| Author |
Message |
BMorgan
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2000 - 10:14 pm: |     |
Patti,
It thrills my heart to see your name printed on a post here.
Thank you for your brilliant messages and insights. You are one of the many in this grace full family (FAF) whom God uses to bless us.
So keep on posting, and instructing, and venting and blessing, and edifying and loving and just being there for us lurkers and regular "posters"
alike.
BMorgan |
Maryann
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2000 - 10:21 pm: | |
Hi Morgan,
It's really great to see your "soul" come out from the rock it has been hiding under!;-))))
Maryann |
BMorgan
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2000 - 11:51 pm: | |
Maryann,
It is way pass my bedtime. My sister is visiting, and I am happy. You see, I feel excitment sharing the gospel with her. For years I felt paralyzed by a spirit of condemnation of my family for not being SDA. I also feared that I might mess up and give them a bad picture of my adventism.
The truth was, I had nothing to give. I didn't know Christ nor experienced His grace. Besides, I thought that it was the professionals-evangelist- were the ones to "preach" the gospel message. To this day, I still don't know what the adventist mean by that term.
Now, I feel alive with peace and joy and excitement and I want my sister to have what I have -- a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. No pressure, coercion, or pretenses, just a good honest to God sharing. Will you join in praying for her.
BMorgan
(sista recovering from trauma to the soul by God's grace alone.
Finding freedom in Christ and living under Grace Alone, is an experience I would rather die for, than go back for one day to sdaism in all its glory.) |
Cindy
| | Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2000 - 8:04 am: | |
Patti, Hi! I agree with BMorgan...you have had some brilliant posts and insights. I guess the brilliance comes from the message of the Cross, something you have always championed. Thank-you!!
"Jews demand miraculous sign and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength". 1 Corinthians 1:22-25
Standing in His grace alone,
Cindy |
graceambassador
| | Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2000 - 10:17 pm: | |
Hi Rolaant:
I'm new here but in no way new to theology. I think your post is brilliant. My compliment to you has nothing to do with your post's similarities to my own writings in my Web site at http://embassyofgrace.net It is the same Spirit anyway!
I'll be posting some ideas and also comenting on the ideas of others. One thing is certain in this my VERY FIRST try out of this list: One can learn here. Also, one can be honored to teach! Your post proves that!
Grace Ambassador |
Bill Twisse
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2000 - 2:11 am: | |
Patti, in a June 16 message you state
"Bill, PLEASE elaborate!
I, too, left during the early 80s, influenced greatly by the work of Brinsmead. This is what you must be speaking of. Please tell me more of the "apostasy." How did it come about? Were there warning signs? Were you privy to "inside" events that egged events on? If you are talking about what I think you are, I am totally rapt with attention! Tell me!"
First of all, my real name is not Bill: it is a screen name only. I only say that to avoid being confused with a certain cousin of mine (an agitator) whose name surfaces quite often in connection with some of these issues. He is still a main figure in the debate 'inside' of Adventism and you may have run into him in discussions elsewhere. So if you run into a troublemaker named 'Bill' in other discussions it is not me!
I have to avoid posting my real name here for now; not to be mysterious but for legitimate personal reasons. I have many enemies (a lot of them relatives) still inside SDAism who want to discredit me in any way they can.
Yes, I was in the 'inside circle.' I knew Robert Brinsmead, Norman Jarnes, Alan Crandall, Ed Fudge, Al LaBrecque, Calvin Edwards, Dr. Jack Zwemer & many others personally and was in regular contact with them. Of all of those, the man who had the most influence in my life was Dr. Zwemer, who was a great spiritual mentor. He was always there to point me in the right direction when I had doubts about moving away from SDA theology.
Well, to make a very long story short: a choice had to be made between two distinct theologies. I had many discussions at various times and places, some of them very lengthy, with all of these men. I always wanted to know ahead of time (before something was taught publicly) where their thinking was at and they always told me in complete trust. For instance, I found out 6-12 months ahead of many others about what was coming on the issues. Incidentally, the ideas on the Sabbath published in 'Verdict' had been published by Jon Zens in the Baptist Reformation Review one year earlier.
Well, there were two main groups of scholars outside of SDAism who influenced Brinsmead and the rest. The one group was solid Reformed (a few Lutheran too) and the other was increasingly liberal. All of the 'gospel' material of the 70's came from the influence of the Reformed men. But there were other liberal scholars who increasingly fascinated Bob. In my opinion, RDB was a great orator and writer but did not come up with many original ideas.
The Reformed 'associates' were very upset when RDB published his views on Election in the Present Truth magazine. Naturally, since RDB was influenced by Adventism at the time but wanted to stay clear of Arminianism, the material was Barthian in perspective. The Reformed had pled with him to keep studying the issue (with them) and not go public with his ëthen currentí thinking. They were right on this one (in my view, then and now) but Bob refused. Even though I was still SDA at the time; having read Luther, Calvin, and Spurgeon for years, I knew there was ësomethingí very wrong with that material. I just didnít know how to define it yet. Very few inside of the ëawakeningí knew what a milestone that was. A rift developed that was never healed, and most of the positive influences in the movement were lost from that point on. The Reformed men were still willing to study with Bob after his publishing mistake, but he increasingly disassociated himself from them. Although the separation from SDAism came about in the following few years, the beginning of a very dangerous trend was already underway. The influence of scholars from within Adventism (like Dr. Ford), and a few other non-Reformed such as Ed Fudge, was powerless to stop the increasing fascination with liberal associates and scholars.
Well, the writers who finally had the most influence on Brinsmead were Stendahl, Kung, Pannenburg, and a host of other liberals. After my last conversation with him in the summer of 1982, I knew that the gospel was almost gone from his thinking. Others told me 'no way' at the time-- but they found out in the successive few years. I was aghast at the things he was saying. Of the former Reformed heavyweights who had influenced him so much in earlier years, he said, "I don't care what any of them think or say." He said that he would rather go back to managing his farm in Australia and retire from debating the 'old issues.' Well, that is ultimately what he did. Now his communion is not with Christians but is Heineken and potato chips with his fellow workers. "Simple fellowship with the human race is all that is important." He says that somewhere on his website.
Of course, Bob has always said many valid and convincing things on the evil of the ëdark sideí of Christian history. But he fails to recognize that churchianity is not Christianity.
Well, I wanted to know what those 'heavyweights' had to say. They gave me insights into the history of the prior 10-12 years that I had little knowledge of from being an SDA insider. Basically, they all knew that the Present Truth was doomed to go liberal from the moment it took its stand with Barthianism. And they were right. History demonstrates it. The reason is this: most deep thinkers follow their teaching to its logical end. Universal election in Christ comes first, as a notion to ëget God off the hookí from the responsibility for evil and damnation. Since most persons suspect in their hearts that God wonít send redeemable people to hell (I agree with that, for other reasons), universal redemption comes second. But if redemption is universal, it cannot be redemption from hell--there is none. So weíre all proposed to be good citizens of the human race. In a short time following these conclusions the immutability of God, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the bodily resurrection, and the certainty of heaven itself are all gone. Even the hereafter is left as a big question mark that we donít need to worry about.
Are we willing to face the issues today that our past associates backed away from? I'm not asking for simple and instant agreement. But are the right questions being asked?
--Twisse |
Plain Patti
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2000 - 6:47 am: | |
Dear BMorgan and Cindy,
Thank you so much. Y'all are so sweet; you make me feel very selfish for my temper tantrum (which I am)!
I guess I haven't reached a point of objectivity yet; I still get frustrated when it seems to me that the historical salvific work of Jesus Christ is being overshadowed by what is happening in the believer.
Please forgive me for my tantrums, all of you.
Grace and peace always.
Patti |
Maryann
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2000 - 7:11 am: | |
Hi Patti,
I wouldn't call it a "temper tantrum" ;-)
There is nothing in life that one can not learn from. That is what all this is about.
Anyone with the backgrounds that we have are so happy to be "free at last" that when we feel that freedom threatened, we "REVOLT"!
Rather that using the phrase "temper tantrum", I would use the word "temper", meaning tempered steel.
You, like so many are being tempered, and you shine so bright from that tempering!
So, I encourage you to keep up the "temper"!
Your sister........Maryann |
Plain Patti
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2000 - 7:36 am: | |
Wow, Bill!
You still have me on the edge of my seat!
Oh, yes, I noticed the difference in Brinsmead's writings immediately. I had not read anything of his from about 1982 until very late in the 80s. My mother had an article of his, I believe it was a Verdict mag, and I picked it up and read it. I said, "Mom, have you read this???" She said she hadn't, and I told her that he had lost it. He had a statement about "moving on" past justification, past salvation and receiving the greater blessing of being "truly human," or something to that effect. I found his website a few weeks ago and tried to read through the stuff and, from what I gather, he no longer even believes in the divinity of Christ. So sad! His messages gave me so much hope, so much confidence in the efficacy of Christ's salvation for us. I nearly cried when I read that later article.
Can I ask you some more questions?
First of all,
You wrote:
Well, there were two main groups of scholars outside of SDAism who influenced Brinsmead and the rest. The one group was solid Reformed (a few Lutheran too) and the other was increasingly liberal.
Patti:
1. Can you define for us non-theologians exactly what you mean by "liberal" in this case?
Bill:
All of the 'gospel' material of the 70's came from the influence of the Reformed men. But there were other liberal scholars who increasingly fascinated Bob. In my opinion, RDB was a great orator and writer but did not come up with many original ideas.
Patti:
But he put them well into the SDA framework. I attended one of his weekend seminars; he knew how to talk to SDAs/former SDAs. He related everything to the SDA perspective.
Bill:
The Reformed 'associates' were very upset when RDB published his views on Election in the Present Truth magazine. Naturally, since RDB was influenced by Adventism at the time but wanted to stay clear of Arminianism, the material was Barthian in perspective.
Patti:
2. Can you elaborate a bit more on this ("Barthian")?
3. Also, by "reformed associates," do you mean merely colleagues or business associates? Were they related to SDAism in any way?
Bill:
The Reformed had pled with him to keep studying the issue (with them) and not go public with his ëthen currentí thinking. They were right on this one (in my view, then and now) but Bob refused. Even though I was still SDA at the time; having read Luther, Calvin, and Spurgeon for years, I knew there was ësomethingí very wrong with that material.
Patti:
4. I read these things way back when, before I had any idea that election was anything more than what voters do the first Tuesday in November. Can you elaborate a bit more? (Sorry to bug you; you have truly piqued my interest!)
Bill:
I just didnít know how to define it yet. Very few inside of the ëawakeningí knew what a milestone that was. A rift developed that was never healed, and most of the positive influences in the movement were lost from that point on. The Reformed men were still willing to study with Bob after his publishing mistake, but he increasingly disassociated himself from them.
Patti:
5. Do you see this as perhaps a part of Brinsmead's preoccupation with perpetual progressivism, always being in search of "new truth"? I mean, it is a long way from his Ellen White extremism of the 60s to "Kneeling at the foot of the cross, the sinner has reached the place of highest honor in the universe" (or something like that) to believing that the highest good a person can reach is to be "truly human."
Bill:
Although the separation from SDAism came about in the following few years, the beginning of a very dangerous trend was already underway. The influence of scholars from within Adventism (like Dr. Ford), and a few other non-Reformed such as Ed Fudge, was powerless to stop the increasing fascination with liberal associates and scholars. Well, the writers who finally had the most influence on Brinsmead were Stendahl, Kung, Pannenburg, and a host of other liberals. After my last conversation with him in the summer of 1982, I knew that the gospel was almost gone from his thinking. Others told me 'no way' at the time-- but they found out in the successive few years. I was aghast at the things he was saying.
Patti:
As I was. It was a "great disappointment" for me; however, having left SDAism, at least most of us learned never to depend on any one human for any part of our security before God. At least he helped me (and others) break an addiction to "rightness," of being the "one true remnant," and to Ellen White. His message was probably the most influential factor on my getting a firm grasp on the Gospel.
Bill:
Of the former Reformed heavyweights who had influenced him so much in earlier years, he said, "I don't care what any of them think or say." He said that he would rather go back to managing his farm in Australia and retire from debating the 'old issues.' Well, that is ultimately what he did. Now his communion is not with Christians but is Heineken and potato chips with his fellow workers. "Simple fellowship with the human race is all that is important." He says that somewhere on his website.
Patti:
Yes, I have been there. I tried to read some of his later works, but there is no use. He is off into another realm. So sad. Isn't that what we were told happened to Jones and Waggoner? Were they not supposed to have drifted off into pantheism? (Or am I remembering yet another SDA myth?)
Bill:
Of course, Bob has always said many valid and convincing things on the evil of the ëdark sideí of Christian history. But he fails to recognize that churchianity is not Christianity.
Patti:
True. He was very much into the "historicalness" of the Gospel and the church. I still don't see how one could leave the beauty of the Gospel as he presented it.
Bill:
Well, I wanted to know what those 'heavyweights' had to say. They gave me insights into the history of the prior 10-12 years that I had little knowledge of from being an SDA insider. Basically, they all knew that the Present Truth was doomed to go liberal from the moment it took its stand with Barthianism. And they were right.
Patti:
I would love for you to elaborate a bit more in this area.
Bill:
History demonstrates it. The reason is this: most deep thinkers follow their teaching to its logical end. Universal election in Christ comes first, as a notion to ëget God off the hookí from the responsibility for evil and damnation. Since most persons suspect in their hearts that God wonít send redeemable people to hell (I agree with that, for other reasons)
Patti:
8. Oh, no, you cannot escape that easily! Reasons, please! Elaborate! Elaborate! :)
Bill:
universal redemption comes second. But if redemption is universal, it cannot be redemption from hell--there is none.
Patti:
Do you agree with what I said to Jeff below, that there are basically only 3 choices:
1. Universalism
2. Arminism
3. Calvinism
Having said that, I would like to say that I truly despise the "labelling" of ideas, especially according to philosopher or theologian. Also, one must recognize that there are camps inside of each philosophy. Yet it seems to me to boil down to three possibilities only:
1. God saved the entire world, including Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Amin, Qaddafi, Attila the Hun, and me.
2. Salvation is, in part, the responsibility of the believer;
3. Salvation is God's work.
The problem I have with many Calvinists (you thought I was disagreeing specifically with you) is that many of them are just as self-righteously convinced that they and they only have the truth as many SDAs are. Thus, you hear them likewise limiting God to their view of Him.
Bill:
So weíre all proposed to be good citizens of the human race. In a short time following these conclusions the immutability of God, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the bodily resurrection, and the certainty of heaven itself are all gone. Even the hereafter is left as a big question mark that we donít need to worry about.
Patti:
On the contrary, the hereafter remains a huge question for the Arminians. And that is my main concern and focus. There are many things we just don't know; the Scripture seems to speak both ways on many issues. But THE issue is on Whom do you base your hopes? On Jesus Christ and Him crucified, or upon our weak and sinful flesh?
Bill:
Are we willing to face the issues today that our past associates backed away from? I'm not asking for simple and instant agreement. But are the right questions being asked?
Patti:
I am not sure exactly what you mean here. Could you elaborate? I do know that I firmly believe one thing: That arguing over things that do not affect my salvation is non-productive. God will act as He will act. And whatever that action is, it, by definition, will be holy and just and good. I see no use in dwelling on the negatives; our time needs to be spent in showing insecure, hopeless, struggling humans that their full salvation rests in Jesus Christ and in Him alone. Let theologians argue about the fine print if they wish, but I have seen harm done by two groups of believing Christians, former SDAs who disagree on election, tear each other's spiritual hair out in front of those to whom we are supposed to be witnessing to the grace of God in Christ. It is like arguing over who is going to throw the life preserver to a drowning man. There is a time for delving into the deeper implications of our faith, but, just as one does not try to give a drowning man a swimming lesson from the shore, so we do not try to thrust our specific speculations about how God will deal with sin in the end to someone who does not have any idea that Jesus Christ is his full and only salvation.
We must always bear in mind that we are not saved by correct theology any more than we are saved by anything that we can "do." We are all, always, only, saved by the infinite grace of God because of the "doing and dying"* of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you for taking time with me on this issue.
Looking forward to hearing more from you.
Grace and peace,
Patti
*That was a Brinsmeadianism, wasn't it? |
Maryann
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2000 - 8:48 am: | |
Hi Patti,
That was simply a facinating post that Bill made. Particularly from my perspective as an old Brindsmeadite.
Great post you made in response to Bill!
You said:
"We must always bear in mind that we are not saved by correct theology any more than we are saved by anything that we can "do." We are all, always, only, saved by the infinite grace of God because of the "doing and dying"* of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ."
That is right! We are NOT saved by correct theology. That thought did bring to mind some thing that I want to share.
There are 4 crucial doctrines:
1...Revelation. God chose to give us His truth in Scripture.
2...Inspiration. That is the God breathed, inerrant Scriptures.
3...Illumination. That is our understanding of Scripture though the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
4...Application. This is the ability to apply, though the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures into our daily lives. We can know God's Word, yet not live in it.
This is not works. This is the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Fruits "because" we are saved, NOT to be saved.
This really helped me put a lot of things into place and understand the whole concept of the gospel.
Yes, YES, you are so right when you say:
"We must always bear in mind that we are not saved by correct theology any more than we are saved by anything that we can 'do'."
Thank you for your presence.
Maryann |
Bill Twisse
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2000 - 2:21 pm: | |
Patti:
I will print your post and try and respond to your questions in time. Thanks for the interaction--you too Maryann.
It is true that no one is saved by correct theology. My best friend in this world right now is a Roman Catholic & he is a Christian. I believe that he knows the Lord. But he still believes in subjective justification--the very thing that the Present Truth was devoted to opposing. Should I just accept him as a Christian and not discuss my convictions on gospel issues? Of course not. Nothing is gained in the pursuit of spiritual wisdom without real definition and interaction. We have to be able to take the heat. Myself included.
You are correct in stating that there are many variations, not just 3 positions on election. True of a host of other things as well. I'll leave it at that for now--have to leave town for a short trip away.
In the gospel,
--Twisse |
Milton Almeida (Graceambassador)
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2000 - 8:52 pm: | |
Hi Patti and Twisse:
Allow me humbly to enter your discussion!
Although it is right that we do not need the correct theology to be saved, believing what is at least more akin to bilbical revelation is important for the way we live our lives here on earth! Bill's catholic friend, although being saved, as Bill points out, cannot enjoy his salvation to the fullest since he hopes the elements of the host and the wine to transubstantiate every Sunday so he can be continually saved!
Being saved and believing on something that falls short of the full revelaltion given by God is like Lazarus at the tomb AFTER HIS RESSURECTION: He was fully alive! as alive as one can be! However he was bound by bandages! He was mummified! He could only hop around!
I think that there is a point in our life where Jesus wants us to let go of our bandages and be free! In the case of Lazarus, he told the very people who buried him to do so... In the church, is the role of the ministers with sound and inspired teaching, to "unbind" people and let them go! Paul calls "bewitching" to do it any other way! And in the text of Galatians the "bewitching" was done by preaching legalism and adding rites and ceremony to the message of Grace (preachers who bewitch people are witches themselves).
I submit that if one believes election as the Bible teaches election, for example, the level of freedom and understanding of God's dealing with the elect is liberating! We know that God "began a good work in us and HE SHALL BE ABLE TO COMPLETE IT! Thus, we realize that He is the initiator of our Salvation and the finisher thereof!
My teaching of election to the Body of Christ is to let them know that God will take care of them because HE CHOSE TO DO SO! It is his "good will unto men" as announced by the angel, and not "men's will unto Him"; it is His "Good pleasure" and not only for my pleasure, although I draw pleasure; that it is "according to the pleasure of His will and not to the frailty of mine!"
Sorry if it sounds preachy!
Grace and Peace!
Grace Ambassador |
Patti
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2000 - 9:45 pm: | |
You do not sound preachy to me. And if you do, then PREACH ON!
I LIKE what you said: "My teaching of election to the Body of Christ is to let them know that God will take care of them because HE CHOSE TO DO SO! It is his "good will unto men" as announced by the angel, and not "men's will unto Him"; it is His "Good pleasure" and not only for my pleasure, although I draw pleasure; that it is "according to the pleasure of His will and not to the frailty of mine!"
I think you stimulated a heretofore unstimulated brain cell. The doctrine of election is not meant to be a doctrine of EXCLUSION, but a message of hope and security for believers. RIGHT? Am I getting there? God never intended for us to sit around and say that we are chosen of God because we are somehow more special or more blessed than others who may not be "chosen." He merely wanted to know that He has chosen us. We who believe. For our own liberation, security, joy, and assurance.
Wow, am I relieved! Now I can fully embrace the doctrine of predestination with both arms. God chose me. He chose you. He chose all who believe and who will believe. He never intended for us to use His grace as a divisive factor, but to strengthen us and give us hope and courage. And just because some pervert the truth of God's election doesn't make it invalid. There are those who misuse all doctrine, turning and twisting it to fit their own ideas, predestination not excepted. But that does not deny the reality that Christ has chosen His people.
Thank you, Milton!
Grace and peace,
Patti |
Milton Almeida (Graceambassador)
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2000 - 10:18 am: | |
Thank you Patti!
You said:
I think you stimulated a heretofore unstimulated brain cell. The doctrine of election is not meant to be a doctrine of EXCLUSION, but a message of hope and security for believers. RIGHT? Am I getting there? God never intended for us to sit around and say that we are chosen of God because we are somehow more special or more blessed than others who may not be "chosen." He merely wanted to know that He has chosen us. We who believe. For our own liberation, security, joy, and assurance.
You are so right! I live in a town where there a "church" literally in every corner: Holland MI. 5 blocks from Hope College and 3 blocks from Western Theological Cemitery... ooops... Seminary! Both very staunchly Calvinist! What you were concerned about is an unfortunate truth about Calvinists. There is no evangelism, "churches" are no more than social clubs, some side with the N.O.W. and the gay movement, others are "christian masons", Christ is not THE WAY... Obviously, they claim that they ARE NOT UNIVERSALISTS, but they are indeed. Also they feel that because they're chosen, why worry about "christian character"? I do not want to be unfair, though, there are some pleasant exceptions. But sooner or later these exceptions get to be excluded from the fellowship, which to me would be an award!
That is not my approach! Remember Romans 8 - "All things work together (Greek sinergy) for those who love God and are called according to HIS PURPOSE!" So... THERE IS A PURPOSE IN ELECTION! And I believe that you know, as well as I do, what this purpose is...
Although I am saved forever, I often ask myself and prayerfully consult God about: WHERE DO I FIT IN YOUR PURPOSE AND HOW CAN YOU HELP ME TO FULFILL IT, AND GOD... FULFILL MEANS FILL IN FULL, IN CASE YOU DO NOT HAVE A WEBSTER!
PLEASE GUIDE ME IN YOUR PURPOSE, THE NAME OF JESUS, AMEN!
That should be the prayer of every elect!
p.s. - sometimes my attempts in being humorous may appear irreverent to some. If it offends anybody, please let me know. I will use the principle of 1 Cor 8:13... if it offends your brother, don't do it...(paraphrased, MA version).
Grace and Peace!
Grace Ambassador! |
Billtwisse (Billtwisse)
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2000 - 2:56 am: | |
Greetings to all in Christ!
You probably thought I was gone. I have been travelling all over the country and haven't been able to get on. Plus I wanted to take the time to finish my answers to Patti.
Milton, welcome aboard! I have interacted extensively with Milton elsewhere and I can assure all of you that he is a real pleasure to have contributing to these discussions.
Following will be my answers to Patti, I don't know how many posts it will take.
--Twisse |
Billtwisse (Billtwisse)
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2000 - 3:06 am: | |
ANSWERS TO PATTI:
Can I ask you some more questions?
First of all,
You wrote:
Well, there were two main groups of scholars outside of SDAism who influenced Brinsmead and the rest. The one group was solid Reformed (a few Lutheran too) and the other was increasingly liberal.
Patti:
1. Can you define for us non-theologians exactly what you mean by "liberal" in this case?
Bill:
I mean it in its classic use. It refers to both a theological method and specific beliefs. Those of us who despise liberalism believe in the historical method of theology. I am using that method if I state exactly what I mean. In contrast, the method of liberals is 'incremental' (just like that of politicians). If I'm a religious liberal, I have a set of beliefs that I want to promote. Generally it includes these:
1. The Bible contains some truth as do all other 'religious' books. God did not actually speak 'words' to anyone but may have inspired people by giving them a profound religious experience.
2. Virtually all propositions are both true and false. There is no absolute truth.
3. Christ had no pre-existence before his birth. There was no virgin birth and no 'miracles' requiring intervention outside of natural law. If there was a resurrection, it was not physical but spiritual only.
4. Salvation is the betterment of humanity through living the 'principle' of grace that Jesus taught. Grace is not extended by atonement for 'sin' (which really doesn't exist, since God never defined it by revelation) but needs to be demythologized and personalized. We can all be 'little Christ's' and give grace (salvation) to people by acts of nicety (incidentally, being 'nice' is not one of the fruits of the spirit--kindness is something entirely different).
5. There may or may not be an afterlife. If so, it must be wonderful. If not, what we fail to experience can't hurt us after we're dead (nirvana--the absence of pain). In no way is there a material afterlife in a resurrection body.
If I think like a liberal and know that the religious masses will never accept these beliefs as stated, I start with their language and get creative. I begin to inject my concepts incrementally. Eventually, with enough subtlety, I win people over point-by-point and achieve increased acceptance of my actual beliefs.
That's how I would define a liberal.
In other discussions on this board, I have also stated why I avoid the paradoxical method of Kierkegaard. Up until 4 years ago, I also used the 'paradox' theology to present issues. But I stand corrected now by some very able and respected teachers. Evangelicals have become fascinated with this thing for the last 100+ years: encouraged not primarily by liberals but conservatives. Benjamin Warfield started to popularize the inductive method of St. Thomas Aquinas and Kierkegaard, even though he rejected their actual theological beliefs. It is a matter of honest debate, but I won't go there any more. You won't here me saying today that Christ is physically absent from the communion bread, tomorrow saying that he is physically present in it, and the next day saying that both of my statements are partly true and false: therefore my theology has not changed. That would be a good example of the paradoxical model of truth in practical interpretation.
Bill:
All of the 'gospel' material of the 70's came from the influence of the Reformed men. But there were other liberal scholars who increasingly fascinated Bob. In my opinion, RDB was a great orator and writer but did not come up with many original ideas.
Patti:
But he put them well into the SDA framework. I attended one of his weekend seminars; he knew how to talk to SDAs/former SDAs. He related everything to the SDA perspective.
Bill:
I attended his seminars over a 10-year period: sometimes more than one in a year. I usually managed to get some time with him for private conversation, many times one-on-one. He actually did believe in SDA principles through the summer of '76. Although his first open departure from SDA theology was in the spring of '79, I noticed a definite break from it in his thinking as early as 1977. I'm not referring to doubts but actual beliefs.
Well, that 'hybrid' thing of the gospel and Adventism was doomed from the start. God has a very important purpose in bringing the gospel to SDA's: polarization. Eventually, you have to decide for one or the other. The slave woman cannot remain in the same house with the free.
In retrospect, using the gospel to attempt a justification of SDA history & beliefs is just as outrageous as using the Bible to attempt a justification of liberal theology. None of these things will ever mix. The debate in Adventism still continues over the meaning of justification--whether it is imputed or infused, etc. Well, that debate has meaning in the historic Christian perspective. But it has no meaning if the SDA framework is retained. In that paradigm, men are only arguing about 'initial' justification, which can be vetoed by the investigative judgment. However, if the 'debate' leads people to study the Bible more seriously and move away from Adventism, then we could say that it has true meaning. The gospel has significance only when it is contrasted with SDA theology, not when it is used to buttress it.
Anyway, RDB was guilty of using the incremental method from the later 70's on. That was a blessing in disguise for some of us, because it was a catalyst in our rethinking of Adventism. But it still was not right. In the final analysis, the majority of his followers whom I was acquainted with left both Adventism AND the gospel. The Canright syndrome scored a major victory. I'm talking about Canright's observation that far more persons go into apostasy who leave Adventism than those who leave most other belief systems. In the long run, having one's mind engrossed in the SDA system of belief is very destructive of faith. All of us have some very messed-up thinking to overcome--still. It is like drug addiction. The proliferation of evil that we were taught has made a stamp on our conscience that will not be removed in a day, a month, a year, or even a lifetime! Visualize the spiders, worms, and snakes that still live inside of our brains!
An opinion addressed to those who are new to post-SDAism: it is best not to interact a great deal with SDA people and ideas. Love them but don't discuss much. Go shopping on Saturday. Buy some 'forbidden' food or drink and consume it. Don't be concerned about what SDA's think of you. Learn that life is not to be lived as a continuous response to Adventism. Find other Christian associates--even if their thinking is way short of ideal. I'm speaking from my own experience and what I have observed in other post-SDA Christians. Obsession with the SDA 'kingdom' and culture will ultimately lead to an external return to it and participation in it. Even if it's in the midst of protest. The false 'glory' of that system has a hypnotic effect on people. Don't be deceived into thinking that because you have been delivered from wrong beliefs, you are immune from the effects of a lifetime of SDA programming on your conscience. Those things can still have a very destructive effect on your soul.
Bill:
The Reformed 'associates' were very upset when RDB published his views on Election in the Present Truth magazine. Naturally, since RDB was influenced by Adventism at the time but wanted to stay clear of Arminianism, the material was Barthian in perspective.
Patti:
2. Can you elaborate a bit more on this ("Barthian")?
Bill:
I'm referring to the teaching of Karl Barth, the famous Neo-orthodox theologian. He broke ranks with his ultra-liberal professors but used the same mysterious language that they did. Returning to a biblical framework for promoting liberal beliefs, he taught that Christ was the elect One--but only applied the concept of election to the rest of humanity in general terms. From a practical standpoint, he maintained hope that all would eventually be saved. But he failed to assert this as a definite belief. I would ask what is meant by 'saved' anyway, for someone of this persuasion? I don't know if Barth ever accepted the gospel as literally true or not. Some think he did, others don't. But his theological method was, in my opinion, the same as that of the liberals. He had some good things to say but how am I to interpret them? I can't because his system of belief was an enigma.
The issue of Present Truth that I referred to (September 1976) had published excerpts from Barth as the primary argument. Even as an SDA, I was very unhappy with that. Desmond Ford had the same opinion. Some of the non-SDA scholars who responded with legitimate objections are the men who have helped me most in gaining a new biblical worldview, since leaving the SDA ministry. After that point in time, the emphasis of RDB had a definite shift. In the earlier years, man was presented as lost until he believed the gospel (like the apostles and the Reformation had taught). After late 1976, all of humanity was put on board the great ship of salvation. The only thing that a person could do to be lost is jump off. That was clearly the Barthian influence on his theology. It was a complete departure from the language of the New Testament and led to worse things as time progressed.
Patti:
3. Also, by "reformed associates," do you mean merely colleagues or business associates? Were they related to SDAism in any way?
Bill:
I mean Reformed teachers of theology, colleagues. They were not related to SDAism in any way. They knew of the SDA influence on his thinking but were persuaded that it would pass. He was even offered teaching positions, in spite of the known fact of his SDA background.
***continued*** |
Billtwisse (Billtwisse)
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2000 - 3:16 am: | |
ANSWERS TO PATTI (part 2)
Bill:
The Reformed had pled with him to keep studying the issue (with them) and not go public with his 'then current' thinking. They were right on this one (in my view, then and now) but Bob refused. Even though I was still SDA at the time; having read Luther, Calvin, and Spurgeon for years, I knew there was 'something' very wrong with that material.
Patti:
4. I read these things way back when, before I had any idea that election was anything more than what voters do the first Tuesday in November. Can you elaborate a bit more? (Sorry to bug you; you have truly piqued my interest!)
Bill:
The conflict and 'pleadings' that I mentioned went on for several years after the publishing blunder. Many other good things were published on the Covenants and finally Sabbatarianism. But none of this prevented the Barthian decline down the 'slippery slope.'
Justification and sovereign Election were the twin issues of soteriology debated in the Reformation. The Council of Trent opposed both with equal force and hatred. See the canons. They were published in an earlier issue of Present Truth with the title 'Understanding the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Justification by Faith.' Or there are many other sources in libraries and on the net.
Although free-will teaching was always popular in Roman Catholicism and among certain Anabaptists, the Arminian viewpoint became prominent among Protestants only after the extremes of scholastic theology affected the masses. It was popularized by Wesley in an attempt to inject 'spiritual life' into a backslidden churchianity. But the end does not justify the means, if the teaching is in error. Before Wesley, Arminianism was only a sickly plant. It was mainly believed by some Anabaptists and fringe reformers. Today it probably stands at about 99% or more. Even most of those who embrace the term 'Calvinist' today are really Tridentine and Arminian. They don't know the historical issues. I use the term 'Arminian' in concession to a popular misconception about where these things came from. The real founder of Christian free-will theory was Justin Martyr, just as the real founder of the sublapsarian perspective on election was Augustine.
Many Lutherans cannot explain why Luther would never accept Melanchthon in his outright condemnation of Augustine's view of grace. The reason is very simple. Melanchthon taught that grace was purely the undeserved favor of God and Luther agreed with that. But as a humanist, Melanchthon also believed that we are able to accept God's favor by certain powers of the will given to all of us. Luther knew that Augustine taught the utter inability of man to obtain salvation by his own will. Although Augustine had taught subjective justification (in error) and Luther knew it, he still believed that Augustine taught the principle of grace in election. The free-will views of the humanists were repugnant to Luther. He never had anything to do with them.
Bill:
I just didn't know how to define it yet. Very few inside of the 'awakening' knew what a milestone that was. A rift developed that was never healed, and most of the positive influences in the movement were lost from that point on. The Reformed men were still willing to study with Bob after his publishing mistake, but he increasingly disassociated himself from them.
Patti:
5. Do you see this as perhaps a part of Brinsmead's preoccupation with perpetual progressivism, always being in search of "new truth"? I mean, it is a long way from his Ellen White extremism of the 60s to "Kneeling at the foot of the cross, the sinner has reached the place of highest honor in the universe" (or something like that) to believing that the highest good a person can reach is to be "truly human."
Bill:
The extremism of the 60's was nothing but Adventism itself. It was a creative hybrid of traditional and neo-Adventism, so it drew the fire of both. The change in the 70's would NEVER have happened with only the influence of long-term associates having an SDA background. It was due to contact with outside theologians and a lot of study of the issues of the Reformation. I have already stated my position that the reason for the final decline was the Barthian influence. A Reformed pastor who knew Brinsmead showed me this in 1983, the light in my mind switched on, and I have been enlightened ever since. After that point, I have talked with scores of others who gave the same opinion.
Bill:
Although the separation from SDAism came about in the following few years, the beginning of a very dangerous trend was already underway. The influence of scholars from within Adventism (like Dr. Ford), and a few other non-Reformed such as Ed Fudge, was powerless to stop the increasing fascination with liberal associates and scholars. Well, the writers who finally had the most influence on Brinsmead were Stendahl, Kung, Pannenburg, and a host of other liberals. After my last conversation with him in the summer of 1982, I knew that the gospel was almost gone from his thinking. Others told me 'no way' at the time-- but they found out in the successive few years. I was aghast at the things he was saying.
Patti:
As I was. It was a "great disappointment" for me; however, having left SDAism, at least most of us learned never to depend on any one human for any part of our security before God. At least he helped me (and others) break an addiction to "rightness," of being the "one true remnant," and to Ellen White. His message was probably the most influential factor on my getting a firm grasp on the Gospel.
Bill:
Well said, ditto for myself.
Bill:
Of the former Reformed heavyweights who had influenced him so much in earlier years, he said, "I don't care what any of them think or say." He said that he would rather go back to managing his farm in Australia and retire from debating the 'old issues.' Well, that is ultimately what he did. Now his communion is not with Christians but is Heineken and potato chips with his fellow workers. "Simple fellowship with the human race is all that is important." He says that somewhere on his website.
Patti:
Yes, I have been there. I tried to read some of his later works, but there is no use. He is off into another realm. So sad. Isn't that what we were told happened to Jones and Waggoner? Were they not supposed to have drifted off into pantheism? (Or am I remembering yet another SDA myth?)
Bill:
Waggoner, yes. A 'christianised' form of quasi-Pantheism. Kellogg also. I don't remember exactly what Jones went off into--something different, I think. However, we have at least one writer from back then whose material is still worth its weight in gold: our faithful brother Canright. There are a host of other faithful 'dissidents' mentioned by Ford in his Glacier View manuscript.
Bill:
Of course, Bob has always said many valid and convincing things on the evil of the 'dark side' of Christian history. But he fails to recognize that churchianity is not Christianity.
Patti:
True. He was very much into the "historicalness" of the Gospel and the church. I still don't see how one could leave the beauty of the Gospel as he presented it.
Bill:
It makes no sense. I will never see it either. I have to leave his soul to God. Then, with such a frightening example before me, present my own soul to the Lord more earnestly.
Bill:
Well, I wanted to know what those 'heavyweights' had to say. They gave me insights into the history of the prior 10-12 years that I had little knowledge of from being an SDA insider. Basically, they all knew that the Present Truth was doomed to go liberal from the moment it took its stand with Barthianism. And they were right.
Patti:
I would love for you to elaborate a bit more in this area.
Bill:
I have already discussed this pretty much. Dr. Gordon Clark (who passed away in 1985) was never able to get through to study with RDB, even though he tried. I won't try and think of the whole list, but some of the men who have helped me over the years are Dr. John Robbins (editor of 'The Trinity Review' monthly), pastor J.R. Boyd (former editor of the 'Researcher', now deceased), Dr. Robert Reymond, Dr. Robert Morey, and a personal Ph.D. friend who wishes to remain anonymous. I call on him for any question I have about Hebrew/Greek meanings & historical facts. He is always available.
***continued*** |
Billtwisse (Billtwisse)
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2000 - 3:24 am: | |
ANSWERS TO PATTI (part 3)
Bill:
History demonstrates it. The reason is this: most deep thinkers follow their teaching to its logical end. Universal election in Christ comes first, as a notion to 'get God off the hook' from the responsibility for evil and damnation. Since most persons suspect in their hearts that God won't send redeemable people to hell (I agree with that, for other reasons)
Patti:
8. Oh, no, you cannot escape that easily! Reasons, please! Elaborate! Elaborate! :)
Bill:
Well, that is hard to do in a few sentences. I wish there was equal time to discuss every issue. If you know of Origen's theology of universalism (I may not have spelled that right), picture the exact opposite of that. Origen took the free-will theory of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria to its rightful conclusion. He taught a universe forever 'open' to change, with certain persons in heaven choosing to enter hell, certain persons in hell choosing to enter heaven, back & forth, back & forth. The basis of this theory is that God will never override the free-will of man. If there is still a possiblity that someone might choose heaven after thousands of years in hell, a just God must allow for that.
If I accepted the theory of free-will I would agree with Origen. The Bible does not portray God as a killjoy who will send people to hell that might otherwise be saved. Both Arminianism and Calvinism teach that God sends redeemable people to hell, so I reject both systems. In the Arminian system, God simply cuts off the exercise of free-will at some arbitrary point in history (either at the judgment or before). This is true of all of the 'variations' that you refer to. We can never tell when the guillotine of fate will arbitrarily end our 'probation.' In the Calvinistic system, God elects some to salvation and 'passes over' the rest of humanity--who would otherwise be equal candidates. So, for me, a third position must be espoused. Where I differ from paradox theology is this: I don't accept the notion that the correct position is a hybrid of the other two. Completely opposite propositions cannot be synthesized. You can't have God both electing and non-electing, etc. The Bible is made into a mass of incredible confusion by that kind of teaching. In addition, any 'in-between' position will still have God sending redeemable people to hell, because that notion is paramount to both of the original positions.
I believe in sovereign election--but only because I'm convinced it is taught in the Bible. I accept the fact that the hearts of devils (non-elect spirits and humans) are unredeemable and I leave the reason to God. If my loved-one is lost, it is for the same exact reason that Satan is lost. We cannot see all issues related to the hearts of mankind on this side of the curtain. But the 'spirit of devils' is not the same as the spirit of a Christian--even before regeneration. There is a whole discussion on the mystery of iniquity, eternal sin (both in seed and fully-grown), demonology, creationism vs. traducianism (whether each soul is created directly by God), and the origin of evil that could go on here. I will have to defer some of it for another time.
Bill:
universal redemption comes second. But if redemption is universal, it cannot be redemption from hell--there is none.
Patti:
Do you agree with what I said to Jeff below, that there are basically only 3 choices:
1. Universalism
2. Arminism
3. Calvinism
Bill:
No, for the reasons I have outlined above. I never limit myself to a 'number of choices' when struggling with biblical issues. There might be other factors to consider.
Patti:
Having said that, I would like to say that I truly despise the "labelling" of ideas, especially according to philosopher or theologian. Also, one must recognize that there are camps inside of each philosophy. Yet it seems to me to boil down to three possibilities only:
1. God saved the entire world, including Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Amin, Qaddafi, Attila the Hun, and me.
2. Salvation is, in part, the responsibility of the believer;
3. Salvation is God's work.
The problem I have with many Calvinists (you thought I was disagreeing specifically with you) is that many of them are just as self-righteously convinced that they and they only have the truth as many SDAs are. Thus, you hear them likewise limiting God to their view of Him.
Bill:
Some labeling is inevitable, or we will cut ourselves off from understanding what has happened in the history of Christian thought. But often a 'label' is pinned on the wrong person, since the real idea in question started much earlier. I agree entirely with your observation about Calvinists, even though we have differing perspectives on the alternative. Having been in Calvinistic churches for the last 18 years, I would add that most of them really don't know what they believe and should be practicing--any more than SDAs really know. In both cases--they parrot a set of established slogans, congratulate themselves for knowing so much, and go right on to indulge in their favorite contemporary sins. We live in a very strange and irrational age. I only stay where I'm at because the basic beliefs required to be confessed are OK (as opposed to SDA doctrine) and broad Christian association is important.
Bill:
So we're all proposed to be good citizens of the human race. In a short time following these conclusions the immutability of God, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the bodily resurrection, and the certainty of heaven itself are all gone. Even the hereafter is left as a big question mark that we don't need to worry about.
Patti:
On the contrary, the hereafter remains a huge question for the Arminians. And that is my main concern and focus. There are many things we just don't know; the Scripture seems to speak both ways on many issues. But THE issue is on Whom do you base your hopes? On Jesus Christ and Him crucified, or upon our weak and sinful flesh?
Bill:
I don't know what you are saying about the hereafter. Perhaps we will get to this in another discussion topic. Jesus Christ and his salvation is the central issue. However, we must let the gospel determine our view of everything else--so the critical issues of our time cannot be ignored. I have found that many new Christians & even those considering Christ want real answers to real issues (I'm not talking about frivolous stuff). The evangelicals want to say 'don't worry about that' and speak only of the cross. Believe me, it doesn't work. We need to be able to express our hope in terms of facing the big questions.
***continued** |
Billtwisse (Billtwisse)
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2000 - 3:36 am: | |
ANSWERS TO PATTI (Part 4)
Bill:
Are we willing to face the issues today that our past associates backed away from? I'm not asking for simple and instant agreement. But are the right questions being asked?
Patti:
I am not sure exactly what you mean here. Could you elaborate? I do know that I firmly believe one thing: That arguing over things that do not affect my salvation is non-productive. God will act as He will act. And whatever that action is, it, by definition, will be holy and just and good. I see no use in dwelling on the negatives; our time needs to be spent in showing insecure, hopeless, struggling humans that their full salvation rests in Jesus Christ and in Him alone. Let theologians argue about the fine print if they wish, but I have seen harm done by two groups of believing Christians, former SDAs who disagree on election, tear each other's spiritual hair out in front of those to whom we are supposed to be witnessing to the grace of God in Christ. It is like arguing over who is going to throw the life preserver to a drowning man. There is a time for delving into the deeper implications of our faith, but, just as one does not try to give a drowning man a swimming lesson from the shore, so we do not try to thrust our specific speculations about how God will deal with sin in the end to someone who does not have any idea that Jesus Christ is his full and only salvation.
We must always bear in mind that we are not saved by correct theology any more than we are saved by anything that we can "do." We are all, always, only, saved by the infinite grace of God because of the "doing and dying"* of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bill:
"Doing and dying" came from the Puritan authors, I think.
I agree in spirit but not with all of your details. Without the 'cemetery theologians' that the populace love to hate, my spiritual journey would still be back in Egypt. The way out of confusion is not to avoid important issues but to continue studying them. The NT is concerned with preaching the gospel to the lost but also with the maturity of the saints 'not being swayed by every wind of doctrine.' Paul says of two men promoting falsehood: "they say the resurrection has already taken place and they destroy the faith of some." There are a lot of other faith-destructive doctrines that we could put in that sentence. Today we face an increased obsession with subjective justification (ECT, for example), 'repetitious justifications', extreme free-will, antinomian Calvinism, dispensationalism, dominion theology, third-wave gifts, remnant theology, ecumenism, worldly methods of 'evangelism,' universalism, Christ's so-called 'ability to sin', irrationalism, and the list goes on. People will say (and do say) that it is hair-splitting to insist on applying the gospel to these issues. Then they reject Bible study and go right on to follow whatever their favorite teacher is saying.
If we face the tough questions in the spirit of Christ, we don't need to worry. If we argue just to put down someone else and show how great we are, then we truly deserve to be ignored.
On the election issue I will conclude with this point: the gospel of John is the only NT book written to unbelievers. Yet in John 6:35-44 and 10:25-30, the Lord informs the unbelievers that they will only believe if the Father has given them to him and chosen them for his sheep. Some might think that Jesus was saying the wrong thing to a perishing man!
Without specific issues, specific discussion, and contrary dialogue--we don't make progress in spiritual wisdom.
Its been a pleasure and a challenge!
**Concluded**
--Twisse |
Graceambassador
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2000 - 9:12 am: | |
Hi Bill! Thank you for welcoming me! I've been honored to have interacted with you since perhaps October 1998 in other camps. I also thank God that we've found this camp to exchange ideas. Here, civility, brotherly love and respect are still in this "dispensation" (chukles...). |
Max
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 3:53 pm: | |
Bill Twisse,
You wrote,
^^ On the election issue I will conclude with
this point: the gospel of John is the only NT
book written to unbelievers. Yet in John
6:35-44 and 10:25-30, the Lord informs the
unbelievers that they will only believe if the
Father has given them to him and chosen
them for his sheep. Some might think that
Jesus was saying the wrong thing to a
perishing man! ^^
My reactions:
1. I'd truly never thought of John's gospel as
the only New Testament book written to
unbelievers. I might want to add Hebrews
(weren't the Jews also unbelievers?), but I
think I understand your well-taken point.
2. "The Lord informs the unbelievers that they
will only believe if the Father has given them to
him and chosen them for his sheep." I take
this to mean that they have no free choice to
choose Jesus, but the Father's choosing of
them GIVES them that freedom.
Example: Saul on the road to Damascus was
not free to choose Jesus. It took a blinding
blast of divine laser light to free him. And even
then it took three more years for him --
renamed Paul ("small" as opposed to "big") --
to begin to fully exercise his new-found
freedom in Christ.
If we are free in Christ, we are free indeed!
Thus was Paul's "slavery" to Christ all the
more a form of true human freedom of which
the world remains ignorant.
Max of the Cross |
|
