| Author |
Message |
tom norris
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 6:24 am: |     |
Jude: Wow! You have made many strong points. Too bad they are not correct. It is obvious that you are neither a church historian nor a theologian. So I will gently respond in the hope that you and others will take the time to become more educated on these topics.
First, there is no such thing as a doctrine of tithing in the NT. The early Jewish Christians never paid tithe, collected tithe, preached about the duty of tithe paying etc. This is a myth that the SDA's and others have made into a doctrine for self-serving reasons. There is currently a $10,000 prize offered to anyone who can show that the NT church in any way promoted or practiced tithe. If you think it's so biblical, perhaps you will be the big winner? Go to the Atoday string about tithing and try to claim the prize if you dare.
As for Miller and the gospel, it is obvious you have never read or studied Miller or read his original Advent sermons or books. He did understand and preach the correct protestant gospel. Moreover, while it is true that there was doctrinal error about many things within the early Adventist Apocalyptic, so what? The Christian movement has plenty of error associated with it as well! Do we say that the errors of the Apostles invalidate the Christian faith? All the Apostles fled from Christ, some with cursing. They all failed to understand about the resurrection and other things, even though Jesus Himself was their teacher! Even Peter--after the ascension of Christ and after pentecost became confused about the gospel, and Paul had to correct him in public. And of course before that Paul was running around putting Christians in prison. There were fights and dissension in the early church as well. Does any of this diminish the christian faith? Of course not. Humans make mistakes. So did the Apostles, the Reformers and as you point out the Adventists. So what? If you are looking for perfection in a religion it does not exist.
Also, there is no reason not to place the gospel in the 27 fundamentals. It is nonsense to keep it out and even more silly to say it should not go in. That is a bizarre position.
Your statement that "I like your concept, Tom, of accepting Christ's obedience (righteousness) in place of our own, but we must also accept his death in place of our own" I am confused. I thought I made it clear when I said "Moreover, at that time He also died for all our sins and thus paid the penalty for all past, present, and future sins of the race. Both of these actions--obediance and sacrifice- make up the gospel."
Your statement that "Nor are we saved because Jesus kept the law. You will search Scripture in vain for any such support. We are saved by Jesus' blood. Period" Wow! It is apparent that you are not familiar with the gospel or the history of the Reformation. Try reading Romans 5:18 which directly refutes your position. We are indeed saved because Jesus kept the law as our substitute
and because of this fact, God looks at us as if we are as perfect as Jesus Himself. This is standard protestant theology and very good news!
Try reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, or Dr. Fords new book on Romans. This is a big and complex topic that you have obviously not done any research in. If you remove the law, you have destroyed the gospel and rendered it meaningless. The Reformers knew this and therefore they never took the position that the moral law (old Covenant) was done away with as many anti SDAs try to do. This position is utter theological nonsense. While it may make us feel good to get back at Adventism in this manner, we are only cutting off our noses to spite our faces. The Law has gone nowhere. It is alive and well and is anxious to condemn you and me to death forever. Thank God for the Gospel!
As for Dr. Ford's position on the Sabbath, it is obviously way over the heads of many SDAs who can only comprehend the Sabbath as law rather then rest. I note that Jesus in Matt 24:20 is on record as instructing the Apostles that the Sabbath will be in full force at the end of time. So, if His words mean anything...
Your statement that "Miller did not discover the 2nd coming as literal and real. That belief has been bedrock Christianity from the first century onward. Miller's only discovery was that of timing" is not fully correct. Of course the NT christians knew about the 2nd coming, but by Millers day, that original truth has long vanished. If you study the history about all this you will discover that it was Miller who re-discovered this NT truth and presented it forcefully to the world. It was a "shocker" to them. Read up on this topic and you will see that I am correct.
And your position that we have no responsibility to understand how the end of the world will take place is not biblical. If it were, the vision of Revelation would not have been give to the church. Nor would Jesus say in Matt 24:42 "Keep Watch" or "let the reader understand", "be ready" etc. There are a host of passages that show that we are to study scripture and be ready for the eschton.
In conclusion, the Advent movement is built upon scripture and the Reformers, not upon sand as you state. The Sabbath cannot be removed from the law which is the foundation and prerequisite of the gospel. No law = no sin and therefore no gospel. You are speaking strongly about things you do not fully understand. Don't confuse the corrupt, unbiblical positions of the present SDA Denomination with the historic Advent movement and its' future destiny. This is a great mistake. |
Bruce H
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 7:57 am: | |
Tom Norris
As for tithing in the early Church
1 Cor 16: 1-2 1 Now concerning the collection
for the saints, as I have given orders to the
churches of Galatia, so you must do also:
2 On the first day of the week let each one of
you lay something aside, storing up as he may
prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
Tom When we accepted the New Covenant with its
freedom, WE DIED TO THE LAW, and with it the
world and all our earthly possessions. All that
we have is Jesus (Matt 19:17-21).
Tom as for the statment " Too bad they are not
correct. It is obvious that you are neither a
church historian nor a theologian". This sound
like a lot of Adventist Pride to me (Matt 16:6).
Joseph Smith another False Prophet taught that
Jesus was comming and that a temple in missouri
would be built before He died and Jesus would come
and dwell in it.
Most of the Christian Churchs also preached on the
final return of Jesus Christ. I do not Know where
you are getting your information, could it be from
the Adventist Church.
Bruce H
BH |
Bruce H
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 8:05 am: | |
Tom Norris
We can see your concern for the Adventist Church,
we also have concern for them. Are you on line
here to Help or prove your points.
1 Tim 6:4 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is
obsessed with disputes and arguments over words,
from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil
suspicions,
Titus 3: 9 9 But avoid foolish disputes,
genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the
law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
I am not saying that we cannot disagree but let us
do it in a SPIRIT of Love that indwells us.
Bruce H
BH |
tom norris
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 6:36 pm: | |
Bruce: Both! |
David
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 6:57 pm: | |
To properly understand the tithe, it must be associated with faith. Certainly it was codified in the Law, but before the Law, Abraham offered it to Melchisedec. He could see in that priesthood the substance of the eternal, especially since the appearance of the priest of Melchisedec was after Abraham's victory over the ten kings. Hebrews 7:1: For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2: To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3: Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4: Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5: And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7: And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8: And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9: And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10: For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
11: If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
The implication here is that the tithe was transfered to the Aaronic priesthood and then, with the demise of that system to Jesus Christ who 21: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22: By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Is the tithe a requirement for salvation? No. It is an honor deferred to God by men and women of faith who recognise in the Lord Jesus Christ their personal victory over the "ten kings" in their own circumstances and who attribute their success the Melchisedec High Priest of our day, Jesus Christ, our Lord. |
Jude the Obscure
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 9:25 pm: | |
Dear Tom,
Yes, I have studied church history at the graduate level. Yes, I hold an advanced degree in systematic theology. Yes, I have edited some of Dr. Ford's books. I back up my arguments with Bible texts. And I stand by my previous post. But it's been stimulating to discuss this issue with you, Tom. And I wish you well in your efforts to reform the SDA church.
God bless you, Tom, always,
Jude |
Praise999
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 9:46 pm: | |
Thanks Bruce for reminding us of the importance of disagreeing "in a SPIRIT of Love that indwells us."
Tom, It's sad that on Christmas day you didn't take your own stated purpose of "gently" responding when you told Jude "It is obvious that you are neither . . ." |
tom norris
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 1999 - 8:23 am: | |
Jude: Did you study at an Adventist school? If so, that would explain a lot. Perhaps with your advanced knowledge and Dave's post you two guys can share the $10,000 prize for defending NT tithe? Good luck!
Praise; You are incorrect. I was gentle and still am. What is "sad" is that adults cannot talk frankly about Adventist topics without all the whinning, bitter and defensive attitudes. While I realize that many are understandably confused, hurting and angry towards Adventism, that is still no excuse not to deal forthrightly with the issues. Life is not all hugs and kisses.
If all you want to do is console one anther in your tears and throw stones, count me out. I would rather face the issues head on and deal with them. Life is too short for games. Let's be real shall we? Love Tom |
|
