A Less than Satisfactory Guide
By Andy Hanson, December 6, 2015: The Adult Bible Study Guide is the most important publication of the Adventist Church. Back issues find their way into the most isolated mission outposts. Its biblical references and Ellen White quotations are the Adventist Bible for many. But it pays only lip service to the claim that our faith is based on sola scriptura.
The content of the Quarterly’s Lesson 13 on The Book of James motivates this appeal to Editor Goldstein for Quarterly revival and reformation!
For Example
No verses from James are cited in “This Week’s Study” of The Everlasting Gospel, and Jeremiah 31:13 was the “The Memory Text.” In the author’s argument that James’s gospel message is “faith alone,” he substitutes the words “obedience” and “faith that works” for “works” (1), and includes an Ellen White quotation in Friday’s lesson that seriously questions the notion that salvation requires faith alone. (2)
I’ve included in a footnote some of the words and passages that left me searching for clarity and context. (3)
Finally, a definition of “The Gospel” remains elusive. The lesson describes it as “everlasting,” “the foundation of our last-day commission to preach,” and “the good news.” We are told that “different people can hear the same gospel very differently,” and that it is only by “surrender[ing] ourselves in utter faith…we hear it correctly.” “The gospel is the power of God to save all who believe,” “the proclamation of good news” and “Abraham’s obedient faith.” We are informed that “the gospel is the same from Genesis to Revelation.”
But what is the gospel? Is it The 28 Fundamental Beliefs? Ted Wilson seems comfortable with that definition. I’d vote for something like the Golden Rule in keeping with the “Son of Man’s” declaration in Matthew 25:31-46. However it’s defined, the gospel’s influence in a discussion of Adventist theology is of prime importance. Perhaps a Quarterly discussion of possible definitions would be appropriate.
Note: readers interested in my take on the Book of James can check out “Some Thoughts on the Book of James,” May 1, 2013 Archives
https://atoday.org/archives/opinion-archives
__________________________________________________________________
1. “Obedience to the commandments (including the Sabbath) through the faith of Jesus signifies those who remain faithful to the end. True religion demands both faith and obedience.”
2. “No Christianity is so lofty that it can soar above the requirements of God’s holy law. That would be beyond Christ’s power to help.” E.G. White, Signs of the Times, March 31, 1890.
3. Sunday’s Lesson
The good news of the Gospel isn’t really “good news” until “we surrender ourselves in utter faith to the teaching of the Word so that when the gospel is preached we hear it correctly.”
Monday’s Lesson
“In other words, Jesus was saying [to the Pharisees], You need what you do not have. Your works are not good enough.”
“The ‘righteous’ Pharisee is ignored by God, while the ‘sinful’ tax collector is not only accepted but leaves justified, forgiven, and free from guilt.”
Jesus “describes the cup of crushed grapes as ‘My blood of the covenant….’”
Tuesday’s Lesson
“Amazingly, God, through the sacrifice of Christ, proves Himself to be just in justifying the ungodly who have put their faith in Jesus.”
Wednesday’s Lesson
“The book of Hebrews describes the new covenant as ‘better’ than the old covenant (Heb. 8:1, 2,6 NRSV). The obvious question, then, is ‘Why did God establish the old covenant if it was faulty?” The problem, however, was not with the covenant but with the response of the people to it.”
“The animal sacrifices of the old covenant could never take away sins, including those committed under the old covenant.”
“In one sense, the new covenant is not new at all….”
“Without faith, bringing animal sacrifices was almost like making payment for sins.”
“[The new covenant] is not really new (Lev. 19:18), except in that we are not just to love our neighbor as ourselves, but ‘as I [Jesus] have loved you’” (John 13:34).
Thursday’s Lesson
“As we have seen, the gospel is the same from Genesis to Revelation. The law is the same. The covenant is the same. Jesus, Paul, and James all affirm that the gospel is the same one believed by Abraham (John 8:56, Rom. 4:13, James 2:21-23). Some have difficulty with this assertion only because they define the gospel more narrowly than Scripture. Abraham’s obedient faith, however, originated through his foreseeing Jesus’ sacrifice. We do not need to balance faith with works in order to be saved. Faith alone is sufficient, but it must not be intellectual faith as the devils have, nor a presumptuous faith that claims the promises of God without complying with the conditions of salvation; rather it must be a faith that works.”
I appreciate the comments in this article. It re-affirms the total confusion in Adventism concerning what the bible teaches about law and gospel. Paul centers his writings and letters basically on the divine factor in salvation, and thus our part is “faith alone” because we play no part in the divine factor. None the less, James deals with the human factor which is comprehensive in description. It is faith, repentance and obedience. Thus, as James says, it is not by faith alone and is in fact faith and works.
But many SDA authors are hell bent on forcing the phrase “faith alone” as having application to sanctification and all they can do is convolute and corrupt the word of God. The late Morris Venden was a champion of this false doctrine. So our church can not define bible truth on any viable level, nor can they harmonize EGW with the present church theology. For instance, how can they explain this quote by EGW? They can’t.
“We hear a great deal about faith, but we need to hear a great deal more about works. Many are deceiving their own souls by living an easy-going, accommodating, crossless religion. But Jesus says, “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” [THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES, JUNE 16, 1890. (MORNING TALK AT BASEL, SWITZERLAND, SEPT. 17, 1885.)] {NL 38.1}
like two oars
If we are faithful in doing our part, in cooperating with Him, God will work through us [to do] the good pleasure of His will. But God cannot work through us if we make no effort. If we gain eternal life, we must work, and work earnestly. . . . Let us not be deceived by the oft-repeated assertion, “All you have to do is to believe.” Faith and works are two oars which we must use equally if we [would] press our way up the stream against the current of unbelief. “Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” The Christian is a man of thought and practice. His faith fixes its roots firmly in Christ. By faith and good works he keeps his spirituality strong and healthy, and his spiritual strength increases as he strives to work the works of God. [REVIEW AND HERALD, JUNE 11, 1901.] {NL 38.2}”
Simply put, it is obvious you can not call faith and works, “faith alone” nor can you explain either by convoluting both.
It is all “The righteousness of God” Romans 3:20-28:
“By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin”, this was the sin of Adam, gaining the “knowledge of sin”.
“But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested”. “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith
of Jesus Christ unto all who believe”. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”.
“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that H might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus”.
“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? NAY: but by the law of FAITH”. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by FAITH without the deeds of the law”. Verse 31: “Do we then make void the law through FAITH? GOD FORBID: yea we establish the law”.
IT IS ALL ABOUT, AND IN, JESUS CHRIST. Our works is as filthy rags.
Perhaps I just don’t “get it” but in the human realm, if and when Dad said, “Don’t try to drive the car; you’ll kill yourself. Wait until you’re older,” I “believed” him and didn’t try to drive the car. Notice, I didn’t do it, period. In my view, that’s pretty much a concrete (pun intended) example of belief/faith that works. A sociopath or a kid with an underdeveloped conscience or an urge to declare premature independence might think, “Sure, Dad, you’re standing in the way of my happiness. I had myself a set of your keys made the other day, and one of these days I’m taking the friends out and we’re going to have a beer party, on the beach, in your car. You can’t stand in the way of my freedom, Dad. I’m a free man, and I can behave as I see fit!”
But I think most folks of normal conscience and age will say, by and large, “Dad’s a good guy and very smart and I know he loves me beyond words. I believe him, I trust him, and if he says not to try to drive the car alone at age 15, it’s settled.” I think the problems show up if and when we begin to question Dad’s intentions for us, or even more, if it turns out we have some personality problems that lead us to obsessive/compulsive behavior.
Ordinarily the rational human being instinctively acts on his or her beliefs, and becomes deeper and more proficient in acting on those principles as he or she “grows in grace.” Will the Lord smack down the obsessive person who loses control over his or her own behavior? Was the thief on the cross such a soul? There will always be a small group of Christians who will appear to abuse the claims of faith. They will appear unable to respond to and reflect the behavior of Jesus. And if we wish, we can cast them out of our temples. On the other hand, sometimes equalizing belief with behavior is the work of a lifetime. In most cases it is a trajectory and as long as the faith in Jesus is strong, there will be an overwhelming impetus to keep governing our behavior by the behavior of Him. There is an innate joy in the human soul that comes from making progress toward that natural goal, and those unable to do so probably face extraordinary challenges that call for concerted ministry in a hospital/church setting….
Strong faith by definition is strong and changes things. It seems sometimes we lose faith in faith itself…and that’s sad, every sad….
Earl said, “It is all “The righteousness of God” Romans 3:20-28:”
This is so typical, Earl. The human response is not “the righteousness of God.” As I said, Paul is explaining the divine factor and “The righteousness of God” simply means “God’s legal right to forgive our sins.” What right does God have to forgive the sinner? Jesus and His atonement is it. Nothing more and nothing less.
Unless a person understands the context of what, to whom, and why? Paul is writing, people can come up with all kinds of ideas of what Paul means. Paul is writing to the Judaizers who think they are forgiven by way of the ceremonial law. But Paul affirms that “God’s right” to forgive our sin is Christ and Christ alone. “Apart from the deeds of the (ceremonial) law.”
Neither are a Christian’s works “filty rags” once they have passed through the cleansing ministry of Jesus in heaven. Yes, sin is mingled with all good works of a Christian, but sin is removed by Christ in heaven and now function as the basis of moral justification and evidence of a fitness for heaven.
So the confusion continues on all levels with no understanding of the divine factor in parallel and contrast to the human factor in salvation.
You have it backwards. The Catholic view of human works is that God cleanses our works and makes them acceptable.
The NT teaching is clear that it is not Our works but God’s works. The honest man comes to the light so it can be seen that his works have been wrought in God. It is God who works in us both to will and to do God’s purposes.
There is no disagreement between Jesus and Paul and John and James in this regard. God working in us is Evidence of our salvation. It does not contribute to our salvation in any causal fashion.
You have confused the cause and the effects.
What is the good news? It isn’t simply loving one’s neighbour, although that is very important. Every religion virtually teaches that so Christians can’t claim unique ownership to that as their gospel.
I would say the good news is fundamentally its eschatological message about the death, resurrection and promised return of Jesus. The Second Advent. That is no doubt what Mary Magdalene thought the gospel was when Jesus told her to go tell the other disciples.
But don’t be too dogmatic. Like the phrase “Kingdom of God” it can have many meanings. Or provide a theological framework as opposed to a range of distinctive beliefs. many confuse gospel for soteriology or atonement theory – how are we saved. It’s even bigger than that.
Andy and Bill seem to be too limited themselves whilst criticising Goldstein for the same.
The Good News is that “God so loved the world that He gave His Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world but that the world should be saved through Him.”
That’s all there is; no addition. Man adds the additions and conditions.
But Elaine you don’t personally believe in any of that. You’re a straight woman giving pick up tips in a gay night club.
One needn’t be a believer to understand the Bible and what is written there. Some of the most eminent Bible scholars are not believers. But some folks reject all scholarly works or any view on the Bible if not written by someone of their own beliefs.
It is sad – that Adventists have become the modern Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus would truly say that we have made the Law of God of none – effect by our traditions. If the Plan of Salvation was complicated – God would have excluded the simple minded which, by the way, most of us are. He chose to make it simple for that vey reason. I tire of the endless wrangling about the content of the most beautiful text ever written. This article and its comments are akin to a Church arguing over the color of the carpet. While our task of telling the Good News is lost in the wrangling – souls are lost.
I have three questions:
(1) What is the goal of Scripture?
(2) What is the goal of the SdA denomination?
(3) What is the goal of Adventist Today?
“3) What is the goal of Adventist Today?”
Bruce, I can not answer for those who are responsible for this forum. But as one who comments, I can say on some level they offer more freedom of dialogue than the On-line Review. I also comment on the On-line Review, but am aware of the need to be careful not to be too confrontational and challenging, or my comments will not be posted. The SDA church is highly sensitive to any real challenge to the present spirituality of modern Adventism. Those who are “radically” conservative and those who are “radically” liberal are not really welcome in Adventist church dialogues.
As for the goal of scripture, I suggest is to enlighten and empower a final church community “who do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Matt. 4:4
I would evaluate modern Adventism as being more interested in preserving its highly acceptable image in the world today than defending the pure truth of the bible. So the political agenda transcends pure bible truth. In this light, I doubt they will come up with a clear and concise decision on Male headship vs. women’s ordination at the GC sessions this year. As the elder Bush said, “It wouldn’t be prudent at this time.”
I am not suggesting that church administration is an easy task. But I would say this, If you take a job, do it, or don’t take it. And many of our church leaders happily and willingly take a responsible job, and then refuse to accept the responsibility that comes with the job. Kind of like our civil government leaders in Washington, eh?
I agree with the original comments about Lesson 13 from last quarter being totally out-of-context.
I do not agree with blaming Clifford Goldstein. He is in the unenviable position of trying to shepherd the generally high-quality contributions of the original authors, through the hands of review committees comprising scores and scores of assorted administrators and bureaucrats. Having once or twice gone to the trouble of reading through the lists of names constituting these layers of review committees, I have wondered how many of them take the time to do careful review, or even more than a cursory glance?
But I think it safe to say that if the earlier drafts touch or fail to touch certain individual hot-buttons, Cliff will hear about it. Basically this is a CYA process so nobody important can complain later about what eventually emerges.
What eventually spews-forth from this ideological-bureaucratic mix-master as weekly SS lessons, is sometimes barely recognizable to the original authors.
As the leader of the “SS Quarterly” class in our church I feel free to glean for good ideas in the Quarterly when I can find them, and to freely ignore the bulk of weeds and chaff. Regardless of the sign outside the door, I tell everyone who enters that this is a Bible class, not a Quarterly class.
“What eventually spews-forth from this ideological-bureaucratic mix-master as weekly SS lessons, is sometimes barely recognizable to the original authors.”
This is true, Jim. In fact, there is a disclaimer at the front of the Quarterly that actually means it is possible that nothing in the lessons reflects the thinking of the author. A rather strange dis-claimer in my opinion. Why even list an author if it is possible that nothing reflects his thinking?
“The Good News”–For once in my life I find myself agreeing with Elaine Nelsons Jan 7 comment quoting John 3:16.Which also makes me ponder what is it about our various psychies which makes some who “hate” Adventism, or EGW, yet seem drawn to it, read about it faithfully week by week, comment about it as in these blogs and even write long epistles which go into these pages.They are literally unable to leave it alone! Its a little like those trick candles, which you can snuff out the flame, but in a second or so it light up again by itself. So is it the Spirit of God still working on our mind and does not leave us alone? Is it God’s Word buried so deep into our psychy that we cannot gid rid of it inspite of all our anger, rejection of God or whatever else is in the sinful dysfunction of our humanity?Normally one would think that if you have no interest in a church or religion or a prophet or writer, one would just move on and leave those matters alone. But it obviously is not that simple. Hopefully the need for relationship, (God given) and whatever else drives so many of us, will ultimately draw us back closer to God, and also to the last remnant church.The first is vital for our salvation, the second should be helpful to our journey.
The Quarterly has long been a source of disgust to me. Even in my early SDA days, when we had to give our “mission” report, I choked on the question about daily Quarterly study.
It’s really not Goldstein’s fault. He learned from others. He’s doing as he was taught, that’s all. It’s understandable that he would oppose the gospel as he has for decades. My informal observation is that supposed converts from Judaism and Roman Catholicism rarely grasp the gospel. They make great legalistic Adventists, the Old Covenant brood Ty Gibson recently spoke about.
The denomination could use the quarterly to truly enlighten the church on numerous topics, such as perfectionism, justification, imputation, sanctification, and so on. I haven’t seen a quarterly for years so perhaps some effort has been made in this direction. I doubt it.
If the denomination set the gospel forth in clear lines, the unscriptural doctrine of tithing would go by the wayside. Tithe would probably drop by half. The “suits” loafing around offices might have to actually do some honest work [which most are unqualified to do] for a change. They simply couldn’t bear it. The Adventist papacy would collapse.
There’s no upside to the SDA church telling people the truth, as long as clergy feeding at the trough depend on lies for their sustenance.
Bill, your comment about my third question is close to home, very close. Three examples of our experiences: SdA pastor (unnamed), “If it doesn’t agree with Ellen White, I won’t accept it.” SdA elder (unnamed, to my wife and I when we suggested to study prophetic parallels), “You are not welcome here because you are disruptive.” A member was yelling at us, in front of the congregation, because I commented privately to him after the service that I disagreed with his statement from the pulpit, “This so-called scholar, Raymond Cottrell said …” Amazing that Raymond Cottrell, Associate Editor of the SdA Commentary is a “so-called scholar”?! He was yelling at us, but we are the ones who are “disruptive”?!
I submit (1) the goal of Scripture is to reveal to mankind the Godhead as manifest in Creation (Genesis 1, John 1); Redemption (the prophecies of the Messiah to come and the Gospels that cite His ministry, death, and resurrection); and the Promise of Restoration (John 3:16,17, Revelation 21,22 but not limited to). Scripture tells us that God’s ways are not our ways, and Jesus revealed His mission via parables. The prophecies are foremost about what the Messiah would experience and accomplish. The vast majority of the stories about people in OT Scripture include parables about the First Adam and the Second Adam.
Cain was the first son who caused the death of Abel, the second son. Ishmael was the oldest son who lost the birthright to Isaac. Esau was the oldest son who sold his birthright to Jacob. The parallels in the prophecies (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation) tell, in couched language, the story of Satan’s fall and his defeat by the Messiah. Those are only a few.
Mankind, from Eve onward, have fallen into his trap of presenting counterfeits. The worst trap of all is to first interpret prophecies as having fulfillment in things of earth. If the Godhead, and especially the Messiah, are not first seen as fulfillment of prophecies, Satan’s trap has worked to take our eyes off of Our Creator, Redeemer, and He who will return to “change us in the twinkling of an eye.”
As for (2), the long-standing goal of the SdA corporation is to perpetuate “their unique doctrines” derived from EGW. In the numerous times I’ve attended SdA services in the last 30 years, I have never – I repeat, never – heard the Gospel of the Kingdom presented whether in study or sermon.
(3) In what manner does this publication contribute to the propagation of the Gospel of the Kingdom? I have yet to find any identifiable goal, only seeing, in general, comments comparable in substance to “How many angels can perch on the head of a pin.” Thankfully, here and there, comments cogent of Scripture appear in the comments; they bring joy to my heart akin to one finding an oasis in the desert.
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Matthew 24:14. This is a…
I certainly agree with you regarding the primary goal of Scripture.
You seem to suggest that the OT is primarily parables rather than an accurate account of ancient history. From about the time of David onwards archaeology is confirming much of the OT account. Before that time there is come interesting archaeological correlation but little that I would call confirmation.
Nevertheless to suggest that much of the OT is parables does not make sense to me.
I don’t know why the last part was truncated, countdown said there were several characters remaining.
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Matthew 24:14. This is a prophecy waiting to be fulfilled.
Getting the Gospel right should be our highest priority. After all, teaching “sound doctrine” is a biblical commandment (Titus 1 & 2). Sound theology, soteriology, and Christology really does make a salvific difference! Fight truth decay, study the Bible!
The Sabbath School lessons are the best indicator of what the official church wants its members to believe. There has been a conscious effort to deceive the world about SDA beliefs about righteousness by faith (through Questions on Doctrine and beyond). There may be public statements of Sola Scriptura, but lessons published by the church for its members tell the real story.