Jesus stated: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority." (Act 1:7).
Despite the problems with these conclusions, Tusch says that this package of historicist readings is our "sacred heritage". Really? This differs nothing from Catholicism's defense of tradition as "sacred" and authoritative. Why do I keep bringing up Catholicism? Because our approach to ecclesiology is a copy of the former, we just keep trying to sell our product, just as they try to sell theirs. What is the difference?
Honestly, it's a shame that we still insist on defending our indefensible historicist readings of the Apocalypse. The Great Controversy is a product of the exegetical schools of thought of the 19th century. We are now better equipped to do justice to Apocalyptic literature than the pioneers and EGW were. It's time we respected John's intentions and Sitz im Leben in detriment to our corporate mottos and spin. We diminish the power of the book of Revelation by imposing our passé, triumphalist readings and pseudo-prophetic fulfillments on the text.
Given where our SDA pioneers started, I am not sure that more knowledge of itself would have led to different conclusions. That SDA presuppositions led (and continue to lead) to SDA conclusions should not surprise us. Are our 'indefensible historicist readings' really any more indefensible that any other reading? All biblical interpretation starts with presuppositions. The arguments that 'my presuppositions are better/more biblical than yours' rarely seem to lead to a greater understanding on the part of either, nor to a change in belief of either, so what purpose do they have? Will holding a wrong belief about a particular prophecy or doctrine really keep us out of heaven? Or even have a detrimental effect on our Christian walk? Or, conversely, will a correct understanding in and of itself guarantee a better outcome. I have my doubts about that.
We may be in a better position to understand the bible from the POV of the original language and context of the books, but our knowledge is still far from complete. And, unlike our pioneers, we must now contend with a church tradition that is over 150 years old and growing stronger by the year. An outright attack on that tradition is unlikely to gain a hearing, as I am sure the course of this discussion will show. I used to believe, when I was younger and more sure of not only what I know but how much I know, I believed error should be exposed wherever it is found. But as experience has taught me that forcing people to face the errors in their beliefs is equally as likely to lead to disbelief as to a correction of belief, and having experienced more than once the process of having to reaximine belief almost 'from the ground up', I am not so certain I have the right to put others through that simply because I believe them to be wrong. Perhaps God is simply leading them to himself by a different route, and what he wants from me is room to do his work without interference.
Wise words Kevin.
I don't believe anyone will be saved or lost for believing or rejecting a particular apocalyptic reading. Time per se, Jesus said, is not important (Acts 1:7) and whatever time is still left, it is supposed to be "short" (Revelation). What is far more crucial is the view of Christ that people develop according to their readings of Apocalyptic.
Thus the question really is, "Does 1844 (despite its meager biblical support) reveal Christ in all his Crucifixion glory?" I don't believe so. Does it clarify the gospel or muddy the waters? I believe it complicates things.
Even Ellen White said that understanding salvation is like learning the A-B-C and that its concepts are so easy to understand that even a child comprehend them. 1844 with all its malabarisms does NOT fit this bill.
1844 is the most beuatiful message of the Gospel….what is more glorious than a walk through the Sanctuary and see our High Priest before the throne of God making atonement for the sins of His people…..?
Of course those on here bashing historicism demonstrate a lack of understanding. Histroicism is the only approach that both fits and makes any sense of the prophecies.
John Andrews, the liberals only THINK that Ford did damage to 1844 because they swallowed all he said hook, line and sinker without seriously thinking about it. Ford contradicts himself all over the place and does not offer a sound, watertight theology to replace the one he is trying to destroy. He is good at tearing down (if you don't analyse his arguments properly, in which case they tear themselves down), but not good at building up.
Ford made a mess of trying to interpret the original languages of Daniel and the nuances of Hebrews. In fact a careful study will show that Ford was dead wrong and the SDA church is on solid ground, whether you look at the big picture, or whether you get down into the detail with a fine tooth comb. It was Ford's personality that won people over, not the solidity of his arguments.
No "pagophilus", Ford simply was brave enough to bring out to light what countless SDA scholars have concluded for the better part of SDA history. To call 1844 "watertight" shows complete ignorance of the issues involved.
The DARCOM series comes up short every time. Shea for one is steeped in fallacies, all of them received their salaries from the GC, would they come up with conclusions different from those demanded by their employers? DARCOM backed-fired on the church as more and more people become aware of the convoluted reasoning we have to resort to to in order to justify the year-day principle or the Jesus' "ping-ponging" between the Holy and Most Holy places. Hebrews puts Jesus in the Most Holy Place = "heaven itself", not a compartment, "once and for all", directly in the presence of God to intercede for us. There's no going in and out and in again. Ever.
This does not mean the SDA church is a false movement at all. It simply indicates we have overstated our case for a "prophetic" movement. I believe God raised the SDA Church at the right time, despite the absence of the Church in Revelation and our exegetical shortcomings. And He will continue to lead us if we embrace the Great Commission, to preach the Gospel, not shortsighted, sectarian Adventist worldviews.
Ellen White as a progressive would embrace every ray of light we have received, including those who compell us to reject 1844 as a prophetic datum.
When someone receives his livelihood from an organization, it is most difficult to disagree with the position of that organization. This is what occurred in the Ford debate. I have heard Ford many times, as well as when he debated Shea in a weekend seminar on this very subject. Shea was unable to convince the audience of his position and Ford was so clear and convincing that the SDA position disintegrated right in front of us.
There is no "there" to the 1844 doctrine. It is passe; it is incoherent; it is twisting of scripture; picking a text here and another there without any coherence. It convinced the original pioneers who came up with it, but with much better Bible translations (they were limited to the KJV) that are more accurate, and the context of the texts, the SDA position doesn't hold water.
Diehard Adventists will continue to cling to it, but the new generation of Adventists that will eventually run the church will mention it less and less. When was the last time a sermon was heard outlining the 1844 doctrine and its relevance for today? It has none; it should be filed in the dustbin of history.
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," Acts 16:31.
Luke 10:25-28: " On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast," Ephesians 2:4-9.
Our gratitude for His grace towards us changes our behavior. Still, that change in behavior (obedience) can not and does not save us, as we have already sinned. We can do NOTHING of ourselves to pay the debt that is owed for sin: Christ's blood has already paid it — and is the ONLY payment that suffices. Depending on our obedience as payment of the debt to Christ for grace makes us self-righteous, frustrated, and spiritually deluded. Grace, by definition, is UNMERITED favor.
The work we are to do is to BELIEVE in Him. Belief changes behavior: behavior changes are a manifestation of belief. But behavior changes to not PAY for grace — which is, again, a contradiction in terms.
Further (re: the EGW quote: ". . . showing that obedience is the condition of gaining eternal life." ), the work that is to be done to gain salvation, per Christ, is found in John 6:28-29.
The defintiion for obedience in Mrs. White's quote is found in the following sentence: "those who consent to let Him take away their sins." The gift of grace is God's unmerited favor which has purchased salvation for all mankind as a free gift, but it is also the power / presence of Christ in the soul (imparted righteousness) to deliver them from sin and it's power in one's personal experience. Matthew 1:21.23 Therefore, belief / faith in the grace of Christ is rendered as obedience in God's eyes, because genuine faith always works by love. Galatians 5:6
What I resist is the notion of obedience born out of the notion of indebtedness. The words "grace and "debt" don't belong in the same sentence. Loving obdedience is not a response to debt; obligation is.
The fruits of obligation are resentment, measurement, and repayment. Gifts (i.e., "grace") cannot be repaid. As we know well, the semantics of this concept have manifested itself in the notion of law-based works being the currency (or in the quote, the "condition") of salvation. It is not a coincidence that many Adventists believe their salvation is in question and is a function of their works. In my opinion, this point (salvation is a gift, not a result of one's works), to those in the Adventist milieu, cannot be overemphasized.
Agreed…
The point I was seeking to illustrate is that we Adventists tend to give "obedience" a very limited / focused definiton; a mechanical / regimented keeping of God's law as the condition for salvation. This limited definition can easily apply itself to Cindy's quote of Sis White. But is that what Mrs. White was saying? I believe she would agree with your viewpoint wholeheartedly.
Romans 4 is clear as to the relationship between faith / grace… where works / obedience are defined as the response of the target of the grace of God… the consent to allow grace to work itself out in our lives, because grace does not force itself on any of us, nor is it given because of anything we have done. If it did, it would not be grace. Romans 11:6
This understanding is necessary because sin is a multifacited problem… it's not just behavior. The free grace of God is given to us with the multifacited dilemma in mind, meeting all of our needs… That can only take place when we believe that it is a free gift and open our hands / hearts to receive all the benefits that come with it… God's peace / pardon / power.
Perhaps Ellen White is making a distinction that others have made, but that is often overlooked: salvation/eternal life in the sense of entering into salvation, and salvation in the sense of the working out of God's gift of grace. The first is a completed work, to which we are offered a choice of acceptance or non-acceptance – in either case it remains a completed and effective work of God – but the second requires our cooperation in the sense that we must consent to God's work being done. The aim of salvation is not merely that we be forgiven, but that we be transformed. Christ's death on the cross achieved forgiveness for all, whether or not we accept it. But the outworking of that, while equally a gift of grace, cannot occur without our consent and compliance. In that sense, our obedience is a pre-requisite to God achieving the aim of salvation, which is the restoration of all things, including the image of God in his people. All is of grace, all is the work of God, but we don't get the full benefit of salvation unless we consent and cooperate with God. If we were forced to accept both, it would be coercion, not grace. Then we would be slaves, not sons, which would make the whole exercise pointless.
Cindy,
While others may debate the details of what you wrote, I want to thank you for reminding us of our ultimate purpose as professed believers: being ready to meet Jesus and proclaiming salvation so others will be ready.
Proclaiming salvation is only part of the equation. Unfortunately we've focused on it so exclusively on preaching, teaching and giving Bible studies that we've forgotten the larger part: letting God show His power through our lives. Merely thinking we are believers leaves us impotent. Preaching alone does not do this and generally makes us less convincing because people regard us as the proclaimers of a message without evidence to make it worth their attention. We must let God transform us and empower us with the Holy Spirit before we will have a testimony about God that will make our proclamation credible. That Holy Spirit empowerment is found when we quit doing the same old things the same old way and instead let God show us how to touch others with His love. The first thing Jesus did and told his disciples to do was heal the sick and perform other miracles. The first result of those miracles was a benefit in the recipient's life. It demonstrated the loving nature of an all-powerful God who cared about them. Tus their attention was turned to God to seek further benefit. Reviving the power of our proclamation first requires that we get involved in ministries that improve the lives of others will they be willing to hear our message.
It seems to me that the Christian attitude should be that GRACE and salvation exist regardless of whether or not we have faith. If we do not know it, or do not acknowledge it, or even don’t believe it, that should make it no less true at all–and certainly no less true for those who accept it by faith. Doesn’t scripture teach that the “price has been paid,” that the atonement or reconciliation has occurred? And that all that remains is individual acknowledgement or acceptance–faith?
I think Dr. Ford raised some really important issues , one of the big problems is that as Adventists dont understand justification by faith . we dont understand the gospel , one of the main problems is that we have ignored what Luther and Calvin wrote .We have tried to harmonize Ellen White and the bible and it is not possible . Ellen White did not understand justification by faith , she wrote some nice things but a lot of what she wrote is " salvation by works " . when are we going to stop quoting her as an authority on prophecy ? to be fair , she didnt claim to be infallible ,but people continue to treat her writtings above scritpure . but what else can you expect from the " white state " ? Someone told me the other day , give us 1000 years and Ellen White will be the " virgen Mary " of the Adventists .
Seminary student – the Bible does teach that we are saved by works. One of the problems is that the evangelicals, to get rid of the Sabbath, have got rid of the whole 10 commandments even though they agree with the other 9. Then they take texts such as in Romans and Galatians, that we are not saved by the works of the law, and stretch them out further than they were supposed to go. We are not saved by the works "of the law" but works definitely play a role in our salvation. We have to separate those texts which speak of "works of the law" from those which say "works" because they often refer to completely different things.
It's splitting hairs. We are saved by faith but to say that works play no role is to ignore parts of the Bible. The two cannot be separated. Have you not read texts which read that we will be judged by our works, and we will account for every word we say? How about James 2:21-26?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Works (note: not "works of the law") demonstrate that we have faith. If we are not living as if Jesus is our Lord and king, it shows we really don't have faith. If you truly believe the stockmarket will triple in a week, you will put all your money in it. If you don't, it shows that you don't have faith in it. Ellen White understood justification by faith very well. Some of today's theologians don't understand it and swallow the evangelical line – we are not saved by works full stop- when that's not the case.
But you can take this further. Even though works of the law cannot save us, we know that sin (breaking the law) condemns us to death. So how can we then go and claim that keeping the law is not important? Again, keeping the law doesn't save us but you cannot separate the two. It is still required.
Did those who Christ praised and welcomed into the kingdom (Matt. 25:46 have faith?
Many have been praised for their faith, and many simply for their works. Is one more important than the other? Must the saved possess both? What of the millions who have done good works but never knew of Jesus, but chose to live by the Golden Rule? Is that insufficient for entry into heaven?
as Dr. Larondelle said " Salvation is not our doing but it is God's work and gift , offered to undeserving human beings ". I invite you to listen to Desmond Ford on you tube his sermon on " forensic justification "
That's all very well, but don't take what Desmond Ford says at his word. Check him out against the Bible, not only the texts he quotes but also the ones he doesn't. Unfortunately, the case for forensic justification cannot be supported from the Bible. I invite you to read Eugene Prewitt's article on Forensic Justification http://www.scribd.com/slurp?scribd_publisher_id=pub-76116509584404993375&display_mode=fullscreen&public=true&url=http://www.bibledoc.org/test2/uploads/Forensic_Justification.doc
or http://www.bibledoc.org/test2/index.php/articles/download/18
You will see that there is a host of texts which contradict the theory of forensic justification.
Like all things Desmond Ford – it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
Joe Erwin said:
"It seems to me that the Christian attitude should be that GRACE and salvation exist regardless of whether or not we have faith. If we do not know it, or do not acknowledge it, or even don't believe it, that should make it no less true at all–and certainly no less true for those who accept it by faith. Doesn't scripture teach that the "price has been paid," that the atonement or reconciliation has occurred? And that all that remains is individual acknowledgement or acceptance–faith?"
I think this shows good insight. I agree. Christ died for all the human race and not just for those who have been fortunate enough to hear about him. All have some "light" or knowledge of a God of love and can choose to build on it or not. His sacrifice was "from the foundation of the world" and is inclusive to all unless or until they reject it. We live in linear time; God does not and his sacrifice is retroactive and always paid.
Joe Erwin's comment on grace and salvation is correct. God's gift and salvation exists outside of a human response.
The one comment that I would add comes from Romans 5:18-19, which tells me that what Christ accomplished on the cross brought about salvation for all. To those who would object to this, I do not claim that God forces any to live in eternity in a relationship with God that they chose to reject.
Thank you, Ella. No one here should place much stock in what I say, because, as many of you know, my perspective is that of a former believer considering issues of internal consistency, and drawing on my experiences and thoughts from 40 or 50 years ago when I was a deeply involved and committed Christian. Admittedly, I may have been too deeply immersed in my efforts to understand and follow the paths of faith and rightiousness. In fact, I reached that conclusion at the time. I came to believe that the scriptures taught and the Spirit led to the concept that I (and many others) were making it all too complicated. The gospel, it seemed to me, had to be a message simple enough for anyone to comprehend and act on. The message? "God loves you and considers you worth saving. So much so, that he has demonstrated His love by sending His son to deliver the message personally. God loves you. You are not worthless. Believe it."
Beyond that, the message might go on to say "Just in case you need more proof that God never stopped loving you, His son lived, died, and was resurected to show that He was who He said He was, and to demonstrate that God has power over death. If you believe, you no longer have to fear death."
Much is made of the symbolism of the sacrificial lamb and the death of Christ, along with the story of Abraham and Isaac. Many levels of discourse and interpretation are stimulated by these, and there is often an emphasis on a very legalistic view. Sin demands conviction and death. Death is the price of sin. If we sin, we deserve to die. And yet, through no direct fault of our own, we inherit a "sinful nature," and, thus, through no fault of our own, we deserve to die and are condemned to die. Really?
Is everything in God's marvelous creation "sinful" and loathesome and worthy of death? How can God's innocent (nonhuman) creatures be condemned to death as a result of human error? The concept of "original sin" runs into serious problems very quickly in the face of abundant evidence.
The existence of fossils clearly shows that life and death existed long, long ago. In fact, long before the existence of modern humans. Long before an Eden narrative could have been constructed, whether a factual description of actual events, or a story made up to explain how humans came to exist and became estranged from God. It is difficult to understand how the concept of "original sin" fits in with all this.
One can imagine that God looked upon humans and thought, "How sad! They are not even aware that I love them more than anything!" He might have thought "They do not understand that regardless of anything, I love them and want them to be happy and live up to their great potential. How can I help them see that I love them?" So, perhaps He concluded, "Jesus will go explain it all to them personally. He will let them know that I never stopped loving them and that I never will."
One can imagine that. I think it is possible for anyone to see what the fundamental message of Christianity is. Beyond that, imagination begins to take over, and we can easily become lost in imaginary scenarios. To the extent that the focus remains on the very most fundamental basis of Christianity, one can live a very hopeful and fulfilled life, I think. When one wanders off into the complicated realm of one's own imagination, along with the imaginations of everyone else, the fundamental message loses much of its merit and appeal. Especially when it is laden with so many imaginary details and speculations and requirements as it often is.
Perhaps there is a way of maintaining the simple and most basic faith without devoting one's life to ignoring tangible evidence about natural history. I have not found a way to believe that God would require us to devote our lives and existence to believing the unbelievable or to worship ignorance.
I can believe that humans and other living things are worthy of love and due consideration, regardless of how we came to be. Treating others as I wish to be treated makes good sense to me as a style of life. I do not fear death, although I do not imagine an afterlife where rewards or punishments would exist. I relish life and have mostly enjoyed the experience.
Joe: Beautiful!
You may be closer to faith than your realize.
Maybe what you have rejected is in part of human origon and what isa part of you today is in part truth.
“How can God's innocent (nonhuman) creatures be condemned to death as a result of human error? The concept of "original sin" runs into serious problems very quickly in the face of abundant evidence.”
What is the abundant evidence to which you refer? Do you personally believe that we are “naughty by nature,” and can’t figure out why God would condemn us to death for doing what is in our nature to do—through no direct fault of our own; OR, do you believe that in fact we are not sinful by nature, and therefore question this theological teaching?
My belief, of course, is that human nature has been corrupted and that death is the natural result of this corruption. All life having been derived from God; anything not of God’s nature naturally dies. Since man was given dominion over living things on earth, such things also die.
God has provided the means of escaping this bind by promising eternal life, and reunion with Him, through belief in Jesus.
I do not believe that we are "naughty by nature" and I do not believe that God would condemn us, individually, or collectively, for something we are not responsible for. Yes, I believe we are "not sinful by nature." We are what we are. We have many choices and many responsibilities.
Regardless of origins, every naturally living thing we know of dies (maybe excluding artificially "immortalized" cell lines). Death seems to be an entirely natural phenomenon that is part of a "cycle of life." Abundant fossil evidence indicates that death has been around a long, long time. Of course, one CAN ignore such evidence and teach others to ignore it–but the evidence is really far too abundant to ignore. It does not seem consistent with other attributes that God would promote ignorance nor expect us to do so.
Yes, I think the notion of "original sin" is deeply flawed and misleading. And, indeed, this calls into question the need for "salvation" from sinfulness. Contrary to the serpent's message that "you will not surely die," I suspect that exactly the opposite is true. We surely will die. And I'm pretty confident that we will never wake up.
It seems to me that promises of paradise and threats of hell fire are merely devices to get people to join religious groups (full of internal and external squabbling about mostly imaginary minutia) and to get the followers to support the leaders.
(I have) so many questions…so little space. I appreciate that you addressed my previous questions so directly. Thank you for that.
Is there a distinction between naturally living things and…unnaturally living things? The cells that you refer to as being “’artificially’ immortalized,” are immortalized by design I presume. (Perhaps you can briefly provide the bonehead version of how this works, and by whom.)
If all life is derived from a Source, than anything contrary, or opposed to, or in violation of that Source is destined to cease living at some point. God does not sentence as much as informs of the inevitable result of separation.
Hell fire is another subject, to me. It is a punishment wholly intended for the original liar/murderer; and not for us.
If you can “imagine” that the fundamental message of Christianity is God’s love for humanity; then it’s downhill from that point.
Oops, correction: “If all life is derived from a Source, then anything contrary to…”
He shall receive Power
Ready for the spirit
For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. Philippians 3:20. {YRP 295.1}
Shall we not break off our sins by righteousness, and have our conversation in heaven, whence we look for our Saviour? Shall we not talk of our Saviour until it becomes natural for us to do so? If we do not order our conversation aright, we shall not see the salvation of God. Satan will take possession of the heart, and we shall become low and sensual. Let us elevate the thoughts, and take hold upon things that are of real value, gaining an education here that will be of value in the world to come. Shall we not seek the Lord with earnestness, repent of our backslidings, mourn that we have neglected His Word, that we do not know the truth better, and turn to Him will all the heart, that He may heal us, and love us freely? Today let us take a step toward heaven. . . . {YRP 295.2}
The latter rain is to fall upon the people of God. A mighty angel is to come down from heaven, and the whole earth is to be lighted with His glory. Are we ready to take part in the glorious work of the third angel? Are our vessels ready to receive the heavenly dew? Have we defilement and sin in the heart? If so, let us cleanse the soul temple, and prepare for the showers of the latter rain. The refreshing from the presence of the Lord will never come to hearts filled with impurity. May God help us to die to self, that Christ, the hope of glory, may be formed within! {YRP 295.3}
I must have the Spirit of God in my heart. I can never go forward to do the great work of God, unless the Holy Spirit rests upon my soul. "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God" (Psalm 42:1). The day of judgment is upon us. Oh, that we may wash our robes of character, and make them white in the blood of the Lamb!–Review and Herald, April 21, 1891. {YRP 295.4}
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." This is the company with whom we desire to stand. Then let us show it by our works, and remove from our hearts everything that will shut out Jesus. The latter rain is to fall upon the people of God. A mighty angel is to come down from heaven, and the whole earth is to be lighted with his glory. Are we ready to take part in the glorious work of the third angel? Are our vessels ready to receive the heavenly dew? Have we defilement and sin in the heart? If so, let us cleanse the soul temple, and prepare for the showers of the latter rain. The refreshing from the presence of the Lord will never come to hearts filled with impurity. May God help us to die to self, that Christ, the hope of glory, may be formed within! I must have the Spirit of God in my heart. I can never go forward to do the great work of God, unless the Holy Spirit rests upon my soul. "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God." The day of judgment is upon us. O that we may wash our robes of character, and make them white in the blood of the Lamb! {RH, April 21, 1891 par. 11}
MR No. 1061 – Additional Light for God's People
(Written January 18, 1889, from Battle Creek, Michigan to R. A. Underwood)
You seem to be surprised that I look at matters in the light that I do. You speak of the resolution that you thought ought to have passed at the General Conference. What did that resolution comprehend? It virtually said that nothing should be taught in the college but that which had been taught during the past year. . . . {13MR 334.1}
I stated that I was a stockholder and I could not let the resolution pass, that there was to be special light for God's people as they neared the closing scenes of this earth's history. Another angel was to come from heaven with a message, and the whole earth was to be lightened with his glory. It would be impossible for us to state just how this additional light would come. It might come in a very unexpected manner, in a way that would not agree with the ideas that many have conceived. It is not at all unlikely, or contrary to the ways and works of God, to send light to His people in unexpected ways. Would it be right that every avenue should be closed in our school so that the students could not have the benefit of this light? The resolution was not called for.–Letter 22, 1889. Isaiah 28:9-13
Having waded through all those words, I have the impression that Mrs. White and the commenter agree that increased knowledge and understanding can have benefits, beyond the fundamental and simple good news gospel message. This position might actually be consistent with the systematic study of objective reality.
The concept of "Original Sin" originated long after Creation; was unknown by the Hebrews, and was immortalized by Augustine who preached that man was so depraved and unworthy that we should forever be grateful for God who will accept us to save us from eternal torment.
If someone is convinced of this, he will jump through all the hoops required to avoid such a horrible punishment. But the two must go together: damned by original sin; saved only through accepting God, who would be our punisher.
Sorry, I cannot accept such a horrible picture of god and humans. If we are truly created in his image, we were not made to be forever in hell. Death is a blessing. If you have been around sick, old people who are merely waiting to die, often wanting to go, their bodies and mind of no use, death comes as a blessing. Just imagine that all the people who have ever lived were still living today. Our world would be so filled it would be uninhabitable: insufficient food and water and hardly room to stand. This is the original idea? Death comes to all plant life, and when Eve ate the fruit it returned to the earth just as we do to replenish it just as all living things return to the earth and nourish new growth. Surely, this is God's plan.
Well, that’s certainly one take on things.
I prefer not to categorize the belief that human nature is has been contaminated.
If we start with labels and isms then communication breaks down as we go put on uniforms and separate into camps. What we believe should be dealt with on its own, whatever it may be.
I believe that human beings, and their interactions with each other, are essentially flawed. I think that the preponderance of evidence would support that particular observation or belief.
It certainly isn’t necessary for one to believe in God to reach that conclusion. (You do have to believe in God to believe the death cycle will end.)
Elaine,
I do not know if you will read this but I will post anyway. The concept of original sin has always escaped me and seems to be a theological argument to explain the dichotomy of human behavior. That is we are capable of such magnanimous and yet such evil behavior. When I look at my two grandsons, I embrace the philosphy that we come into the world as moral neophites. It is through experience and parental training that we gain such concepts as empathy and generosity.
No, I have rejected the idea that we are essentially flawed. Besides why would I be "flawed" just because someone else ate the apple?
I was listening to the Teaching Company lectures today on Erasmus and Luther and it reinforced my position that, like you, original sin was a contrived explanation for what is very natural human behavior. Once nearly every possible action taken by man can be called "sin" they multiply and there is no escaping.
The crazy idea that even newborns are sinful is horrendous to all parents seeing their child. Yes, children must be trained, but because of belief in original sin, many children have been beaten to "cure" them. The jails are filled with those who have been raised this way.
Adults are always "in training" and will never be perfect (this is contrary to the LGT) and when we are able to accept who we are, only then can we begin to savor life and our imperfections. Some are able to accept this when younger but for most of us it takes a lifetime to finally discard such a doctrine and simply accept who we are–as God made us.
How is it possible for people to believe that "human beings are essentially flawed" when no one knows any other world or time than our own? We speculate of a perfect Edenic time when everything was beautiful, no disharmony anywhere and in comparison with that ideal, everything now is flawed and man has descended downward.
How do we know that humans thousands of years ago were better and kinder than today? All historical evidence shows that is far from true; in fact, people have always fought wars, killed people, lied and stolen and we know of no other time. Assuming we are flawed compared to what? Was there a time in recorded history when people were always kind, loving, and generous and cnsiderate? Tell us about it.
Elaine
Aren't you saying we have always been flawed? I assume you do not see death and destruction as the way things should be? I believe that there will come an end to all this. What it was like in Eden, or how that relates to the new earth is something I don't know. I also think that the doctrines of original sin and of total depravity cause more problems than they solve. We all have our problems, and all we do is tainted with sin, as a result of a 'fatal flaw' in our nature caused by sin. But to argue that we are totally without goodness, or the ability to turn to God, seems to me to be a denial of most of the Bible.
Our ability to turn to God and our goodness are not connected. It is evidence of our consciousness of our lack of it. We turn to God BECAUSE we have no goodness. Biblically speaking, we humans are "born in sin and shaped in inquity," and "all of our righteousness is as filthy rags." Our goodness is a function of His. The evidence of human evil and inhumanity toward mankind is the narrative of history.
No, I believe I am made in the image of God and he did not create "filthy rags." This is only man's description in a state of penitence, but if mankind is the crowning creative act of God, how dare we denigrate our Creator by claiming he created filthy rags?
To believe we are in such a state is how we must think of all humans which is a despicable idea. Why travel half way around the world to help such filthy rags as we are? Every human is equally worthy in God's eyes and should be seen as His child. This idea, held by some Christians is one of the reasons to reject such religion.
The doctrine of original sin was promoted by Agustine and became central to the way western people would view the world. He believed that God had condemned humanity to an eternal damnation, simply because of Adam's one sin. This inerited guilt was passed on to all of his descendants through the sexual act. This doctrine paints a terrible picture of an implacable God, as he wrote:
"Banished from Paradise after his sin, Adam bound his offspring also with the penalty of death and damnation."
Neither the Jews nor Greek Orthodox Christians regarded the fall of Adam in such a catastrophic light. It is unique to the West:
A religion which teaches men and women to regard their humanity as chronically flawed can alienate them from themselves. Nowhere is this alienation more evident than in the denigration of sexuality in general and women in particular.
Even though Christianity had originally been quite positive for women, it had already developed a misogynistic tendency in the West by the time of Augustine.
We aren’t questioning that human beings and human life are of exquisite value to God, or that we are not to regard ourselves—as God’s crowning creative act—as valuable to God; that’s for sure.
We are "fearfully and wonderfully made,” says David; yet Paul says that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” which is the salient point.
We fall short of the glory of God because of sin. Whether you call it original or copycat sin is irrelevant. Let’s say that Adam never existed, or that our parents had never sinned; the fact remains that we certainly have disobeyed God and defied God’s will at times.
There is a reason that he have all done this and that none of us has any righteousness of any value. You can call it whatever you like; but saying that we’re eight feet tall doesn’t change the reality of our height.
We are either like God or we are not. He is perfect in character, and loves everyone unconditionally, and cannot lie. We aren’t like this, for whatever reason. We are essentially flawed; all of us.
Clearly you disagree with both Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, which is your prerogative.
Sorry folks, but we are not good. Thankfully, God is all good, and not willing that any of us should perish; because He so loves and values us.
If we think that we deserve favor, or that we are entitled, then we resemble the elder brother in the parable.
“Perhaps” speculation went two lines too far; unless there is Biblical support for it.
God surely thought we were worthy; else why would He have sent His son to give His life for us? Did He give His life for the animals. Does He see us as we see ourselves and others, or in His sight are we all prospective family in heaven?
Is "good" the opposite of "bad" or "evil"? Or, is there a possibility everyone is partially good? Is "not good" equal to "bad"? Does a parent have "bad" children?
Elaine,
The quote says "OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS is as filthy rags."
Obviously, even in our sinful state, we are of great value to God — He sent His only Son, Jesus Christ to redeem us and reconcile us to Him — because we are, as a result of our sinful nature, evil.
Do you deny the facts of history: War, rape, greed, dominance, genocide? Are these the acts of a righteous race?
Perhaps it isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. I don't see that in the Bible, but rather a God who pursues us because we were made in his image. We are flawed – fatally so – but not entirely evil. To sin and fall short of the glory of God does not necessitate that we are entirely without goodness, it just means we don't reach the standard we should. To say that we have no goodness after a lifetime of God at work in our lives seems to me to deny that God's work is effective. We have no saving righteousness, but that is quite different to having no goodness at all. For every act of evil, you can find an act of goodness as well. Are these acts not the acts of a race where at least some are being made righteous, and most retain enough of the goodness with which the creator created us to know to do good, even if we don't always attain to the level of our desire?
Those who teach the LGT would say that while we don't reach the standard we should, we must do so if we wish to be saved. Is the standard becoming higher and higher so we will never reach it?
It's one thing for everyone to try to be more kind, more efficient, more loving, but in working toward those goals if they are too high, discouragement is inevitable, which is the end result of the Last Generation Theology still being taught.
Our good works and righteous deeds are perhaps likened to “filthy rags,” at least in part because “The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
Over 30 years ago my late friend, the great evangelist Jerry Lee, preached a memorable sermon on Jeremiah 17:9 that, as I recall, may have been entitled “The Shadow Knows;” as it played off the radio show opening “What evil lurks in the hearts of man? The shadow knows…”
We are good only to the extent that God’s goodness is reflected in us. We are not good, we are bad; but we are of supreme value to the Supreme Being of the entire universe. We are His children. We just need to come to grips that we are inherently evil; yet important.
(I certainly know of children who are “bad” who nonetheless come from so-called “good” homes. Don’t you? I may be considered one of those.)
Another preacher, Dr. Calvin Rock, said that we could stop sinning altogether and would still be disqualified from standing in the presence of God, because of our nature. We are qualified to do so solely because of Christ, and not due to any goodness we have; that’s for sure.
Kevin,
Is your interpretation based on a humanistic revison of scripture or a discounting of it?
The verse says, our RIGHTEOUSNESS (does this not include the good works you mentioned?) is as filthy rags.
In context, Isaiah 64:6 (NIV): "We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall, and our sins sweep us away like the wind."
I would say simply a different reading of it. It is statements like yours that make so many people decide not to continue these discussions. It is like asking 'are you evil, or just stupid?'
Kevin,
It was a real question (I apologize if the tone seemed terse). I am simply trying to get through to the core.
From prior posts of yours, I've understood that you are not a literalist or a biblicist. As it is difficult for me to understand how someone values the Bible as having spiritual value, but doesn't neccessarily believe that it is entirely the word of God (remember that discussion?), I am confused as to what role the Bible has in your personal construct (you don't have to explain it to me, of course).
So I am come to the options I (not so tactfully) framed. Still, I am unclear about how your interpret the verse. Does not the word "righteousness" envelope the good works you listed? What have I missed?
It still sounds to me (from your previous post) that, somehow, you have factored out the possibility that our good works are the product of sin-soaked motives (which should not deter us from doing good). The only righteousness there is is in Him. My point is that we should not delude ourselves about our goodness; we should only look to His.
Preston
I believe you are confusing saving righteousness and 'goodness', by which I mean the ability to reflect the image of God in actions. The quotes you keep using are referring to saving righteousness. As I have said before, salvation is entirely of grace, therefore there is no saving righteousness on our part. I think we agree on that. But, when I read the bible, I do not read of people who are only evil, nor do I see their good deeds arising solely from evil motives or intent. We are still, as Paul says, capable of desiring to do good, even if we often fall short of that desire. That we can so desire indicates to me that the image of God is not obliterated, merely damaged. It is enough to cause us to lose eternal life, but not enough to make us solely evil. I know of no one, no matter what their belief in orignal sin or some form of total depravity, who treats others as if they were totally devoid of good. I doubt you do so either.
If you believe – and I have no idea if you do – that God is at work restoring his image in us, then it follows that, unless he is totally incapable of achieving his goal, we are in fact being made more in his image than we once were, and therefore we cannot be totally without goodness. This conclusion follows only if you make a distinction between saving righteousness and goodness as a reflection of the image of God.
As to being a biblicist or literalist, no. Paul's words 'mé genoito!' seem appropriate in this context. What you seem not to have understood, or at least not accepted, is that there is a continuum between belief in an inerrant bible to be understood literally (which seems to be your position) and the belief that the bible is merely a human book. There are millions of Christians who believe that the bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God, but who are not biblicists or literalists. You don't have to understand how we come to that position, or agree with it (even though we are right 🙂 ), but you may find discussions with us go better if you don't assume we must take the other extreme position if we don't take yours.
Curled around my keyboard is our 16 year old cat. Born feral, colored calico, her colors blend beautifully with the screen of my Mac and the red of hand crafted Sydney Blue Gum desk top. She is a perfect cat. A feline forged by the causal powers and laws of nature to be the ideal hunter, killer, and shadow of the night.
She has killed a bird or so, but knows it is not appreciated in this family, but many is the mouse met its early demise. Appreciated. "Mog" is her name. I doubt she has ever made a moral choice. She is and always will be a cat – a perfect cat – for that is what she is!
Our dog has more morals. He has a greater sense of love and appreciation in his own way. A perfect dog. Yet, both cat and dog are perfect creatures they were meant to be….
My point? You are a perfect human. What "God" through the laws of nature has caused you to be. You will shape and change as you learn, but you are, and always will be human. What you are is not sin. It is not evil. You simply are – what you were born to be – fully human.
To be fully human is to have a greater sense of moral choice than Mog. To be fully human is to have a greater sense of love and appreciation than my dog. Let's not get so hung up with caricatures of what God "wants" us to be that we no longer simply enjoy being what we are… Making the best choices we can that show respect and appreciation for life and love for others.
To put be clear, I believe in righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness by action or intent is, for me, flawed and untrustworthy. It focuses my attention inward, not toward Christ. It causes me to become the judge of my own (and others) actions. Most dangerously, it causes me to become self-justified (as I can always find a "good" rationalization for my actions).
I am, purposefully, "hung up" on what God wants me to be. I believe He wants me fully dependent and in loving subjection to Him (making Him the God of my life). That does not prevent me from being happy at any moment. It increases my happiness, as I no longer have to depend on myself. I depend on and accept His righteousness as my own.
Preston,
The "You", was not specifically you. It was collective. My point was to address the underlying theme, often expressed above, of how "fallen", "evil", "sinful" we humans "are". Certainly, some of your comments were among the target of my point, but not alone.
It is no secret that I see all life as having come to be what it is through a process over deep time. Nature is in all its facets ranges from the beautiful and sublime to the cruel and bloody. It is all nature/al.
What role God is playing in all of that would be a good arena to improve our thinking. However, one thing seems clear: The last several thousand years humanity has evolved in its understanding of what it means to look out for one's neighbor. We have (I think) come a long way from the man drawing stick figures on his cave wall. Jesus' Love God, Love your neighbor perhaps sums this up the best. Of course, human nature struggles to put that into reality too often. Not because we are "evil". It is simply what we are at this point in time.
The theme of this blog "for such a time as this", could well be applied to the need to present the essence of Christianity in an entirely new framework which works within human reality instead of trying to present a false one as real.
Chris,
Thank you for your very thoughtful piece about the nature of cats and dogs and humans. As you and others here know, I think it is unfortunate and misleading for people to use the concept of "original sin" as a basis for believing the worst about themselves and as an excuse for being weak or making choices that are harmful to themselves or others. Without overestimating our self worth, we can learn to respect ourselves for what and who we are, and take personal responsibility for our actions (to the extent that is warranted)–rather than overemphasizing how loathesome or weak or worthless we are.
Are we perfect? Are we even ideally perfect? My guess is that everyone is capable of making errors of judgement, and even of falling short of what they or others set as standards of conduct. In that sense, we are not PERFECT. But we do each have opportunities for growth and improvement in our skills and abilities and performance and practices. We can become more capable of caring for ourselves and others, and more capable of anticipating the consequences of our choices. Growth opportunities are available to all of us. I do not claim to be perfect, nor do I even think perfection is possible or desireable. I am human. Should it be my goal to transcend humanity?
“We can become more capable of caring for ourselves and others, and more capable of anticipating the consequences of our choices. Growth opportunities are available to all of us. I do not claim to be perfect, nor do I even think perfection is possible or desirable. I am human. Should it be my goal to transcend humanity?”
Yes.
Of course, we cannot transcend humanity, but God can and has; and is ready, willing, and able to do so again, in each and every one of us. That is the entire point.
No. God's goal is to restore us to true, perfect humanness. Why should we desire more?
One thing of note about Jesus’ pattern is that when confronted and tempted by Satan, the ultimate deceiver, at “crunch time” He invariably defaulted to “It is written.”
When faced with the ultimate crunch time, at Gethsemane, He defaulted to fervent prayer.
Obviously, every single participant on this and similar forums believe that when we write, we are right in what we write. Further, by continuing to participate, we are all seeking to convince or persuade others.
Adumbrations of character defects to alternate opinions, though tempting, is not indicative of correctness.
Why?
Stephen, when will we have transcended our humanity?
Since Joe had rejected perfection as necessarily a worthwhile goal, but had asked a question about transcending humanity, I answered him.
Clearly a defining of humanity or humanness is in order. The state of humanity to which I believe we should seek to transcend is the fallen state of humanity into which we (all) were born and have been sharpened, as it were.
This would be, if it were possible, the perfect humanness—that only God can/will restore. So (Kevin) we may not disagree; because how can we reasonably desire more?
Since all of biology points to humans being one of many primate species, that is what I think we are. We are primates, similar genomically, anatomically, physiologically, emotionally, cognitively, and socially to the other primates–and most similar to chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. All of them are remarkable in their own way, just as we are; but are any of them PERFECT? In the sense that they never make errors or poor choices? No. Are they fallen beings? I don't think so. Nor do I think we are. Is it so hard to imagine that they are God's creatures, made in his image, no more or less than we are?
Or perhaps God sinned when he made us–beings so capable of causing damage and destruction and pain. So, if we are imperfect, whose fault is that?
The other animals are also made in God's image? An interesting theory but did God make such a declaration, or who? Why aren't trees made in His image? Snakes? Everything on earth? That's a nice revision on the Creation story where the original claimed only man was created in God's image.
Elaine, my best guess is that chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans shared a common ancestor about six million years ago. That is where the best current evidence leads. I happen not to believe that common ancestor was God. It seems most likely to me that humans created God (and various gods) in their image–rather than the other way around. I see no basis for believing that the creation story is anything more than a story told to explain the origin of humans and other beings, and, of course, everything else.
Joe,
When discussing with those who believe that God created everything (which is the Bible story) animals would be inferior in that man was to have dominion over everything. After all, some 3-4 thousand years later, man wrote and described how and what he thought occurred. There were no eyewitnesses.
Joe,
Both Elaine and you seem to conflate sinfulness and human imperfection with worthlessness. God does not. That is what John 3:16 is all about.
In the view of the believer, our sinfulness and its deterioritive effect on our physical and spiritual beings, creates a weakened soul incapable, in our own power, of transcending our humanity. Why? Because we are born in sin and shaped in iniquity (in other words, it is innate to us).
Ironically, like the legalists, humanists (those who believe that man is the center of the universe — or at least their world) place their confidence in their works. It is an enticing and, ultimately, frustrating trap.
Apart from religion, most humanists acknowledge the truisms of imperfect human nature (i.e., "power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely," or "to err is human, to forgive is divine," for example). Yet, they resist the seemingly obvious notion that we are born imperfect beings.
Believing in original sin and in the righteousness of Christ in no way disables personal responsibility or personal development. Neither is it for cause for self-flagellation. To the contrary. Belief allows us to embrace the notion that we are sons and daughters of God — an elevated status, indeed. Faith says that the gap between imperfection and perfection is closed by grace, which allows us to take on the righteousness of Christ. Commiting to Him and His sovereignty is the locus of our responsibility.
Dependence on ourselves is, in addition to inviting exhaustion, is futile. Imperfection cannot produce perfection.
Preston,
what do you mean by 'original sin'? I think some are jumping to the conclusion that you are claiming belief in the classical Christian doctrine of 'original sin', which has usually been denied by the SDA church. You may or may not mean that. Elaine tried to clear this up some time ago, but perhaps a direct question will work better. It would be a shame to see you hung for the wrong crime 🙂
Well, I am not a humanist and I do not believe humans are the center of the universe. I do not think humans are perfect or have any prospect of becoming perfect–or any need to become perfect. We are animals. We are primates. We are mammals. Remarkable animals, but just animals. Not more and not less.
Every time I think you’re out, you pull yourself in; or the other way.
If we (as other primates) are all merely animals, then do other animals, like rodents, have a moral dimension or code to which fellow rodents hold them accountable; or is that just applicable for primates?
If we are indeed merely all animals, is human life then ultimately of more value, actually, than that of a rodent?
What makes us more valuable than insects?
With all respect, I solicit an interpretation (by an interpreter), because I truly cannot follow much of what you are saying; other than I get on your nerves.
How about we do some, uhm…accepting? I’ll accept that you are right brained and process and disseminate information very differently than I do; and I’ll be cool with that. Meanwhile, you’ll accept that I am left brained and process and disseminate information very differently than you do; and you’ll be cool with that. How about it?
I don’t recall mentioning a “deed or doctrine” on this thread, but if that’s what you’re “hearing,” I will accept that. If you don’t accept that mankind is flawed, then we will agree to disagree.
Thanks Kevin. I think you're right.
What I was referring to Adam & Eve's sin, which, I believe is responsible for sin being in the gene pool of the human race (although, technically, among historic Adventists, Lucifer's sin was "the original"). Whether this is what Elaine meant or not, I don't know. But is worth clearing up.
@ Joe, (re: humanists) well alrighty then — animalists? OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Please forgive my assumptions about you.
Preston,
The doctrine of original sin is much more than that. It also leads to a dualistic view of humans (bad body, good – or improvable – soul), predestination, the need for baptising infants to remove the taint of orignal sin, etc. You might want to at least refer to 'the original sin' rather than 'original sin'. It will save much cofusion.
Actually, the one tenet in the doctrine of original sin that SDA's do not accept is that humanity incurred "guilt" because of Adam's sin. Alienation, condemnation, and weakness are Biblical in terms of the effect of Adam's sin (the original sin) upon the race, but surely not the guilt. Personal choice is needed to incur guilt, which is far different then suffering the consequence of somebody else's choice.
You look down on your new baby's face. Do you think: Poor, sinful child? No, she may have inherited many genetic tendencies, but neither she, nor any human inherits sin. Sin is something we must choose. It is only "original" with us., not outside of us.
Elaine,
The "born in sin and shaped in iniquity" verse says, at least, to me, that we have, indeed, inheirited the tendency to sin. As innocent as my child looks (4), if I asked her, as early as 12-18 months, old if she broke something, she could knowingly tell a fib. I never taught her that . . . but somehow, she knew how to do it. Even after instructed she, sometimes, has to be encouraged to tell the truth rather than lie. Though young children are not RESPONSIBLE for their sin, they naturally know how to do it. It is our collective tendency.
We have inheirted sin in our bodies: we are mortal.
If sin is not part of our DNA, where is this sinless human? Who, but Christ, has made pristine choices?
In Romans 3:10-12, Paul, the minister of grace says, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
The Bible says in metaphor (" . . . our righteousness is as filthy rags") and declaratively that none are righteous. The notion of human righteous is, not surprisingly, a human invention.
If there was no one else around, it is reasonable to assume your child broke something. But, a parent should never ask "did you break this," but ask the child "how did this happen," when the broken object is discovered. This allows her to offer an explanation, which may be a very "ingeneuous" tale, addding perhaps another fib.
To ask your child if it was her fault, is accusatory and there are better ways to teach truth-telling, IMHO as a parent of three, grandparent of two, and great grandparent of one. Expect the best of your child and they will try their best to live up to your expectations. (Not that it's always successful!)
I remember many years ago when my teen daughter slipped out the patio door one Friday night to attend a drive-in movie. We awoke in the middle of the night and found her bed empty. She awoke the next morning and not a word was ever said. We both hugged her. But she knw we knew, and that was all that was needed.
The same with teen son when he was out very late one night in his dad's truck. We went driving and looking for him and saw him driving home and followed all the way (he was very aware of our following him). We got home, not a word was said. Sometimes silence is the best punishment.
Elaine,
Respectfully, I have helped to raise 6 kids. The 4-year old is #7. They all, thank God, are doing fine.
The point wasn't if I am damaging my child's self-esteem or trust (in an attempt to be brief, I skipped over several details), the point was about our innate ability to and tendency toward sin.
Even kids with better parents and grandparents do it (I take great comfort in that!).
So, what would an "animalist" be? There are "animists," but those are usually people who worship many gods and spirits–not my cup of tea. I suppose you could call me a "naturalist," even if that term also means different things to different people. I'm not so sure I favor being an "ist," of any ilk…. I take that back. I really am a "primatologist." I'm a member of the American Society of Primatologists and the International Primatological Society. Preston, maybe the term you were looking for was "zoologist." I was a zoo curator for awhile.
Dear Timo,
If I have learned one thing over the past several decades about human interaction it is that a left brained person cannot understand (or appreciate) the thinking process of a right brained person.
It’s not that I don’t want to get to know you, or that I don’t consider you a brother, or that you must agree with me in order for us to have a meaningful dialogue.
To the contrary, I enjoy dialoguing with people who have differing opinions from mine.
The problem is that if/when I contend for a position there is “an issue.” If/when I think that I should withdraw from such contention, there is an issue.
This is a familiar pattern to me with right brained individuals, which I have learned to seek to avoid when possible. The blame is entirely on the left brained individual (me), because…well, it just is.
Joe,
It's your call!
Cheers!
nhe questions about the relative values of humans and other animals, and about whether nonhumans have some sort of moral codes are kind of interesting, I think. It really gets down to what is meant by "values" and "morals." Do members of one species have more intrinsic or more extrinsic value than members of another species? It depends on who is asking, and why.
Humans are apparently more capable than most other kinds of animals at contemplating such questions. We may deliberately choose members of our own species as having more intrinsic value than any other species, and yet, a familiar companion animal may be worth more to us that a convicted criminal of our own species, or maybe even more value than someone who is a stranger to us. When one needs a horse, a horse can be more valuable than a kingdom ("My kingdom for a horse").
Other animals do make choices–apparently as a result of comparing relative values, and seemingly using the same brain structures as humans (e.g., the frontal insula and their connections with anterior cingulate cortex).
Joe,
I am surprised at you man. You normally go after challenging direct questions.
With respect, “It depends on who is asking, and why” is basically a dodge.
If we are nothing more or less than animals, then do other animals, like rodents, have a moral dimension or code to which fellow rodents hold them accountable; or is that just applicable for primates?
If we are indeed merely all animals, is human life then ultimately of more value, really, than that of a rodent?
(If so) what makes us more valuable than rodents; or for that matter, insects? Or, since you are a primatologist, are primates of more value than other animals? (If not, then surely you're not serious.)
Biologically/physiologically/anatomically we may be considered mammalian, BUT…
Hi Stephen, don't be surprised if I cannot come up with simple answers to very complicated issues.
First of all, I cannot read minds. Not your mind. Not the mind of any other human. Not the mind of God. Not the minds of other animals, whether chimpanzee or chipmunk or chipping sparrow.
You are, I think, asking about intrinsic value. I think one can say that humans generally assign more intrinsic value to other humans than to nonhuman animals. But there are so many exceptions to this that the generalization is difficult to apply universally. I value you more, my brother, than I value any rodent I know, and more than many humans. Rats probably feel defferently, and may not care at all.
I do not wish to fall into the PeTA trap of claiming all life forms are equal or have equal values or equal rights. I do think all humans and all nonhuman animals are worthy of due consideration.
If we are not primates, what are we?
You’re right Joe, and I should acknowledge that we are talking about what may be considered a complex issue; in that I am indeed referring to intrinsic value.
Intrinsic is defined as “belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing.” Although I completely believe that mankind’s original nature has been contaminated by disobedience to our Creator, the fact that most of us have a sense or appreciation for selflessness and kindness and an understanding of, if not disdain for, selfishness and cruelty speaks to our intrinsic or essential nature as worth more than rodents or insects. The fact that many humans are concerned about kindness and/or cruelty to other animals is indicative of more than simple instinct.
Yes, biologically, physiologically, and/or anatomically we are primates; but we are much more than that because “…we do each have opportunities for growth and improvement in our skills and abilities and performance and practices. We can become more capable of caring for ourselves and others, and more capable of anticipating the consequences of our choices. Growth opportunities are available to all of us.”
The human inclination toward selfishness, cruelty, etc. is a result on one man’s (Adam’s) sin; but the countless individual acts of selfishness, cruelty, etc., and individual guilt/remorse for same, are individual (decisions), independent of Adam.
That’s the way I have always understood it. I don’t think that this is the same as the Original Sin doctrine. This inclination is the nature of mankind. The inclination toward selfishness, cruelty, etc. has thus far made such actual acts inevitable at one time or another with everyone.
We have the capacity to love God/others. When we exhibit this capacity we are reflecting the nature of our Creator, which is—and was—His preference for us. We can only decide to submit our selfish and cruel nature over to Him, and then our minds will be transformed. His nature will gradually replace our nature. This is the work of God’s Spirit.
Meanwhile we are saved by believing this.
Human nature is self-seeking. Original sin is not mentioned in the Bible, while all those self-seeking attitudes are–pride, power, lust, etc.
Children aren't sinful, but those who teach them can be. But children have a Savior in Christ from the time they are born until and unless they reject Him as an adult.
Our birth is different from Christ in that we have two human parents, while Christ had only one. He was born of the Spirit, and it is possible for humans to be born of the Spirit as well (new birth) and redirect their lives. I think this can happen to nonChristians as well. Christians have no monoply on love and kindness. We can all be "perfect" on our own level of maturity. That's different from perfectionism which I tend to think is a kind of personality disfunction and can be present in anyone from an atheist to a Bible-believing Christian of any stripe.
From my perspective, I see no reason to think humans or any other animals or plants are flawless. There is always room for errors of judgement, and there are individual differences in skills and styles of living. Some choose to live honestly, and others? Not so much. Some are deliberately hateful and hurtful. Some are quick to anger. Others are "laid back" or "easy going." When every error becomes a "sin," I think we end up feeling or assigning "guilt" or "shame" to actions or choices that were merely mistakes. And yet, there are those who seem to continuously exhibit the obstinate, mean-spirited, contemptuous behavior. And these characteristics are not just true of humans.
We are not all equally inclined to misbehave or to be mean or cruel. Maybe some need "saving" worse than others…. I don't expect a lot of agreement on that.
Hi Joe,
I agree about humans, animals or plants etc not being flawless. When I referred to Mog being a perfect cat, I was not meaning in the sense of any moral, ethical or behavioral sense, but in the sense of what it means to be a cat.
There are certainly differences in personality, behaviour, traits even within a species. We have just inherited a new, additional cat. Such a different personality to Mog. Mog is the quick tempered type. Loved, but prone to being very cat. The new cat is cool and calm. Yet, very much and purfectly cat.
Just as cats can be perfect, so can children when they have not fully developed moral understanding and judgment capababilites. When is that reached? Who can say? It is certainly delayed until after teens, as we all know how impulsive they are. But who among us is not impulsive at times, and making poor judgments? Those are NOT SINS, but mistakes.
This illustrates how difficult to determine sin–in others. Within Christianity is is one of the most often used words, except Christ. Sins can be nearly every action that the religious community has defined. We should be reticent to use that word because overuse has given it such ambiguous meaning.
The cheap grace you espose Elaine already existed in the 1st generation of Christianity–as Jude testifies to- For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, Jude 1:4 OR in the NLT I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God's marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. OR in the NIVUK For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God…. OR in the AMP For certain men have crept in stealthily [[gaining entrance secretly by a side door]. Their doom was predicted long ago, ungodly (impious, profane) persons who pervert the grace (the spiritual blessing and favor) of our God into lawlessness and wantonness and immorality,
Joe Irwin
"Perhaps there is a way of maintaining the simple and most basic faith without devoting one's life to ignoring tangible evidence about natural history. I have not found a way to believe that God would require us to devote our lives and existence to believing the unbelievable or to worship ignorance."
This is a struggle for all of us, and anyone who says it isn't is in denial. I think some people have never studied the issue and so aren't bothered by it. Others have chosen to bypass it and spend their time on the spiritual and let God take care of any doubts. My experience seems to be that I seek out answers but, as I said before, am left with more questions. I question a lot of things others don't on both sides of the creation debate. I just can't accept the eons of life and death before sin. But for those who can, I believe it's better that they accept Genesis as metaphorical than give up their faith all together. I know that is heresy for most Adventists, but believing in Christ is more important. If they can accept His resurrection (which is totally unscientific), that is Life Eternal.
It seems that the biggest problem is age/time. I question the great faith in the aging techniques. How do we know they are accurate. I mean not just some scientific verbage as an answer, but how can we know? If there was a former world so different than this one (before the flood story), why wouldn't the elements, infrastructure, environment be so different that its age could not be accurately discovered?
There are so many unanswered questions. How can humans, smaller than an atom in the universe, think they know how it came about and when?? Is our purpose on this earth to know or to serve?
Should we leave the struggle with the scientists? The best of them don't claim answers anyway? It is only the public who gives them god-like powers.
"But when the seventh angel blows his trumpet, God’s mysterious plan will be fulfilled. It will happen just as he announced it to his servants the prophets."
Typical cryptic biblical script. Why are gods plans so mysterious? Why can't god be a bit more parsimonius? Since the plan is "mysterious" duly noted and ignored by most rational people.
So there is an actual Adventist on AT? Nice to see….
@John Andrew
I will reply to some of your objections, though all of them deserve our attention.
I cannot see why Cindy committed the “grievous sin of quoting a passage of EGW which shows one side of the coin.” Her quotation from Ms 40, 1900 indicates both sides of the coin:
1). “showing that obedience is the condition of gaining eternal life”;
2). “Christ imparts His righteousness to those who consent to let Him take away their sins.”
Then both complementary sides are expressed in the statement: “We are indebted to Christ for the grace which makes us complete in Him.” This is the same teaching of the Bible (not only Paul, who is easy to be misunderstood and manipulated, cf. 2Peter 3:15-18). What is problematic with the true Biblical Gospel? I am afraid that large parts Adventism today have been infested by the popular Evangelical Gospel of “just believe”, a religion inclined toward Marcionism. No wonder that Luther himself was not happy with some parts of the Bible (James, 2Peter, Jude, Revelation).
To compare this principle of obedience by faith and love with the Catholic soteriology is a very superficial observation. The Catholic expression of this faith might be as Biblical as possible in its formal expression, BUT the real important condition is to understand that in RCC divine grace comes only through the Church’s human and spiritualist channels (priesthood, perform magical acts, baptism, Eucharist, various sacraments, faith in the Church’s human authority, and observing Church’s traditions and teachings etc.). The true Gospel teaches that the saving grace comes to the subject without human conditioning.
And yes, salvation is a "process", otherwise “once saved, always saved”, which is very comfortable for our sinful nature. The true Gospel is Good News for our spiritual-moral nature; for our sinful nature it is the promise “enmity” (Gen 3:15). Salvation is always conditional. And obedience is the all-inclusive word, since even “to believe” is an obedient response to God’s word, which is both command and promise. There is no salvation outside of obedience. There is no true obedience outside of Christ and His grace.
Daniel and Revelation were not given just to inform cotemporary readers. This is a presupposition of the false, rationalistic theology, and its complementary interpretative system, the preterism. If the prophecies of Daniel spoke only for contemporaries, why those prophecies explicitly foresaw the Hellenistic times, even a fourth empire with its subsequent divided states (cf. Daniel 7), the rejection and murdering of Messiah (Daniel 9), and finally the “”time of the end”, the rising of Michael, the resurrection etc. Revelation 10 has no reference to the present Roman times. It is a clear development of the prophecy given in Daniel 12. Just compare the two prophecies:
[The man in linen / Michael] in divine description (cf. Dan 10 and Rev 1)
Swearing with rising hands
Message about “time, times, half of time” before the end comes, etc.
Sealed prophecy about the time of the end. The wise will understand. It is not for Daniel, but for those living in the “time of the end”.
“Angel” in divine description (cf. Dan 10 and Rev 1)
Swearing with rising hand
Message: “no more TIME” to count. The 7th trumpet announcing the Kingdom is not time-conditioned.
Unsealed mysterious booklet: “seven thunders”, sweet and bitter experience.
The "one who now is" in Rev 17 is not a Roman Caesar. There is no credible schema with 7-8 Caesars in this prophecy, as preterists suggested. “One now is” correspond to the fourth beast of Daniel 7, the Roman Empire followed by the Christian civilization around the Papacy. This is the most important head of the beast, the ten-horned head, having its role unp to the end. In Daniel 7 we are instructed by an angel that “kings” is a further coded word for kingdoms. The future was thus covered by the divine inspiration, in order to hide the real long time to last, and instead repeat Christ’s promise of the soon conditional end (time is at hand, these things are soon to happen, etc.).
The time periods in Revelation are basically a repetition of the “time, times and half-time” of Daniel. If that period of Daniel 7 had to be fulfilled with the little horn of the Roman beast, why do you think that the book of Revelation applies this time to the first century?
“It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority." (Act 1:7). This is the weakest argument suggested usually by Evangelicals against the Adventist appetite for the chrono-prophecies. If you just read the previous verse, you understand that Jesus does not discourage here the study of prophecies that Himself revealed with practical purposes. It is a reply to the disciples’ eagerness to see the Jewish Messianic hope fulfilled immediately after the resurrection. They wanted to know exactly when the kingdom comes. Jesus promised to come soon, in the same generation, on explicit or implicit conditional basis (Mat 16:27-28; Mat 24:14.34). But the real time He could not reveal, because Himself had no knowledge of it (Mat 24:36; Mc 13:32; Act 1:7). Since the cross and the tomb had been defeated, the apostles supposed that now there is no impediment for the kingdom to be established. But He has drawn their attention to the way the kingdom is to be hasten (“…receive power,…. Holy Spirit,… witnesses to the ends of the earth”; 2Pt 3:12 “waiting and hasting the coming…”).
It is not about respecting John’s intention. It is about respecting first the revelation conveyed through the prophetic ministry of John. It is not important how much John and his contemporaries understood from the Revelation. The basic message and especially the seven epistles to contemporary churches (chapters 2-3) the first Christians have surely understood. Actually there are some Revelation prophecies poorly and unconvincingly understood by any school of interpretation.
Your words are so offensive to any sincere Adventist believer, that I wonder you are a SDA anyway. For me it’s not “a shame that we still insist on defending our …. historicist readings of the Apocalypse.” Did you write a more convincing interpretive scenario of Apocalypse? Historicism has itself some historical problems with amateurish interpretation. But even the most erroneous sort of historicism is practically better than preterism, since historicism keep us quick to meet our Christian Hope, while preterism is only a reliquary. God has lead His Church century after century, through the real history. So God in some sense is historicist. Preterism is for people who put the essentials of Biblical religion in the past and choose only the human reason for today. Such choice is a honorable right, according to the Constitution, but it is not within the right to be a Seventh-day Adventist.
Good job, Cindy. Tomorrow you'll make better, but your post is good for today. God bless your work for the Church.
OK then,some of you on here, keep on sinning out there willingly and enjoy your "cheap grace" you get from watching Joseph Prince
who is Joseph Prince?
Yes, that Too!
JaNE,
What day was it when you stopped sinning — for good, and became saved by your "expensive works?"