News Feature: You May be Surprised by What Some Catholics are Teaching
By Ella Rydzewski, July 30, 2016: I live near a retreat center owned by the Bon Secours hospital system. It includes some offices and provides a home for the Sisters of Bon Secours, an organization of Catholic nurses. A structure with a Frank Lloyd Wright design dominates the garden and pond landscape and contains conference rooms, a cafeteria and rooms for overnight guests. It is open to more than Catholic groups and various groups use from all over the Baltimore-Washington area. The delightful natural setting is a major draw for relaxing, meditating, or walking.
In June I noticed a week-day lecture series given by Rev. Robert Albright, entitled “The Jewishness of Jesus.” It piqued my interest, and I signed up as a commuting attendee. Father Bob, as he is known, is a retired priest from the Baltimore archdiocese who lectures to mostly Catholic groups wherever he is invited. He is a member of the Baltimore Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies and teaches at Towson University near Baltimore. He also leads tours of the Holy Land.
What I heard was not only a surprise to me, but to the Catholics in the group. (Only one of the almost fifty attendees questioned what he heard.) Albright’s goal was to present to his audience the real religion of Jesus and how it has been lost over the ages. He told us that neither the Judaism nor Christianity of today believes as Jesus did—He was a first-century Jew and learned from the Tanach (Old Testament) including the Torah (the five books of the law), Nevhm (the prophets) and Chetuvim (the wisdom books). He learned Halakah, the oral law.
Albright, unlike Protestant teachers I have heard, thinks that Jesus learned scripture from his parents rather than from a Hebrew school. His family was poor and this suggests that Jesus may not have been able to read, but memorized scripture from oral presentations. Most people in that time and place were illiterate and the Word of God was spoken; the scribes did the reading and writing. Outside of the Jerusalem temple, the Jews gathered on Sabbaths in meeting houses. These later became larger and known as synagogues.
According to the lecturer, when Jesus and Paul spoke against the law, they were talking about the oral law that the Pharisees had taken to such rigid lengths it became a burden. But they honored the biblical commandments.
Albright explained the infusion of Greek and Roman thought into Christianity in later times. Aristotle said the soul lives on after death, and this was picked up by church leaders such as Thomas Aquinas. But this was not what Jesus believed. The first-century Jew saw the body as material, the soul as the life within the body (breath), and the spirit something like personality or character. The future resurrection of the dead was a major first-century teaching, and did not include a trip to heaven after death as currently taught by most Christian denominations.
Albright brought to the discussion interesting concepts concerning symbolism in the Bible, including the use of numbers. Whereas, most cultures were sun-based, the Hebrew, he said, was moon-based with the month guiding their festivals. In speaking of numbers, seven could have other meanings but it was used as an indefinite (eternal) period while four was definite (as in four beasts or heads). The term “nations” referred to the Gentiles. Mountains were places where people met God.
Many of the women in the audience were nuns, and I enjoyed talking with them at meals. They impressed me by their openness to learn new things about the Bible and Jesus. I suspect this only rings true so long as it does not come with denominational label outside the mainstream. It seems to me if Christ-centered doctrine is to be presented to other religions, it may have to come from within their group or at least without a label. I cannot help wondering if celebrating Sabbath as representing Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath had been promoted outside a denominational label it would have been accepted by more faith groups. Perhaps ours was to have been a movement that taught the beliefs of Jesus rather than a new denomination.
In light of discussions among Adventists about anti-Catholic views, I should note an odd experience at one meal. A nurse who worked at Catholic hospitals asked my religion. When I told her she looked shocked. “They hate Catholics,” she said. She told me of caring for an Adventist in her hospital who became frightened when she approached. “She feared me because it was a Catholic hospital, and I was a nun. She even tried to make me take anti-Catholic writings—they looked like comic books.” All I could think of was the Chick publications which are not Adventist, so I tried to distance myself from them in my conversation with her.
Father Bob did know I was an Adventist because I made an appointment with him and told him about our faith being close to what he taught. To him the Bible is a book of faith and is about the Person of Jesus Christ. He also gave me permission to share three of his lectures with anyone who is interested. You may request them through Adventist Today and I will e-mail them.
Ella Rydzewski is a free-lance writer living in Maryland who has served on the editorial staff at Adventist publications over the years. To request the lectures that she offered to share, send an Email to atoday@atoday.org and include her name in the Subject line.
Ella,
Truly there are many followers of God in other faiths and many who profess to know truth could learn much about Him from the simple, Christ-focused and scripture-based faith of others, even Catholics like Father Bob. I have been blessed in my life to know several Catholics whose devotion to God challenged me to serious introspection to see if my devotion to God was as great. That supreme devotion to God instead of pet theologies about things like end-time events is a big reason why Catholics make some of the most spiritually-grounded Adventists.
As to Jesus not knowing how to read, Luke 4:16,17 tells of Him reading from the book of Isaiah n the synagogue.
John 7 The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
Right. While this particular priest made the claim Jesus was illiterate, that is not Catholic belief.
The article said that it “…suggests that Jesus may not have been able to read…”, it doesn’t say Albright claimed anything. It sounds to me like the Reverend may be a lifetime learner, unlike most of us who learn once and stop, thinking we now know…
The Catholic church has always considered Protestantism some “off shoot” movement created by novices like Martin Luther and others. The could only consider the SDA church as an “off shoot, of the off shoot.”
Being a world wide influence in both politics and religion, it is certain they monitor most of what is happening in the world on every level. And it is equally certain they monitor the SDA church for a good reason. We have been the most dynamic in opposition to their agenda. So, they may well monitor forums like Atoday, Spectrum, Advindicate and others to keep in touch with the various attitudes surrounding the SDA movement, as well as the official church activities.
I am sure they find it interesting as they see basic Protestantism “self destruct” and the SDA church doing the same thing. They are not about to “make waves” and draw attention to any conflict we may create but simply wait until the majority finally fall apart and the SDA church finally abandon the mission to attack the RCC.
No church presents to the world of just how “kind” and “loving” for the interest of humanity than Catholicism. The USA is about half a step from inviting Rome to come and join the effort to bring world peace on every level. It will only be at the very end that Rome and the USA will “speak as a dragon” after they have first won the majority by a careful agenda of peace and safety. Many, if not most SDA’s are ready for that.
Bill,
There is a notable bit of diversity, even heterodoxy, to be observed here at atoday.org. I assume from reading your many comments you think this all this Adventist heterodoxy is lamentable but normal, the diverse ideas you read here is what you see everywhere in Adventistism, if you look. If I have correctly stated your views let me say I agree about the quantity of diversity of opinion and ideas.
In your comment here, you seem to ascribe to the RCC an almost monolithic consciousness. Do you believe they RC’s are united in opinion? Adventists certainly aren’t. How is it they monitor us? Do ‘we’ monitor them? Why don’t they, like us, struggle with all this diversity of opinion?
” Do you believe they RC’s are united in opinion?”
They have no such “freedom of opinion” in the RCC. The church dictates truth and doctrine, and you either accept it or are dealt with accordingly.
They have always hated the USA and Malachi Martin wrote in his book “Keys of this Blood” that the Catholics in the USA are the “Judas element in the Catholic church.”
The freedom of thought gendered in America is totally contrary to Catholic spirituality. But like I said, they simply watch and wait. And as EGW has well said, Rome is amazed that Protestant America is preparing the way for the re-establishment of Romanism in the USA.
They would be stupid to do anything to cause trouble. When the pope suggested that Trump may not be a Christian, it created some small stir, but it is more than likely, that the Pope’s “bosses” told him to shut up and sit down. His job is to be “Mr Nice Guy”, not go around creating trouble in US politics.
People can certainly evaluate the various possibilities of the end and how it will all come about. But for a true SDA, there is no doubt of Papal authority eventually rising to the top eventually. Probably sooner than we think.
But the point is, they see the USA self destructing on every level from politics to religion. And the SDA church doing the same thing. Why would they do anything to “cause trouble” when their goal is being achieved for them by others?
Bill, you are a sage. You’ve nailed the current role of Francis. Francis is solidifying the
stature of Roman C. globally with his promotion of Global Warming at the United Nations, where last Sept. he gave the preamble speech at the UN to kickstart the program, which was
voted in unanimously in the Dec/15 UN special session in Paris. Also he is politicizing his role in Palestine and Jerusalem whereby he is eyeing his future throne in Jerusalem.
Bill, back up your statement “they are monitoring the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” a reliable source, please. It appears to be anti-Catholic speculation on your part.
“Bill, back up your statement “they are monitoring the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
I said, Bugs, that it is likely that they monitor every possible situation that may have some bearing on their final goal. Obviously, I don’t spend my time trying to find out everything the RCC is doing. They are a very comprehensive organization and it would seem more than reasonable they check out everything that may effect their final goal.
Neither would they make it public that they do this. So, it is speculation on my part, but I think it is logical to assume what I stated.
The drum beat that has gone on as long as I can remember is that the RCC will force a Sunday law upon the world. Adventists will be hunted down and imprisoned or slaughtered. A time of trouble either before this happens or after has never been made clear to me. Groups of SDA’s form that look and wait for this to happen. Some run off to Idaho to live a country life waiting for persecution to begin. Pathfinders are taught how to tie knots and march and build fires so that living in hiding will be possible for them one day. And life goes on. And on. The Papal occupant changes every so often without issuing the waited for decree… and life goes on.
But in the mean time…. The real work to form the persecuting power has been humming right along. Alliances have been form with most of the so-called Protestant world, Roman Catholic Church, and Spiritualistic churches such as the LDS or Mormon church. All together in points they hold in common. They are the “value voters”. And they are going to bring in the melding of church and state and the formation of a Theocracy to replace our Constitution. They are the Dominionists. It is during and mostly after getting the stage set that they invite the papacy to head up the world wide church… that those Sunday laws will take place and the good news is: At the point of the death decree… Jesus steps out of the Sanctuary and prepares to come to take his beloved ones home! SDA’s must learn what Dominionism is and the…
Alison,
Pathfinder history starts as prep for Adventist boys who would be drafted and marching as non-combatants in the US Army. They could enter the Army with some preparatory training in first-aid and military discipline. Boy Scouts for Adventists with a purpose – but the purpose was not training for the last days in the time of trouble.
I think it is time to understand that speculation in a ‘they’ or ‘them’ blanket statement when referring to any other belief group is just as ludicrous as insinuating that all Adventists believe and live their beliefs the same.
I think it also noteworthy at this point to acknowledge that there will be no ‘Adventists’ in heaven or the new earth, just as there will be no other denominational lines; and certainly being one here on earth provides us with no exclusive advantage or disadvantage of arriving there.
The one thing I have always regretted of this group I was born into and raised and educated as, is that it has seemingly always taught exclusivity by exclusion. In other words, we are special because we are not like all the others, and we never cease to point and proclaim faults in doctrine, theology or practice – when we fail just as miserably as others to ‘keep our own house clean’.
I am thrilled that the author would be as open minded as to attend a lecture by the good Reverend, as most react more like the hospital patient, as though those who claim faith by another denominational name are cursed, or leprous.
And I applaud the Reverend for focusing on Jesus, regardless of teaching or religious practice. We could all stand to learn a lot from that. In the end, there is only one true religion; one without a specific denominational name, James 1:27.
I’m wondering whether you may be confusing Pathfinders with the Medical Cadet Corps?? If what you stated is the purpose of Pathfinders please cite the source. Thanks.
Blue Gill,
I thought Pathfinders arose out of the Medical Cadet Corps. I was giving a history lesson to Alison and if I’m mistaken I hope you will correct me. Alison was mistaken. She said, Pathfinders are taught how to tie knots and march and build fires so that living in hiding will be possible for them one day.
To the extent ‘wrong’ is a matter of degree, I am less wrong than Alison. (I hope)
Sunfish and William,
Years ago I stumbled across some early JMV materials dating to the 1920s. In those days the Guide and Master Guide were called Comrade and Master Comrade. With the rise of international Communism in the 1930s the name Comrade was dropped in favor of Guide. Though I think the original name was more appropriate it proved to be politically incorrect.
The ideas of SDA youth clubs is very old. It apparently goes back to the 1920s also, though the name Pathfinder was formally adopted later.
Clearly this was all a take-off from the Boy Scouts. However in the 1920s the prevailing church attitude in North America was anti-military service. A book by FM Wilcox published after WW I helped to raise the consciousness of SDAs regarding the issues faced by Adventists in the military during the late War.
The Medical Cadet program was started by Everett Dick at Union College in the 1930s. These programs have independent roots, one coming from the youth departments of churches and conferences, the other from educational institutions (colleges and later academies) addressing different needs and clientele.
The more “pseudo-military” flavor of pathfinders appears to have come-in after WW II when many pathfinder leaders (dads including mine and many others) were military veterans and brought that culture with them.
You mention quite a scenario in your words. I wonder how you came up with all that? How do you think the buying and selling will be enforced? You forgot that one.
When I read my Bible I don’t see how you come up with all this but I am aware of what is taught.
It’s very hard to predict things before they happen. When it does not happen as taught ..I wonder how many will just miss it completely?
“The USA is about half a step from inviting Rome to come and join the effort to bring world peace on every level.”
Bill, can you please substantiate this statement with some facts, something that we can actually see happening and verify?
Thank you, Bill. it always amazes me how SDAs love to the DINAH pattern, right into perdition. If they would only go themselves! However they always seek to drag the weak and vacillating along with them. Why go to see or hear what any CATHOLIC has to say? That is setting yourself up for deception in a way that is totally silly. They are great at twisting a word here and there and snaring the unwary and those who put their feet in slippery places, thinking themselves wise. The thing is, he does not deny or try to hide his Catholicity and that sweetens the pot like a sugar to flies of those WANTING TO KNOW.
The trouble is, there is too much Catholic doctrine plaguing Seventh-Day Adventism today…right within the ranks. Why go looking for more? Read your Bible [not the Catholic versions]; follow original SDA doctrines and pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not necessarily in that order.
And please do not promote good Catholicism amongst our people; that is sowing confusion. This is the kind of advice to follow:
The workers in the US Mint responsible for the preservation of the integrity of the money, do not ever study counterfeits. Rather, EVERY DAY, they rigorously study the TRUE. thus they are NEVER FOOLED BY A COUNTERFEIT. Too many SDAs are trying to be too liberal. We have no time to entertain every wind of doctrine; time to know and spread God’s true doctrine before He comes again.
Mrs. Harvey,
I’m curious, do you feel the same way about Jews as you do CATHOLICS?
Ella,
What an great article. I think the Rev. Robert Albright has done everyone a service exploring the only historical Jesus we can know, the Jesus of Scripture.
He is biblically supported in his notion that Jesus was not schooled by men: The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. John 7 – But Jesus of Nazareth obviously could read.
The end-result of being home-schooled by two parents that fervently believe you were God’s long-foretold miracle child is at age twelve you are astonishing the doctors of the law with your questions and answers and you are reminding your mother you are the only-begotten Son of God. The most important thing, the first thing, Jesus learned was the special circumstances of His birth. Mary and Joseph didn’t wait until He was older to tell Him. Just like them, He never for an instant doubted He was The One.
Ella you write: I cannot help wondering if celebrating Sabbath as representing Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath had been promoted outside a denominational label it would have been accepted by more faith groups. Perhaps ours was to have been a movement that taught the beliefs of Jesus rather than a new denomination. I’ll continue below…
Ella, (cont)
The Seventh-day Adventist church has not been very good at celebrating Sabbath as representing Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. Our church tends to celebrate Sabbath as a memorial to creation. We see the Sabbath as a stand-alone commandment, not primarily a celebration of our rest from sin and death in Jesus Christ. We get nervous when Dale Ratzlaff says: “Jesus Christ is my Sabbath.” We don’t understand what Jesus was saying: My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
So look up and see the fields are white. Our first work is evangelizing our own people. Adventists do not comprehend Christ’s messianic fulfillment of the Sabbath. The Jews teach the Sabbath is an invitation to imitate God and rest like He rested. Jesus said: Come unto me… ..I will give you rest… …for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. The Sabbath is fulfilled in Him. He has labored so we can rest.
Jesus of Nazareth interpreted the scriptures prophetically. Every scripture pointed to Himself, the purpose or end of all prophecy. Every story, all the stories, the whole of scripture, testify of Him. The man of God’s own choosing. The Seventh-day Adventists, no less than the Roman Catholics, need to behold the King of the Jews.
Adventism teaches the Sabbath as a commandment, not a gift. It also teaches that obedience of that commandment is the main keyway to salvation, and ignorance of it is the mark of the beast.
We remain more focused on the ‘what’ than the ‘why’, and we constantly misinterpret and misrepresent intent. We focus on instructing others on how to believe and to act, but we do not love. “…for out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks…” (Luke 6:45), our hearts are rules and obedience focused, not love focused. We forget that we cannot, in truth, obey with perfection – but we can love without condition.
Now I truly understand what the problem is: the huge lies we tell ourselves when we suffer from jaded appetites. The trouble is, since the QOD debacle in 1957, many people in the SDA church are not being taught our distinctive, exciting and BIBLICALLY-SOUND doctrine. Then, too many of us look up to people, quote what they say, follow in their footsteps and live a Christian life vicariously, instead of in reality. The BIBLE is absolutely clear on the Sabbath and how it should be kept. I do not know about others here, but since I was three, I had no problem in understanding that. I was taught all that the Bible has said concerning it, all that it entails here and in the earth made new, from Genesis to the Revelation. Razlaff knows this and has misled lots of silly people with pretty words. The dumbing down of the pillars of the faith and the twisting of the Sabbath, the nature of sin and the nature of Christ by so-called scholars is the bane of our existence.
I always go to the law and the testimonies and I have nothing to do wit those who come from a suspicious place, to teach me anything. I seek always to be a good Berean and test everything by the Word. I also do not go to hear anything where the Holy Spirit cannot be with me. I would advise all SDAs to also do this, for it seems as satan gets more vigilant, we get more ignorant and more naive.
Patricia Harvey, I would like to know more about these places “where the Holy Spirit cannot go with me”. I was taught as a child that ‘angels cannot go into theaters, or bars to protect us, and that they wait outside for us’…but I have personally seen God at work in those places. So please, explain these places?
William Abbott wrote:
“The Seventh-day Adventist church has not been very good at celebrating Sabbath as representing Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. Our church tends to celebrate Sabbath as a memorial to creation. We see the Sabbath as a stand-alone commandment, not primarily a celebration of our rest from sin and death in Jesus Christ. We get nervous when Dale Ratzlaff says: “Jesus Christ is my Sabbath.” ”
How very true and how very unfortunate.
But it goes even further. The apocalyptic literature of the Bible portrays Heaven as the Eternal Sabbath. The imagery of the 7 applied to Heaven is intended to be an indefinite epoch of time – a distinct beginning but no ending. But of course being fixated on the literal 7 days, Adventists tend to overlook the eschatological significance of the Sabbath. Whereas all the way back to Genesis 2, it describes how the first Sabbath began but not how it ended. Whether it only lasted for 24 hours or did not end until the Fall, is an interesting question.
There is a fair case to be made that from Genesis 3 through Revelation 20 we have an interruption of the Eternal Sabbath, during which we affirm our faith that what was lost will be restored, via the Weekly Sabbath.
I see that Mr. Sorenson has been banned by all of the other non-fundamentalist Adventist websites. I suspect that he is now working to get banned from the Adventist Today website. He can then complain that his belief and strong advocacy for “Truth” rather than his hostile, aggressive intolerance got him banned. Imagine being against a kind and loving approach!
Again, we note that he repeats yet again the tired 19th Century Adventist party line about the purported sinister intentions of our Roman Catholic friends. Even Mr. Abbott seems to react negatively to Mr. Sorenson’s characterization of a largely mythic monolithic Roman Catholic Church.
One wonders if the source of Mr. Sorenson’s theology on this matter is a projection of his own suspicious personality. Conspirators are just around the next corner and ready to pounce on us.. The dark basements of Roman Catholic Churches are gearing up for business. All of this would be funny, if a lot of Adventists did not still buy the party line.
An interesting statistic that will shed light on Adventist attitudes on this topic will be how many of them in the United States plan to vote for Donald Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. This will provide us with an indication of how many U.S. Adventists are going to act as did most Adventists living in Germany during World War II in terms of their relationship with the Nazi regime..
Professor Taylor!!
You spoke even less to Ella Rydzewski’s article than Bill. And she is saying something very interesting. Do you really want to be thought of as being as predictable as Bill Sorensen? Repent!
” Do you really want to be thought of as being as predictable as Bill Sorensen? Repent!”
Come now, William. Dr. Taylor is the “other side of the coin”. How boring do you want this forum to be? Like Fulcrum 7 and the legalists who hate any controversy about their view of law and gospel?
They think you can be sinless with a little help from Jesus. They deny original sin and its implications. They have no clue of the real dynamics of sin and atonement. Nor do they really know what the phrase “ye must be born again” means. They stumble and bumble around and think they will “save the church” from you “liberals” who deny that being “born again” gives us the full victory over our sinful nature.
Obviously, I don’t embrace either side. Not antinomian liberalism, nor legalistic conservatism. They curse the “One Project” for some good reasons, but endorse “The Final Generation Theology” that is off the wall in their theology.
There is one winner in all this. Namely, the devil. So the SDA church “self destructs” with no viable definition of law and gospel from any perspective. But God is not hampered by human bungling in the end.
He will yet create a community of believer who know and understand the bible both law and gospel in parallel and contrast. Not yet, but soon. And I believe some from both sides will eventually “get the picture”.
By the way, the 7th day Sabbath is both law and gospel personified. This is why it is the final test.
I am dumbfounded by your comment, Erv. Why can’t you disagree with Bill S. without personally attacking him? Please pint out to me how his comments violate AToday guidelines.
Your obsession with him is downright pathological. Who would be so nutty as to check with all other non-fundamentalist Adventist websites to see what Bill Sorensen’s status is with them?
By the way, what are the non-fundamentalist websites you are referring to, Erv? Spectrum is the only one I’m aware of. Calling Spectrum “non-fundamentalist” is a bit like calling The New Republic non-conservative.
Ervin, it appears you have a problem with “conspiracy”. You find it humorous, and perhaps even slightly frightening subconsciously. As you should. You make a note of voting for Trump as being in agreement with those voting for Adolph Hitler of Nazi Germany. You are so wrong. A vote for Hillary Clinton is of certainty of bringing on a third World War, by her following on her atrocious State Dept disasters of yore. She could be personified as one of the Whore’s Harlot’s of Rev. 17, and any voting for her are certainly supporting the Beast of Revelation. Fortunately she won’t prevail.
“I see that Mr. Sorenson has been banned by all of the other non-fundamentalist Adventist websites. I suspect that he is now working to get banned from the Adventist Today website.”
I still post on ADvindicate, Dr. Taylor. And they usually post my replies in the SDA on line Review, as well.
Fulcrum 7 deliberately misrepresented what I stated about Ben Carson and I chided Gerry Wagoner for this. I think he “hated” me from the beginning, even when he was a part of ADvindicate.
But just for anyone’s information, I said Dr. Carson endorsed homosexuality by endorsing the Trump campaign. And he did. You can affiliate yourself with some political party and deny the party platform when you are a high profile individual in the party.
Without publishing my explanation, they accused me of saying Dr. Carson supports the Gay movement. And then said I was a liar for what I stated.
Anyway, that was the deal and Gerry called me a “Troll” and run me off and blocked my posting. I am not interested in “cry babying” all over the internet about Fulcrum 7. But I did want to make clear what happened.
So, now the “Troll” is here until I wear out my welcome, which may be rather soon by some of the posts, past, present, and no doubt, future.
oops, I said, ” You can affiliate yourself with some political party and deny the party platform when you are a high profile individual in the party.”
I meant, “you can NOT affiliate…….”
I wish they had an edit feature here like ADvindicate.
While I may not agree completely with Mr. Sorensen’s statements, he is certainly entitled to his opinion, and to sharing it. Listening to others is a forgotten art, it seems. One can never be ‘honorable’ if one can not disagree with honor, or without being disagreeable. Mr. Taylor’s response, as has been noted, is far more offensive than any of Mr. Sorensen’s statements; and shows the true nature of a religion founded on exclusivity.
As Christians, it seems we have become justified in our beliefs; whatever they may be; to the extent of any challenge to those beliefs being received as an affront or an attack on the very foundation of our being – when it was the beloved prophet of this denomination that stated ‘the biggest blockade to our learning is the belief that we already know’ (paraphrase mine).
As a former pastor, and ‘professional Christian’, I am by nature, passionate. It was when I started to question my own beliefs, and reasons for those beliefs, that I began to be able to listen to the beliefs of others without feeling threatened…just sayin’.
Every time a Republican is elected President, the religious liberty guys working at the GC get busier. Because they know that under a Republican President our religious liberty is jeopardized. It’s always the Democrats that allow those guys to breath freely, with no much concern.
Yes, Trump got the evangelicals. Will he protect them? His answer will be as all his answer to all questions, “I am going to take a look at it.”
Now he is a little busy, doing some reading on the Russian invasion of Crimea. He didn’t know yet that Russia already invaded Ukraine and took a slice of it recently!
And there are still people voting for that fake!
George-
Take time to read Dinesh D’Sousa’s most recent book.
What stupidity! A snake without fangs is a python. Our RCC friends?? What a laugh! I live in a country where the congregants of RCC and Anglican calls SDA’s “sheepstealers”. I understand their insidiousness.
it seems as if you would believe in a red devil with horns and a tail. But a real devil is truly the smoothest operator ever: a spider who lures silly flies into his web and eats them alive or chokes them to death. Hope your eyes are opened now.
Every python I have seen has fangs, just like every other snake…not sure what that was intended to mean.
Seems to me that teaching Jesus is the best way. It’s hard to get people to join any religion these days as there are problems with all organizations on some topics of belief.
I like the thought of preaching Jesus and not religion. I do not find certain religions will be saved and others not. I do find ( believe in Jesus and you will be saved. )
“I like the thought of preaching Jesus and not religion. I do not find certain religions will be saved and others not. I do find ( believe in Jesus and you will be saved. )”
I guess that is about as generic as you can get. Zero definition of what it means to “believe in Jesus”.
But that certainly is in line with the modern eccumenical movement. And the “Jesus Only” ministry. Jesus can be anybody you want to make him be I guess.
Of course, this is not biblical as the bible is very careful to be extremely definitive of just who “Jesus” is. And any “jesus” that is not identified by way of the bible is called the antichrist in scripture.
So various Christian groups may well “bicker” on and on to define the Jesus of the bible. But no true bible believer would accept this generic “Jesus” being embraced in modern Christanity and all the world religions.
Hold strong, Bill. Truth must triumph and scoffers exposed. Hold fast that though hast, for you are on good ground.
I only find five references to ‘antichrist’ in Scripture, and they all seem to point to humans or humanity. Just like the number of the beast being ‘the number of man’. I find it interesting that whatever our beliefs, those who disagree with us are ‘wrong’. I, for one, do not fully understand God, or Jesus, nor do I believe I ever will this side of the New Earth – if then. So I don’t intend that I am ‘right’ or that others are by default ‘wrong’.
I will caution, however, in assuming one ‘knows’, for it is when we ‘know’ that we stop seeking to learn.
There are so many doctrinal explanations that I have been taught throughout my life in the church, both as a child and as a ministerial student, that I find to be contradicting to what Jesus stood for, if not to what the character of God is. We have a tendency to exegete to get to bite size pieces we can digest, but in that we also seem to shy away from the big picture – God is Love. And if we can’t get our minds around that, we probably don’t really understand love.
“According to the lecturer, when Jesus and Paul spoke against the law, they were talking about the oral law that the Pharisees had taken to such rigid lengths it became a burden. But they honored the biblical commandments.”
This is an abstract truth which is usually understood in a false way. As a way of salvation, no law was “honored.” The law which Hebrews denounces in chapter 7 is not the oral tradition. F.F. Bruce understood Paul correctly and attributed to him a law free gospel. There is no law of any kind which justifies men.
People such as Bill Sorenson are much closer to the Pope than to the gospel with their legalistic understanding of salvation. That a RC priest should advocate a form of legalism shouldn’t surprise anyone, except the uninformed, which, on this topic, among SDA, is just about everyone.
While I don’t share Bill’s views,he shouldn’t have to post under a continuing threat of banishment. There are a few people posting here who are much more offensive than Bill, who, actually, I don’t find offensive. We just disagree.
Hansen,
Jesus drew sharp distinctions on several occasions between the commandments of men and God’s Commandments. He plainly spoke, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I could burn through a few 1500 character sets quoting Jesus Christ’s rejection of oral law and his support of all God’s commandments, not just the big ten. Hebrews 7 doesn’t denounce the law, it points out its inferior workings now superseded by the efficacious work of our Great High Priest. The law’s purpose is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
You know how complicated it all is. The law is good, the law can’t save. The commandments of men are not the law of God, yet, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. The law of the Jews is not the law of the Gentiles Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them.
The Rev. Albright’s abstract truth is borne out in the texts..
OK William, Burn through 1500 characters with quotes from the oral law in the gospels that Jesus rejected. If you are busy, just cite 3 examples of oral law that Jesus specifically spoke against. Oh, the remark that the gentleman made also included the writings of Paul,so you should include a few references to the oral law which Paul specifically rejected.
The passage you quoted about Moses seat contradicts your point. Jesus wasn’t arguing against what the Pharisees taught, assuming it was the “oral law.” He said they should follow it.
It doesn’t matter what law is in question. Paul pointed people to Abraham’s time,when there was no law, as the Christian model. I suppose you could make a case from the gospels that Jesus was a legalist who believed that we are saved by keeping the Decalogue but I’m not going down that road.
William, on second thought, I agree that Jesus did argue against traditions such as the importance of hand washing, “gifting”rather than honoring parents and others. No need to spend your time doing my homework. Jesus said some things which don’t quite make sense to me and appear to contradict Paul.
Maybe continue this tomorrow
In Abraham’s time, there was no law? There has never been a time where there has not been law. Even if mankind set it aside, God NEVER abrogated his law. How else could God single out one man above others? Could a righteous God hold people accountable when there is nothing to condemn them? How did Job know to do God’s will? Did God’s law die with Noah? Truly some weird ideas abound!!
“There is no law of any kind which justifies men.”
And this is where you are wrong, Glen. And it is why any viable conservative would label you a liberal antinomian.
That no one can obey and keep any law to merit heaven or pay for their sins, it is blatantly false to claim the moral law does not justify. Even Paul states clearly, “The doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2.
So you are obviously confused by what Paul means when he says, “By the deeds of the law, shall no flesh be justified.” He is not contradicting himself. Most of Paul’s theology is the issue of forgiveness of sin and what the legal basis is for the forgiveness of sin. Namely, Jesus only and His death and mediation.
This in contrast to the ceremonial law that the Jews held so highly in this regard to get forgiveness. So, “the deeds of law” in this context of the writings of Paul is simply “the deeds of the ceremonial law”.
That we can go beyond Paul’s original intent and apply a broader application is OK and even commendable. But not when we try to make the broader application the focal point of Paul’s ministry.
No one can merit forgiveness by keeping the moral law. Paul already knows that and it is not his point. When people don’t understand the point a writer is making, and then claim their broader application is that point, they convolute and corrupt the world of God.
When we know who is writing, to whom, and why, then we can “rightly divide the word….”
The moral law “justifies” but not in the same context that Paul deals with. The book of James tells us just how the moral law justifies, and he is not contradicting Paul nor trying to straighten out Paul and his theology. James is straightening out people like yourself who have wrested Paul totally outside Paul’s original meaning and now apply your own false idea and meaning to what Paul is saying.
The word “justify” is a law term. And it does not solely refer to some legal meaning. To force the word “justify” to solely mean some legal factor is false and will not “hold water”. The moral law also justifies and it does not mean a legal unity. Every heretic accepts and teaches that the word “justify” can only mean some legal right or have a legal application. The moral law justifies but not in the same context that the ceremonial law typified or namely, the death, resurrection and intercession of Christ.
The moral law deals with the moral factors in our relationship to God. It is a “family law” and is used in this context, not some legal code. It is like a “covenant” between a father and his children. Children don’t “earn or merit” the favor of their father by obedience. None the less, they are still “required” to obey and it is the condition of remaining a member of the family at some point.
Those who fail to discern the difference are doomed to on going and final confusion about the kingdom of God, and their relationship to it.
Bill, I know you don’t understand the NT or know what you are talking about. We’ve discussed these issues for years and neither of us has moved. You are entitled to your opinion but nowadays, rehashing the same arguments is too boring. I haven’t the time or interest for a Bible kung fu display [as Nathan adroitly described it] .
” I haven’t the time or interest for a Bible kung fu display….”
That’s OK, Glen. You are in the right place for massive support for your false doctrine. But I’ll refute it again and again. There may actually be some readers who see the point and know I am right, and you are wrong.
But as I said, you are where you can get massive doses of affirmation for your false ideas. Carry on…….
Justification and sanctification are not available to mankind by accepting and keeping the moral law of God. Because it is beyond man’s ability to keep the moral law. That is the reason in order to save His creation, Jesus the Christ, shed His Godly Blood in order to ransom His beloved. It is not about the Law of God, it is all about God Jesus who sacrificed Himself to save all who accept His Grace. A man, in his heart knows, if he accepts the Blood and Grace of Christ, for his wretched sinful soul, and will, moment by moment, seek the power of the Holy Spirit to quicken his every struggle to overcome.
“While I don’t share Bill’s views,he shouldn’t have to post under a continuing threat of banishment. There are a few people posting here who are much more offensive than Bill, who, actually, I don’t find offensive. We just disagree.”
Thanks, Glen. If you would carefully consider my response, you will see I have no affinity to the RCC position on justification.
By the way, your advice to Tony Kimbley on ADvindicate to watch himself because the church will never hire him as long as he agitates on forums is absolutely correct. They really don’t care what you teach as long as you don’t “make waves” in the church. You know that and so do I, as well as many others who know the political agenda of Adventism.
I said the same thing to Kevin Paulson about a year ago and warned him if he ever wants a job in the church, he better pipe down on the online forums, where is he is very vocal about his opinion, (which is false, I might add) and the church will not hire him as long as he keeps it up.
He claims you are not born a sinner, and no one is a sinner, unless and until you actually go out and participate in sin. Is that childish or what? But he had to take this view because he denies the doctrine of original sin. Anyway, it only typifies the ongoing struggle in the SDA church to find a biblical definition of itself.
And I don’t think it ever will. It is “self destructing” like all the Protestant churches and our county as well.
Mark 7
Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mark 7
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Three? easy.
Temple tax and temple money
Washings and straining of water
The Corban statues
Take up thy bed and walk, on the Sabbath day
Prohibitions on healing on the Sabbath – saving life was ok, healing not so
there is more – but I’m busy
William, Regardless of how many “oral traditions” Jesus refuted, salvation is not by “keeping” laws, whether they be moral, ceremonial, or traditional. It’s hard to tell from the summary of his talk just what is meant by the expression “honored the law.” Christ’s audience was primarily Jewish so he framed his lessons in a context they would understand. He clearly explained to the Rich Young Ruler [Matthew 19] that regardless of how well he kept the Decalogue, salvation was only through the cross.
Christ’s teaching on the nature of adultery also transcends the scope of any “law.” Laws primarily address conduct but Jesus addressed thoughts and intenion.
In John’s writings and most of the NT, “law” sometimes refers to the OT in its entirety. To keep the law meant to heed its teachings regarding Christ as Messiah. Law can be a synonym for Scripture. That’s probably what Paul meant when he said the “doers of the law will be justified.” Those who believe the Scripture regarding Christ will be justified. Paul certainly wasn’t teaching the crass legalism the rest of the book refutes.
Both John and Paul were consistent in rejecting law as a basis for salvation. Paul asked if the OT it was a law of faith or works in Romans 3. He had previously defined “law” as the entire OT. He then asks are we supposed to “do” it or “believe” it. The answer is that faith is what establishes or validates the OT. It’s a sweeping rejection of works oriented…
Jesus of Nazareth lived a totally Jewish life. I would not put it like you did and say, His audience was primarily Jewish, so He crafted a message for them.
He said to the Syro-Phoenician woman, “I am sent but to he lost sheep of Israel”
Jesus interpreted all the scriptures messianically. He saw Himself as the fulfillment of everything promised to Israel. He consistently taught belief in Himself as messiah was the only way to be saved. The rich young ruler (why do we call him young?) is exhibit “A”.
Jesus was never against the Decalogue or the law of Moses. He thought they were about Him. He was against pride and status in ourselves. Against self-righteousness. Jesus believed He Himself was the key to everyone’s salvation.
His teaching about adultery and divorce is so hard almost everyone works around it. He didn’t, He made Himself a Eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven.
What I like so much about this article is its invitation to think and imagine Jesus as He lived. To think as He thought. We tend to project onto Christ our own Weltanschauung.
In doing so we risk not knowing or understand Jesus Christ revealed in scripture. We end up imposing our mind on Him rather than us: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Here is Paul rejecting the oral law – Col. 2
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
William, OK, Paul and Jesus opposed traditions of men. Whether those were the actual components of the oral tradition that were eventually written down, I can’t say. But as stated above, it’s irrelevant to the central point of Paul’s message i.e. that salvation is by faith, not by laws. He illustrated his thesis by repeated appeals to Abraham who lived in a time when, as far as Paul was concerned, there was no “law.”
Just from what I gleaned from the article, the writer wants to draw a comparison between SDA and RC thinking on the “binding nature” of the Decalogue. if that is the case, it is bunk, not the comparison but the thinking. People are not saved by obedience to any law except the one which calls us to believe in Christ.
When you say Jesus “honored” the Biblical commandments, what does that really mean? He honored the sacrificial system and the temple tax too. All it proves is that he chose to not be an iconoclast at times.
Hanson, you did state “Bill, I know you don’t understand the NT or know what you are talking about.” Bill was commenting on your statement ““There is no law of any kind which justifies men.”. HIS Law justifies men and in Love sufficient of such. Romans 13:10 “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
But Loving your neighbor is only one of two important commandments. The other is to Love HIM. CHRIST said to feed my sheep and keep my commandments (if you Love HIM).
Maybe we should consider this the Law of Love? I definitely would not count on Bill or any of us giving up on Loving you. I don’t think we are wired that way.
Erv, if you want to threaten someone; maybe you could threaten me? Bill is outside your league and above your pay grade (stolen from William).
Convict… What you have stated about love justifying us and fulfilling the law is exactly what the Romanists argued against luther and Melanchthon. Of course, they would use any argument to oppose faith. Brinsmead argued 40 years ago that the SDA concept of justification is closer to Rome than to the Reformers. Thanks for making my point!
I can’t believe those guys are defending “Justification by Law!”
This is not only biblically wrong, but completely obsolete!
Luther learned it ca. 500 years ago by studying the Bible. And here we are, almost 180 years after Adventism was founded, hearing such an heretical statement from some Adventists.
Why would you mix HIS Justification and Love for us, with our Love for HIM?
No, HE is and created the Law; we are thankful HE is truthful in such and the covenants created for us. Justification has nothing to do with us, that is HIS Gift, HIS Sacrifice, HIS Love, HIS Choice and has nothing to do with Law; otherwise we would be dead.
But our Love for HIM is very different. If we are HIS we belong to HIM. If we Love HIM we keep his commandments and Love others enough to teach them such. We will feed HIS sheep. We do not leave them to the wolves or lead them astray.
Nothing was stated about Justification by Law.
Convict, The passage you quoted “If you love me keep my commandments” is not talking about the Decalogue. “Commandments” in the writings of John refer to the teachings of Christ. Look at the context.
In the same book, Jesus said “If a man love me, he will keep my sayings/teachings/words.” We are not in Sabbath school anymore.
Actually I did not quote “If you love me keep my commandments” on this thread. But did CHRIST not state the two commandments that all the law and profit hang? Was it not written?
From the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Heaven and earth are still here.
John 14:
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
……
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
No we are no longer children. The Spirit brings us into remembrance. Do you not remember what CHRIST said?
Dr Taylor’s hostile comments to Mr Sorensen and his pitch to have him banned shows the intolerance and underhanded means liberals often use to remove strong opposition just because they hold differing views. Judging by the tirade against Mr Sorensen, by these standards, the association of Adventist forums would have been banned a long time ago; but traditional Adventists at the GC and world church are much more patient and long-suffering towards liberals in the hope of calling them to repentance just as we call out our Catholic brothers and sisters from apostate Christianity. Traditional Adventists also don’t trump up charges to silence oppositon like liberals do – and like the way Catholics have done so in the past.
It would appear that Mr. Hammond is inventing his own facts again. Perhaps he will be able to point me to the place where I said that Mr. Sorenson should be excluded from posting comment on the AT site. No such thing was said: If Mr. Hammond would actually read the comment, I suggested that it appears that Mr. Sorenson was seeking to have himself excluded from AT so he could claim to be a martyr for the cause of his “Truths.” Just because Mr. Hammond disagrees with me, it would not seem helpful for him to invent things.
Erv,
Sorry to interrupt but I’ve been thinking about you. This article prods me to think about how Jesus of Nazareth thought. I keep going back to modern thought and you. Your mind is inclined towards thinking in accordance with scientific principles. But when I imagine Jesus’ mind I can’t imagine Him thinking in those modes. The scriptural account doesn’t indicate He thought like a man of science.
Are we supposed to discipline our minds to think like Jesus thought? Is our imagination supposed to be modeled after His imagination? Does science help us understand who Jesus Christ was to any extent? Maybe science is a hindrance, not a help.
And for the record, I find you to be unfailingly polite in your posts; not always kind, but well mannered.
Commenting on a Catholic speaker guarantees a host of comments as is shown here.
But, whatever you believe about his religious affiliation, if this same message were given by an Adventist would it receive the same response? Because he was speaking as a very-well educated historian on late Judaism and early Christianity. This should be mandatory in all Adventist schools and for members; those who so glibly recite what they’ve heard and have so little knowledge of the birth of Christianity at that pivotal time in history.
Having spent a number of years in graduate studies on early Christian history before writing the necessary thesis, I know that he is correct in all he says. Those who doubt or reject it have only relied on what was read and were taught in the Adventist church. He could not be giving public lectures unless they conformed to known history as it is widely available on the internet and thousands of books, of which I have more than half a hundred, highlighted and footnoted and rechecked for confirmation.
Rejecting the new when it does not agree with one’s previous perceptions is they best way to ensure remaining ignorant of history, as we’ve heard so many times: “Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.”
“Rejecting the new when it does not agree with one’s previous perceptions is they best way to ensure remaining ignorant of history,…”
Elaine,
Those people who”reject the new” are nothing but people who “shut the door” on the face of those who don’t always agree with them. They
reject the new” by definition.
Sometimes we have seen that same kind of people actually “shutting the door” on the old. Remember Des Ford? He came up with the old biblical teaching from Hebrews, but he was rejected because there was some “newer info” that was more important to maintaining the mythical authority of the Remnant Church.
Well Elaine, just beware of those “shutters.” They shut everything, either old or new. Only they are correct!
The fact that the Bible says Jesus could read and write, yet the article says the total opposite about him, is not in the least bit surprising coming from a Catholic of course.
Trevor, half of your beliefs were formed by Catholic scholars and councils over the ages. You could’t be SDA without them. Admit that.
“Trevor, half of your beliefs were formed by Catholic scholars and councils over the ages. You could’t be SDA without them. Admit that.”
Bugs, the RCC is in agreement with a lot of bible truth. People don’t fight over what they agree on, but what they don’t agree on. So, yes, much of what all bible Christians believe is also believed by the RCC.
All the independent ministries surrounding the SDA church have many elements of agreement. But this is not the issue. The SDA church agrees with much of what many other Protestant churches advocate.
So, your statement is simply “so what?” You didn’t point out anything profound.
Bill, my point was that “Bible truth” is a man made opinion. There isn’t any otherwise. And obviously “Bible truth(s)” are those opinions you happen to find agreeable.
“Bill, my point was that “Bible truth” is a man made opinion.”
I am aware, Bugs, that like many, you don’t think the bible defines itself in any objective way that would make us accountable to what it teaches. So, for you and others, you can simply decide what you think it teaches, and your opinion is as good as anyone else’s. In other words, there is no right or wrong by way of the bible, because there is no discernable objective givens.
But the bible holds no such opinion about itself. The bible affirms its own validity and affirms that all the truths are discernable and comprehendable and the Holy Spirit will create the Christian community by the objective and clear teaching of the bible.
This is so dynamic, that the conclusion in the end is that those who oppose the bible, will admit they are abandoning the bible and opting for some other source of authority outside scripture.
Thus, even Rome finally admitted they do not go by the bible as the Reformation forced them to admit the bible is clear, but they don’t follow it. And this is the final issue as God will force everyone who opposes His kingdom admit they do not accept or go by the bible. The validity of the bible is the final issue.
The Sabbath/Sunday issue will force this final end. For the Sabbath is so clearly scriptural, that it is beyond challenge.
Bugs, I read a nice metaphor suitable to describe those who feel their opinion of truth is superior to another’s: ‘the waves that crash on my shore are better than the waves that crash on your’s.’ Those who have surfed or ‘body-surfed’ will know that some waves are definitely nicer and more agreeable, but the object is not to boast about one’s superiority. Just go out and enjoy your waves! And if you are looking for ‘the perfect wave,’ continue, ‘seek, and ye shall find.’ Above all, enjoy your waves.
Bugs-Larry wrote:
“Trevor, half of your beliefs were formed by Catholic scholars and councils over the ages. You could’t be SDA without them. Admit that.”
I think this is too low an estimate. If you look carefully, you will see that while mainstream Adventists are farther from RC mainstream than most Protestants on some topics like Sabbath vs Sunday, on other topics Adventists are actually closer to RC.
This is a trick question, Bill S. I just wanted to be up front here.
What do you see the Seventh-day Adventist church legitimately fighting for?
The trick part of the question is this: The four Gospels do not use the world ‘fight’ once among them.
And the book of Revelation does use the word ‘fight’ exactly once (Rev 2:16) where Jesus instructs the Angel of the church at Pergamos to denounce “the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”
Nicolaism: “This religious practice involved the clergy ruling over of the laity in a fashion of one conquering another.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism
Do you also, Bill, find it interesting that Jesus only uses the word ‘fight’ with regard to offensive ecclesiology rather than errant theology in Revelation?
“The trick part of the question is this: The four Gospels do not use the world ‘fight’ once among them.”
So what???? Paul speaks of the “good fight of faith.” And I “fight and keep my body under subjection.” And many words in the bible that parallel and mean the same thing as “fight.”
“Fight” is not a dirty word, Bill G. I know you don’t like it, because you are a “passivist” who embraces universalism. The enigma of Christanity is this. It is both passive and active. This creates a challenge for any true Christian, because it is not always discernable whether the best response is passive or active to defend the kingdom of God.
Since even Christians are sinners by nature, they are confronted with this dilemma on many occasions in their life experience. So, we try to use some “sanctified judgment” to determine how we should respond.
Moses struck the rock. That was a no, no. Elijah mocked the false priests and prophets on Mt. Carmel. That was a no, no.
Paul was a little hyper in his defense of his ministry in Gal. 1 and 2.
Luther admitted he was less then “Christian” in some of his comments about his foes. This is all typical in the “fight” to defend truth. When we defend ourselves instead of the truth, we are outside the will of God.
But sometimes, defending what you believe, is also defending yourself. So we have a dilemma and should carefully weigh our motive in any conflict.
I don’t do so good. But at least I know it.
Bill G.
“My kingdom is not of this world;if it were, my servants would fight.”
Bravo. Once a person looks outside the shell of SDAism, one find scores of people giving truth in a powerful way. I have had similar experiences, Ella.
Convinced: You have a tendency to give an extreme opposite answer to each supposition, knowing however there is an answer betwixt. Yes there is a Ten Commandment Law, as a guide to the sinner, to understand God’s values. But that Law condemned every single soul
to death as they being carnal carnal, could never measure up. That is the reason Jesus the Christ gave His redeeming blood.
I am simple, so let me try to understand this concept. There is no Law, therefore there is no sin and CHRIST died for nothing? Is that not the concept?
Then we want to “fight” evil? We are evil; unless we serve HIM. In Simple Truth HE could wipe evil and all of us out in a breath. We wrestle with powers, principalities and the forces of evil; but there is no battle, not even a “fight”. If we are HIS, HE will protect us. We may suffer as HE gives others that same chance. I am glad HE gave me that chance. That is Love. Our fight is to ensure others have that same chance; otherwise (and soon), even the devout will be deceived and none Saved.
Just restating what Bill said in my simpler understanding; I hope.
Convict…, That’s the way a legalist with no understanding of salvation by faith understands things. Once you understand the NT, you will realize that sin has to do mainly with faith in Christ. The world lies in wickedness because they don’t believe in Christ, not because they violate the Decalogue.
“The world lies in wickedness because they don’t believe in Christ, not because they violate the Decalogue.”
Your, “either/or” scenario is false. But typical.
Bill, I think that would be the or and both side wrong.
Mark 7:
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Evil lies within; just as HE can be within if HE has chosen to. That is the false assumption that we have anything to offer for such Great Gift or even have anything to do with it. No different that someone could think they could possibly set the bar or change HIS Law. Well less have anything to do with THE Sacrifice in such. All we can offer is evil; without HIM.
“Bill, I think that would be the or and both side wrong.”
Well, I wanted to point out is “both/and” and not “either/or”
It is both, accept Christ and keep the law, and not either accept Christ or keep the law.
The Jews thought as long as they “kept the law” they did not need to accept Christ. But much of modern Christianity thinks if you “accept Christ” you don’t need to keep the law.
The bible does not teach “either/or” from either perspective. From one perspective we might say the old covenant believer had to keep the law and accept the coming Messiah. But the new covenant believe must accept Jesus as the Messiah and keep the law.
Or, “obey and live”, vs. “live and obey”. None the less, I think you and I and some others believe that faith and works are both imperative for a complete and comprehensive biblical teaching on law and gospel.
So the old covenant believer is not “saved” by simply keeping the law, nor is the new covenant believer simply saved by believing the gospel.
You must make a positive choice to believe, and then you must make a positive choice to obey. Obedience is not “automatic” as some would claim.
My brother-in-law is international sales manager for a firm that supplies steel pipe to the middle east and has traveled there for two decades. He says when interacting with a Muslim, if you tell them you are a christian, they will dismiss you. If you tell them you are a “follower of Jesus”, they will engage and behave as though you are their friend. Words matter and labels confuse.
David,
That is an interesting insight. A few times I’ve used that same self-description here in America and found it drawing a similar response from other Christians because it bypassed all the typical inter-denominational barriers that divide fellow followers of Jesus from enjoying fellowship with each other. How I wish more Adventists would do similar instead of probing to see which ideologic camp a person is in regarding controversial topics!
From the comments and article itself, I don’t see it mentioned that Adventists aren’t the only (or first ones) to identify the RCC as the anti- Christ power revealed in Bible prophecy. Thousands of Christians were tortured and killed during the Protestant Reformation by the RCC for this. That the RCC is identified as the anti-Christ (beast/power) in prophecy is something Adventists haven’t invented. Let’s get that clear. It was there already. The Sabbath/Sunday issue is a pert of the Adventist message for the end times. The Great Controversy points out that the US will reach out to the Papacy in an effort to heal the breach between Protestantism and the RCC. Pope Francis’ recent visit to the US and his addressing of the US Congress is evidence that it is happening right before our eyes. The theology of all Catholic priests has to ultimately succumb to the dictates of the RCC. It would be nice to know what the priest in the article has to say about Mary and his view on the Sabbath.
Having said that it is also clear that Adventists believe that “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Trevor,
You are certainly correct in this: The belief the Papacy and the Roman Church were the antichrist was widespread among Protestants and Anabaptists during the reformation period and beyond. CH Spurgeon, London’s famous Baptist preacher of the 19th century, occasionally lets loose on Rome. He almost sounds like an Adventist when he does.
As a Catholic, I was pointed to this post by my brother who is an SDA. First, bless Ella for attending the Father’s seminar. I wish we all could sit and listen to one another as Christians, we would find our faiths, while theologically not fully in unity, our love for Jesus brings us together in our hearts as precious brothers and sisters.
A couple things that I would add for clarification. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that the vast majority of Christians do not go directly into the beatific vision (seeing God face to face) in Protestant-speak, “heaven.” Most go to purgatory. So Ella was misunderstanding the father (or else he is teaching heresy according to the church. I doubt that.) He was not teaching soul-sleep, but that the teaching of a place of purification before we see God goes back to Jewish thought.
Also the fact that the priest was aware that the Jews kept a lunar sabbath and not a pagan weekly one based upon the Roman calendar does not really reveal his views parallel Adventists on sabbatarianism. He was simply acknowledging that Israel based their sabbaths on lunar cycles. Later towards the first century, Hebrews under Roman law began to keep a non-lunar but pagan weekly Sabbath. But at that time the scribes and Pharisees sitting in the seat of Moses had the right to change the Sabbath observance. Blessings to you all in Christ Jesus.
“, our love for Jesus brings us together in our hearts as precious brothers and sisters.”
There are many “antichrists” according to the bible. And the only true Jesus, is the one defined in the bible by a clear definitive doctrine and explanation.
As Protests would affirm. The “Jesus” presented by the RCC is the antichrist. We have not changed our mind. Even though we are aware there are many Christians in the RCC, who do not even know what the RCC teaches.
But, this is true of many professed Protestant denominations as well. And this would include the SDA faith. So many worship a false god, and don’t know it, simply because they do not know the one true God of the bible.
For this cause, most people who are lost, are lost by way of willing ignorance because they learn to trust their church and know very little of the bible. What they do know, is what they have been told, and even this is often convoluted outside the clear biblical revelation.
The eccumenical movement embraces the false gospel that “ignorance is bliss” and the less you know, the better off you are. And so people buy this false gospel and find it very convenient and appealing to the sinful nature that is lazy and carnal and will willingly believe a lie if it has some appeal to credibility.
Hope you enjoy the dialogue.
Mary Teresa,
And blessings to you! Thank you for sharing.
Mary Teresa, I’ve followed the changing Sabbath narrative adopted by the church. Thanks for bringing this new twist to my attention. Prior to Vatican 2, most, if not all catechisms flatly stated the Sabbath was observed on Sunday by virtue of the Pope’s authority to change the day. After Vatican 2, the story was that the apostles changed it in the first century. This particular view was somewhat easy to refute. Sunday holiness was based on supposed fractio panis on the first day documented in the NT. Unfortunately, the breaking of bread on the first day was never accompanied by the cup; therefore, it was a common meal, not a eucharist.
Not you are saying the Rabbis changed it. How is it that the Orthodox Jews all over Los Angeles [including the Messianic ones] still observe the Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. They obviously didn’t get the memo
Hansen,
I quote Mary Teresa here in an Aug. 2 post from below. She helpfully clarifies something you should note:
“…He never said that the Jews changed the rest day, but rather that in various times of Israel’s history, they used a lunar and solar calendar. My understanding of the rabbi is that after the Babylonian captivity, the lunar sabbaths (new moon, waxing moon, full moon and waning moon–approximately every 7 days–they had two days that were not considered days of the month) slowly made way into the fixed weekly sabbath based upon the Roman calendar. That model works perfectly well in the Bible. Much better than other models. Blessings to you.”
Clarification or contradiction? This discussion has turned into nonsense, hearsay, etc. Seems plain enough in the above post that she said the Jews had authority to change the Sabbath, which is why lunar or solar calendar became irrelevant:
“Later towards the first century, Hebrews under Roman law began to keep a non-lunar but pagan weekly Sabbath. But at that time the scribes and Pharisees sitting in the seat of Moses had the right to change the Sabbath observance. Blessings to you all in Christ Jesus.”
“He never said that the Jews changed the rest day, but rather that in various times of Israel’s history, they used a lunar and solar calendar.”
So they had the right to change it but never did, is that it? Double talk and nonsense coming out of this ladies mouth. “From the mouth honey, from the heart a knife.”
In Congress they get to correct their remarks before the record is published. (pre-C-span) Don’t scare her off Hansen. This discussion has real potential. Be as polite and understanding as possible.
Many church practices change over time. Even former Adventist practices have ceased naturally without formal change. Just in the SdA’s short lifetime we have also seen many new rules being made that were never originally made doctrinal rules.
This is how the Christian church gradually began worshiping on the first day of the week: Because there were both Jewish and Gentile Christians when it began, Jews continued their rituals and practices but the Gentiles were not directed to assume those as new Christians. Paul started many new Christian churches, most were all, or largely Gentile believers who had never observed Judaism. They never practiced the dietary rules (other than no blood), nor circumcision–the first ritual in Judaism. Shortly before the end of the first century and continuing, they met to celebrate on the Day of Resurrection and it became fait accompli–and known as the day Christians worshiped. SdA theologians Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt confirm this in a book on Sabbath and Sunday in the early church.
This does not negate the Sabbath, nor have any effect on Sabbath keepers. Why should it?
Mary T
Fr. Bob did not refer to current RC traditional beliefs but only told of the beliefs of Jesus. And Jesus did not hold any view of purgatory. Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.
Fr. Bob probably would be labeled a heretic in traditional RC thought. He noted his dislike of using the Rosary and repetitive prayers, for example However, Catholicism does not, at least in this part of the world/country or at this time, spy on the theology of its people and educators. It is much too large for that, even if it wanted to. I was surprised by the openness of the nuns who were present.
Mary,
There is no way ANY Jew, including Jesus, has ever thought ‘sitting in the seat of Moses’ empowered the sitter to change or alter the Law of God. That is a Catholic, not a Jewish idea. Jesus Himself said: I am not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets
Do you really suppose all that business in the bible about the 7th-day Sabbath, which has not a smidgen of lunar about it, was added to holy writ in the first century? Its in the commandments, the Exodus, the Creation, the Prophets, Era’s restoration. The Seventh-day Sabbath has always been the soul of Judiasm.
Here are two questions for you: Why does the Council of Laodicea declare anathema anyone who would keep the Jewish Sabbath? Why does the second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea make canon law requiring converts to Christianity to abandon all observance of the Jewish feasts and the seventh-day Sabbath?
William A:’… which has not a smidgen of lunar about it…’
May I recommend a most interesting book, William. Rachel Elior (Prof of Jewish Philosophy, Hebrew Univ) ‘The Three Temples,’ 2004. Subtitled ‘On the emergence of Jewish mysticism.’
It revolves around the theme of the battle between the sons of light(solar calendar) and the sons of darkness (lunar calendar). The argument began in C5 BCE and was finally won by the sons of darkness when they ousted the Zadokite priesthood in the post-Maccabean period. The Hasmoneans, with Seleucid patronage (Antiochus Epiphanes) took over the High Preisthood while the rightful Zadokites ‘seceded’ and set up alternative communities in Qumran, and soon after, under OniasIV a third temple was built in Egypt at Heliopolis. This third temple survived until 74CE. (There is every possibility that this is the region of Egypt to which Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus. How long they remained there is not disclosed). This could account for Jesus’ rejection of the authority of the Jerusalem priesthood and His view of the ‘apostate’ temple there.
Ultimately, Rabbinic Judaism is the inheritor of this lunar tradition. One thing is certain: there is no possibility of maintaining that Judaism through the ages is a single, monolithic entity. It has had its schisms and development of its ideas which have resulted in an actual history which is quite different to the biblical history we think we know.
The days, the seven day cycle, the seventh-day can not be derived from the lunar cycle. It derives from the sun. Only a lunatic could believe otherwise.
The Seventh-day Sabbath is not invented and seemlessly folded into scripture at a late date. That is truely lunacy.
That is what Mary implies. I’m double checking.
A weekly cycle cannot be determined by the sun. If you know how, please share. No need for “double checking” as I have reams of articles on the relationship between the moon and how Sabbath was originally determined. Why are there multiple texts with the “New Moon and Sabbath(s) in the Bible? Jewish historians (after all tey wrote the OT) relate how when the first new moon appeared in the sky, seven days later would be the Sabbath.
There were no calendars or watches and the Psalmist writes (Ps. 104) the signs in the sky were given for seasons. The sun was seen a a 24-hour cycle and the moon designated months, although like today, it is still not totally accurate and the Jewish calendar accounted for that every several years.
The former Egyptian slaves were illiterate and few people then could read (Moses, having been educated by the best in Egypt) was their natural born leader. They had to be ruled like children for at least 40 years. Even their ability with numbers was limited by their 20 digits seen, and multiples of that are seen throughout the Bible.
When you researched all available Jewish sources for Sabbath and Lunar, let us know.
Elaine, Seven days is entirely arbitrary. A single day is totally solar.
The moon has nothing to do with either.
Serge,
Jesus might have gone to this other temple instead of hanging about Jerusalem.
You ned to provide me scriptural references about Jesus believing the priesthood in Jerusalem was apostate.
Mr. Abbott,
I am not here to argue, just express the misunderstanding that occurred between the writer of the article and the Catholic priest. And I get my information about how the Jews believe about the history of the sabbath is from a personal friend of mine who is a Rabbi who resides Tel Aviv. He never said that the Jews changed the rest day, but rather that in various times of Israel’s history, they used a lunar and solar calendar. My understanding of the rabbi is that after the Babylonian captivity, the lunar sabbaths (new moon, waxing moon, full moon and waning moon–approximately every 7 days–they had two days that were not considered days of the month) slowly made way into the fixed weekly sabbath based upon the Roman calendar. That model works perfectly well in the Bible. Much better than other models. Blessings to you.
Mary,
I appreciate you sharing. It is not surprising when people disagree they want to argue. I hope I haven’t surprised you. I think your Rabbi friend represents a distinct minority in believing the Seventh-day Sabbath is post-Babylonian Captivity and is based on lunar obsessions.
Lunar cycles are twenty-nine and a half days long. After the full moon appears it immediately begins to wane. In fourteen or fifteen days it has finished waning and a new moon appears. I suppose it is roughly seven or almost eight days to a half-moon. Its a little like getting Cinderella’s step-sister’s foot into the glass slipper, don’t you think? A very weak correlation.
The creation story is very old. It mentions the seventh-day. The Exodus story is very old, it makes quite the big deal about the seventh-day Sabbath – the ten commandments and Sinai and all. It just strains credulity to imagine the Jews, who make such a big deal out of NOT worshiping the sun, moon and stars, to invent in Ezra’s time a seventh-day sabbath based on the lunar cycle.
And not to argue, but again, why has the Catholic church been so dead set against the Jewish Sabbath? Its obvious in Acts 21:20 the church in Jerusalem was all in for observing it.
I just noticed that Mr. Calahan said of the current Democratic nominee for President “She could be personified as one of the Whore’s Harlot’s of Rev. 17, and any voting for her are certainly supporting the Beast of Revelation. Fortunately she won’t prevail.”
I think it will be so interesting when the results of balloting by US voters in November elects Hillary Clinton as President of the United States by a wide margin in the Electoral College and probably in the popular vote as well since her Republican opponent seems already to be self-destructing because of his own almost daily over-the-top statements. When the US Presidential election is over, I trust that someone will remind Mr. Calahan that not only that his interpretation of Revelation is highly suspect but that his knowledge of United States politics appears to be also seriously deficient. I can’t wait for November.
And we have a prophet.
Some folks seem to have had their head in the GC and book of Revelation so long that when they come up for air all they can see are harlots and dragons all around. But maybe you’re hoping the orange-haired self trumpeter will hasten in the end as seen in those books.
There are only two individuals running for the office of president of the U.S. The person you choose to vote for tells much more about yourself than the person you vote for.
Thank you Ella for reminding us that there are wonderful Christians in Catholicism. And for stimulating the comments above that show there are still terrible bigots in Adventism! I realize that the reverse can also be true. Popes like John XII, Urban VI, and Leo X, are recognized as criminals. And I’d add Pius IX who was the pope of Ellen White’s lifetime to that list as well. He was a strong anti-Protestant, anti-Jewish, papal infallibility, Marian pope who kidnapped children into the Vatican. But do my 19th century Adventists every listen to their prophetess? I’m sure you know what she said, but it seems like Catholic haters missed the Adventist messages from God. Well here they are folks written about a church that at the time of writing had a very bad pope: EGW–““There are many among the Catholics who live up to the light they have far better than many who claim to believe present truth.…” and “A large number in the Catholic churches” are “more true to obey the light and to do to the very best of their knowledge than a large number among Sabbathkeeping Adventists who do not walk in the light.” There is one more that those who claim to be Adventists must read, but it’s more than 270 characters I have left, so skip on down to the next post……(to be continued)
Here Adventist listen to God’s Messenger to you:
EGW: This message must be given, but while it must be given, we should be careful not to thrust and crowd and condemn those who have not the light that we have. We should not go out of our way to make hard thrusts at the Catholics. Among the Catholics there are many who are most conscientious Christians, and who walk in all the light that shines upon them, and God will work in their behalf. Those who have had great privileges and opportunities, and who have failed to improve their physical, mental, and moral powers, but who have lived to please themselves, and have refused to bear their responsibility, are in greater danger and in greater condemnation before God than those who are in error upon doctrinal points, yet who seek to live to do good to others.”
You can’t be living to do good to others when you damn them out of hand for being “Catholics” or “Muslims” or “Liberals”. If Ellen White has no hold on your tongue, how about James 3″
“All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison [group criticism of any faith is poison.] With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings [Muslims, Catholics, Liberal SDAs], who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing? My brothers and sisters, this should not…
My life long Adventist mother, when dying in a Catholic hospital, was petrified that she would not be “saved”. A wonderful Catholic nun chaplain, visited her and assured her of her salvation, so she died peacefully.
I was raised with a very strong anti-Catholic bias. My little town where I grew up, had a walled, sequestered Carmelite Convent. The nuns were sworn to an oath of silence. They were never seen but did emerge on Election Day to cast their vote at the ballot box!
In my later years I have observed the similarities with the Catholics, in Adventism’s hierarchal structures.
We could not more perfectly emulate/duplicate the Church of “Babylon”,
when our esteemed leaders elevate ONE woman ( EGW=VIRGIN MARY)
to the highest pedestal/pinnacle, while all other women are decidedly
second class citizens!
Robin,
I think Adventists believe the Virgin Mary was chosen for a more exalted and important role than Mrs. White was.
Mother of God is hard to best.
My sentiments exactly! Babylon = False Worship. It’s not hard to figure out who people are worshipping, if you watch them long enough…
We usually do not see the harlots and dragons Elaine; only the results. Our choices always denote who we are and what we represent. In many cases we promote those without responsibility and accountability, actually arboring and sanctioning the evil within; without taking the responsibility and accountability for doing that ourselves.
Now we see the results in 2 Timothy 3:
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
HE came as a sword; not to bring peace. These are the members of our families, neighbors, communities and Countries; that we have all failed. These are our Loved ones; that we did not stand up to or for and continue to fail. We do not bring them to HIM, we lead them away as far away from HIM as we can. Why?
When do we consider the beam in our own eye, so that we might help others; and stop seducing HIS servants?
Dear Conviction, thank you for reprinting 2 Timothy. As I read your comments I suddenly realized it is a commentary on this years USA election: The Republican guy is in Bible Prophecy!
“lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud…unthankful, trucebreakers, false accusers…having a form of godliness…lead captive silly women…”
Nailed him!
I would contend in Simple Truth, are they both not?
i am non-political. i do not vote. Politics in the USA and globally, are totally without honor. The avarice of politicians has blinded them to moral ethics. They are drawn to the golden calf to suck dry the sustenance of the nation. With their insanity of jettisoning known Economic expertise, they have totally destroyed the Global economy. The idiotic printing of currencies, with nothing under girding them, creating now, over $200 trillion dollars of debt in the USA alone. They’ve cooked the books so incessantly for the past 20 years, they have no
concept of base zero. They are constantly replenishing the Big Banks, which are all totally
bankrupt, with derivatives of every possible store, stock, or source of value, hundreds of times, repackaging them, and kiting them to infinity. They have no way of solving the total mess they have created globally. All currencies have been kited to oblivion. They are robbing every person having bank deposits, by paying less approx. 1% annual interest for the past ten years. The fiasco was purposely orchestrated by the Central Banks of the world, and will
shortly collapse, and the result engineered, accomplished. There will be a One World currency issued, by the great Mother Bank of the Central Banks, through their surrogate, the
United Nations. It will be, totally, a digital currency, controlled from one single source.
( continued ).
Continuing>>>> All assets of value of individuals will be given credit in their personal accounts, at a transference rate determined by the Mother Banks decision. Each person must have an account computer chip credit card, implanted computer chip in their body, and or by
scanning of the eyes, in order to access their account. And anyone not having an account will not be able to buy or sell, globally. Following on, a One Word political system will be implemented. Every single soul will be documented, and given orders, which must be followed, on pain of incarceration, or…………….. The Elite Global Masters will control every
possible spoken word or movement of every single person, with your neighbors ratting on you, as was the case of the Staci in East Germany following WWII. The ungodly Elite, have
no consciousness of pain and suffering of others (as did the NAZI’s and BOLSHEVIKS).
The Elitists and Environmentalists are uptight because their are too many people on Earth, squandering the resources, and invading wilderness regions, which they wish to restore.
Those in command estimate the world needs to act on the global population, and the suggested total desired will be ONE – TWO BILLION PEOPLE???? (CONTINUED>>>>>>
Now back to the upcoming National Election in Nov/16. The election for POTUS is between two very undesirable nominees, according to the Nations media. One a very outspoken opinionated positive man, a showman, a very wealthy dynasty building, family oriented
individual who is always correct, who believes he only can solve the Nations problems, because he never gives up. He employs thousands of people, mostly in the white collar
area, and construction areas. He of course, if elected, would as has every Potus, would
utilize the best talent available, to achieve his goal of making America great again.
As to Hilary Clinton, i have followed the Clintons since the Clinton governorship in Arkansas.
Hillary was with a Law firm in Little Rock that had problems. There was a fraudulent Real Estate venture named White Water, that a lawyer named Warren Hubbel, went to prison for, Supposedly Hilary, with some interest in White Water, was not prosecuted. Then there was a man named Vince Foster, who with his wife, were close friends with the Clintons, who Arkansas State Policemen stated Hilary and Vince had an ongoing affair while in Arkansas. Bill Clinton brought Vince Foster to Washington, and gave him a cabinet position. Supposedly Hilary and Vince continued their closeness. One morning, Vince Foster was found in a nearby park, a supposed suicide. There was a question he was murdered.
Continued>>>>>>
Vince Foster was Deputy White House Counsel which is not a cabinet office
Continued>>>>> When the Clintons left the White House, they were said to have taken a great amount of articles and furniture that was Federal Property, which they had to return.
Hillary, as Secretary of State, was accused of using her private Email account for thousands of classified documents, and business of State, instead of the encrypted Government method. There is evidence that some of the classified documents were hacked from her private Email account. The Benghazi fiasco where the USA Consul and bodyguards were
murdered, because the US State Department, of which Hillary was Sec. of State, did not respond to a plea for help, from the Consul. It appears that Hillary’s strategy as Sec. of State
was a total disaster. The FBI’S Director, Carmey, states on TV, that Hillary’s testimony was
not truthful, but he would not prosecute. Hillary has been a liar, par excellence, her whole public life, but being an insider, has never had to answer for it.
And the people of the USA want to make her the President of the United States???? Should
Hillary Clinton be elected to the Top Political Office in the World, God help the careless,
pathetic, and acquiescent sheeple of the late great USA.
Erwin, i know your usual retort, but please refute any of this comment you wish. How can a Christian possibly vote for Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.
My, my, my. Mr. Calahan would seem to be believer in all kinds of grand conspiracy theories.
A serious question is why certain groups or classes of Americans seem to be attracted to multiple conspiracy scenarios? I suspect that this is not a characteristic of the general population in Europe. However, in both the U.S. and Europe, it might be that the conspiracy minded are attracted to traditional Adventist eschatological scenarios that have you-know-which religious organization at the center of a grand conspiracy to do all kinds of bad things.
As for Christians voting for Hillary Clinton, I suspect that many dedicated American Christians will exercise their voting franchise to make sure that her opponent, who really does not represent the political values of the major American political parties–Republican or Democrat–will be completely repudiated as a clear and present danger to American democracy. His political values seem more oriented to classic 1930s fascism of the Mussolini type. (The Hitler analogy works in some cases to explain him, but not in all cases.) He is the type of person that both Plato and the American Founding Fathers warned us about.
When he is soundly defeated, anyone who cares about the political stability of the United States can breath a sigh of relief. Although I’m not a Republican, I hope that this will a good lesson for the sane parts of that political party and they can regain control of their nominating process for POTUS in 2020.
The Adventist church was born from conspiracy accusations indicting Catholicism as the mother of all evils. It should not be a surprise that there are few if any other Christian denominations are so suspicious of every move made by the Pope. Even when he proclaims move love and tolerance, there is doubt that he means it and is only playing for time.
This suspicious attitude has invaded the church from its beginning: distrustful of other Christian believers; even distrustful of of other members. There is no more effective method to drive the thoughtful person from the church. But that seems to make no difference as it is interpreted as a “sign of the times” that the “love of many shall wax cold” and there will be a falling away. And there’s always an appropriate scripture or SOP to quote to support such suppositions.
Can Mrs Nelson perhaps show where Adventists have said that “Catholicism as the mother of all evils.”
If Mrs Nelson can’t then one can see that these are false charges being used to discredit Adventism. All these are liberal tactics used as propoganda to incite hostility towards traditional Adventism.
It is difficult to trace any Adventist hostilities toward Catholicism to specific chapter and verse of doctrinal teachings, but only because the church has always been very ‘politically correct’ and ambiguous about it. BUT, we have all sat in lectures, classes, and sermons where the Pope was identified as the antichrist (not biblical), and the Catholic Church as Babylon (also not biblical). Adventism has pointed to Catholicism as the power behind the feared ‘Sunday laws’, and gone so far as to identify such as the ‘Mark of the Beast’.
I have been horrified on one such occasion, as I convinced a Catholic friend to attend church with me, only to have their way of life berated and criticized from the pulpit. Are we too selfish to believe that others can worship God too? Or that we can worship Him 7 days a week? Why do we have to put others down so that we can feel elevated? That is certainly not speaking in love.
The facts are that Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple, since it’s purpose was fulfilled, and told the woman at the well that His followers would worship Him in their hearts and minds (thoughts and actions). Yes, Paul encourages the Hebrews to continue to meet together to ‘encourage and uplift’ each other, but nowhere in Scripture do I find a command to come together in corporate “worship” on the Sabbath. Indeed, the worship God finds acceptable (according to David in Psalm 51) is a ‘broken and contrite heart’ – of which in my nearly 50 years as an Adventist I saw pitifully few. Never in Scripture does it refer to the singing of hymns or recitation (or even memorization) of Scripture as “worship”.
I worship something or someone by emulating them, not just singing about them, or quoting what they have said. The Law Jesus lived by was the Law He quoted in John 13:34-35. He loved. He served. He put all of humanity before Himself. He did not judge (John 12:47-48).
I find it despicable that those who would represent Jesus to the world would attempt to force upon others (His Children all are we) their understanding of the “Law”; and their manner of “worship”; yet not live as He lived!
Stop representing to others that we are holy or righteous in and of ourselves; because of our knowledge or our works; and start acknowledging the Reason we can be found guiltless – only because of our Love for Him! Then maybe He can be glorified in us, and others may see…
If we follow the various comments above, we see that some hold their political party in the highest esteem. I suspect for some it is over and above any biblical conviction of good and evil. So their “party” is the “cult” they cling to as their savior and the savior of the world.
Calahan made viable comments about the total corruption of the politics in modern America. These evil and wicked politicians created the fiasco we now have in the USA and those who created the problem will by no means solve the problems they have created.
Neither will they admit they are the ones who created the problem. They may well blame each other, but in the end, they are like “twin sisters, back to back.”
To defend either candidate is absurd beyond any rational or objective evaluation.
As one political observer stated, “A petulant man child, against a blatant liar.”
Good luck choosing the “lesser of two evils.”
Mr Sorensen is quite right. Political correctnees and dodgy dominant cultural norms play a huge part in how liberals read and understand the Bible. They look at the Bible through dominant cultural lenses.
It reminds me of the election of 1976. When I asked my grandfather who he would vote for, he stated that it was a choice between Satan and one of Satan’s angels. So he had to do the right thing and vote for Satan’s angel. I asked if that would be Carter. He emphatically replied, “No, it’s Ford, of course.”
Ted,
That’s funny. My grandfather’s grandfather – a Union war veteran and lay preacher, reputedly told my grandfather; while it was true all Democrats were not horse thieves, it was also true all horse thieves were Democrats.
My good friend Nate suggested that I am obsessed with the comments of Mr. Sorenson on the AT web site. I plead guilty. My defense is that am attempting to help Mr. S to see the Light and open the door to Truth.
For example, several days ago, he posted yet another of his “special” ideas: [F]or a true SDA, there is no doubt of Papal authority eventually rising to the top eventually. Probably sooner than we think.”
I have been trying to think of an appropriate helpful comment concerning this statement. I first thought of “Balderdash.” But that’s not a helpful reaction. Then I thought that perhaps “Utter rubbish” might make the grade. But upon further reflection, that also would be of no help to Mr. Sorenson.
I am stumped. What kind of reaction would help Mr. Sorenson to “see the Light of Reason and Rationality and open the door to Reliable Truth?”
Suggestions solicited.
Erv,
You must appeal to authority. What authorities does Bill Sorensen heed in the search for truth? And what authorities do you respect?
It always boils down to a question of authority.
Maybe you can ask Bill if he has conducted an experiment to ‘prove’ this truth about the pope. That would appeal to you, but Bill might say, um, ‘balderdash’. Or you could ask him to, ‘show me in the bible.’ Or even, ‘Where did Mrs. White say that?’
You could also quote Pilate and ask him, ‘what is truth?’
I’m afraid without establishing a common agreement on the authoritative basis of ‘truth.’ You will be stuck with Bill Sorensen in the sticky wicket. Balderdash it! Sticky wickets are the ruin of the game.
May I suggest that Mr. Abbott has raised a valid point. Differences of opinion, especially in theology, do indeed seem to often result from disagreements about what constitutes a reliable and relevant source of authority. In many cases, even if we can agree on using a common source of authority, we can’t agree on how to interpret the statements derived from that authority. Also, there often additional disagreements about what types of issues a particular source of authority can legitimately be used to adjudicate. I assume that we would all agree that this is the principal reason why there are so many different interpretations of the biblical texts and why there are literally hundreds of different churches, many which state that they are interpreting the bible correctly on this point and that point that is in dispute.
Brother Ervin, when I read that paragraph, I was struck by the ”perhaps sooner than you’d think’ part. I thought to ask Bill what he means by that? Is his use of ‘sooner’ in this 21st century context any different to EGW use of it in the 19th? On what basis does he make this assessment of ‘soon-ness?’ Is this rational?
As for myself, I have no fear of brother Pope. Even if he were inclined to do the dastardly things which Bill and Ellen predict for those who will not bow the knee to Baal, so what? ‘Fear not them that destroy the body’ is what Jesus said, to those who are alive to God through the Spirit. Bill might want us all to be fearful as he may be, otherwise, why would be raise the spectre of fear of the pope? If he is not ‘fearful,’ why bother with the word ‘soon?’
Obviously, Erv, your comment about helping Bill Sorensen to see the light was very tongue-in-cheek. You know well that pejorative descriptives are of no persuasive value, except as they serve to shame the insecure and weak-minded into joining the herd. You may have a low opinion of Bill’s intelligence, but he is certainly not weak-minded.
More importantly, you haven’t addressed what it is about Sorensen’s comments on this thread that warrant censorship. You can easily argue that ideas expressed on this website are nonsense without threatening censorship or suggesting that the person expressing those ideas be banned from commenting.
The comment in question dealt with the ubiquitous hairy hidden hand of the Pope manipulating end time events. You feel strongly that it is an absurd idea. I don’t think it is plausible right now, but it may well become plausible as world events unfold. I am quite open to the possibility that different world powers throughout history have filled, and will fill, the role of the antiChrist of Revelation, including the RCC.
Can’t one reject the contemporary application of traditional Adventist eschatology, without belittling and berating those who subscribe to it?
“Obviously, Erv, your comment about helping Bill Sorensen to see the light was very tongue-in-cheek. You know well that pejorative descriptives are of no persuasive value, except as they serve to shame the insecure and weak-minded into joining the herd. You may have a low opinion of Bill’s intelligence, but he is certainly not weak-minded.”
Wow, Nathan, pretty cool to find yourself the subject of a discussion. We all have an “identity crisis” that sin has created, and sometimes, that people will even acknowledge that you exist makes us think we may have some value after all.
In my opinion, Dr. Taylor doesn’t believe the bible. In which case, any “evidence” I would gender for what I believe would have no weight with him. But apart from the bible, it would seem there is at least some likelihood for Rome’s ascending to a more than incidental influence in the world.
Would Dr. Taylor simply ignore all the moves the Pope is making in the world on many levels of influence? I don’t think a person would have to be a “rocket scientist” in intelligence to at least consider some viable speculation of how Rome may well play a very significant role in world.
I may suggest that at least some would like to put their “head in the sand” and pretend there is no possibility of this being a reality. In which case, “Mr. Nice Guy” the Pope, is happy to have people think like Dr. Taylor.
But thanks for considering my possible value.
By the way, like some others, I have been “banned” here and there by various SDA forums. The latest being Fulcrum 7 who is by some people’s opinion, a “hyper conservative” forum.
If we are all really honest, we will admit that on every forum there are opinions we agree with and opinions we don’t. Some people are rather docile in their disagreements, and others become pretty testy in defense of their own convictions. And both types may well have equally strong convictions of what they believe is truth.
On some level, we look for the non-committed to persuade to embrace our view what we believe is the right one. And of course, what often seems like a vain hope that some who hold views contrary to our own may actually “see the light” and change their mind.
I try to be open to persuasion, but am fully aware that such is not likely. And I know that works both ways. But I hang in there, remembering that Paul was an avid enemy of the Christian faith, and God “knocked him off his horse” and brought him to his senses and he was perhaps the greatest hero of the Christian faith, at least in his day.
People with strong convictions like Paul and Luther are often the most useful in a controversy between truth and error.
If I am banned, I just move on. I have many other things to do to “be about my Father’s business.”
I understand the bible, I understand EGW, and I understand the historic SDA faith. They are all one and the same thing.
Bill,
You have touched on the essential problem: Our status, or ‘value’ as you put it. Our identity crises. Our inferiority complexes. Our worth.
What status is there in living and believing a lie? We have to be right/true or we have no value. Even Bugs, who knows it doesn’t matter, plays contemptor to all who would think him false. Our arguments are usually crafted, not to persuade, but to defend. We are fundamentally insecure in our status.
The story of Jesus is transformative. In his Divinity, Death and Resurrection we believe our value is established precisely because He values us. We have to embrace our total inferiority, to renounce any intrinsic status, to have a portion in Him: We embrace His death – to have a part in is resurrection. We join ourselves to His suffering – to have a part in His joy. ALL our value has to devolve on us through His superior status and value. We are worms in and of our selves.
Each of us has believed the lie, each of us has chosen disobedience and death, each of us has divorced himself from God. We have the earned status of a dead man – a truly hopeless status.
Believing in the Seventh-day Adventist Church or the Roman Catholic Church or believing in Science all are misplaced faiths. Let’s believe in Jesus Christ, follow others only as they follow Him. Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 1 Cor 11:1
Thanks for your comment, and I agree in substance with this exception to what you said,
“Each of us has believed the lie, each of us has chosen disobedience and death, each of us has divorced himself from God. We have the earned status of a dead man – a truly hopeless status.”
It was Adam who “divorced us from God” and we act accordingly until and unless we are reunited to Christ. I think this is the important factor that validates the doctrine of original sin that so many reject, especially hyper-conservatives.
So until we are “born again” in Christ, we remain “the children of wrath, even as others.” This is no small issue and a major theme of the bible concerning sin and redemption.
Some think the death of Christ has automatically re-joined the whole human family to God. NOT. Christ’s death is provisional, and “Whosoever will may come.” And this is the basic difference in how we are lost by Adam’s choice and not our own, but saved by our own choice to accept the provision God has made for lost sinful people who are born under the wrath of God. Rom. 5
And this issue has created the basic argument in the SDA church over the doctrine of original sin and how it is applied by both liberal and conservative elements in the church. The spiritual war between Dr. Ford and his followers vs. men like Dennis Priebe and Kevin Paulson who support all opposition to any application of the doctrine of original sin and deny the doctrine.
Bill,
I completely agree. But I have validated original sin in my own disobedience and unbelief. I know I was born this way, but I willfully sin.
I do not have anymore excuse than Adam and Eve. I can’t blame my parents for my sinful acts; just my sinful nature.
Dr Taylor
Ellen White wrote that Protestant America would reach over the abyss to join hands with Rome. The pope’s recent invitation to address the US Congress is quite significant and in line with her writings – don’t you think? Not forgetting Bishop Tony Palmer’s pact with Kenneth Copeland on behalf of Pope Francis. These a factual observed occurances and not conspiracy theories.
“Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul, and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of Spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of Spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience.” (THE GREAT CONTROVERSY 1888, PAGE 588)
Respectfully, Mr. Taylor, I have never seen anyone in any condition, “helped” by callous accusations, rhetoric, and whatever one’s rendition of “truth” being shoved down their throat without so much as a ‘spoonful of sugar’; but unquestionably that seems to be the preferred method of many Adventist “evangelists”and prostelytizers.
The Truth, my friend, is self-evident, Jesus does not need us to beat someone about the head and shoulders with “love”, that kind of “love” we can do without. He asks us simply to treat them how we would like to be treated. It seems also that we feel exempted from that request if we are “right”. The church has driven countless souls away from their doors in this manner, still seeking Jesus – and some convinced by our actions that He does not even exist, or does not care.
I suggest a new look at what unconditional love really means. Jesus will never speak to someone in a manner that is belittling or demeaning, He will never accuse or scold. Why? Because, first and foremost, He loves us / created us / died for us, and even if in the end we choose to turn and walk away from those nail scarred hands, He will love us for eternity. If we treat someone in a manner that is different from that, for any reason including their “religious” beliefs, we are profaning His very existence. Common thought, however, for a church lately. If church signs were truthful, they’d say “Jesus loves you! We’re…not so sure…”
I guess I’m going to have to ask Nate the same question that I had asked another on this thread. I would be beholden to Nate for pointing out to me where I advocated in a text posted on the AT website that Mr. Sorensen be banned or his comments censored. I said he was working to get himself banned. That’s quite different. (That does not mean that I would not be interested in discussing this with those responsible for administering the AT website. how to deal with certain problems.)
Also, I have obviously strongly disagreed with many ideas posted here, but I can’t recall ever having “belittled and berated” anyone. Again, if Nate would do me the favor of citing where I have done that, I would very much appreciate having any such comment pointed out to me.
As for the “ubiquitous (!?) hairy (!!??) hidden hand of the Pope,” I am gratified that Nate does not think it is plausible right now. I concur that it is an absurd idea. As for the future, I suppose if we project forward a dozen or more lifetimes, then we might imagine all sorts of scenarios.
Dear Dr Taylor
By saying “he was working to get himself banned” is a nod to incite others (and the powers that be) to call for a ban on Mr Sorensen. I wouldn’t have expected it from you after all – but since you say that’s not what you meant I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. From my previous first hand experience on these boards where I suffered a similar fate at the hands of liberals, who specialise in trumping up charges against traditional Adventists to get them banned, I was quietly silenced. The next time they tried this stunt I was fortunate enough to have Mr Schilt and Mr S. Foster question a call to have me banned without cause. Not surprisingly, there is a side to liberals that is intolorant, vindictive and fundamentalist in many ways. I do have a witness to my experience on these boards (besides God of course) who became a good friend over the years although we haven’t met personally. His first language isn’t English (or American) but when he posted here some liberals insulted and eventually banned him. He preaches the third angels message over radio in a country where Christians are heavily persecuted – yet he suffered persecution right here at the hands of liberals.
Irv is not the one that started the talk about banishing Bill Sorenson; it was Loren Seibold on the Madison Avenue pastor thread, to my recollection. I’ not sure why Erv is getting all the heat.
Trevor, FYI, “conservatives” can be and vindictive when it comes to banishing people. It’s not only moderators. One individual in particular, a well known sinless perfectionist, has been very vocal and unapologetic about wanting another poster banned, definitely over theological disagreement.
I wanted people banned myself, before I learned to ignore them and got a better grasp of the nature of these websites. The old AOL chat rooms had an “ignore” feature which would make whoever you wanted disappear. Offensive racist remarks, and possibly offensive [to the recipient] sexual harassment could also get people kicked out of the chat rooms.
I’ve read nothing that Bill has said that even approaches the level of disrespect that would merit banishment.
Years ago David Larson warned a poster who was maliciously and personally attacking Dr. Maxwell on another website. That poster soon disappeared
Two top executive positions at AToday are now occupied by two lifelong denominational employees. I don’t recall talk of banishment before. Probably just a coincidence; another poster who wanted people’s head on a pole was also a former pastor.
Correction.clarification: Erv, not Irv. The sinless perfectionist I referred to was not on this website
I received a rather “nasty” and accusatory email from a moderator from this website several years ago. That person is gone now. At the time, I just ignored him/her and took my “business” elsewhere.
” I just ignored him/her and took my “business” elsewhere.”
And this is all anyone can do, Glen. We must acknowledge that any forum has a right to define itself and its mission. It also has a right to ban anyone they want to for no reason at all if they so wish.
No one has any “rights” on any private forum and the forum belongs to who ever owns it. If you have a private meeting in your home, you can ban anyone you want from coming to your meeting.
You don’t “join” a forum, like you do a church community. But because of this qualification, a form will naturally tend to gather a bunch of “me too” supporters and comments will reflect the over all spirituality supported by the forum itself and those who “run” it.
I do think Atoday like ADvindicate has moved to a more open dialogue than would have been tolerated in the past. This is necessary and if not, it simply becomes some “cult” ministry to patronize its supporters who give each other massive doses of affirmation of their ultimate validity in opposition to any and all challenge to whatever spirituality they have embraced and endorsed.
Toleration is not a by word on Spectrum or Fulcrum 7. Each has their own agenda with no toleration for any opposition to their own views of spiritual matters. But once again, this is their right and to complain is silly.
To identify this fact is helpful, but to oppose it is useless.
I appreciate Mr. Hammond giving me the benefit of the doubt on this matter.
It would seem to me to be a very interesting case study to assemble the facts — repeat– the facts behind the statement of Mr. Hammond about “liberals who specialize in trumping up charges against traditional Adventists to get them banned.” Since Mr. Hammond said that this banning or silencing was done to him, I would assume that he would be able to assemble the facts from his perspective. If he would see fit to do this and email his set of facts to me at erv.taylor@atoday.org I will be happy to investigate his allegation. The reason is that if an Adventist liberal did what Mr. Hammond stated he did, and there are no additional set of facts that would provide to a disinterested observer provide another perspective as to what actually happened, it seems that such an action should be reported. But first, let’s get the facts.
The Truths are simple. You wish to be GOD; yet plead discrimination. You wish to be judge, jury and executioner; yet represent no one. Then plead precedence of standing; without standing of precedence.
The 18 million in the Denomination cannot spread their message, so they need you to solicit from charity and in name? Then change the message in delivery by self assumptions; removing the intent by name? Then consider it charity in any concept and your ownership?
While you create new policies and procedures, without submitting them to the IRS Exempt Organizations for review; for verification of the privilege to solicit and receipt donations? While the rest of us understand the requirements and are trying to keep you exempt; representing the voice of the Church and Stewardship in such?
Monte would be the responsible and accountable executive here; by the boards choice. Should he not investigate; protecting you and all of us by removing such conflicts of interest?
Especially in Love, should we not state; go create your own religion, get a job and pay for your own ideologies or at least stop bulling others and pooling in such? Should you not see the Love, tolerance and patience extended by others. Are you not your own proof and witness (but HE and we still Love you very, very, very much).
Like you, Erv, I take a dim view of conspiracy theories. I just think birds of a feather tend to flock together. While I don’t see “Sunday laws” on the horizon, and I don’t see the Pope manipulating world affairs, it is naive to think that it would take several lifetimes for the world to be a radically different different place when it comes to religious liberty. Political liberty, of which religious liberty is a sub-category, is a historical aberration. The West is already jettisoning religious liberty in favor of other politically favored rights.
I don’t see how anyone can look back over the past hundred years, and think it absurd to envision Biblical end time events within our lifetime. In fact, I believe such events are highly probable. I also believe that religious authorities will infuse secular materialism with the energy it needs to pursue its assault on Christianity. A highly politicized Pope could easily be such an agency, without manipulating geopolitical levers. It is certain that the Druids of materialistic secularism see the Pope as a “useful idiot” to advance their assault on freedom, and he has proven a willing tool.
But I don’t see Sunday laws being an issue in the foreseeable future. I don’t think Sunday laws are an essential or likely ingredient of end time events. I do, however, see the Sabbath as a very significant symbolic aspect of end time events, which I will elaborate below.
Interesting comments, Nathan. But raising so many questions too.
You say it is reasonable to see Biblical end-time events fulfilling in our lifetime. Then you say, ‘I also believe that religious authorities will infuse secular materialism with the energy it needs to pursue its assault on Christianity.’ Just wondering…. what do you mean by ‘religious authorities?’ Are they Western hemisphere, and therefore likely to be Christian, at least in name? Are they seriously embarked on a course of assaulting Christianity? Is this an institutional suicide, or are you describing a conspiracy of your own? ie, has Christianity turned on itself, or have ‘Druid secularists’ taken over Christian institutions and they lead the ‘self-destruct’ activity?
Which leads to part II. If Druids of secularism (I love that term btw, but keep in mind that Druids were/are very ‘religious’) have now become the arch-enemy of true Christianity, and the Pope is merely of ‘useful idiot’ status, how does this qualify as ‘Biblical end-time events?’ This is a world away from SDA, and other Protestant, eschatology. Perhaps you have a new interpretation of Daniel & Revelation which we all should hear? Or …….. ?
I find it shameful and scary that Adventist speculation of End Time Events (be they from Marvin Moore, Walter Veith, or whoever they can be traced back to) has become accepted as fact and prophecy. I submit to you that humans can be wrong, unintentionally and intentionally. Speculation is speculation. We spend so much time looking for the “conspiracy theories” or spreading them, that we miss the signs in front of our faces!
In the beginning we were created in whose image? God’s. (Gen. 1:26) When we sinned, fruit from the tree, original sin (selfishness); we were no representative of the image of God, but of the original sinner, Lucifer – whose original sin in heaven was just that, selfishness. (Isaiah 14:13-14) In looking at Christ’s command to us “love one another” (John 13:34), we see that the opposite of unconditional love for one another is selfishness, or love of self. It is easy to see who one loves by who they worship. If we love God, we worship Him (Psalm 51:17, John 4:23-24); if we love self, we worship self.
Are we not, then, at this very moment, “worshipping the image of the beast”?
If the mark of Christ (John 13:34-35) is unconditional love for one another, is not, by default, the mark of the beast love of self? Both very noticeable, in our thoughts and actions (hand and forehead). The opposite of love is not hate. It is apathy.
Don’t re-write what God preserved for thousands of years, just read it.
When the Adventist church began there was already anti-Catholic sentiment here in the U.S. Much originated in England several hundred years earlier when England turned to Protestantism and popery was preached against.
Today, the former fears about a Catholic and Protestant uniting which seemed possible more than 100 years ago cannot still hold such foreboding. More are atheists and agnostics (something people did not dare admit then) and have no interest in religions, and are far more open to all kinds of religious and non-religious beliefs. Where would support be found to enact the laws foretold by the church’s prophet? What appeared possible then seems much ado about nothing for today’s world.
Adventists cannot afford to live in the past. The much higher level of education in the general population of the western nations are far more questioning and far less gullible to follow religious leaders who talk of fear. The old ways are not working and unless and until there arises a spokesperson unlike the church’s present one who will have a different message, there will continue to be higher attrition rates among these countries.
I wonder if Nate could please expand on his comment that “it is certain that the Druids of materialistic secularism see the Pope as a “useful idiot” to advance their assault on freedom, and he has proven a willing tool.” As I recall, “useful idiot” was a term used, was it, by Lenin? What pray tell would be examples, in your view, of “their assault on freedom.” Would that perhaps being able to burn unlimited amounts of coal or other fossil fuels? Or perhaps requiring the labeling of amount of calories in soft drinks? Or perhaps, prohibiting the possession of a military type assault weapon and being able to purchase an unlimited amount of ammunition? Or perhaps, telling investment banks that they can not speculate with other people’s money? Would all of these be examples of “assaulting your freedom”?
Actually, Erv, I was not thinking of any of the things you mentioned. The background for my observation was many things. It consists of folks who are being prosecuted around40% the world for hate speech and thought crimes; it is the fact that gay rights and reproductive rights now trump freedom of religion in this country; it is the fact that microaggressions and nanoaggressions are actually taken seriously by cultural elites, who are contemptuous of those who take Christianity seriously; it is the fact that recent polls suggest that a large percentage of people throughout the Western world (40% of millennials in the U.S.) believe the government should have the power to prevent its citizens from using offensive speech; it is the fact that Americans seem to have lost sight of the fact that there are natural God-given rights, in favor of the notion that there are only human rights bestowed and restricted by government to achieve justice.
The right to discriminate – to say and practice, even in the civic arena, what some will find offensive – is at the heart of liberty. Moralistic states, whether they are secular or religious, are the enemies of religious liberty. Having turned their backs on traditional sources of moral authority, the Druids of secularism, have been forced to invent their own morality. And that morality finds its meaning and purpose in umdermining and suppressing competing moral authorities, the most dangerous of which is Christianity.
Erv, you will not find me to be a strong advocate for corporate welfare or economic liberty per se – at least not on religious liberty grounds. Natural rights and freedoms flow from the libertarian conviction that I own me. I am my own property. If that is true, then it follows that my faculties belong to me, and no one has the right to commandeer those faculties for a greater good without my consent. In general, that’s called slavery. You have no difficulty, Erv, seeing religious busybodies as threats to freedom of conscience. How is it that you can be so blind to the threat that moralistic political leaders pose to freedom of conscience when they use the power of government to enforce their moral agenda?
Regarding the issue of original sin. The original sinner was Lucifer and his horde, the first Adam was second in line. Eve has been used as a scape goat, and pariah, because the fundamental man was the physical brute who ran the show, because of His brawn. The original scribes were told what to write. The issue was false HEADSHIP. The Mother has been condemned, vilified, and made a spectacle of disrepute for over 4ooo years. Enough, enough, Rise up O’ Mother, and stand regally in your reconciliation and redemption.
2 Peter 2:4 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;” Doesn’t sound like that sinful rebellion was successful and turned out pretty painful; yet you propose another rebellion?
1 Timothy 2:14 “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Eve was a scapegoat? Was it because of the deceit or the transgression? Sounds to me like the commanded headship was put into place to correct this issue. Yet you wish to change that?
1 Corinthians 14:37 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” State and mean verses 34 and 35 right above this and prove you are Spiritual. I’ll include them to make it easy for you to cut and paste:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Isaiah 32:
8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
9 Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless daughters; give ear unto my speech.
10 Many days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women: for the vintage shall fail, the gathering shall not…
Nathan,
You wrote: “Natural rights and freedoms flow from the libertarian conviction that I own me. I am my own property. If that is true, then it follows that my faculties belong to me, and no one has the right to commandeer those faculties for a greater good without my consent.”
I read that yesterday and didn’t want to try a ‘thumb post’ from the phone. Subtly, that particular idea, (I won’t call it your idea), leads to chains, not liberty.
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
What is wrong with President Obama’s famous or rather infamous statement: “You didn’t build that”? It is true enough. No one builds in a vacuum. You do not give birth to yourself. Any enterprise worthy of the name is a cooperative, complex, endeavor, in which customers, family, employees, and government all play important and necessary roles. I have wished Obama had been talking to a farmer instead. If the president said to him; “You didn’t grow that.” The farmer might immediately say, “I know that, but the risk was mine alone.” It is a simpler model.
The Declaration of Independence says: “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with Certain unalienable Rights” “life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness”
cont.
Nathan, cont.
The idea that ‘we own ourselves’ is radically autonomous. The idea that a woman owns her body inviolate and therefore has a right to willfully terminate any pregnancy, without any regard to the wishes of the father or her parents or any regard for the living unknown potential person growing inside her is rooted in this sort of autonomy. The jurisprudence of Obergefell is rooted in the idea everyone has an inalienable right to define themselves.
Our inalienable rights derive from God, they are a gift to us, that no man or government ought to take. “Owning ourselves” is posited as an intrinsic state and and that is why, as you note, liberty is so rarely observed in man’s sad history. “owning ourselves” is unnatural and false.
The farmer who ‘didn’t grow that’ or the entrepreneur who ‘didn’t build that’ are stewards, who in a sense don’t own anything. It is in private stewardship to God that men must be at liberty. The parable of the talents is a story about risk-taking. We have to leave other men free to serve, because they belong to God, not because we all own ourselves.
Only in notions of stewardship can the ‘private’ realm can conceptually exist – for long.
Nietsche’s herd or tribe will always win out. God proposes to make us a tribe of ‘priests & kings’. True priests and kings are the servants of all and stewards answering privately to the Most High God.
I understand what you are saying, William. One of the problems with written dialogue is that it is not instantaneous, and does not move quickly to the higher levels of abstraction and nuance needed to produce clarity.
I did not mean to make a radically individualistic statement. By nature, individuals exist in and need community. But the concept of individual liberty suggests that those communities need to be formed voluntarily, through explicit and implicit contracts and covenants between the people living in relationships and settings where communal rules are perceived as necessary. This is where John Rawls started. But of course he got it very wrong by failing to understand human nature and failing to understand that humans don’t, can’t and shouldn’t form communal relationships behind a veil of ignorance.
If the primacy of personal liberty is respected, as communal rules are formed, we will certainly not avoid conflict, much less find utopia. But we will as a society be more mindful of the need to protect intermediary, voluntary, local associations like family, church, school, and community. These institutions create and preserve pre-legal sources of moral authority that constitute guard rails protecting us from the extremes of anarchy and despotism, which give rise to reactionary forces that quench freedom and crush human creativity.
This is a long conversation. But I just wanted to clarify that I am not phiosophically a radical individualist.
Nathan,
I explicitly said, “I do not call it your idea” I am confident you are not a radical individualist.
I would say legal sources of moral authority are going to be reduced to brute force if we forget ‘Law’ is not a human contrivance. Our ‘law’ has to be based on something bigger than utility. ‘…as communal rules are formed…’ they will be a reflection of our communal identity. God help the minorities who imagine no man owns himself. They will be outcasts, enemies of the common good.
I did remember after I wrote that piece this morning: The LORD God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness:..
We must be free – so we can serve Him.
i certainly have a Christian world view, William. I understand who I am in relation to God. I know, in that frame of reference I am not my own; I was “bought with a price.” But this reality is hardly is a foundation for good government by consent of the governed. Private property rights, personal liberty and natural rights all flow from the conviction that it is immoral to coerce individuals or their conduct except by their consent or for the protection of the community. When I said “I own myself,” I meant that no one else (no earthly authority) has a prior moral claim to use me or my faculties for a supposed greater good.
Nathan,
Where does the conviction it is immoral to coerce others arise from? How is that conviction maintained? We derive it collectively from our shared ontology.
When I said “I own myself,” I meant that no one else (no earthly authority) has a prior moral claim to use me or my faculties for a supposed greater good.
George Washington hung deserters unsparingly and he slept well too. I’m by law compelled incessantly to use my faculties for the greater good. I suppose I might not agree but I’ll go to jail if I resist. I don’t think they will hang me. Geo. Washington said: the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Freedom and liberty have to be grounded in something more substantial than the consent of the governed. We might like to imagine our government can avoid tyranny while pretending God doesn’t exist. I don’t see how.
John Adams said:“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
You’re trying really hard to disagree with me, William, but you aren’t doing a very good job. Yoi obviously have misinterpreted what I intended to convey. I agree with everything you have said, and don’t think anything I have said is inconsistent. You are just seeing the issue from a different angle.
If freedom and liberty were grounded only in the consent of the governed, then tyranny, with the consent of the governed would be moral. It is not. I believe Jefferson said, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty. The hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin, them.” God’s laws – both natural and moral – precede even the individual. The individual cannot be truly autonomous apart from surrender to those laws. I am conservative – not libertarian. I’m not sure how you can counter the evil notion that the individual exists for the good of the state without a somewhat radical starting point of individualism, to which you are prepared to grant exceptions and conditions. That is all I was trying to do.
Nathan,
OK, argument over.
I’m not sure how you can counter the evil notion that the individual exists for the good of the state without a somewhat radical starting point of individualism, to which you are prepared to grant exceptions and conditions.
I don’t like the, ‘somewhat radical starting point of individualism’ but I guess I don’t disagree. I just want it clearly stated the individual doesn’t exist for himself.
This above all, to thine own self be true,thou canst then be true to any man!!
Earl,
Voltaire (1694-1778) is reported to have said to his mistress, Marguerite, “Whatever you do, don’t tell the servants there is no God or they’ll steal the silver.”
“It is not earthly rank, nor birth, nor nationality, nor religious privilege, which proves that we are members of the family of God; it is love, a love that embraces all humanity.” EGW
Wherever truth exists, it is truth. The reality of love and truth is that they can come from anyone, anywhere, at any time. Yes there are good and evil powers at work on our earth. But most often those with the greatest potential for good or evil are not divided along publicly branded lines, but upon the way they live out their purpose.
Orthodoxy leads to great conversation, but orthopraxy leads to transformation. At the end of the day, what I say I believe means very little compared to how I live my belief. Nothing Jesus ever taught leads me to think he ever wanted us to be known by the way we talked about our beliefs. Instead he drove home the idea that his people would be known by the way they loved themselves and others (including their enemies – political, racial, gay, straight, religious, denominational, or otherwise).
When we remove the “party line” barriers and look for truth and love beyond the humanly set boundaries, we will both see and experience more of Christ in our world. Whether Catholic, Adventist, Baptist, or Morman I’ve seen both Satan’s spirit at work and God’s Spirit. Whether Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu, I’ve seen the love of Christ revealed and the spirit of the Devil.
Understanding prophetic truths is helpful, but living Christs love is essential.
Ella Rydzewski, I applaud your open exploration of understandings that may have been outside your previous realm of thought – especially to openly, and in this forum, admit that you believe that even Catholics may have some insight into Jesus 🙂
I hope you do not experience the negative side of a religion steeped in obedience and exclusivity, simply because you never stop learning. Therein lies the true persecution that Jesus spoke of.
Great story, Ella! Re: your statement about teaching Sabbath in an outside-of-denomination setting, a local multidenominational church where I live had Matthew Sleeth, author of the book 24/7, about the importance of the biblical sabbath, come here to lecture. Many of them bought the book, and some have now designated a sabbath because of it. They do not see that it needs to be any particular day, but they do see that God knew what we need, including a day of rest every week. I think it’s great. I also suspect I’d have been one of those voting against our becoming a denomination in the 1860s. I get why they did it, and perhaps it’s the way the Spirit was leading at the time, but I think we’d have been more successful at spreading the news God gave us to spread if we’d remained a multi-church movement. He didn’t ask us to convince people to become some other denomination. He asked us to spread the news of the Coming, and of living in God’s love until that day.
For some reason the “reply” option was not showing on BS’ (Bill Sorensen’s) post, so I will quote him:
“Toleration is not a by word on Spectrum or Fulcrum 7”
Bill, putting Fulcrum7 and Spectrum in the same pot is, to say the least, unfair and unreasonable. Because they are true opposites.
Yes, F7 is one of many sites that works based on the premise that they have to brainwash their readers with writings oriented toward a single direction, no room for options or divergent opinions. A very (traditional) Adventist site regarding the way they manipulate their crowds.
Now, Spectrum??? I respectfully ask you, please, give me a break! This is the site that has been always the most tolerant, diverse, and with no traits of attempts to manipulate the readers with brainwashing. One can say basically anything on Spectrum – as long as there is no personal attack on others, or lack of proper decorum in the language. Nobody can deny this, except probably those who were banned because they could not behave with civility and respect. Yes, those go just,…. “puffff”…. 🙂
Spectrum has two sites, the general site where people can read the articles and post ONE comment (I call it “OneGate”) and a second site (I call it “LoungeGate”) where we can basically say whatever we want. It’s still the most operational platform, easy to read, and with all tools to edit/erase our own posts (which AT misses badly!).
Have a great day Bill!!!
I do understand the human idea that by putting others down we raise ourselves higher – I was both a bully and bullied when growing up. But in becoming a man (mature adult), we are called to “put away childish things”, and understand that putting others down does not make us stronger or more ‘right’, it simply makes us sinners. (“…judge not lest ye be judged…”, “…encourage one another and build each other up…”, “…a new commandment I give you…” – sorry, grew up memorizing from the KJV).
One can disagree, without being disagreeable. One can also love and respect without needing to ‘convert’ or ‘correct’. Jesus did not ask us, anywhere in the Bible, to convert people; He asked us to “…make disciples…”, and we do this by following this often forgotten suggestion directly from Jesus, “…if I be lifted up…”. He was not just talking about His being crucified, Jesus’ teachings seldom if never have only one meaning. He was talking about us lifting Him up in our lives, living like He did, representing Him to others; so that they would see Him, and want to follow Him.
We lift Him up, the Holy Spirit convicts them of their need for Him, and He (and only He) converts and saves. Period.
I am horrified by the exclusivity of the world-wide would-be followers of an Inclusive God, who divide themselves into smaller and smaller groups (Latin root of denomination same as Latin root of division), pushing others out, being less and less effective for the…
Here’s a novel idea for AToday – why not limit the length and number of comments any person may make on any one article? That would give us bloessed relief from the free-for-all back-and-forth between those of opposing opinions.
Then I would like to thank Ella sharing her report on the diversity of Catholic thought and similarity of some to Adventist teachings. We have no exclusive claim to the truth. May not the Holy Spirit guide anyone it pleases into truth? How will we ever get along with our neighbors in heaven, if we can’t get along here?
“…why not limit the length and number of comments…”
FREEDOM IS THE ISSUE
In my opinion everyone should have the freedom to express themselves and engage in conversations freely as well.
So far AToday has honored this principle, which is also a core American value. Any idea to restrict people from expressing themselves reminds me of “control of the crowds” by restricting the right to freedom. For some reason it also triggers in my mind the KGB sign. (I don’t like the KGC either…:) )
I am very strong on this issue, because my parents made a gigantic effort to escape from a Communist Czechoslovakia in 1947 (or was it 1948?). With 3 children, and they made it! (I was born later on in France, in 1950).
If at any time AToday implements your idea, that will be it for me. I do not participate in sites where freedom is not honored or respected.
Another nice thing about freedom is that everyone has the freedom to NOT READ what they don’t like or don’t want to read. I use both kinds of freedom – to write what/how much I want, and I also read only what I want.
Everyone has the same freedom, here at Atoday.
My parents escaped the same KGB, George. Yes, we know a little of what oppression means. But AT does not yet appear to be even close to restricting the freedom of expression they so generously and honestly offer on this site. There have been other calls by conservative elements to restrict any expression of non-SDA orthodox opinions, but frankly, this site contains far too many ‘members in good and regular standing’ who also wish to express dissenting views. Its not just us apostates who are targeted. I mean, even Bill S, has been called out for his radical conservatism.
But I did think about Carrol’s dilemma. There are times when two people get into a good old argument, ie, they rationally make a case to support their opinions, and it does seem off-topic to others who have no interest in their private chat. What can we do? If someone really wants to argue the point with another here, where do they go? Take it outside, and lets have it out! Verbally, of course. So I ask AT…. is there any possibility for setting up a page where off-topic debates can be carried on ‘outside’ of the blog which they happen to be on initially? What chance for a ‘debates’ section, to which the warring parties might retire, out of view of the squeamish? And KGB not invited. Just an idea for AT to consider.
Here’s another novel idea for AToday readers…….. if you don’t like it, don’t read it! One of the appealing things on AT is the capacity for the comments to generate an interesting debate on a topic, and often, off it. Its more like an engaging conversation between friends. Do you really want to take that away too? Responses are already limited in length. Any further limitation beyond that is censoring, is it not? Does AT really want to be seen as censorious?
Dr Hoehn says there are “terrible bigots in Adventism.”
On a blog where widely differing views are often expressed, how does Dr Hoehn make the distinction on which group of opposing views are the terrible bigots? Is it just perhaps his own bias that helps him make this distinction? How terrible.
“It is not without reason that the claim has been put forth in Protestant countries, that Catholicism differs less widely from Protestantism than in former times. There has been a change; but the change is not in the papacy. Catholicism indeed resembles much of the Protestantism that now exists, because Protestantism has so greatly degenerated since the days of the reformers.” [The Great Controversy 1888, Page 571]
“As the Protestant churches have been seeking the favor of the world, false charity has blinded their eyes. They do not see but that it is right to believe good of all evil; and as the inevitable result, they will finally believe evil of all good. Instead of standing in defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, they are now, as it were, apologizing to Rome for their uncharitable opinion of her, begging pardon for their bigotry.” [The Great Controversy 1888, Page 571-572]
What the Adventist bigots confuse is opposition to the errors of Rome from attacking Catholic people.
When Catholic people teach the truth about Jesus, they are separating themselves from the errors of Roman Catholicism, and should be applauded and encouraged. Roman Catholics were once the only Christians.
Those of us who are descendants of those who tried to reform Christianity need to love our mother church, even as we oppose her failures and errors. Just the same as I love the Adventist church while trying to oppose her failures and errors. Anti-Catholic rhetoric is once of them. Which has nothing to do with supporting Rome’s Sunday Sacredness, Mariolatry, Papal Infallibility, Sale of Indulgences or Rome’s Male-headship heresy.
“Roman Catholics were once the only Christians” That will come as news to the Greek Orthodox.
Mr. Hammond correctly cites the opinion of Ellen White and her editors in 1888 concerning the intentions of our friends in the Roman Catholic faith community. All that quote demonstrates is that Ellen White was very wrong about a number of things. This is only one of them.
My question is: How could sinful human beings who were in need of a Savior, educate and shape the mind of their Savior? If the humans who were condemned to eternal death because of sin, were able to educate and prepare their Savior then the Savior was not necessary. Also, Jesus was not a sinner so, how much could sinners teach Him, and what would they teach Him? In Luke 2:40 we read: “And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.” Then in verse 49 we read: “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he was saying to them.” It appears that Jesus, ay age of 12, knew more than His parents. Who educated Him? Just as God educated the first Adam, so also God educated the Second Adam – Jesus the Christ.
I think this is a theological question for the experts, but there are differing ideas. Most (in the Adventist church) believe Christ had to be like a human to live our experience. Of course, he was both human and divine but his temptation may have been to use His divine nature in ways we could not. He had to live totally dependent on His Father as we need to do.
If He had any knowledge we don’t then He couldn’t be our Savior. He said only His Father in heaven knew the time of the Second Coming. Jesus learned about His mission the same way we do by the
Holy Spirit speaking through what we learn from the Scriptures and even nature. He developed in the same way a wisdom of others that is open to all who want to give up self to understanding each other. I believe, as the ideal man, Jesus would have had an intellect beyond His peers, but this is also available to humans according to their gifts.
This is what I have concluded in my study of the subject and in theology classes in the past.
My point is that Jesus who was not a sinner could not be prepared for his mission as the Savior of the helpless humankind by sinful human beings. Jesus told us, in Gospel according to John, that Father told Him what to say and how to say it. On Earth Jesus was fully human but without sin so He is the representative of new humankind. Jesus was perfect in Himself, we could by faith in Him be perfect in eyes of God but only in Jesus, not in our self.
Ella,
If one imagines how firmly convicted both Mary and Joseph must have been about Jesus being the Holy One of Israel, you can think Jesus was taught from His earliest consciousness about the special circumstances of His birth. It wasn’t special revelation from the Holy Spirit that initiated Him into the knowledge of who He was, it was His mother and father telling Him who He was.
Or so I imagine.
At age of 12 Jesus told his parents “Didn’t you know that I have to be in my Father’s house?” Mary and Joseph did not understand what Jesus was saying. This implies that Jesus, at age of 12, understood more about Himself than did his earthly parents. Think about it.
Jesus said what he did to his parents because they would understand it. Think about it.
I think this could be right. EGW’s Desire of Ages may indicate (if you go outside the Bible) this. It’s been awhile since I read it. I believe that book follows the idea that he was home-schooled by them but that Mary kept in her heart all the miraculous things surrounding His birth which might .indicate that His parents didn’t recognize His work from the beginning an.d tell Him. But then we don’t know, and we are speculating. It doesn’t matter a whole lot in the long run, and we will know these things in the learning process provided in the New Earth.
Ella,
If you had experienced a visitation by angels and you had consented to the vision do you really think you wouldn’t believe and understand that your son Jesus was Messiah? Same for Joseph. The wedding feast at Cana; the communication between mother and son was intimate and familiar. Of course Mary knew and expected Jesus to fulfill her Messianic hopes.
Correction:
I wrote a comment above, on Serge Agafonoff’ post, but it seems that it landed as replying to Carrol Grady. I apologize for the mistake.
This is one thing that this platform misses, the option to edit our own posts.
As one who is unfamiliar with the NT writers describing Jesus as being both human and divine, would you please list the NT writings where it is stated?
Of Jesus, Paul says: Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Of believers, Paul says: Eph 3.19 …that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Good. The “fullness of God” fills all who have been crucified to self so that Christ can live in them.
“Godhead” is not used in the later translations, but “fulness of God.” The Godhead was a later concept and doctrine of the church as the belief in the Trinity, another meaning of Godhead, was not a belief in the first century. The Godhead concept developed gradually before the NT was canonized and became a doctrine of the church by vote of the bishops.
Eph 3.19 fulness of θεός – God
Col 2.9 fulness of θεότης – God-ness
If Jesus said when he ascended to the Father He would leave the Holy Spirit with the apostles. If Jesus was one with the Father why the need to return to the Father; and if the Holy spirit was united with Him why tell the disciples that first he must leave?
The need to be specific in describing the three-in-one Godhead is something that defies attempts to literalize an impossibility. The Greeks did not accept this for more than a thousand years as for them, it was something for each individual to personally experience and could not be put into words.
God is not an objective reality but a spiritual presence in the depths of one’s heart. The Trinity is a mystical or spiritual experience, It is not a logical or intellectual formulation and cannot be explained in a literal manner.
9 because it is in (Christ) him all the fullness of deity resides in bodily reality,
Fairly clear Elaine
When did Christ become divine? Did His apostles believe He was God? Does “deity” mean divine and weren’t there many deities in the Greeco-Roman world when Jesus was here? In many religions before Christianity there were hundreds of gods, virginal births and many similarities to the NT writings.
Does deity apply to one individual? There was no recognition or belief in the Trinitarian concept (a.k.a. Godhead) until centuries later and none of the NT writing can be dated before 60 A.D. at the earliest, 30 years after the ascension.
Mary and Joseph believed Jesus, their son, was divine.
1 Tim. 2:3-6:
“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all.” (NAS).
The Trinity is illogical; and anything illogical cannot be explained.
Mrs Nelson’s questions about Christ’s divinity is a good example of the many who leave Adventism without fully understanding or accepting what we believe.
If her use of Christ refers to Jesus then the fact that he was the fulfillment and embodiment of Messiah is ample evidence of his divinity, and of course his humanity, in that he took on human flesh and “pitched his tent among us.”
Can God be born of a woman? Is God infinite? Can God be tempted to sin? Was Jesus tempted to sin? When did he become divine?
Where does Scripture identify Jesus as being both human and divine? Can divinity suffer, and did Jesus suffer?
Can God die? Did Jesus die?
Elaine, these kinds of questions are incredibly irritating…….. esp. to SDA’s who hold to the material nature of everything, including God and Gods. Those questions are less problematic if one can distinguish divine nature from human, spirit from matter.
Elaine, might I ask if you are familiar with view that the story of Jesus is similar to many of Ancient Near East mythologies, eg, Attis, Dionysius etc? the so-called ‘dying/rising gods’ myths? Comes under the general category of ‘pagan messiah.’ Freke & Gandy in their work quote Irenaus in one of his apologia making reference to how the devil had aniticipated the coming of the true Messiah and had inserted these ‘false stories’ into human cultures centuries beforehand. Augustine is said to have similarly complained.
Serge, yes, I have read quite widely on the pagan gods and goddesses in the Greco-Roman world where Jesus was born. Also, the Jewish philosopher, Philo, influenced the Gospel writers as seen in their accounts. Paul, particularly mentions the Greek gods in his travels.
Living among the wider culture, it is impossible not to be influenced in many ways. A number of writers, in addition to Freke and Gandy, which I’ve read, recognize the great similarities between myths and the Christian stories.
Have you read Karen Armstrong’s “A History of God”? This is a “must” for understanding the searches for God in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-the three monotheist religions beginning with Abraham.
mea culpa, Elaine, I’ve only read portions of Armstrong there. Not sure why I didn’t complete it. She is very good.
Just on the fact of Christianity being but one dying/rising god story amongst many others, I ask this: Is a ‘believer’s’ understanding sufficient that it can even withstand the possibility that Jesus never existed? There is so little reliable historical evidence for him. Clearly one cannot rely on ‘independent’ proof of his existence. And what if it could be shown that the NT writers knowingly took the myths one step further and simply claimed historical rather than mythical status for the story? How would one’s ‘faith’ be then? ie, does one have faith in history, or does one have a deeper understanding of the nature of God, and how it is the He is ‘above all and through all and in you all?’ For me, that is the real test of faith. I think it is important to be able to go much deeper than to merely rely on the superficial details of a history which may not be 100% reliable. In other words, is the ‘believer’ one who believes supposed facts of a history, or is the true believer one who knows what that history is trying to tell us, and who then personally makes real connection with the Divine author of the story? I know what my answer is.
Serge,
“In other words, is the ‘believer’ one who believes supposed facts of a history, or is the true believer one who knows what that history is trying to tell us…”
History isn’t trying to tell us anything. I believe in a person, Jesus Christ. If He didn’t really exist I am a most miserable man. I am believing a lie.
Eric Hoffer wrote The True Believer – thoughts on mass movements I steer clear of that particular terminology. Maybe Hoffer’s book wasn’t so insightful….
AaElaine, your scholarship on this is very outdated. For example lets consider the Gospel event of most interest. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
Many of the alleged parallels to this event are actually apotheosis stories, the divinization and assumption of the hero into heaven (Hercules, Romulus). Others are disappearance stories, asserting that the hero has vanished into a higher sphere (Apollonius of Tyana, Empedocles). Still others are seasonal symbols for the crop cycle, as the vegetation dies in the dry season and comes back to life in the rainy season (Tammuz, Osiris, Adonis). Some are political expressions of Emperor worship (Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus). None of these is parallel to the Jewish idea of the resurrection of the dead. David Aune, who is a specialist in comparative ancient Near Eastern literature, concludes, “no parallel to them [resurrection traditions] is found in Graeco-Roman biography” (“The Genre of the Gospels,” in Gospel Perspectives II, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981], p. 48).
Elaine, if these are the questions you have after all the years of your searching; maybe you are the problem? Maybe you should take you out of the search and put HIM in; soon?
fact, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any myths of dying and rising gods at all! In the Osiris myth, one of the best known symbolic seasonal myths, Osiris does not really come back to life but simply continues to exist in the nether realm of the departed. In a recent review of the evidence, T. N. D. Mettinger reports: “From the 1930s. . . a consensus has developed to the effect that the ‘dying and rising gods’ died but did not return or rise to live again. . . Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species” (Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East [Stockholm, Sweden: Almquist & Wiksell International, 2001], pp. 4, 7).
Mettinger himself believes that myths of dying and rising did exist in the cases of Dumuzi, Baal, and Melqart; but he recognizes that such symbols are quite unlike the early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection:
The dying and rising gods were closely related to the seasonal cycle. Their death and return were seen as reflected in the changes of plant life. The death and resurrection of Jesus is a one-time event, not repeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes. . . . There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.
That is really interesting Darrel. Where does the Jewish belief in the resurrection come from? I should ask, where in scripture do they think the ideas come from? I’m curious about the tension between the Pharisees and Sadducees on this issue. I know the Jewish mikvah (bath) that the convert to Judaism is immersed in before circumcision/conversion is very old and had to be a big part of what Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about. Death, new birth, water and spirit; these were ideas Nicodemus should have realized applied to him, but in his mind they only made sense for the one converting to Judaism.
Umm, Darrell, when is there ever any ‘evidence’ for a mythology vs history? So you are guaranteed never to find ‘prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct’
As for all the other ANE religions/mythologies with dying/rising gods and the multitude of meanings attached to them, naturally, there will be opinions on their similarity/dissimilarity to another ANE religion with a dying/rising God. Proof of/from history is the problem here.
I choose to believe that Jesus existed. I think of him as a man who understood who he was/is. Before Abraham was, I AM. He knew that his life did not consist in his material human nature. The source of his life was the divine eternal. He wants us all to know the same thing, about ourselves. Which is why Peter says we are ‘partakers of the divine nature.’ This is apotheosis, is it not? If we become son of God thru birth of the Holy SPirit, and are called ‘holy ones,’ how is that any different to Jesus’ birth of teh Holy Spirit and he was called ‘that holy thing?’ Thus we are truly his brothers/sisters and God is truly our Father.
William A, good question on resurreciton. Where did the idea come from? For it is not much expounded in the OT. If anything, death of hte body being ‘the end’ was more common. The Sadducees had a point. Even the SDA text on which they rely so heavily for their view of the ‘state of the dead,’ Eccles 9.5 is quite pessimistic. The dead know nothing. NEITHER have they ANYMORE a portion in ANYTHING that is done under the sun! There is no hope or possibility of resurrection in that text.
Do we not always try to place HIM in our own little realities? Has HE not always existed, complete?
Proverbs 30:
3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.
4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Psalms 2:
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Isaiah 40:
13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?
Isaiah 6:
8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
HE has always been there Loving and doing for us; all of HIM. We needed the Second Witness and a flesh and blood Sacrifice; to lay us down in front of HIM. We needed the Comforter; when HE took those responsibilities. Then we question why? Because as always; we needed HIM.
GOOD and EVIL, in the Cosmos, in the Holy Place in Heaven. There is a God of Love, and lesser Gods of deadly Evil, vying for supremacy. Lucifer was not of God’s creation, nor supposedly evil demonic angels. God did not create Evil. How Lucifer, an impostor, is a mystery. How, or why, was he permitted to be in Paradise (Eden) . Adam was no match for the excellent experienced intelligence of Satan (Lucifer), who was able to present himself as a brilliant multi toned serpent, with a mesmerising seductive voice. Eve had not a chance to resist Satan’s magic. Adam, being a creature created in love, couldn’t have been so naive, as to not recognize the danger, after being warned of the deadly nature of evil, but had he yet not experienced the death of Abel?? Adam was the first sinner, because he was not deceived.
He knowingly chose his help mate rather than God. Something is missing in this narrative. We don’t have the whole story. Why would God present such an enigma for mankind????
Earl,
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Dr Hoehn says: “What the Adventist bigots confuse is opposition to the errors of Rome from attacking Catholic people.”
This is simply not true. It is a rhetorical false accusation made against traditional Adventists. Adventists call our brothers and sisters out of apostate Christianity and the false doctrines held by these churches. These are those churches which trample on the Sabbath – and includes the RCC. We “wrestle not against flesh and blood.” There is a difference between Catholic people and the Catholic Church. Adventists aren’t attacking the RC Church. We are merely warning the world of her false teachings – and there are many. Ask Martin Luther.
Dr. Hoehn refers to something called “Rome’s Male-headship heresy.”
———-
If he is referring to the husband being the head of the home as taught in the Bible and if that is what the RCC teaches then it is something Adventist hold in common with them. Twenty-five Bible translations refer to the husband as the head. I think there is a strong case for headship here. Gender bender cultural norms that have crept into the Adventist church is where the heresy is. Female eldership and WO aren’t taught in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. If the RCC teaches this then they are spot on.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. [Eph 5:23]
And there is another problem Jack would have is with such bullet proof, lawyer proof scripture as Ephesians 5:23. To degrade the husband is to degrade CHRIST. To elevate CHRIST is to elevate the husband. To remove the commanded sacrifice of either is self defeating. To remove THE SACRIFICE is deadly.
Pretty shaky ground to be standing on; better to have the strong Foundation. I think that is Jacks point (but I wouldn’t want to put words in his mouth). A good father has lived and knows this, because our FATHER has told and shown us; and Jack seems like an awfully good father. Many times we turn things over to HIM or HE takes the wheel and we fail to even realize it. But if we look back; HE was always there.
Conviction. God the “Father” is a very good metaphor to illustrate a visceral, protective, loving relationship with humanity. You might be tempted to equate this metaphor with human biology and culture, and to do so is adequate, probably. But to hold on to the metaphor at all costs, to the exclusion of other metaphors which may illustrate other aspects of its being may result in a less rich understanding of the fullness of what God may be. I say this because your “elevation” or rather extension of the Christ/husband metaphor is vague with an unsatisfactory explanation of the cultural consequences. You stretch the anthromorphic metaphors considerably beyond what is reasonable. This of course, has implications in the headship discussion.
Michael,
What about the Father function of God in the conception of Jesus, is that a metaphor? Is the Son Himself a metaphor?
Am I to infer from your first question the you think the Father descended and had sexual contact with Mary; that God has reproductive equipment like ours; and Jesus inherited genetic material from his divine Father as well as his human mother?
I asked a serious question. You are being absurd
William, it is a very serious question. I think you may have already considered your own answer. Could we hear what you think on this? Please? What is the process by which conceived in utero? etc.
Serge,
As to the mechanics of the thing here is what I have:
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.
The text is not describing a metaphor. It is answering a question: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Jesus constantly called God, ‘our Father’ ‘your Father’ ‘my Father’ And He called Himself the Son of Man. I don’t think Jesus Christ was a metaphor. His Father was literally in Heaven. God the Father Almighty is not a metaphor either.
I believe the Father and the Son are Masculine. Masculinity being deep, abiding and eternal. Masculinity is represented in Male sexuality but it is not sexual in itself. CS Lewis develops the idea in His Space Trilogy fantasy. He imagines the angels are sexless but profoundly either masculine or feminine, developing the idea of Mars and Venus being angelic beings along those lines.
William, you use the term ‘mechanics of the thing.’ Sounds like you are envisaging this with a high degree of literality. Fair enough. But you are left with the problem of being consistent. Since the HS does the overshadowing (Literally, casting a shadow, ie, interruption of light by a physical object, cp Acts 5.15), do you say that the HS has material substance with which to cast the shadow? I confess, to see any of this ‘literally’ remains very difficult for me.
Serge,
Mary asked no more questions. Why do you? I’m not explaining anything. I’m quoting scripture. But I will tell you some more things about which I don’t know anything.
An increasingly large number of ‘higher’ creatures are discovered to reproduce asexually. Without getting into great biological detail, what was previously considered ‘impossible’ is now understood as routine, and in some species not even rare. The mechanics are not understood, they are at present, a total mystery.
From the text, Mary did not reproduce auto-asexually. She conceived through the ‘power of the Highest’.
I confess, to see any of this ‘literally’ remains very difficult for me. Indeed. I would suggest to Michael Wortman, (and to you Serge if the shoe fits) to quit trying to imagine God’s genitalia and to leave Mary’s skirts down and just try and understand what the text says.
Their are probably still some things veiled that we are better off leaving veiled.
I’m happy to leave off that question, William, as I don’t see it as relevant to the main discussion (of the Incarnation, ie). But I do wonder if you have ever given two thoughts to Eph 4:
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
I am particularly stumped by the descent part of He who was/is, before Abraham. This appears even more mysterious than his conception in the womb of Mary, By the HS. We think of Him ascending in Harry Anderson type pictures. (Those pictures are powerful evidence for the requirements of the second commandment). But I never saw a Harry picture of Him descending this way.
Should we stop consoling the kids? Stop telling them that GOD can be their missing fathers or mothers? Do we not limit HIM in such a method of assumptive metaphor; by definition?
Does such extension not explain itself? Is the vague unsatisfactory explanation of the cultural consequences not self evident? Do we follow HIM or not? Do we either serve HIM or not? Does serving ourselves change that? Are such failures in resultants not the absolute of unsatisfactory consequences of culture to begin with?
In simple; have we outgrown HIM? Can we derive HIM out of our lives? Do we need HIM? I surly need HIM and would not profess to be smarter or have a better plan than HE does.
Mr C: Should we stop consoling the kids? certainly not. But you should stop consoling adults as if they were kids. No more milk, eat meat. Become a man, put away those childish things.
Serge,
It is impossible for me to read such myths as even many of the Bible stories became myths, in the true definition: “a traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.”
That a man named Jesus was born and lived in Palestine is not disputed. But that he was born of a virgin, that he died and rose again cannot be proved beyond doubt. Recall: None of the Gospels record anyone actually seeing him come from the tomb and even Mary did not recognize him. He was seen later but then could walk through locked doors, could suddenly appear to disciples on the road to Emmaus and they didn’t recognize him.
We forget that none of those accounts were written by eye witnesses, but were told them by others. Luke writes these things were “handed down to us.”
You ask: “what if it could be shown that the NT writers knowingly took the myths one step further and simply claimed historical rather than mythical status for the story? How would one’s ‘faith’ be then?”
It could be just as strong, as faith is not built on evidence, as the writer of Hebrew agrees, but “on the conviction of things not seen.” Why is it called faith to believe in God? No one has seen Him. No one needs faith who lived during WW II to know of the carnage, the battles, the final atomic bombs in Japan ending that war. It was photographed, written about so..
extensively that someone would have had to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know about it.
It takes no faith to believe in these events, it’s called reality. But Christianity is called “faith” because much of it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, nor even the future events as foretold in John’s visions. Conflating faith with evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” as necessary for the courts, is not relying on one’s own belief but needing supportive evidence to bolster weak defense.
Can someone identify any religion, long ago, or more recent, that is not built on myth? Or, to state it differently, that is based on facts widely supported by both believers and non-believers.
Judaism is based on descent. Abraham’s seed, twelve tribes, Israel is a person, Israel is a people. Seems completely straightforward to me. Where is the myth?
I believe Israel is a nation-state in the middle east.
If you believe that, about Israel ancient and modern, William, then you are believing a myth. Have you read Shlomo Sand’s book yet? Modern Israel is a nation-state in part of old Palestine. Very few of the Israelis who live there have even a shred of Abrahamic DNA. The majority are descendants of converts from a forgotten past. It is a secular state, by and large. The OT ‘history’ is mythology of the finest order.
Israel is, was, and apparently always will be. We are talking about a nation of living souls, not a myth. Jesus was a descendant of King David. Before there was a Judea or a Samaria, before there was a Palestine, there was Israel.
Their were Canaanites too, the land of Canaan, but they were dispossessed, their land was given to Israel by God.
Serge,
The ‘descended into hell’ part of the Apostles Creed is not the favorite part for Adventists. I always thought the idea of the grave was what was represented in the Pauline passages.
We are captives of Sin and Death. It is necessary for Christ to descend into our captivity to free us.
Gal 3:28 “There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” Jesus is GOD,
no sexual connotation indicated.
Earl,
Can you extend your argument out a little further? I’m not following it. I’m afraid I’ll engage an argument you are not making.
Wm. Abbot, “I believe the Father and Son are masculine”!! Wm, the Bible speaks of Father and Son as masculine, rather than IT, Yet, if we are one in “Christ” Jesus, then there is no male nor female?? You aren’t suggesting that all heavenly creatures were sexually made are you??