What are Wilson II And His Allies Trying To Do?: Hypothesis 2
By Ervin Taylor and Ron Spencer, December 19, 2014: Our first hypothesis in this series of opinion pieces suggested that our current General President, Ted N. C. Wilson (aka Wilson II) and his allies are attempting to encourage a division in the Adventist Church to rid the church of those who do not agree with the Wilson II theological agenda.
Our second hypothesis is based on what seems to us to be a very revealing set of statements that Wilson II made in a keynote speech entitled “God’s Authoritative Voice,” which he delivered at the beginning of the “International Conference on the Bible and Science” held in Las Vegas, Nevada, in August 2014.
We will quote from a transcript of his speech (which was posted on the Adventist Review web site and, in part, published in the October 2014 issue of Adventist World), with the title “God’s Authoritative Voice: He’s Still Speaking.” (This title might raise a question in the minds of our more cynical readers: Does Wilson II really believe that God’s speaking is through Wilson II?” We have our own answer to that question, which we will not state for fear that some might conclude that we are biased.)
If some readers dispute the accuracy of our quotations, we invite them to check up on us and consult the text for themselves. We will cite four statements of Wilson II, taken from this article, and then, in italics following each statement, offer our observations about what appear to us to be the implications of these statements. Following the series of quotations and our comments, we will then offer our second hypothesis concerning Wilson II’s agenda as GC president.
(1) Wilson II: “Regarding origins, in the powerful, heavenly inspired book, Patriarchs and Prophets, the author [Ellen G. White (EGW)] writes: “The assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment . . . The Bible recognizes no long ages in which the earth was slowly evolved from chaos . . . Of each successive day of creation, the sacred record declares that it consisted of the evening and the morning, like all other days that have followed.” Comment: We note that Wilson II is entirely comfortable with identifying the opinions of EGW on this topic as “heavenly inspired.” Thus, it appears that Wilson II is here advancing the use of EGW as an “inspired” interpreter of the Bible.
(2) Wilson II: “I stand here to say that both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy [the works of EGW] are absolutely reliable and are inspired by the Creator Himself. Rely on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy as the basis of your understanding of origins.” Comment: This confirms that Wilson is advocating that EGW is as inspired as the Bible and can be used to interpret the meaning of the Bible when the Bible itself is ambiguous on some particular point.
(3) Wilson II: “In the book [taken from the various collected writings of EGW] Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, we read: . . . ‘When the Lord declares that He made the world in six days and rested on the seventh day, He means the day of twenty-four hours, which He has marked off by the rising and setting of the sun.’” Comment: Yet again, another example of Wilson II elevating the views of EGW to be, for all practical purposes, equal to the Bible and able to interpret correctly what the Bible means when the Bible itself makes no statement of the specific meaning of a word or phrase, in this case, “day.”
(4). Wilson II: Based on what Wilson II states is a “plain understanding” of the Bible as provided by the writings of EGW, if “one does not accept the recent six-day creation understanding, then that person is actually not a ‘Seventh-day’ Adventist . . .” Comment: Yet again, if one does not accept the interpretations of EGW on this point, then, in the view of Wilson II, that individual is actually not an Adventist. Fortunately, Wilson II has no control over who is and who is not a member of the Adventist Church. That responsibility is in the hands of the local Adventist church.
Hypothesis 2. We submit that Wilson II and his allies are seeking to restore among Adventists the earlier status of Ellen White as an oracle and divinely inspired interpreter of the Bible on all subjects, theological, scientific, and historical. Wilson II states in this article that the Bible is the “absolute foundation of our faith and belief” but then immediately also states that the “Spirit of Prophecy [the writings of EGW] point back to the Bible.” On that basis, we are forced to conclude, that according to Wilson II, the views expressed in the Bible and those expressed by EGW are absolutely identical on all subjects and that if there is any disagreement about an interpretation of a biblical text, faithful Adventists have the writings of EGW to determine what the Bible means on any point theological, scientific, and historical.
We suggest that if Wilson II is successful in imposing his views on the body politic of the Church on this matter, theologically and sociologically the corporate Adventist Church would be retreating back to what it was in the 19th and early 20th century, a fundamentalist, sect-type religious body possessing an inerrant and infallible prophet and believing in an inerrant and infallible Bible.
If we wish to retain the advancements that have occurred in Adventism beginning in the 1960s, it is imperative that Wilson II be replaced as soon as possible with a more moderate GC President with views similar to those of the previous GC President, Jan Paulsen.
Regrettably, since Third World delegates to the GC session whom Wilson II has been courting for decades can outvote those from North America, Europe, and Australia, political reality is that he will remain in power to the great detriment of the Adventist Church for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the North American Division Adventist Church can continue to distance itself from an increasingly fundamentalist-dominated General Conference Adventist Church and its corporate leader, Wilson II and his allies.
I have many friends who believe sincerely that as of about 1880 all truth had been revealed to the Adventist Church, and any changes in interpretation and even in wording of our doctrines after that point in time are riddled with apostasy. The concept of progressive truth after the passing of Ellen White’s prime is seen as a non-starter. For example, her reversal on the question of the legitimacy of the General Conference as an authority speaking for God is deemed to be in error—something that she was pressured into writing. Likewise the toning back of anti-Catholic rhetoric in later editions of The Great Controversy is seen as the product of ungodly tampering with the original and legitimate text. Though many Adventists are very supportive of these Historic points of view, it does create a situation ripe for controversy. Most General Conference presidents have not subscribed to the Historic view of truth (that the original gift of truth is the only legitimate endowment, and all amendments to that original bequest leads to recidivism and apostasy. The primary problem with the view, overall, is that the original premise of the Church was that Jesus was coming soon, and we knew the exact day! We had to back off that one lickity-split for obvious reasons, but for a long time various groups continued to declare that they had discovered errors in calculation, and that they now knew the day, and so forth. Few Historic Adventists will gladly admit that the original Millerites were rife with “error,” including belief in an eternal hell, Sunday sacredness, medicinal value of tobacco and spirits, acceptability of all meat for eating, and even the viability of slavery. Then, during the 1950s, a host of “new light” appeared and was accepted without disclaimer, especially by those who believed in the special inspiration of Ellen White. This was paradoxically seen as added insight provided directly from the throne-room of the Almighty. But as times rapidly changed politically, militarily, and industrially in the United States, and leadership amended positions on Sunday-keeping, healthful living, slavery, and the legitimacy of the prophetic gift, murmurings began that the church was moving into apostasy because certain positions that were once deemed inalienable were suddenly negotiable. One of the big ones, for sure, was the decision to moderate the flagellation of the Catholic Church in Great Controversy-related writings. The allegation that the Church for nefarious reasons chose to go easy on Catholics is still a prime article of faith among my Historic Adventist friends, and seems to be losing little ground in their minds, now 130 years later. I do believe that Brother Wilson is highly influenced by the “once-truth-always-truth” position of our historic brothers and sisters. That truth can be progressive and that truth for 1844 may not be truth for 2014 presumably drives against his fundamentalist grain….
Sorry, sentence that reads: “Then, during the 1950s, a host of ‘new light’ appeared and was accepted without disclaimer, especially by those who believed in the special inspiration of Ellen White,” contains a typographical error. It should read “Then, during the 1850s, a host of ‘new light’ appeared and was accepted without disclaimer, especially by those who believed in the special inspiration of Ellen White.”
Not to mention that it was only after 1888 that Ellen endorsed the “new light” regarding the eternal nature of Jesus Christ and Righteousness By Faith.
And in her later years she occasionally quoted newer Bible translations and not exclusively the KJV (presumably God’s imprimatur granted solely to the 1769 Oxford edition of the Authorized Version).
Apparently she was “duped” by her “handlers” in her later years 8-).
And the claims for verbal inspiration of Ellen and of the Bible actually came into the Adventist church more recently, around 1920. But these too are now “grandfathered” as part of “Historic Adventism”.
Basically “Historic Adventism” is Adventism as some who were not there prefer to remember it.
“There is nothing new under the sun.”
Every religion has a different interpretation of Biblical texts: some emphasize this text, while others emphasize another.
JW’s and Adventists have been time-setters based on OT prophecies that were written for their particular time, but these were the primary texts that were used in creating their religions.
In doing this, the NT was given far less prominence than the OT, excepting Revelation which was connected to Daniel, forming dates and particulars for their own time.
None of the date-setting or specifying who is the “king of the North” or attempting to identify the beast and his mark have anything to do with one’s ticket to heaven. It is simply confusing and peripheral to
our daily living with respect and love for our neighbors.
In any enterprise, “getting the attention of the people” is an absolute priority of marketing. If an exposition of prophecy does well in arresting interest in the Bible, God be praised! If family-life concerns do a better job, or catch a different demographic of people, use that entry event extensively to promote the good news! Perhaps our problems arise when the entry events become the reason-for-being of the religion itself, and we fail to lead the audience to Christ and instead move them deeper and deeper into speculations about the fulfillment of prophecy and the horrors of last-day events, or some ancillary point such as how to guarantee your family will all be in heaven. There is a small percentage of the population that yearns for this kind of insider information for the saved, (and, in fact, is addicted to it), and develops into a very difficult and fearful group that views religion as a fire-insurance policy paid for with premiums of perfect living. By contrast, the yoke of Jesus is “easy, and the burden light”, about as difficult as standing by one’s beautiful, attentive wife or youthful, handsome husband.
“Wilson II states in this article that the Bible is the “absolute foundation of our faith and belief” but then immediately also states that the “Spirit of Prophecy [the writings of EGW] point back to the Bible.” On that basis, we are forced to conclude, that according to Wilson II, the views expressed in the Bible and those expressed by EGW are absolutely identical on all subjects and that if there is any disagreement about an interpretation of a biblical text, faithful Adventists have the writings of EGW to determine what the Bible means on any point theological, scientific, and historical.”
Well, that’s a pretty creative conclusion, don’t you think? Because EGW affirms the bible, this is supposed to make EGW equal to the bible? So, John the Baptist points to Christ as the Messiah, and this makes John the Baptist equal to Christ? Or Luther and the Reformers point to scripture, and this makes them equal to scripture?
If someone points out a biblical teaching as EGW did, this in no way makes them equal in authority to what is being taught. In fact, this was a major point Rome used against Luther and the reformation. They claimed they had determined what was scripture, and what was not. So they are the authority over the bible. Luther used the John the Baptist illustration who pointed to Christ to mock their pretense of authority just because they could identify the authority itself. In which case, anyone who could identify Christ, is superior to Christ. It’s a false dilemma in reason and application.
Well, Bill, in May 21, 1905, during that General Conference session, Pastor Ballenger presented his views on the Sanctuary to the Church scholars. Ballenger explained position that the term ‘within the veil’ of Heb. 6:19 referred to the holy of holies of the true sanctuary, This is a view that most of our scholars Today agree with, but Ballenger
was condemned because of the testimony of Spirit of Prophecy on this subject.
I would think that this is one example of using it to interpret Scripture and thus making it equal or above it even.
Ballenger was wrong then and anyone who agrees with him is wrong now. “Within the veil” does not mean into the most holy place but simply into the heavenly sanctuary. The whole of the book of Heb. is a contrast between the earthly san. and the heavenly, and Paul does not detail all the issues of the two sanctuaries. His singular concern is to warn Jewish Christians in Jersualem who have accept Jesus and His ministry in heaven, not to turn back to the old covenant system. This is it. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Neither do SDA’s try to prove all the details of the new covenant service by the book of Hebrews. It does give proof that there is a sanctuary in heaven that is a parallel and contrast to the one on earth. But nowhere does Paul tell us that Jesus went into the Most Holy Place at His ascension to begin the anti-typical ministry that that the old covenant typifies.
Heb. 9:12 is another creative translation by modern scholars that is not loyal to the obvious emphasis that Paul is making.
Bill,
I have not studied much regarding Ballenger so I have no opinion on that question.
I am well aware as are you that different Bible visions of heaven describe the place differently. I am wondering whether you can show me from any single vision of heaven recorded in the Bible, where there are two different compartments or chambers in the Heavenly Sanctuary?
I agree with Hypothesis II. And I suspect even Wilson himself would say, with some reservations, that he agrees with it. He would not admit that he sees all the writings of Ellen White as having equal authority with the Bible. But to the extent that he considers her to be the prophet foretold in Revelation, there is no reason not to see her as having such authority, except that such a view traps the Church in charges of being a sectarian cult. So it is pragmatism, not conviction, that would lead him to insist that she is only “the lesser light.”
I do not agree that replacing Wilson in 2015 is imperative to retaining the “advancements” in Adventism that have taken place since the ’60’s. What is imperative to retaining those advancements is evidence of transformed lives in progressive Adventists – lives that testify to the power of God’s Spirit, and put the lie to the legalistic containers in which Wilson and his allies would confine the Church. Let’s face it – liberal Adventists like Erv are great at identifying what is wrong with the Church and its leaders. But they have been miserable failures when it comes to producing an alternative product that is winning Adventist hearts, minds to committed service or even alternative, growing, self-sustaining communities of faith. Their primary achievement is turning members of the organism into parasites.
I do believe that many vital growing parts of the Church oppose Wilson’s agenda. But the best way for them to win is to demonstrate that it is their message, not his, which is growing the Church and producing fruit.
The notion that it is mandatory to get rid of Wilson if the Church is to continue in the direction that liberals and progressives have been pressing since the late ’60’s (rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic) is typical of liberal fundamentalist thinking. Conservative fundamentalists no doubt think it is mandatory to keep Wilson in power in order for the Church grow in a reclaimed and invigorated identity found by going back to the future. Both are top-down approaches that presuppose an elitist group within the Church that is peculiarly equipped to discern and reveal God’s will. They are simply opposite sides of the same coin, mired in a loblolly of what Leonard Sweet would call “propositional impotence.”
Nathan wrote:
“Let’s face it – liberal Adventists like Erv are great at identifying what is wrong with the Church and its leaders. But they have been miserable failures when it comes to producing an alternative product that is winning Adventist hearts, minds to committed service or even alternative, growing, self-sustaining communities of faith.”
This is one of the two major problems as I see it after 20 years of fighting for what used to be called progressive Adventism. The Progressives Adventists have argued for a change in the fundamental beliefs to move away from 19th century views. Make no mistake in this article what Wilson II is proposing is the same thing found in the 28 fundamental beliefs. We have one especially for EGW. So the Progressives fight to incorporate different perspectives into the Adventist church. On the other side the emphasis has become for what can be termed as historic or traditional Adventists to bring the church back to its glory days of 19th century religion when the church had the voice of God in a human prophet form of EGW. So these two sides are in friction each feeling that if they can obtain their goal they will create a church that is stronger and able to really serve their communities.
So the Progressive Adventists having practically no actual uncontested churches they are completely unable to demonstrate what they would like a church to be. So they have no alternative product. They can certainly point to numerous traditional Adventist churches and their stagnation or decline but they can’t point to Progressive victories. Ultimately from my perspective the Progressive Adventists have lost the gospel commission, from spreading the love of God to the world to spreading the love of God to the church. Once the church has more of the love of God then they can spread that love to the world from the havens of the church. within that framework of the churches to invite people into and coordinate with they had nothing.
If my diagnosis is correct then the best choice today and yesterday was to actually split from the SDA denomination. So I can’t say I am too upset with the SDA leadership being traditional. It is not like it has been a big change or anything. Those that see the church as becoming more Progressive are probably incorrect as well. Sociological like women’s ordination are not really substantive changes from the Progressive theological viewpoint. But they can make the Progressives feel better I suppose.
PS Ervin, I tried a couple times to email you my article we talked about earlier but never heard anything back so perhaps it is going to your spam box.
Come on Nathan. You must be more preceptive than what you have concluded. It was the fruit of the false application of the gospel defined and embraced by Ford and his followers that has led the church into the woeful spiritual condition of the SDA church today. If a false application of the law equates to legalism, and it does, isn’t it equally obvious that a false application of the gospel is antinomianism?
A person or a church could correctly state the law and then conclude a false meaning and application. And just so, a person or a church could do the same with the bible gospel. The bible not only defines what is truth, it also defines how truth is appropriated and the meaning that genders the true motivation in a relationship with God. To state some truth and then place a false meaning and application is worse than blatant heresy. Precisely because it undermines the real motivation for service.
Much of the “fruit” the church is producing is an antichrist spirituality that is neither law nor gospel but in the end, blatant rebellion against God and His government. This simply means the very church raised up and ordained to be useful in preparing people for the second coming, is rapidly becoming the final antichrist movement because of biblical ignorance on almost every level of doctrine and theology. Yes, there are many “true believers” in the SDA church on some level. But there are also “true believers” in what we call “apostate Protestantism” as well as Catholicism as EGW has affirmed.
The bible is becoming a “dead letter” because of all the wresting of scripture both in the SDA church and without. As anyone knows, I am no fan of the spirituality of the A-today forum. But neither do I support many areas of legalism in the organized church. The final outcome is unknown as to what instrumentality God will use to accomplish His goal. Adventism has been useful, but not in the condition it is in today. If the 7th day Sabbath is the final test, and some of us still believe it is, it is certain that the present theology in the church is not affirming the spirituality necessary to hold people faithful to this truth.
Bill, I think I detect some anger in your post. You may be in the second stage of grief.
I have proposed on previous posts that there is the Ellen Mother Ship and on others that there is the soundproof chamber of Adventism. Now I realize they are one and the same. No one outside (anywhere else in the entire world) hears a thing said there. And Bill, it appears it is also true no one inside hears anything spoken there either. And there is a good reason.
As you ride aboard the Ellen Mother Ship you need to be aware there are no internal controls that are able to adjust the orbit. Solar winds of unstoppable change and gravitational forces of new realizations are rocking your vehicle, adjusting its direction, and there is nothing you can do about it. Complain. That is it. The Adventist drama is reduced to farce, the manufactured story line of the “last days” has become food for bookworms via millions of Ellen books dumped at Goodwill, the bogeyman of Catholicism conducts Saturday services worldwide, Christ’s Advent now “delayed” or “soon” both are suspected of being euphemism for “never,” the “remnant” per the grand lie of the “great disappointment” are newly disappointed at every turn, etc., etc. And you think you can repair the orbit with a few grand theologies?
The SDA church isn’t going away. But it won’t be what you want. It can’t.
Bill, you are entitled to your view and more than welcome to your understanding. I’m sure that you have plenty of company, and I would guess most are past sixty years of age. But when you toss up your anger filled debris for all to see, you are inviting response.
Bugs-Larry,
You have aptly characterized the situation of those who are trapped in the Ellen Cocoon.
I keep telling you that the Mother Ship is Jesus Christ. Somehow when you ejected from the Ellen Cocoon you failed to dock with the Mother Ship. You have now drifted to a place where you see them as one and the same thing.
Jim, your face plate has obviously fogged over, because the confusion you cite on my part doesn’t exist.
Bugs, this is not a “mother Ellen ship” but a God ordained movement. She and others were instrumental in defining the meaning and purpose of the movement, but the movement was (at least in the past) based on the bible, not EGW or anyone else for that matter. Many of you hope to find some “cop out” by claiming it was an EGW movement and seek to find some flaw in her basic message. You may find this an interesting fact, (although you may deny it), every individual who attack EGW and her theology always and without exception eventually attack the bible.
And many on this forum are classic proof of this conclusion. Yes, I know that there are still some who claim to cling to scripture while attacking EGW, but time will prove my statement to be true in the end. And we also know that it is possible to claim loyalty to the bible while attacking its message of salvation on some level. To me it would seem likely that before the end, God will “force” every advocate of error to eventually admit they have abandon the bible. In fact, this was perhaps the most significant result of the Protestant Reformation when Protestantism “forced” Rome to eventually admit the bible was not the final basis of authority for the Christian community, but “the church” by way of the Holy Spirit was over and above scripture. Thus, Rome acknowledged and embraced a “spirit ethic” over scripture and still does to this day. I believe God will do the same in the SDA church and the whole world. Thus, the final war over truth will be the bible vs. human enlightenment over and above the word. Don’t we see it already in the final stages in many conflicts and dialogues, even in modern Adventism?
As for “anger”, we may interpret the response of Jesus as “anger” on several occasions in His conflict with those who challenged His ministry. And like Jesus, our goal should be to be redemptive on every level possible.
“You may find this an interesting fact, (although you may deny it), every individual who attack EGW and her theology always and without exception eventually attack the bible.”
I am wondering where and how you find your facts?
I have many near and dear Calvinist relatives who believe in the Bible every bit as much as do you, but who have no belief whatsoever in Ellen White. Of course since they do not interpret every last Bible verse exactly as you or I would, you (but not I) might simply say they are attacking the Bible. This is simply not true.
Just because someone does not believe in Ellen White does NOT mean they do not believe in the Bible. And just because someone does not interpret Ellen or the Bible exactly as you do, does NOT mean they are attacking Ellen or the Bible.
You might not like to hear this but Ellen White is NOT the measure of all things to most Christians. Nor is she the measure of all things to many Adventists.
Of course you can simply dismiss all who differ with you, as “Anti-Ellen” or “Anti-Bible” or “Anti-Christ”. That is your choice. But in the end you will find yourself in a very small church if you insist on viewing every question this way.
Bill, I respectfully suggest the reality doesn’t support your theory. That is what I was trying to say. That is why Adventism is rocketing off in a direction repugnant to you and which I maintain is unstoppable. Just ignore Ellen references, I was being a bit too cute.
Here is the crux of my post: “The Adventist drama is reduced to farce, the manufactured story line of the “last days” has become food for bookworms via millions of [Adventist published] books dumped at Goodwill, the bogeyman of Catholicism conducts Saturday services worldwide, Christ’s Advent now “delayed” or “soon” both are suspected of being euphemism for “never,” the “remnant” per the grand lie of the “great disappointment” are newly disappointed at every turn, etc., etc.”
My point is that the new generations of Adventist have no evidence that any predictions their church has ever made have been fulfilled, any projections of persecutions, Sunday laws, close of probation, unique end time evidences arriving on schedule, accurately or not at all. You can’t point to a single thing to a young Adventist that drives your thesis of the traditional last day unique role of Adventism into their mind or heart. The old method of guilt and fear (I grew up under that regime) doesn’t work anymore, even though you have attempted to revive it:
“To me it would seem likely that before the end, God will “force” every advocate of error to eventually admit they have abandon the bible. In fact, this was perhaps the most significant result of the Protestant Reformation when Protestantism “forced” Rome to eventually admit the bible was not the final basis of authority for the Christian community, but “the church” by way of the Holy Spirit was over and above scripture.”
You live in a dream land marked by sadness. It is not easy to watch the house you have put your heart and mind completely into and watch the lava slowly advance to its edges. You can deny that. But you can’t change it.
“Bill, I respectfully suggest the reality doesn’t support your theory. That is what I was trying to say. That is why Adventism is rocketing off in a direction repugnant to you and which I maintain is unstoppable. Just ignore Ellen references, I was being a bit too cute.”
It doesn’t matter, Bugs. I know the present SDA church has for the most part already abandon EGW and are following the format I suggested by also abandoning the bible. Even the 1844 scenario as she has interpreted it has been abandon by more than a few. So a person may say they believe in the 1844 format, but have convoluted it totally out of her context and doesn’t represent her position which is biblical. Neither do people “keep the Sabbath” in the context she has stated either. So modern Adventism does not for the most part reflect her understanding of the matter anyway.
And I said those who abandon her understanding of the bible and re-interpret it in a different format, will also abandon the bible, and here is the focal point, admit they are abandoning the bible.
I don’t care how many “Calvinists” or Baptist or Lutherans or Methodists claim they believe the bible. In the end, they will eventually embrace the EGW understanding of the bible, or will admit they are abandoning the bible.
Adventism as explained by EGW in The Great Controversy is the logical and only possible conclusion to biblical end time events. This is non-negotiable. You can not draw other conclusions without eventually admitting you are abandoning the bible. And as I suggested, I think God will eventually “force” people into the situation where they must admit they don’t believe the bible or they must opt for the conclusions EGW has clearly set forth.
And as I said before, I admire Elaine Nelson because she is incredibly honest and don’t beat around the bush like a lot of others on this issue. I assume Don Sands basically agrees with Elaine. A lot of people “Worship they know not what” as Jesus said. If people would simply honestly follow their theories of interpretation they would also admit they don’t believe the bible.
I worship Jesus Christ. I do NOT worship Ellen White.
Nor do I number myself among her critics. She has influenced my own spiritual journey immensely, second only to the Bible. But she herself did not wish to be an object of veneration. The pedestal that some of her followers have erected is never what she intended. And it drives many others away.
The Adventist church is NOT about Ellen White any more than Judaism is about Abraham or Moses. Adventism is about anticipating the return of Jesus Christ.
” . . . but time will prove my statement to be true in the end.” Bill, how do you know this and how long might it take?
Bill’s comments leave me wondering how Ford managed to succeed in his devious enterprise whereas Ballenger apparently failed?
Very easy, Jim. EGW is dead.
Not only is Ellen dead, but so are Miller and Wesley and Calvin and Luther and John and Peter and Paul.
The death of Ellen White was not the death of the Christian faith nor of the Adventist subset thereof. Otherwise the only way for God to rescue this church is to raise-up another Ellen.
Fortunately for all of us Jesus Christ is still very much alive and He is quite able to lead us into all Truth.
He already led us into all truth, Jim, when He gave us EGW to help us understand His word. If you reject His leading by the instrumentality He has chosen, you reject Him.
Well Paul said that he still saw truth reflected dimly through a tarnished mirror. You can place Ellen on a pedestal above Paul if you wish but I will not do so.
I think you need to seriously consider another possibility. Ford had access to a lot of alternative ways to communicate his views. And your typical Adventist in North America, Europe and Australia, is much better educated today, and much less inclined to accept whatever the church leaders say as the final answer to every important question.
Disclaimer – I do NOT consider myself to be a follower of Ford. I agree with him on some questions and disagree with him on others, as anyone who has read many of my comments would recognize.
I believe that a statemeent I read is attributable to Ellen White, which answers one of your questions.,”The work will be finished in a spirit of primitive Godliness with which it was begun” A spirit of primitive Godliness and truly reflecting a humble and contrite sprit. seem notisably lacking
Some one who has become aware of the New Covenant about the time I did, asked me a telling question about EGW. How can she be declared inspirational and infallible when no where does she speak of the New Covenant that the Pauline teachings are full of. This missing piece should speak volumns as does John 16:12-14; Luke 24:44; Colossians 2:16,17; 1 Cor 9:21; 2 Cor 3:7.
Once again I marvel at the human propensity to usually find what we are looking for, and to seldom find what we are not looking for.
As with the Bible, so with Ellen. Where in Ellen DID or did NOT you look for the New Covenant?
I guess, Bob, it will depend on what others think the new covenant is. I find her writings filled with new covenant concepts that parallel and emulate what the old covenant pointed forward to.
I think some would understand Paul’s teaching as some new religion foreign to that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But Paul didn’t think so. Neither did Jesus.
Are you Don Sands brother from the old A-tomarrow forum?
It cannot be disputed that the unique Adventist message of the perpetuity of Sabbath as a holy day and the 1844 IJ idea did not come from the NT, but from the OT.
Like the JW’s: Adventists go back to the Old Covenant made with Israel to determine that it was given for everyone despite the explicit language in each of the 3 accounts of the Decalogue that it was given only to Israel and no one else. Yes, Israelites had slaves and they could command that they observe Sabbath but none of surrounding tribes were told they must also.
When Christ came he changed the concept of Sabbath as it had become burdensome, as the apostles referred to it as “more than our forefathers could bear.” Which is why the Gentile Christians did not have to observe the Jewish Law and the Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians had different rules.
There are no Jewish-Christians today who are the children of those first Jewish Christians. But the non-Jewish Christians became the Christians following the destruction of the temple in 70 when there is no more records of history of their survival as a church. Adventists are the children of the Gentile church as it ceased being an ethnic religion after the Resurrection. Never were the non-Jewish Christians instructed on proper Sabbath observance, or even of its importance as a day of memorial. The true memorial of Christianity is the Resurrection when Christ made everlasting life available to all who believed in him with no numberless laws made necessary.
“none of surrounding tribes were told they must also”
Who were the “aliens within your gates” in Exodus 20? These were not slaves or servants (covered elsewhere) but sojourners, guests, traders, etc. And while in Israel they were required to observe the Sabbath. Now as a sojourner in Spiritual Israel (according to the NT) I am as obligated to keep the Sabbath as any of the other 9 commandments written in stone.
“the Gentile Christians did not have to observe the Jewish Law and the Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians had different rules”
By your line of reasoning I could blaspheme or worship idols because you have no less basis for restricting them to Jews than you do the Sabbath.
As for the Gentile believers having no notion of the Sabbath, you might want to get-out your Greek NT lexicon and see what is the Greek word translated “week” throughout the NT.
Proof is in the head of the brain owner. If the source is in dispute, even in part, there is no ultimate proof. Such is the Sabbath and its source. My point is that, when all is said and done, people adopt what they “like” as their belief. Elaine, here and elsewhere, presents pretty strong evidence for a limited application of a Sabbath keeping mandate. In fact, I consider her argument conclusive. But I don’t “like” the Sabbath. Jim does. And a few others (as a proportion to Christianity, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc.). So, in preference to “like,” inconvenient facts are ignored and morsels of half-truth or no-truth (as I see it) are pooh-poohed.
Adventism, Seventh-day, is permanently married to the fourth commandment and no divorce is possible. The dilemma it creates is the quandary the upcoming July Marriage Counseling Session in Texas faces. Solomon, could you please drop in for a brief visit? At least in spirit? The Likers have a vested interest.
Ex. 12:48-49 makes circumcision imperative for any”stranger staying with you who wishes to celebrate passover and be accepted as a native born. This continued through the Christian Era when the Jews were attempting to enforce the Gentiles to observe the Law. Before they could become part of the Jewish family, circumcision was required. This is older than the giving of the Law.
The first four commands of the Decalogue are religious; the last 5 are civil laws found in all ancient and civilized countries. There is nowhere in the Bible that non-Jews are REQUIRED to observe the ceremonial law listed in Lev. 23; nor were Christians every given those laws to observe. With all the mentions of Sabbath in the Bible, there is nothing requireing non-Jews to faithfuly observe any of the ceremonies given Israel. Sabbath is definitely a ceremony with specific times required unlike any other laws that are always
observed.
Passover and Sabbath are different ordinances governed by different regulations. Your man needs to be circumcised if your family wishes to celebrate Passover.
Se Exodus 20 for Sabbath law.
So according to your reasoning I am free to worship idols or to blaspheme the name of God unless I am a circumcised Jew?
Sorry Elaine but you are grasping at straws in your attempt to prove something that cannot be shown from the Bible.
Jim, her straws are better than your straws, as best as I can see. Hers are Louisville Sluggers. Yours fall in the “yes, but” category, from a bale of hay. Just admit, you “like” the Sabbath and ain’t no one goina take it outa your cold dead hans. Well, maybe then!
Since neither you nor Elaine believe the Bible is inspired by God, it is not surprising that you prefer her arguments to mine.
I am not sure whether Elaine believes in God but you have written that you believe God is an invention of the human imagination. So Elaine’s Louisville Slugger is swatting at imaginary whiffle balls.
And in this we agree, Jim. It is my conviction that anyone who will continually bouce their thinking off the bible with a real desire to know its teaching as the imperative for salvation, will find the truth. The Holy Spirit works through the scriptures to communicate the mind and will of God. This is the fundamental Protestant confession of faith that transcends everything else they discovered.
And if this is true, and it is, then the Holy Spirit by way of scripture will create the final mature community of believers who will be ready for Jesus to come. And I think this was EGW’s conviction as well. If people embrace any error in doctrine, they will eventually abandon the bible and admit it. We see this on various levels even in the SDA church.
Hope all have a nice Christmas day and a new year of growth and prosperity in all things, both spiritual and temporal.
Elaine draws from the same infallible source as you. I’m an unbiased arbitrator. Inspiration isn’t a factor. How could it be? On merit, if cash was involved, her “wiffleballs” would earn her a sizeable award. You, penniless. As a Sabbath addict, you are biased. If a Sunday observer, you would cheer her on, escort her to the nearest soda bar and ask her to buy you root beer with pennies from her settlement (or since you are a californicator adventicator you might head for the Napa Valley!). Oh, I helped construct Superguy years ago. I plastered my barnacles on him. He was better for it too. But now he fails the BB-BB test.
Well if I am addicted to the Sabbath, then I think there could be worse addictions 8-). But as I have said before, the best high you can get is being hooked on Jesus Christ.
Actually you could say I have had a few Sabbath “bum trips” when I was fired twice and reassigned once for refusing to work Friday nights. In all three cases I made clear when I was hired that I would not be working Friday nights or Saturdays. One time the guy who gave me the boot was a secular Jew – go figure. But I am not starving nor have I ever felt that way.
“californicator adventicator” indeed? I have no idea how you arrived at this identification. Neither I nor any of my ancestors hail from California. You need to get a better bird book or a better pair of binoculars.
So here is how our respective biases stack-up. You have objected to the Sabbath among other reasons, as a serious “impediment” to real-world success that deluded Adventists like myself should abandon because it holds us back.
I on the other hand observe the Sabbath as a way of affirming that I can NOT succeed in life on my own, that I am totally utterly dependent on God for everything that I am or ever hope to be.
PS – You might be interested to know about that supervisor who reassigned me when I refused to work on Friday evening. About a year later his boss left the branch for another job. My former supervisor was passed-over for the promotion in favor of another gent who was arguably less-qualified. Soon my ex-super himself left for another job. Afterwards someone told me the rumor was that he had been passed-over for the promotion because he did not know how to manage me, and they considered me one of their most valuable employees. I guess my failure to report for work that Friday night reflected more unfavorably on him than it did on me?
There is more to my stories about not working on Friday evenings.
On that Friday evening when I refused an order to report for work, we had been struggling for a couple months to test some important customer code with our mainframe operating system. On Saturday night when I came back to work my supervisor told me I was relieved of my assignment and to report-back to the branch manager on Monday morning. I figured that meant I no longer worked for him so he couldn’t tell me to leave that night. So I went to work on a new idea about how to do the testing. Within a couple hours I had the customer code working! That was 40 years ago.
15 years ago I had just moved to Oregon to work for a semiconductor company. They were trying to figure-out how to make a chip work that had gone through multiple revisions. On a Friday afternoon I figured-out the cause of the most nasty timing bug that had stumped everyone. As I left I said to my boss and associates that I knew what was wrong but didn’t have time to fix it that day. They all knew what I meant. Saturday night I came back and fixed it. The lead engineer on that chip, who was also working that night, thanked me profusely for coming back and fixing it. Nor have they forgotten. I have just started another consulting gig for these folks reverse-engineering an SOC design, a very clever design that happens to be poorly documented (sort of like the human race?).
I will not claim that I always manage to put aside my work during God’s time. A disadvantage of doing so much of my work in my head is that whenever and wherever my head is, there my work can also be done. So did God honor my imperfect attempts to put him/her/them first and foremost, or is this simply the benefit of pushing a problem from the foreground of your mind to the background and letting it “soak” for a while? You can and doubtless will draw your own conclusions.
I expect that an oppinion of a 95 year old man will not receive serious attention, but I believe that God is able to do exactly what He said He did and to preseve the recored of it accurately. There is no reason to try to reduce God to our undersnding of what is possible. If we could put Him under a microscope and axamine Him with human understanding He would not be God. His ways are past understanding and as far above ours as the heavens aboave the earth.
I agree. Not bad for an “old man” 8-).
Donald, congratulations on reaching such a hoary age. Obviously, yours, is a vintage year. i am just a few years shy of your mark, and identify with your faith.
Larry, “inspiration isn’t a factor, how could it be??”. Millions are inspired and in love with the “love guy”. That is a demonstrable fact. That’s how it is. He isn’t required to suffer your test. Yes He is an “imagined fact” by billions. He lives. He loves you.
I wasn’t impugning inspiration in general, this was just a single reference to the current discussion involving Hammy and Elaine, where facts, as I saw them, were the issue.
Touche, Larry. All the best in the new year.
“One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)”
One could hardly expect our world president to endorse and promote anything other than what is no less one of our stated Fundamental Beliefs; a belief that, indeed, has been one of Adventism’s pillars of faith from its very inception. Those who deny this belief would better evaluate their own relationship with the church.
I agree. If one cannot accept the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, such a person should leave.
Those who quote the Fundamental Belief concerning identifying EGW in the role as the “Spirit of Prophecy” may want to recheck their understanding of the history of the Adventist Church. Insisting that this is a “test of fellowship” came in only in the 1920-1930s and was codified only in the 1980 Creed adopted by the Adventist Church. Of course, don’t take my word for it. Do your own research.
The history is that she said not to use her as a test of fellowship but in the same paragraph she said that those who did not accept the testimonies (her writings) were not right. Thus it has been the practice of the SDA church to remove those who did not believe in her prophet rule. And really if you say someone is not theologically right the result is that they don’t get any church responsibilities. Thus in accordance with my earlier post today in reply to Nathan concerning the Progressive idea of reforming the church there is little hope in changing the SDA church without any leadership role within the church
To Ron: Please resend your article to erv.taylor@atoday.org. I will check my Spam box
There is a considerable difference in her comment that a person does not have to confess faith in her ministry to be a church member in the context that they may not have studied her work or had a viable knowledge of her teaching vs. someone who claims they have carefully studied and considered her works and ministry and reject it as non-biblical. So, to quote her statement out of context to support the idea that you could reject her ministry and still be an SDA is not really an honest way to deal with the statement.
I quoted the Fundamental Belief regarding Ellen White, but I didn’t insist that believing it was a test of fellowship. And I am aware of this history of the Adventist Church:
“The early Sabbatarian Adventists came to be satisfied that, in harmony with the predictions and specifications of the Bible, the gift of prophecy had now been manifested in the Advent Movement in the work of Ellen G. White. They did not consider her as their founder or as the originator of their distinctive doctrines … but as one chosen of God to help keep their feet on the solid rock of Scripture – the true Protestant position. And they did not make faith in her writings a test of church membership.” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 4:972.
My point was that it’s ludicrous to criticize our world church president for holding to and promoting one of our oldest fundamental beliefs. Anyone publicly arguing against this belief is the one who should check his church history. And being so grossly out of harmony with historic Adventism, he would better serve himself and the church to evaluate his relationship with the church.
Well actually the churches baptismal vow can make the belief in EGW a test of church membership. The vow states: “Do you accept the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?” To which my answer would be “Yes to the first phrase No to the second. This is a backhanded attempt to place Ellen White into the Baptismal vow, again it is out of place.” Fortunately not all ministers use this vow. for more see http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/03/review-of-baptismal-vow.html
For Ervin I sent you the article a couple hours ago. Let me know if you got it.
Oh I forgot then they put in this which puts the 28 fundamentals into the mix to join the church. “Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles?”
Actually, the baptismal vow you cite does not make belief in EGW a test of church membership, as it says nothing about EGW. And you should say Yes to the second phrase of the vow as the gift of prophecy is indeed one of the identifying marks of the remnant church. At least it is according to SDA beliefs. And if you can’t agree with what the SDA church has always held and taught then you shouldn’t hold membership in the church. It is also only natural that any church would expect prospective members to know, understand, and order their lives in harmony with the Bible principles as that church understands them. It’s not complicated.
Perhaps Mr. Yoder will be happy to know that I’ve have been “evaluating” my “relationship” to the Adventist Church for about 55 years. It has been a very interesting journey. GC presidents come and go, We can and have waited for the problematical ones to leave and then the process of maturing our church can continue.
GC presidents come and go, but in the entire history of Adventism not one has repudiated our fundamental belief regarding EGW. Which highlights all the more your need for evaluating your relationship with the church.
If the church removed from the rolls all who could not affirm the FBs there would probably be an immediate drop in U.S. membership by 50%. The church has not intention of requiring such affirmation oaths. Why would they want to decrease the membership by half?
And that is why I have proposed that the right hand GGG gang, the Glorious Guardians of Good, will carve into stone the hard line in SA, but the left hand the MC (Money Changers) who tote heavy money bags from the lefties, will find mutual winking space so no whacking of membership, no decline of filthy lucre will be necessary.
REPLY TO HAMMY’S SABBATH ADDICTION REPLY
Since we exhausted the reply steps in our conversation above, this addendum is necessary because I wanted to let Jim know that I honor his commitment to his faith as portrayed in his experience. One of the reasons, as an ex SDA minister, I hang around here in this garden in my role as a weed, not always greeted with a smile, albeit (!), is that I know that for the most part, people of the highest quality are drawn to Adventism, demonstrated by their sense of commitment and duty, and I enjoy the many conversations I have with Jim and all the persons of his caliber I encounter here.
And a Happy New Year to All!
Although EGHW (next to my Mother, provided the most influence for me to be a dedicated Christian) may not by name be mentioned as a test of membership in the SDA Church FB’s, it is obvious this is the intent of the GC. There are many interpretations of variation, of many of the FB’s as there are members. And should an accounting of each members acceptance of all 28 FB’s were required as a test for continued membership in the SDA Church, i, as Elaine, believe the results would be shocking to GC hierarchy.
We, as individuals, are not saved because we have membership in the SDA Church. It is a personal decision of every soul to accept the grace of God, BY FAITH, in His sacrifice in our behalf. The SDA Church with it’s non-scriptural beliefs, predicated on non-scriptural Date settings, in order to save face, scrambling for a method of belief, brought forth FB’s that billions of other Christians ridiculed them for, because they are non-scriptural. Yes there are many beautiful Christians in the SDA Church, because they have accepted Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior. Don’t tell any other soul they are lost because they don’t let the ceremonies and laws and FB’s condemn them.
Jim Hamstra, did you read the verses that I quoted, then search for what EGW is referring to as the New Covenant. 2 Cor 3: 7 I quoted. Now look at what EGW quotes as the New Covenant. She says perfect obedience to the 10 Commandments is the New Covenant. 2 Cor 3:7 talks of the “engraved tablets of stone” being destroyed or waning in their glory. There is the 1 Covenant, the Promise of Abraham and the 2/New Covenant. It’s hard to read the Bible the way EGW does. You have to read her first and accept that bias to believe she has the truth. Try Solo Scriptura.
John 5: 16 “So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
Jesus was interpreting work in a different manner than Jesus was. Even at creation the seventh day does not set up a Sabbath ordinance for it is never mentioned. The seventh day without morning or evening was set aside for special use, “sanctified”. Jesus in John 5, is referring to work different than EGW, SDAs or most of Christiandom does. The answer to the 2 Covenant is no shown by EGW Col 2:16-17. New Covenant Theology is different than EGW’s New Covenant, for she teaches the same doctrine as Covenant Theology does. New Covenant Theology offers “better promises”. Hebrews 8:6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.Better promises than Exodus 34:28 “Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.”
Jim Hamstra, now Col 2:16-17 tells about a Sabbath fulfilled as does Jesus in Luke 24:44. Jesus is our True Rest available “Today” Heb 4: 7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.”… You mention then that you can commit crimes of others mentioned in the 10 Commandments. That might be true if the NT did not reiterate all 9 of 10 and tell how the other was fulfilled. If anything, as you read the Sermon on the Mount and other lists of sins mentioned in the Pauline letters. The New Covenant “asks” you to study to see what the behavior standards are of God in the NT era. You see that wrestling in Acts 15. If you haven’t gotten around to the “commands” try this list http://www.cranfordville.com/NTViceLists.html
“
So God wrote ten rules on tables of stone with the Divine finger. Nine out of ten still apply. God did change his/her/their mind about one and only one of the Big Ten. The one in ten that makes no sense to many people today, so the only reason to observe it is because we believe what God says even when it does not make sense to us?
Sorry but I serve a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I guess that when Isaiah writes that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh will come to worship before God (in the afterlife), then Isaiah must have only been writing about Jewish flesh. I guess the rest of us will remain disembodied spirits in the afterlife because we will not have flesh to worship on the Sabbath. Or maybe there will be a separate heaven for Jews and Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists and a few others who believe in the prophecy of Isaiah? Or maybe all flesh really means what it seems to say?
In our Sabbath School class yesterday a lawyer and an engineer were discussing the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Both agreed that the eternal Law of God forms the standard of both covenants.
The engineer said that the Law can show us what is broken but cannot show us how to fix it. The lawyer said that the Law can condemn us but cannot save us. Thanks be to God for the gift of Jesus Christ who promises to save us from the condemnation of the Law, and to repair for us everything that the Law shows to be broken in us.
The difference is that the Old Covenant was based upon a promise made by Israel at Sinai – All that the Lord has said we will do. They may have believed they could keep their covenant but God knew better. The new covenant is based upon the promises of God rather than the promises of humans. And God’s promises cannot fail. And God promises to write the Law in our hearts as indelibly as it was written in tables of stone.
Do we make the Law void by faith? No, we establish the Law by faith.
Jim Hamstra said: So God wrote ten rules on tables of stone with the Divine finger. Nine out of ten still apply.
Bob Sands response: If you do not consider all the Bible to be inerrant, admit what parts so we can converse with you. I gave 2 Cor 3: 7 and unless I missed it you did not respond to it. Nor the Council in Acts 15 and what the new church agreed was to be kept by all people.
Jim Hamstra said: God did change his/her/their mind about one and only one of the Big Ten. The one in ten that makes no sense to many people today, so the only reason to observe it is because we believe what God says even when it does not make sense to us?
Bob Sands response: It is not that it does not make sense, it is he spoke of fulfilling it in himself as early as Matthew 11: 28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Jim Hamstra: Sorry but I serve a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I guess that when Isaiah writes that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh will come to worship before God (in the afterlife), then Isaiah must have only been writing about Jewish flesh. I guess the rest of us will remain disembodied spirits in the afterlife because we will not have flesh to worship on the Sabbath. Or maybe there will be a separate heaven for Jews and Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists and a few others who believe in the prophecy of Isaiah? Or maybe all flesh really means what it seems to say?
Bob’s response: Expression of the time were from one new moon to another (by the way there were New Moon Festivals is why Isaiah uses this)So if you want to keep Sabbaths from one new moon to another as well as the weekly Sabbath, a thorough reading of the New Testament says such a Covenant the 1st Covenant was mad obsolete, Hebrews 8:13. There is more about the New Covenant that EGW and our leaders will have to account for, for maintaining an Obsolete Covenant.
Sorry your God that does not change, regretting having made man and bringing the Flood on the earth, was that not a change. Circumcision as mandated by the believer, was that not changed? Me thinks your God has a plan but the words of the Bible show different. Who do we believe, your surmising or the Bible.
“28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” Acts 15:28-29
No mention is made here of blasphemy, murder, lying, stealing, dishonoring your parents. The reasonable conclusion is that all the Apostles considered the Decalogue to be a given and saw no need to address those issues in their letter that were not actually a source of controversy at that time. You can see from the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul that circumcision, food offered to idols, and sexual immorality were the issues in the churches of Asia Minor and Europe.
Jim Hamstra, You say the Old Covenant is the same as the New Covenant, in structure. The Covenants have very different tenets, some repeated but most expanded. Should a Christian not know of this change, to read the scriptures to see the new behavior standards to look to the Holy Spirit’s empowerment,the Comforter in the New Covenant which is a game changer. Here are the new commands,some reiterated, some expanded, some new. http://www.cranfordville.com/NTViceLists.html But the iteration of the behavior standards should be read carefully that you do not go against Jesus Gospel in order to keep these standards as directed with the Holy Spirit empowerment.
I agree that depending upon God rather than upon ourselves is a game changer. In the New Covenant it is not God that changes, it is our perception of God that changes. Rather than depending on ourselves we are depending on God.
If your reason for serving God is to gain Divine favor or avert Divine wrath, you are actually living in paganism, as were the Children of Israel who having said “All that the Lord has said we will do” only to turn around and worship a Golden Calf. This is the law that kills as described in 2 Cor 3:7.
If your reason for serving God is gratitude for Creation and Redemption then you are living in the New Covenant, where God’s Law is written in your heart and mind. This is the law that brings life and freedom in Christ as described in 2 Cor 3:5-6. This is the greater Glory of the Holy Spirit described in 2 Cor 3:8.
It is not God that changes, nor is it God’s Law that changes. It is we who find a new relationship with Christ and through Christ, with the Law. It is we who are changed by the power of God. Do we make void the law by faith? To the contrary, we establish the law by faith.
Is ‘Bob Sands’ a pseudonym for Elaine?
What did Jesus mean when claiming to be “Lord even of the Sabbath day”? When exactly did the Sabbath become obsolete? Wouldn’t it make sense that it became obsolete whenever Jesus ceased being its Lord? At what point did the sanctification of the seventh day of the week dissipate?
Doesn’t Matthew 24:20 at the very least indicate that the Sabbath would be continued as an institution or in some way observed after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection; and was He not talking to followers? At what point should He have told His followers that it would become obsolete?
In Matthew 5:18, what exactly did Jesus mean by “Till heaven and earth pass…”? How do you interpret the next verse?
Why does Matthew 28:1 describe the part of the day of the resurrection the way it does, or acknowledge “the Sabbath”?
Doesn’t Acts 13, particularly verses 14-52, indicate that the Sabbath was (then) a given?
(Does it make sense to suggest that God did not abrogate the law; but that Jesus’ sacrifice ‘arrests’ the law, and that the penalty for breaking it was transferred or transmitted to Jesus at Calvary?)
“Is ‘Bob Sands’ a pseudonym for Elaine?”
I actually met Bob Sands during my Andrews University sojourn. I do not think this is a pseudonym.
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Col 2: 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Ephesians 2:15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,
Do these passages not tweek you mind at all. All is proceeding under the OC with just a facelift, Jim.
You and I were trained in Adventist Schools where the Pauline letters, at least for me, were not studied in depth. The OT has not been destroyed but fulfilled and thus a new law is required, all being accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross.
Hebrew 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
Also, Was Paul just a confused, demented witness commissioned by God when he says: 1 Cor 9:21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
Now Jim Christ’s Law reference is not the Decalogue. If you believe that I will halt our conversation, for you are truly stayed in your ways. Your job depending on what your employer states as the party line. One last quote:
John 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
Have you studied to see what He had not told them and let the Holy Spirit guide you into the “more” Jesus speaks of. Are you in a better condition than those followers of Jesus??
Well I have never worked for the SDA Church since my school days nor for any other religious organization, so my employment does not depend on my theological views.
You can pick and choose your favorite proof texts, but from Genesis 3 onwards our salvation has depended upon the Grace of God and not on any good works we have done or promises we have made or kept or broken. This is the consistent message both from the OT and from the NT. Jesus and Paul said many things to Jews who thought that keeping the law could save them. Paul reminds us that Abraham was justified by his faith, and that this faith was demonstrated (not earned) by his actions.
In Hebrew 8 and 10 the writer quotes from Jeremiah 31, where the New Covenant is explained in the OT. I will write my laws in your hearts say the Lord. The New Covenant does not abolish the Law, it writes the Law in our hearts. Hebrews and Jeremiah are in agreement. This is based upon the promises of God who cannot fail, rather than the promises of humans which we cannot keep.
This is from my own study of the Bible. Please read the entirety of Romans or Colossians or Hebrews or any other Pauline epistle, and tell me where Paul does not conclude an epistle without writing about how our faith in Christ will impact our behavior towards those around us. For Paul these things are inextricably linked.
Bob,
Our challenge today is at least three-fold: 1) knowing what God has given for us to learn so we will know when He is teaching us; 2) overcoming our delusions of knowing so much about God that we don’t want to learn more from Him; and 3) actually being in communication with Him to receive the “more” that He wants to teach us. Read just about any of the topical discussion strings here and you’ll find good illustrations of the second challenge where people are claiming to know more or have a better understanding on a topic than someone, all without admitting that God knows far more than all of us put-together!
To be compared to Elaine Nelson, can be a compliment and sometimes not so much. But no we have debated each other at times. I am better known under the moniker as Bob_2.
That was from the old A-tomorrow forum run by JR Layman. There was another “Bob” who posted there. I think Bob has a brother named Don. Don is a Sabbath keeping Christian. Bob has opted for a “spirit ethic” to guide the Christian community as the new covenant mandate. Bob has some creative ways, like Elaine, to negate the Sabbath, but we assume both he and Elaine are simply trying to find some continuity for Christanity. As bible SDA’s, we believe the 7th day Sabbath is part of that continuity.
When Jesus claims to be “Lord of the Sabbath” , this is a statement of authority, not a statement to prolong that statute. The ultimate goal of the Sabbath was??………REST was it not? If Jesus is our True Rest, the Reality of the Sabbath, plainly state in 2 Cor 2:16, 17, why do you twist scripture to your own devices, such as the civil, ceremonial, and moral break down of the OC?? Most jews will tell you the OT as a whole is the OC, or the Mosaic Covenant. I suggest a reading to help your understanding: http://www.amazon.com/New-Covenant-Theology-Tom-Wells/dp/1928965113/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1419877806&sr=8-3&keywords=new+covenant+theology
The eternal Sabbath Rest commences at the end of Revelation when all things are restored. The Sabbath Rest we enter into now is through faith in the promises of God.
The weekly Sabbath was and remains a symbol of the eternal Sabbath Rest. Ditto for the Sabbatical Years in the OT. Understanding the ultimate meaning of the symbol does not do away with the symbol, it reinforces the symbol.
Several times previously on this web site I have explained the connection between the three Divine “completions” in the Bible – Creation in Genesis, Redemption in the Gospels and Restoration in Revelation. Each time Yahweh announces the completed work and a Sabbath commences. In all three places the Bible celebrates the completion of God’s work with a Sabbath Rest.
The books of Genesis and Revelation do not describe the ends of the original and final Sabbaths, respectively. The Gospels do specifically describe the end of the Sabbath after the Crucifixion.
Bob,
I’ve asked you a series of questions. If you’d take the time to answer them individually it would be appreciated.
I appreciate that you have addressed “Lord even of the Sabbath” as referencing authority; but if He claimed authority over it, at what point did He lose it? If the Sabbath is obsolete for His followers, when did He relinquish this authority? If He did not lose this authority, if He remains Lord of the Sabbath, then how can it be considered obsolete?
What does “Till heaven and earth pass…” mean; maybe we can start with that? Let me also ask this; in the Aramaic language or in the Greek language are the words translated as “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17, and as “fulfilled” in Matthew 5:18, one and the same, or different?
I strongly disagree with you that the ultimate goal of the Sabbath was rest. I believe that the ultimate goal of the Sabbath is to remind us who God is and how we got here. I believe that rest is the obvious beneficial (“for man”) byproduct of the Sabbath; but that the Sabbath symbolizes and memorializes God’s identity; which is its ultimate objective.
Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath chooses to fulfill it, rather than make a “god” out of it, he has authority to do so. There is a big if when studying this “until everything is accomplished.” Is not all accomplished that Jesus came to do, Luke 24:44??
Jesus came to, and did, fulfill the prophecies concerning His incarnation and sacrificial death. There are, of course, other things that He later revealed to John on Patmos that have not yet been accomplished Bob. This is why we are still here. Heaven and earth have not yet passed.
How then do you interpret Matthew 5:19?
when in heaven, where is the need for REST when Jesus is their. There are no more morning and evenings because their is no night, but constant light from God and His magnificence. If you believe Isaiah was not talking in terms familiar to his time, “from one new moon to another, from one Sabbath to another,” if there is no night and no moon, then surely these are terms used to measure time in Isaiah time.
Notice in the New Jerusalem, for a God that does not change:
Revelation 21:22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
The eternal Sabbath is a man made “law” where Jesus is declared the fulfillment of the Sabbath in Col 2:16-17. Also in
Heb 4: 7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
If God gave another day, is that not that the “day of Salvation” when we can be forgiven and given rest without waiting for seven days??
Jim Hamstra said:
“The eternal Sabbath Rest commences at the end of Revelation when all things are restored. The Sabbath Rest we enter into now is through faith in the promises of God.”
When the Temple is gone:
Revelation 21:22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
… why do you need to remember the Sabbath when Jesus the fulfillment is present as the reality. Jesus was asked one time what the greatest commandment was:
Matthew 22:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
What was EGW’s answer: “soft halo of light encircling it. Said the angel, “It is the only one of the ten which defines the living God who created the heavens and the earth and all things that are therein.”
When the foundations of the earth were laid, then was also laid the foundation of the Sabbath. I was shown that if the true Sabbath had been kept, there would never have been an infidel or an atheist. The observance of the Sabbath would have preserved the world from idolatry.
The fourth commandment has been trampled upon, therefore we are called upon to repair the breach in the law and plead for the desecrated Sabbath. The man of sin, who exalted himself above God, and thought to change times and laws, brought about the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. In doing this he made a breach in”
Who do you worship, the Sabbath, EGW, or Jesus the Son of God. We are to test EGW against the Bible and find her wanting.
I worship Jesus Christ. I do NOT worship either Ellen or the Sabbath. Where have I ever used Ellen to justify a Bible doctrine?
I believe that Jesus Christ of the NT is Yahweh of the OT incarnate in human flesh. In the Torah Yahweh commands us to worship the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation (Exodus) and of Redemption (Deuteronomy). Jesus in His earthly ministry showed us how to keep the Sabbath. The Bible records of both Jesus and Paul that it was their custom to worship on the Sabbath.
I can show you where Jesus commanded me to keep the Sabbath. You cannot show me where Jesus commanded me to stop worshiping on the Sabbath.
The last chapters of Revelation depict the Holy City as the Most Holy of the Temple. There is no Temple in the city because the city IS the Temple, the Throne of God and of the Lamb. The saints dwell in the Most Holy with God and the Lamb. We share God’s throne, we share the Bridegroom’s bedchamber. This is the whole point of Tabernacling with God.
What does this have to do with the role of the Sabbath here and now? Only that the Sabbath in this life points us toward the eternal Sabbath Rest in the life to come.
Their is no sin in keeping the Sabbath, but stating it is salvific and “forcing” people to rearrange their lives, some time years before a full pension, this is getting close to making the Sabbath a “god”. I was a member of an SDA church just miles from the SDA HQs. I got acquainted with a new Adventist, who had been excommunicated from another SDA church just miles away, because he performed Friday night drunk detail. The first church felt strong enough to remove his name from their books, and the second church felt just as strongly about the issue, they allowed him to have membership in the church I belonged to. How do you go in front of a judge with that kind of inconsistency to claim “it is against my religion”. Ask yourself further, who is the first person you are to call if you have an accident on the way to church?? Also, what of the water treatment plant manager that must be on every other weekend. Remember before you answer the many ways you use the product of the water treatment plant. Are these salvific issues that will be the final test of loyalty to God, Jim Hamstra?????
The exact “how” of Sabbath keeping may well be negotiable. But the day is a non-negotiable objective declaration of God in His word. To interpret the law is one thing, and to change it is another.
In Luther’s discussion with Rome, he was told, “The Pope interprets scripture.” and Luther responded, “He may interpret it, but he is not above it.” And on another occasion of a simular situation, Luther declared, “The task of interpreting scripture belongs to the whole Christian community.”
The Christian church does not abandon any objective biblical given just because someone may “make a god” out of some concept. I knew a Church of Christ pastor who would not baptize anyone with the explanation, “They may think they will merit heaven by baptism.”
Any mis-application of truth does not negate the form because it may be mis-applied. So, Bob, you present a “false dilemma” by appealing to an abuse of some truth as a reason to abandon it.
Bill, a new mystery emerges here. If the “how” is negotiable (maybe) doesn’t that open the door to renaming the week so Sunday becomes the seventh day. Of if that isn’t what you have in mind, then what are parameters for what are the mobile boundaries and who are the decision makers? It appears you are saying it is intention that is the functional determination of proper Sabbath keeping. In a very liberal way, if that is so, you have described the obvious, functional role of Sabbath in the Christian world. That is, those who keep Sunday could be said to be exercising intention, along with Jews and Adventists with a rainbow of observance of actual Saturday.
The Sabbath, “as a loyalty to God,” or as any religious test whatsoever, appears to me, to be a “false dilemma.” I recognize for individuals who adopt it as their mark loyalty it isn’t false, but that is a choice made only on an personal opinion. It changes nothing at the end of their lives. They die like all. It changes little during the course of their lives except for an outward demonstration of resolve and character and a willingness to hold fast to a mental conception at any cost, an ego satisfaction and public demonstration, but nothing perceptible in eternal terms. And I know the argument. The quest of the eternal reward is the reward. Suffer now, obey now, get paid later.
The payoff for virtually all religions is after death. That is a manufactured carrot for hungry souls in need of hope.
The elixir of passage is hope, not obedience. Obedience involves laws, determining what they are, proper obedience, and reward/punishment. Laws of the land function in this parameter. Laws of the brain, religious laws don’t. The first are civilly imposed, the second are self-imposed. There is no reward or punishment for Sabbath keeping, proper or improper.
Dying people don’t care. As a hospital chaplain I was present when approximately two hundred people died, a mix of SDA and non SDA. At least outwardly, they died the same. I see mountains of arguments piled high for Sabbath among a few living souls. All I have ever seen at death are demonstrations of love, tears, and grief on the faces of doctors, nurses, friends and families. Love rules. All other mountains become plains. And the deceased end where all have and we will.
Where have I written that the Sabbath is salvific? Where have I written that it is not lawful to provide essential services on the Sabbath?
And why do you insist in attributing things to me that I have never written? This is shoddy reasoning on your part or worse.
The 10 Commandments are a condemnation of every human creature to have walked this Earth. All have fallen short of the standard, and were deserving of death. JESUS the LOVER CHRIST pardoned every soul who accepts His Grace, by faith in his free gift of life. All power of the 10 Commandments to kill was removed at the Saviors sacrifice at the cross. Although the 10 C’s will ever be pointing out the sin of man, they have no power since the NEW COVENANT of JESUS, JESUS is LORD of everything including the Sabbath.
Jesus is indeed Lord of everything good including the Sabbath.
Jesus said He is not the Lord of the dead but of the living. If the Sabbath were dead Jesus would not be Lord of the Sabbath.
Jesus said the law would not pass away until heaven and earth pass away. This event is still in the future. The law has not yet passed away.
In the New Covenant our relationship to the Law changes, because our relationship to God changes. God and God’s Law do not change. It is our relationship that changes.
Then why such a defense of the 10 Commandments and the Sabbath? God, you say doesn’t change. His plan however has twists and turns that may look like a God that changes, but he does not change from his plan.
I will defend everything that I believe the Bible teaches.
One could as readily ask why such an attack on the Sabbath, but not on the other nine commandments?
If they, the 10 Commandments are not salvific, why does the church not allow membership or baptism until they accept the keeping of the Sabbath? Jim, you want it both ways. The New Covenant has a new law, Christ’s Law, 1 Cor 9:21. Paul indicates that God’s Law and Christ’s Law are different than the Mosaic Law . Lest you think everyone from creation had the same law, look at the Noahide Law in Genesis 9, and Gal 3:7 about Abraham 430 years before the Mosaic Law was given.
I do not believe that the SDA church is the gateway to the Kingdom. Jesus Christ is the gateway to the kingdom. I do not believe the Sabbath is salvific any more than are the other nine commandments of the Big Ten. Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone.
I do maintain it is inconsistent to teach that Christians need to obey the other nine but not the Sabbath. They all come from the same place at the same time and were written upon tables of stone by the finger of Yahweh. Either all ten are a moral standard for believers, or none of them are a moral standard. You cannot pick and choose among them based upon human reasoning or desires.
My final post on this is: Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Romans 14:5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.
Sounds like a lot of leeway is given on this matter. Yet the SDA church with this text right in front of them put “Seventh-day” right in their church name.
There are other Christian denominations available for those who are not convinced regarding the Sabbath. If you are not fully convinced in your own mind regarding the Sabbath then perhaps you should be looking elsewhere?
We may well dig a hole we can not get out of, Jim, if we do not support the law as being salvational. It is true that you can not pay your way to heaven or merit the favor of God by keeping the law. Even faith is excluded as a meritorious necessity for salvation. None the less, faith is instrumental as is all the law as a means of grace and is salvational as a means of grace. Just so, the Sabbath is salvational as a sign like baptism that we have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. God Himself defines the objective signs of faith. And to reject God’s authority to command and demand obedience is wilfull rebellion.
Earl would have us believe that the law has been emasculated of any power or ability to condemn by the cross. This is as false an idea as could possibly be formulated. It would mean God has no authority to govern or rule His kingdom by way of law. But Earl and Bob are kindred spirits with Elaine and others who attack God’s authority by way of their false gospel application.
If the law is still valid, but no penalty is a part of it, then the law has no meaning or power or authority. Suppose a police- man stops you and tells you that you are going to fast and violating the law. So, you ask, “What is the penalty for going to fast?” And he says, “There isn’t any, it is just a good idea not to speed.”
This is how the antinomian would have us believe there is still God’s law, but it has no penalty for violation. I recommend the book “God’s way of Holiness” by Horatius Bonar who wrote the song, “I lay my sins at Jesus Feet”, for a excellent explanation of how the law functions for the Christian community.
Sad to say, many SDA’s today embrace the spirituality of Bob, Earl and Elaine, and then can not explain how or why anyone should keep the 7th day Sabbath. Adventism has painted itself into a corner on this issue by denying that the law is salvational. And now tries to explain why anyone should keep the Sabbath. Someday, people will wake up and realize they have been duped by a false leadership who have led them in to error and delusion of apostate Protestantism. All in some vain effort to show how we do not believe anyone can merit heaven.
True, no one can merit heaven. This does not negate the moral value of obedience that make it mandatory to keep the law to be saved. Simply put, the moral law is not a legal code nor is the investigative judgment for the purpose of determining who has merited heaven and who has not. The IJ will show who has willingly subjected themselves to God’s authority as worthy to “command and demand” obedience to His kingdom and its laws.
Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for all who will accept His sacrifice. My only hope and claim to heaven is by His finished work on my behalf.
The law shows us how humans are intended to live-up to the image of God. But it does not nor can it enable us to do so.
Whether or not fallen humans will ever fully live-up to any of the demands of the law is not a question that I will speculate. But I will say that to the extent that we do anything right, it is not our own doing but God working in us both to will and to do.
Here is one of many paradoxes (to human reasoning) presented in the Bible. I can be lost by failing to keep the Law, but I cannot be saved by keeping the Law.
Bill,
Thanks for joining the conversation here. Hope all is well with you. It has been I’m thinking a couple of years since we exchanged emails.
With regard to the topic at hand … the role of Seventh-day Adventist traditional beliefs in personal salvation in the end time, Calvinism or Reformed theology and Arminianism surely are part of the conversation. Seventh-day Adventists are rooted in Arminianism. You likely have read Woodrow W. Whidden II The Judgment and Assurance – Library of Adventist Theology. He makes clear that Seventh-day Adventist teaching is solidly Arminian. though I must admit that I did not come away from the book assured of my salvation precisely because Arminianism asserts that I hold the key to my own salvation and I’m not at all sure I won’t misplace it along the way.
Some theological wag describes the relationship between Calvinism and Arminianism as in one case God can save everyone but chooses not to (Calvinism), and in the other case God would like to save everyone, but is unable to (Arminianism).
I used to believe that Calvin was on track when it came to how a person comes to be saved. That is, it is 100% God’s act wholly independent of anything I know, will, or do. As Paul reminds the Ephesians, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” 2:8-10
I figured that Calvin was simply unable to let go of the misunderstood continuing need for judgment. I much more easily embrace Judgment in the context of Arminianism where human will and engagement is a necessary component of each person’s personal salvation, though I find human will running up against a lack of biblical support and indeed, as a friend and former NT Seminary scholar put it about a related topic, ‘There are a few texts I would have to get around to believe that.’
For example, Paul writing to the Philippians declared, ‘For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do his good pleasure.’ 2:13. And Isaiah affirms from deep in the Old Testament enlivened by the Torah, ‘but now, O Loard, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.’ 64:8
I’ve come to the sense that maybe Calvin was wrong about who was going to be saved, and Arminianism was wrong about how anyone is going to be saved. Have you excepted this Calvin Arminian continuum, Bill?
I used to think that because grace alone is salvational, to use your wonderful word, Bill, there is no need for judgment. I have come full circle and embrace Judgment as at the utter core to salvation and that salvation is the core of the resolution of the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. (I know … the winds of doctrine text is coming to my mind too … though the span of time covered by the last two…
Very perceptive comments, Bill G.
Arminius taught the concept of Prevenient Grace. God grants everyone enough grace to be able to choose to accept God’s Grace.
The conventional Adventist view is more Wesleyan than Arminian though we like to call it the latter.
Having been raised with one foot in Adventism and the other in Calvinism, I think Arminius got it right.
May God grant us all the Grace to accept Grace.
Mr. Hamstra is quite correct in suggesting that there are many paradoxes that humans encounter during their lifetimes. But it is the phrase “to human reasoning” which kind of lost me.
May I ask what other kinds of reasoning which is accessible to us mere humans is there, other than “human reasoning?”
Indeed you may ask that very valid question. I must allow for the possibility that things which are paradoxes to us are not paradoxes to God.
God’s modes of reasoning are beyond our comprehension. Such things are only accessible to us to the extent that God chooses to share them with us. This is one purpose of Divine Revelation. Thereby we can glimpse things reflected dimly in a tarnished mirror (Paul’s analogy) that we cannot directly apprehend with the human mind or senses.
Divine Revelation does not answer all of our difficult questions, nor make plain things we cannot understand. But it does reassure us that above and beyond our realm of observation and comprehension and imagination, there is a higher wisdom and knowledge and benevolence that is nevertheless real.
The more important question is who developed such a paradox. If human reason produced it then it might be artificial and not a paradox at all. On the other hand if it is a paradox by God then what does it say about God? As in why produce a paradox in the first place.
It seems a creation of flawed human reason to me. First, was the law ever established to save anyone? Answer no. Can I be lost by not keeping the law…that is harder, because no one keeps the law so that might be the actual paradox, though since there are not a pair of ideas there it is not a paradox but probably just a flawed statement as well. So do two flawed non applicable statements create a paradox, or is it simply not a paradox at all.
All have sinned. All fall short of the Glory of God. Without Jesus Christ all humans are lost. Why? Because we all are born in rebellion against God and against God’s Law. We are utterly incapable of saving ourselves by keeping God’s Law.
Jesus Christ lived and died in our place. He took upon Himself the consequences of our rebellion. He freely gives us His perfect life and perfect death in exchange for our failed lives.
How then can we be lost? Only by rejecting the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. This is the condemnation. Light has come into the world, but some humans choose darkness in preference to light.
The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of humans.
Bill, respectfully i shall disagree with your evaluation of my understanding of the 10C’s including the Sabbath. Jesus gave a New Covenant, because the Original Covenant did not save man, it pointed out sin which kills, but which no man could measure up to. Jesus, with the New Covenant, stated the 10C’s in an improved salvation program for man. Instead of the original ten, He stated “Love your god (first four), and love your neighbor (5-10)”.Matt.22:36-40. By this quotation it states the same statement i made regarding the 10 C’s. Jesus by restating the 10 C’s in a different salvation form, removed the sting of death from the 10C’s which of course will always point out sin. i accept the Sabbath as His memorial of Creation.
Well, Earl, I really don’t blame you for anything in particular. The last few posts on this thread is proof positive that the SDA understanding of the bible is superficial at best, and totally heretical at worst.
There are two factors that make up salvation. One is the divine factor that Paul refers to continually in his opposition to the Jewish idea of forgiveness by way of the ceremonial law, and then there is the human factor James refers to in his letter to the churches.
The divine factor is the meritorious cause of redemption but will not take the place of the human factor that embraces a fitness for heaven. The first is God’s work in Christ and the second is man’s response as a moral requirement for heaven. There is no salvation without both factors being in place. And yes, man saves himself by responding to the gospel of free forgiveness. If he does not respond by way of the biblical exhortation, he is not saved, no matter what God has done for him in Christ. He must respond by faith, repentance and a return to obedience to God’s authority.
We are not only “saved” so we can respond, we are “saved” by responding. And in this light Revelation states “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life…….” This is not some legal right. It is a moral right based on a fitness for the kingdom of God. Christ is our legal right, and our response is our moral right.
The Son did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save the world. You judge yourselves by whether you come to the Light. Here is how you judge yourselves. Light is come into the world. The honest person comes to the light that it may be see his/her/their works have been wrought in God. The dishonest person avoids the Light so that his/her/their evil deeds will not be exposed.
Without Me you can do nothing.
It is God who works in you both to will and to do his/her/their good purpose.
Let us look unto Jesus who is the Author and the Finisher of our faith.
Wherein am I misrepresenting the clear Word of God?
My sources say that in the Greek, the authority (right in the KJV) to enter the City and partake of the Tree of Life is a Blessing which is granted, as opposed to a right which is earned.
Whether or not the reference is to robes (stolas) or to commandments (entolas) depends on which early Greek manuscript family you accept as authentic.
Regardless, the blessing is a privilege not a right, in the Greek.
“Whether or not the reference is to robes (stolas) or to commandments (entolas) depends on which early Greek manuscript family you accept as authentic.”
Jim, and deciding which manuscript is authentic also depends upon how many other accumulated errors you discover in it. But this one, I believe, can be solved simply from the Greek. Poiountes tas entolas vs plunontes tas stoles look similar enough that one could have been copied instead of the other by a careless scribe. However, the washing in the Greek is a continuous washing – which I believe is at odds with general Biblical teaching. Blessed are they who are continuously washing their robes cannot be right. Blessed are they who (continuously) keep the commandments fits the rest of scripture.
However, isn’t it interesting that the supposedly “oldest and most reliable” manuscripts actually have the most copyist errors/nonsensical sentences and general evidence of sloppy copying? I wish people would actually be shown photos of these codices and have it explained to them what is actually written there rather than saying “this one says this, the other say that” as if they are on an equal footing. They most certainly are not of equal quality.
If you have knowledge of biblical Greek a read of Dean William Burgon is an eye-opener.
I have no strong personal opinion about the original Greek. It is not my own field of expertise.
However I disagree with your assertion that continually washing our robes in the blood of the Lamb makes no sense. Regardless of which way you read this passage it is a continual ongoing experience in this life. I must wash my robe in Christ’s blood daily in order to wear Christ as a garment (symbolically). Likewise I must do God’s commandments (loving God supremely, loving others as myself, believing on the Christ whom God has sent, etc) daily.
Either way the authorization to enter the City and eat from the Tree of Life is by the Grace of God, not something I have earned as a right as claimed by the previous writer.
I millions of Christians accept the Resurrection as the greatest Christian memorial, why are they wrong?
Without the Resurrection there would be no Adventists or Christians; Adventists came from the great body of Christians who began celebrating the Resurrection in the first century.
Arguing which is the greatest Christian memorial is pointless.
Without the Crucifixion there would be no Resurrection.
Without the Incarnation there would be no Crucifixion.
Without the Fall and Promise there would be no Incarnation.
Without Creation there would be no Fall and Promise.
And without Creation there would be no Restoration of all things.
It’s just one miracle after another all the way down 8-). And at the bottom there is an incredible eternal benevolent Deity.
Christians believed only AFTER the resurrection. While Jesus lived, the incarnation was never mentioned., His legitimate birth was even questioned. Christianity was born AFTER the Resurrection, not when Jesus was born, as the stories about His birth began a generation later. It took years to form all the stories about Jesus, and is still unfinished.
Just as legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood may have some truth, myths take years in the making. All religions are based on BELIEF and facts become elaborated.
One man’s Miracles are another woman’s Myths 8-).
When you die, your children will believe you more and pay attention to your virtues, than when you are still alive. Just like during Jesus’ lifetime people believed on Him and He was popular, but never was His person attracted more except when the grain of wheat fell to the ground and died. Do you suppose the New Testament writers wrote about Jesus the way writers wrote about Robin Hood and other legends? How can you explain the phenomenon of demon possession only to be cured by the name of Jesus if He were just a legend? How can you explain about the lives of criminals and cannibals who were changed after reading the Bible? You may not realize this, but it is true, that people who are sophisticated in the scholarship are by far still fools in practical life, and do not see things that are actually happening. Just like you.
They are wrong because they substitute their tradition for the law of God. Adventists came OUT OF the great body of Christians who teach for doctrine the commandments of men.
Well, again one thing is obvious. If people don’t understand Paul, neither do they understand the bible. And visa versa. Even Peter suggested that Paul is not all that easy to understand. But for me, and probably some others, Paul is very obvious in what he affirms and also what he denies.
Better bible students realize that when the phrase “the law” is used, in many if not most cases, it includes the whole government of God as typified in the OT by the ceremonial law and the ten commandments. It does not simply mean the 10 commandments, although sometimes it does.
In which case, the words of David “The law of the Lord of perfect” is not specifically the ten commandments, but the whole system of law and redemption. It is both ceremonial law and moral law united in one perfect whole and this is “perfect” for the converting of the soul. So it is the law of intercession plus the moral law that makes up the kingdom of God.
In which case, when Paul asks, “Do we then make void the law through faith……?” He is far more interested in affirming the law of intercession carried on by Christ in heaven vs. the ceremonial law that has been terminated, than the moral law, although the moral law is still inherent in his meaning. EGW and historic Adventism use this verse primarily to affirm the validity of the moral law as continuing as the law of life for the Christian community. This is OK in a broader context of the meaning of Paul, but is not the primary and historical meaning of Paul as his focus is ceremonial law vs the intercession of Christ in heaven. And this is the whole ball of wax in all of Paul’s letters and for good reason.
He is in opposition to the Judaizers who follow him like a plague everywhere he goes and tries to persuade Paul’s converts to Christ that they must practice the ceremonial law to be saved. They are not affirming the validity of the moral law, or Paul would never be so upset by their affirmations.
Once we understand the historic situation that Paul is dealing with, we can easily see his meaning and the foolishness of claiming Paul is negating the moral law by his letters. Yet even in Adventism the confusion is rampant on this issue and many explanations are faulty and attack the moral law, even by those who try to affirm it.
The point remains that it is now the main body of Christians who, like the Judaizers in Paul’s day, are slaves to tradition. What is relevant now is applying Paul in the context of today’s conflict: Sabbath (God’s law) vs. Sunday (church tradition).
Air castle creation is the exercise of religious thought. It requires a circle of willing participants who are entertained by the nebulous enterprise and who know the insider language. No valuable contributions result since none are possible. However an insider consensus tends to emerge, or is subscribed, that a “right track” is somewhere at the core, just the detail are at issue. This deception is evidence of another soundproof chamber where inhabitants have absolutely no relevance outside of it.
New Covenant/Old Covenant, salvational/non-salvational, Christ’s law/Moses Law, Arminian/Calvinism. No one cares. And it doesn’t matter in any way, shape or form.
As I reread this forum post I am struck with continued ballooning of a purely metaphysical version of Adventist quantum theory that would leave the even Jewish legalists staring in envy and amazement. “Salvic,” or not? What is that?
It seems to me that the Christ story and teachings were intended as a total remodeling and simplification of the religious baloney dumped on humanity in his day. Here I see it rechurned, and returned as inane baloney, not worth the paper it is printed on.
Does a dad give his son dirt to eat when his son asks for food? No. Does a bird worry about food? No. Does a gift receiver turn around and cheat his friend? No. What is God? Judge, jury, executioner? No. God is love.
Way to simple for the oblivious theologicrats, happily encased in their soundproof chamber.
Larry, Yes LOVE is the answer, the only answer that protects the sheep, from the wolves in sheep clothing. There are many more wolves than sheep. We, who love our sheep, will give our lives for them. Would you give your life for your children?? Where does this love originate from that springs eternal in the hearts of some.
Certainly not from the World Leaders of today. They are the ravening wolves that annihilate the precious sheep of our land. Turn on the “news of the day”, what do you see???? Praise your Creator of LOve, whoever ” IT ” is.
I enjoy the metaphor of Him/It standing at my heart door, knocking, asking for entrance (free will, maybe) and proclaiming if it is opened, the invitation accepted, He/It, will sit down and enjoy some time, a meal even, together. Wow! News of the day totally eclipsed by that touch of Love in my experience.
“Regrettably, since Third World delegates to the GC session whom Wilson II has been courting for decades can outvote those from North America, Europe, and Australia, political reality is that he will remain in power to the great detriment of the Adventist Church for the foreseeable future.”
i see things differently…ted wilson’s presidency may be energizing egw-believing adventists to the point where conservative off-shoots from a few decades ago appear to be more sympathetic and less hostile to the general conference…my understanding is that hartland institute is no longer syphoning tithe competitively from nad…
as counter-intuitive as it may seem, i think a radical vision of adventism is good for the brand, financially speaking…the majority of donors to the church do so because they believe it’s a radical, religious duty…my impression, from conversations with more than one church treasurer, is that those so-called progressive elements don’t always feel any obligation to donate, and so don’t…while i think it’s probably a stretch to say that ted’s leadership style is based on financial considerations, it does seem to be the case that his style promotes donations from traditional donors…
as for the inference that ted is deliberately set on splitting the church to get rid of progressive elements, this sounds paranoid…it will be interesting to see if it does materialize…
Taylor and Spencer, get out of the church. You are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Of course EGWHITE’s interpretation is absolute and she must be obeyed and believed (2CHRONICLES 20:20). If you think Wilson II is making out church regress into sect-like status then so be it! That’s our original status. What do we care about what other churches think about us, it flatly does not matter. What we are is what we are, and originally we believe in Ellen G. White’s absolute inspiration and role as prophet and guide. AND WE DONT NEED USELESS AUTHORS LIKE YOU WHO CAN BE OF NO USE TO OUT CHURCH, PEOPLE WHO QUESTION AND CRITICIZE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY LIKE DATHAN AND ABIRAM. That’s why I say, get out of the seventh day adventist church because you are useless here. Wolves such as you must be driven out without delay. No, Wilson II IS BETTER, YEAH, FAR BETTER THAN PREVIOUS LEADERSHIPS. In these days where postmodern mind would have us believe as we want, we need solid and authoritative voice to hold on. This authority is unmistakably found in the Bible AND IN THIS LAST DAYS, THROUGH GOD’S PROPHET ELLEN G. WHITE, unless one is an outsider who does not believe in prophetic inspiration. I warn everyone not to believe in Taylor and Spencer. These two are wolves and manifestly useless to our church development. The remnant church is not to be reckoned among any other Christian churches in tr world. We and unique. We are the best. The rest are drunk with ROME’s cup of false teachings including previous leaders who taught messages that are not true to the 1888 message. We are to believe in God’s prophet especially this last days than a thousand scholars who speak nothing but nonsense, such as these Taylor and Spencer, and those who seek to destroy the influence of ELLEN G. WHITE from our church.
Artaxerxes, your angst is understandable. A return to the good old days appears to be the solution for the “decay” you see in the Adventist church in our time symbolized by detestable people you specifically identify as symbols of the problem.
If the purification you desire were achieved, what benefit would there be for you? Who would determine the pure and the impure ones? Perhaps a committee, an inquisition of sorts? Wouldn’t Adventist schools and medical institutions need purging too, especially ones that have agreements with Catholic health systems? Or is it just an Ellen problem. Are you aware she encountered resistance from many sources from her beginnings? Never has the existence of the church been remotely threatened by any adverse opinions of her or her function. The bogey men you identify as wolves have no power to destroy the church. And no interest in such, as best as I can see.
I have stated that Ellen is to be admired as a spiritual writer/contributor. Buts she was demonstrably wrong about a lot of things. And the bad news for you is that some of those things were her predictions regarding the “end times” and the central role of the Adventist church in that scenario. None have come true. Not one. Skepticism is therefore warranted in her value as a predictor.
In Russia there are old people who still long for the “authoritative voice” of communist leaders such as Stalin, to “hold on to.” They are driving with their brakes on. So are you, I’m afraid. The “good old days” are gone. The GGG, Glorious Guardians of Good, Wilson as King, may somehow symbolize a return to your satisfaction in San Antonio, but there will be no inquisition, no purges to follow, because the forces you fear the most are unstoppable, postmodernism, the natural evolution of religious systems. Adventism can’t escape reality. It is special only in your mind. That is all.
Who, besides you, are the “we” to which you refer?
There are many different opinions in Adventism and to date, none can claim God’s approval as “THE” only one. God has many children who are not Adventists.
The virtue of communications from individuals such as Mr. Garcia is that there is no ambiguity, no beating around the bush, just a straight forward message—EGW’s “interpretation is absolute and she must be obeyed and believed.” Anyone who disputes this “must be driven out without delay.”
I admit that my first impulse was to view this post as a put-on, a joke, especially the line about the Adventist Church being the “best”. Someone is pulling our legs. What reasonable person would write that EGW’s interpretation is absolute and she must be obeyed and believed and we Adventists are the best? But then we regretfully concluded that the writer was serious.
Assuming that the author is serious, we request the counsel of others as to how a response might or might not be composed. How do we advance the conversation in the face of such views? Ignore it? Respond? If so, in what manner? Ideas are solicited.
Earl is right. Facts don’t matter to these people. In fact, your presentation of them will be their evidence of how awful you are!
Cease and desist.
In situations such as described above by Mr. Taylor and Mr. Spencer (which also includes a prior August 2014 essay by them in which Wilson II reportedly invited SDAs who did not subscribe to a 6000 year old earth to leave the church) this quotation seems apt: ‘In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas’ (translated thusly: ‘In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.’)
The counsel of our colleagues is helpful and will be heeded. In this context, I recall the comment attributed to Jesus about swine and pearls.
This article begs the question of what an “Adventist Today” is if the foundation for the seventh-day Sabbath in “Seventh-day Adventist” is NOT based upon the six “evening-morning” days of the Creation followed by the Creator’s rest on the seventh. I fear that it may mean “Adventist Today” and something else tomorrow.
An explanation of the 6 days of the Creation week, plus the Sabbath are wonderfully described
by Dr.”Jack Heyn’s article in the current issue of ADVENTIST TODAY magazine.
If any non-Adventist has sat here and read through all these comments, they will most likely run as fast as they can from the Adventist church. One can only conclude that one must be a Bible scholar and highly intellectual to belong. This is the problem with Adventists: the continual debating of what constitutes a proper Adventist. Salvation seems to be too simple for the Adventist church to grasp.