| Author | Message | ||
| Jody Registered user Username: Jody Post Number: 113 Registered: 7-2007 |
I have the Ligionier Church app on my android phone and when i go to Learning and then go to Christian living,then go to Church Controversies,then go to an article that is apparently in the June issue of Tabletalk Magazine called The Seventh Day Sabbath. It is written by a guy named Skip MacCarty. Has anyone read this article or seen this issue of Tabletalk? I cant believe that Ligionier would publish this,I am thinkin this man has to be an SDA, he totally supports the Adventist view of the seventh day sabbath. Does anyone know who this guy is? Has anyone seen this issue of Tabletalk? I am goin to post a link that gives sum of the articles in it,however the one by Skip MacCarty is not online as near as I can tell. Any comments anyone? Jody http://www.ligonier.org/blog/columns-tabletalk-magazine-june-2011/ | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12956 Registered: 12-2003  |
Skip MacCarty IS an Adventist. He used to be the associate pastor at Pioneer Memorial Church at the Andrews Seminary...perhaps he still is. He wrote the book entitled In Granite or Ingrained, a book using classic covenant theology with a "twist" (he identifies "Sabbath" as "Saturday", a perfectly reasonable identification if a person is trying to say, as many covenant theologians do, that the fourth commandment is still binding for Christians), to make the case for the perpetuity of the seventh-day Sabbath. McCarty quotes several Christian scholars who are Reformed and endorse covenant theology in his book. This connection with the "intelligentsia" is probably how he got his "in" with Ligionier ministries. This sort of things really deeply upsets me. If those Reformed scholars knew what McCarty REALLY believes, they'd be horrified. But because they've heard his "public words" and publicly let their words endorse his point of view, they would really have to "eat crow" to retract their endorsement of him. Colleen | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 808 Registered: 5-2002  |
"...For there are certain men crept in unawares..." This is exactly why counter-Adventist ministries and apologetics must continue to be active, vocal, and uncompromising. We must keep getting the word out about Adventism! | ||
| Wiredog Registered user Username: Wiredog Post Number: 260 Registered: 8-2010  |
Colleen, Quick question has any one reached out to R.C. @ Ligioneer to let him know the framework from which that 4th viewpoint is presented? I have on my list that seems to get bigger, an item to reach out to Alistair Begg and R.C. both of whom helped ME out of Adventism. The object is to at least ensure that they were given information as to the theological framework from which Adventist build their doctrinal walls. In the packet would be the Rose publishing brochure, Talbots article, a electronic copy of The Lord's Day from Canright, and a copy of Proclamation! Magazine. I too get Tabletalk magazine and recall Cloudwatcher warning us about the release of the book from which Tabletalk cited the article. Just so you know although C.T. teachers like R.C. and Begg helped me out of Adventism I am continuing to grow in Christ by the teaching of Swindoll and the other pastors at church whom I understand correctly are more NCT. Let me know if I am off on that. Cheers, Ben | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12959 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ben, I know that many CT teachers are very clear about the gospel, so they are extremely helpful as Adventists begin to search. But you are right about Swindoll being more New Covenant and helpful in processing. Swindoll is a Dallas Seminary graduate...and no matter what opposition some may have to "dispensationalism", modified dispensationalism has many strengths. One is their very clear understanding of the covenant. I've never heard more clear covenant teaching, besides from former Adventists, than I've heard from Elizabeth and Gary Inrig, also DTS grads. I think the most powerful teachers are those who don't rigidly align themselves with any of the classic "isms". While Gary and Elizabeth see eschatology much like John MacArthur sees it (pre-trib rapture (probably!), millennium on earth following that, etc), they also have a very reformed view of salvation. I don't know for sure how Swindoll teaches some of those things, but I suspect he's much in that same boat. John MacArthur also is very reformed in his soteriology, but he's "dispensational" in his eschatology. If you want to understand the covenants, you can usually hear them taught well by pastors who have a somewhat dispensational view. They may have other debatable issues that may be arguable, but their covenant understanding is usually good. But very few that I know of have the clear understanding of the former Adventists that I've heard teach the new covenant. Because of the unique twist we had, we were forced to study the NT with a very careful lens. Indeed, the glory and shocking "newness" of the new covenant has been hugely clouded for centuries! Praise God He is stripping away the confusion! Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1210 Registered: 7-2004  |
The unfortunate truth is that many CT teaches would view SDA theology as "closer" to the truth than they view NCT teaching. The esteemed position given to the Mosaic Law, particularly the Ten Commandments, is quite similar between CT and SDA. CTs often, incorrectly, conclude that the NCT view of the law is antinomian and would easily close ranks with others proclaiming the perpetuity of the Law. So our concerns too often fall upon deaf ears. In addition to being very clear about the gospel, CT also tend to promote a strong view of Scriptural inspiration and solid hermenuetic principles. It is no wonder that their teachings are a valuable resource for transitioning SDAs, and, at least in my case, remain a valuable resource on a number of topics. One of the beautiful things to experience as the influence of SDAism fades is that it becomes easier to accept the idea that a teacher or author can have really good material on one subject and be completely off-base on another one. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1243 Registered: 7-2005  |
Ric_b, thanks for pointing out that even seminary-trained teachers can have good teaching on one topic but be way off base on another one. I have been quite frustrated by this, as I've gotten farther away from Adventism. I guess it's unrealistic to expect one group to have every point of doctrine match my version of "correct." Nevertheless, it's still frustrating. My Evangelical Presbyterian pastors are right on target when teaching about most things. But they come down on the wrong side of two biggies for me - the fourth commandmend and tithing. *sigh* | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1601 Registered: 11-2007  |
Can't believe McCarty is in that magazine!!!! The other night at Bible study when I was saying so few churches/teachers understand the covenants, my friend said, "Oh but Alistair Begg does!" And I said.. "He is Covenant Theology and they teach Sunday is the Sabbath of the 10C". The wheels were turning then she says.. "But I still believe He gave us a day of rest." This is how deeply ingrained this is in people's psyche. I went on to explain that nowhere is there a command or obligation to this in the New Covenant. The Lord's Day is a wonderful voluntary celebration, but not given in the obligatory way the Sabbath had been in the OC... It was as if this thought had never been heard before. I think the 10C are still a sacred cow and if you try to imply they are not the highest rule of life.. (and Jesus/Spirit is) while they have them hanging on their walls, and monuments in front of churches, (I drive by one all the time)...people will look at you with suspicion. I told them as an SDA I could argue almost any Baptist into a corner because they do not have an answer about the Sabbath issue while clinging to the stone tablets. They have so much right.. but that one point leaves so many people vulnerable. And they wonder why my voice gets loud and my arms are flailing. lol. | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1602 Registered: 11-2007 |
Just checked online version - June issue. Don't see McCarty's article. But looks like they were covering different viewpoints. Still bad to give SDA that kind of platform to disperse their theories. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12969 Registered: 12-2003 |
Sondra, I'm right there with you, raised voice, flailing arms and all. Totally backing you up on this, Sister! Colleen | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 320 Registered: 4-2005 |
My last try didn't work, so Ii;ll try again. Is there any place I can go to find out about dispensation Covenants and how these people differ or do we just need to wade through lot of their stuff--good as it may be, is there any easy way to learn this? Peggy | ||
| Jody Registered user Username: Jody Post Number: 114 Registered: 7-2007 |
As always I agree with most all the comments above. I sure hope someone contacts Ligionier to educate them about the false teachings supported by SDA's For the most part I fully embrace Coveneant Theology except for their tendency to be Sabbatarian on Sunday and perhaps as already mentioned tithing. New Testameant def encourages giving but not a 10% legalistic taxing. Actually 10 % mite only be a starting point. The amount we give is probably a spirtual baramoter of sorts. I think throwing out Coveneant Theology because its teachers tend to be Sabbatarian is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. I oveerall like what it teaches but cant support Sabbatarianism simply because the Old Testameant doesnt. Truthfully I dont think Coveneant Theologians nor Dispensationalists understand what the scriptures teach about the Sabbath and because of this lack of understanding SDA's often have the upper hand in the debate. I once read a sermon by John Calvin and in it he really seemed to grasp the subject.I think John Calvin would be a Pioneer of Coveneant Theology. Calvin was influenced by Augustine who I think was influenced by Paul who was influenced by Jesus.My point being I think somewhere this understanding was lost perhaps it was during the Puritan era since the Puritans though good in their theology tended to be Sabbatarian. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12973 Registered: 12-2003 |
Peggy, I'm not sure we have to wade through all the stuff written about dispensationalism and covenant theology or even new covenant theology. The best thing we can do is to study Galatians, Hebrews, Romans, also Ephesians and Colossians...and begin to grasp the reality that God keeps His promises and that He has grafted the Gentiles into the new covenant foretold in Ezekiel 28:25-28 and Jeremiah 31:31-33. As you begin to grasp what the new covenant really is, you'll begin to understand the "issues" with dispensationalism and covenant theology when you hear them. It's not necessary to be completely versed in them...unless you want to be! But you'll pick up things that might not sound like the completed work of Jesus—especially in relationship to the role of the law. That being said, people don't have to have all the details straight in order to be born again and to be great Bible teachers. So don't be afraid to worship with and learn from Bible teachers who preach Jesus and the cross and hold a high view of inspiration and the role of Scripture. Just know that the Bible is your final word! Colleen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2132 Registered: 7-2007 |
The thing that convinced me that the SDA church was wrong, was discovering what the Old Covenant was, that the Old Covenant was obsolete, and that Jesus brought in a whole new Covenant! "And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone." Deuteronomy 4:13 "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today." Deuteronomy 5:2-3 "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And(A) what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13 "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive." Hebrews 9:15-17 "This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made..." Galatians 3:17-19 | ||
| Psalm107v2 Registered user Username: Psalm107v2 Post Number: 839 Registered: 10-2008  |
Wow, Skip McCarty in an RC Sproul magazine?? I don't remember her name her forum name and even though she shared her story in the forum I won't state her name at this time. But a dear Sister here shared how Skip and another pastor at Andrews was spiritually abusive by not honoring her request to remove her name from the SDA church AND to not have them visit to try and get she and her husband back in. Skip wrote a long letter that basically bashed Christianity AND showed up at her house uninvited. Ligonier ministries is one of the ministries I support but at this point will have to stop until this is corrected. I have learned so much from RC and he is a man who is very principled so I don't know how this got past him. I will probably be writing Ligonier soon. I am not a current subscriber of TableTalk but have loved that magazine since my early days of leaving the SDA church. RC is clear that he believes the signifigance of the Sabbath has been transferred to Sunday--which I of course disagree. But he does not make it a matter of salvation. This perplexes me because he has been such a great Christian apologist. He has been a big influence on my becoming grounded in the Christian faith. I currently attend a nondenom church but when people press for an answer as to what denomination I belong to I say Presbyterian-which RC is/has been. I wonder if this is something that he himself did not personally read/edit Below is some citations for RC's view of Sunday now having the significance of the OT Sabbath Sproul, R. C., essential truths of the Christian faith, Tyndale house publishers, wheaten, Illinois, 1992, p. 239). http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/rest-gods-people/ http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/defining-debate/ | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 579 Registered: 3-2009 |
I'm the one to which Enoch is referring. I worked as a prof. at Andrews Univ. at the time I left SDA, and my hubby and I wrote very public exit letters. We specifically asked for no visitors. They wrote us very long letters telling us why we were wrong and said they weren't going to drop our membership. We sent out a second letter simply asking for them to drop our membership, thanking them in advance for honoring our request. That's when one Sat. afternoon, Dwight Nelson and Skip showed up at our house as we were unloading groceries. We were out shopping on the Sabbath! All I could think was "BUSTED!"  They unsuccessfully tried to pry info. out of us and talk us out of leaving. Finally, they had prayer with us and left. As Dwight was praying, I was praying that God would help him leave Adventism. Anyway, you can see the whole saga with our exit letters and Skip and Dwight's responses here: http://8thday4life.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/why-sdas-hide-their-identity-in-their-own-words/ After their unexpected visit, they did finally drop our names. We're very grateful to have all that behind us! Dana | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1233 Registered: 7-2004 |
I understand the frustration. Sproul has been a highly influential author supporting many of us during our transition out of SDAism. And it seems so obvious to us that someone who explains so many Biblical concepts so well should easily grasp the issues surrounding the Sabbath. But if you read how his study Bible jumps around the issues when it comes to the Sabbath, you see the same SDA arguments you have seen for years. For a time the frustrated me greatly, now I focus more on being happy about what he explains well. Regarding the publishing of an SDA author in their publication there are two things that stand out to me. 1) that CT generally has considerable contempt for DT and NCT and 2) that many Christian ministries believe and practice that the best way to break down the walls of a heterodox group is to emphasize and build on areas where they agree. | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1603 Registered: 11-2007 |
That last paragraph Ric would explain some of my questions. I did finally find the article online. I think it was originally published in an issue giving different viewpoints of the Sabbath. But, it seems in the sense that all are equally valid... "you choose". When you find the article online.. you don't even have the benefit of seeing the other viewpoints unless you are really trying to hunt them down. And of course, when and SDA writes for a non-SDA publication, they leave out those little details about the Mark of the Beast. Knowing the background of Seekinglight's story also made me all the more frustrated. I did send the link to this article to all the women in my Bible study group, as well as other close friends from the same church we used to attend. I titled it "a big part of the problem"... and the pastor's wife did seem to understand, especially since her brother is also sucked into the Hebrew Roots Movement. Gotta do what we can I guess... | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 321 Registered: 4-2005 |
I am travelling and not always able to post but I think I have a pretty good handle on what I believe, I just don't know what people are talking about with dispensationalism and the covenant theology, just thought there might be someplace that had it "in a nutshell" sort of a quick read. Maybe not-- Peggy | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 857 Registered: 8-2008 |
Question: How can we say someone has a clear understanding of the Gospel when they teach we are still under a law that was "not based on faith" (Gal. 3:12) and "bears children int slavery" (Gal. 4:25). These were the kind of people whom Paul says he wished would castrate themselves. It is good and fine to talk about regular people who are not setting themselves up as teachers and simply believe CT because they were taught it their entire lives and don't really care that much either way. I think it is entirely another thing to talk about teachers who are very familiar with the Bible, have spent years upon years studying theology in graduate school, who admittedly know the exact words of Scripture in regards to the Law, and still preach counter to Scripture. And these teachers echo the SDA arguments vis-a-vis the Law word by word. The Bible is overwhelmingly clear about this subject. Such teachers know the Bible in and out, or at least claim to, and they still teach this rubbish. This was exactly the kind of thing for which Paul rebuked Peter to his face in public! Is R.C. Sproul greater than the apostle Peter, that we should cut him this kind of slack? Sure, we can say R.C. Sproul doesn't make this a matter of salvation, but the Law states explicitly, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law." If you point Christians to the Law, you can hem and haw all day about "well, we don't make it a matter of salvation," but the Law you are pointing to explicitly states it IS a matter of salvation, and they are under a curse if they do not keep it perfectly. And you are leading people down a dark path which will eventually cause them to distrust Christ for their salvation and trust in their own lawkeeping. On one hand we hear formers all the time lamenting the fact that most evangelicals do not understand the covenants, then on the other we see formers cutting great and famous evangelical teachers all kind of slack and making excuses for them when they teach and promote vile falsehood. Why are we being double-minded? R.C. Sproul should castrate himself for allowing this to be published in his magazine. (Message edited by bskillet on September 20, 2011) | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 580 Registered: 3-2009 |
I agree. Someone should hold Sproul and others accountable. However, Sproul has heard all the NC arguments, through John Reisinger, and all he did was accuse Reisinger of being antinomian: http://solochristo.com/theology/nct/reisinger-lettertosproul.htm | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 858 Registered: 8-2008 |
From Reisinger's letter As in Paul's case, as in every case, the surface issue comes down really to the Sabbath. Reisinger is far nicer than I would be. The issue, on the surface, is the Sabbath. The issue, underneath it all, is who we are in Christ Jesus and what the Gospel actually is. The Sabbath was a sign in the OC, and it is a sign still to people like Sproul, a sign that we are still under a covenant of effort and performance, and we are still at Sinai, and that the Cross has changed nothing. Paul tied those who teach the continuation of the Law with those who teach a gospel counter to his own. He said they are accursed of God (Gal. 1:8). Sorry, but I am just plain sick and tired of these pseudo-evangelical BS artists who teach what they know--or should know if they are the great teachers they style themselves to be--is heretical and contrary to the Bible. Like the teachers in Jesus' day, the love the praise of men and are enamored of people calling them "pastor" in the marketplace. Sometimes "evangelicalism" just makes me want to vomit. (Message edited by bskillet on September 20, 2011) | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 581 Registered: 3-2009 |
...and meanwhile, while these great teachers are bickering and books are written titled " 4 Views on the Sabbath", SDAs continue to proselytize... | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 859 Registered: 8-2008 |
And Sproul is helping them. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1245 Registered: 7-2004 |
Bskillet, I understand your frustration. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we "make excuses" or cut teachers slack; although I can see how some of the comments might come across that way. I can only speak for my comments, but my main points were: I doubt that it would do much good to contact R C about publishing the SDA contribution because his writings would indicate that he thinks our viewpoint is even more off-base than SDAism. If you are feeling called to write him a rebuke, by all means do so. Just don't approach this thinking it will be the first time he has heard these arguments and that seeing them from you will be so obvious that he immediately changes his mind. It is hard for us to come to terms with the situation when an author writes a number of very clear articles or books on some subjects close to our heart but then doesn't see the truth that is so clear to us about the fulfillment of the Sabbath. Personally, I think it is an over-reaction to throw out the good materials from this author because they still fail to see one crucial point. If we applied this principle too rigidly soon we wouldn't be able to read anyone's writings. It may seem like a double standard to hold EGW's writings to such rigor and to turn around and say that it is reasonable to learn from the areas that another author, like R C Sproul, has correct while realizing that he has greatly missed the mark on some areas. The reason that I don't think this is a double standard is that no one is claiming that Sproul's insights came directly from God nor that his writings have an authority. I hope this clarifies my earlier posts | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 860 Registered: 8-2008 |
Ric, this only leaves me with greater concerns about Sproul. If he considers us to be more off-base than SDAs, this tells me he is either cultic, or negligent in studying the beliefs of those he allows to write in his magazine. Aside from the whole Law debate, maybe someone should email him about the cultic side of SDA, the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, the belief that Satan is the scapegoat who makes the final atonement for sins, the belief that "Sunday-keepers" will someday hunt down and kill SDAs, the belief in the Investigative Judgment, etc. He should know that McCarty is only using his magazine as a means to prosyletize Christians into SDAism. Perhaps, but I struggle with the proper application of Galatians 1:8 in this regard. Clearly, Galatians 1:8 applies directly to teachers, not necessarily to everyday Christians, and we know from James that there is a Divine distinction between the two. Paul clearly thought, as illuminated in the rest of the Epistle, that binding the Law on Christians is a rejection of the Gospel. As Reisinger pointed out, Sproul et al. make Sabbatarianism a test of orthodoxy and fellowship. It is not illogical to see that a test of orthodoxy and fellowship must also at some level be a test of salvation. This is my point that you cannot say, in a pure and unadulterated sense, that someone is wrong by teaching that we must still keep the Sinai Law, at the same time that we say out of the corner of our mouths that said teacher has the gospel right. The two beliefs always eventually reach contradictions because the Law IS a curse and IS condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9), while the Gospel IS redemption (Gal. 3:13) and IS freedom from condemnation (Rom. 8:1). | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1246 Registered: 7-2004 |
I'm not sure that more "off-base" was exactly what I meant. More that our view of the Law is more off-base (or at least equally off-base) from SDAs. His concerns about antinomianism are at least as great as his concerns about legalism. The distinction that I see, relative to Gal 1:8, has to do with the underlying details about the teaching on the Law. I am also disturbed by the fact that some of Sproul's explanations for verses in Gal sound similar to SDA explanations. It might not be illogical to think that a test of orthodoxy might also be a test of salvation, but I think that CT is quite clear on that matter coming down firmly that it is not. The CT position on the keeping of the Law is quite different than SDAism. CT is nearly always opposed to "holiness" or perfectionism teachings. So while they believe that the Law continues to instruct us, they do not believe that we are ever successful in keeping that Law. Salvation has no linkage to how well we keep the Law nor even to how well we try to keep the law nor even how we progress in keeping the law better. CT is clear that the Law has no part in our salvation. In that sense it is very different from even the more "evangelical" SDA views of the Law and, I think, deserves a little different consideration in regards to Gal 1:8. From my perspective, CT tries to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to their teachings on the Law. They are clear that we are freed from condemnation by the Law. They are clear that the Law has no bearing on our salvation. But they cling to a "Third Use" of the Law that has ongoing instruction and guidance for the believer. The "Third Use" of the Law is very different than anything SDAism teaches about the Law, so it is worth digging further into those differences before lumping CT and SDAism in the same pile of dung. Yet I believe that this "Third Use" of the Law is not a biblical notion, but a "logical conclusion" made by Calvin and since enshrined by many theologians. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 582 Registered: 3-2009 |
This is why I tolerate CT--although it's very difficult sometimes. It does seem like CT folks contradict themselves most of the time. The only two CT ppl who don't bug me too much are Tim Keller & Michael Horton. Sometimes I can handle John Piper; but when he starts to talk about the law (in terms of 3rd use), I have to take a break... I don't think Don Carson is a CT teacher--at least he doesn't sound like one. |
