| Author | Message | ||
| Cas |
Susan, Christian Research Institute, (CRI) is a great sourch for information also. It's at www.equip.org, they do have search's you can do for different topics. Just a thought. I really like Hank Hanegraff, (president of CRI) and listen to him on his Bible Answer Man broadcast daily. If you can't catch it on the radio during the day you can hear it on the net through their website, in the archives, anytime. | ||
| Lynn W |
Hand Hanegraff seems to be right on the mark on just about everything except this one little detail: he refuses to class SDA as a cult. For that, he does not get my vote. | ||
| Maryann |
Lynn, Hank has always classified SDAs as "cultic", unless he's changed recently. I was very disappointed in his fact sheets on SDAs and the way he discussed SDA theology with SDAs. This goes back to "normal" evangelicals just don't know how to witness to SDAs. I have been wanting to write to him and enclose Dale's books so he can be properly equipped. He has such an awesome ministry and is so good in most other areas. Maryann | ||
| Colleentinker |
Hank Hanegraff has definitely been informed about Adventism. He even had Mark Martin as a guest on his show within the last two years. He said he was going to do a series on Adventism (about two or three shows), but he never did it, and he seems to have backed down from the fairly strong position he was taking on the air about a year ago. I've no idea what happened, but many former Adventists have contacted him and provided him with much material including currently-used elementary Bible textbooks, SS quarterlies, Adventist Reviews, Adventist Today, EG writings, etc. I think we need to pray for Hank. I know several of our local FAF group have been praying for him. | ||
| Lynn W |
"many former Adventists have contacted him and provided him with much material" Myself included. Keep praying. On his CRI website, he has SDA links listed under "other Christian links." | ||
| Cas |
Yes, Colleen, I remember when Hank said they were going to do a series on SDA's and nothing came forth. Maybe we should all email CRI encouraging them to do a program on SDA's??? BTW~his show on the World Wide Church of God was execellent. The Book Transformed by Truth was very good, as it had many similarities with SDA's, before their transformation. I did not know Mark Martin was on Hank's show (Bible Answer Man), sure wish I could have heard that one. I have heard Hank Mention several times that Ellen White was a false prophet, also he spoke about their Clear Word Bible. Ok, gotta go, I am going to email CRI right now!! God Bless everyone. | ||
| Rolaant |
Susan, Several excellent books on the subject of predestination and Reformed theology are: R.C. Sproul "Chosen By God" "Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology" James R. White "The Potter's Freedom" (due in June 2000) I am not as well read on Schaeffer as i should be, so I cannot comment much on him. James White's book, "The Potter's Freedom" is a Reformed response (and refutation) of Geisler's book, "Chosen But Free". I have read the manuscript of the book forward to me by the author. I will definitly purchase this book when it comes out. As for Hank Hanegraaff ... Yes, he sounded tough on Adventism last year, but has since softened it. And that I find sad, especially since he has received so much in strong evidence from former SDAs that SDAism is indeed cultic. I think Hank, like Walter Martin was, is being duped by evangelical-sounding SDAs. Perhaps it is such SDAs who convinced Hank not to do the series on Adventism he said he would do. What I find so inconsistent with Hank's position on the SDA Church is that he calls Ellen White a false prophetess, yet refuses to label the SDA Church as a cult even though it still officially follows her false teachings. But then I guess I should not be too surprised. Hank is soft on Roman Catholicism as well. He says that RCism teaches a "different gospel", yet he refuses to call RCism a cult. Gospel Outreach Ministries Online http://www.gospeloutreach.net/ | ||
| Colleentinker |
Rolaantówell said. I agree; someone's undoubtedly "gotten to" Hank. The deception is difficult to see, but "false prophet" should be a real warning bell. And you're right about his inconsistency regarding RCC. Deception, by definition, is almost impossible to spot. I do think people like Hank need our prayers. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Regarding Hank Hanegraaff et al., I think that, yes, we can pray for him, send him materials, etc. But beyond that, I think that we as formers must begin to take on more and more of the responsibilities of exposing the ongoing deceptions of Adventism, rather than simply trying to "set straight" certain luminaries whom we rely on to carry the torch. Shouldering more responsibility is what we are already doing anyway. One example is the organization of FAF itself and the website formeradventist.com. But gaining confidence must become more and more a part of our public presentation. This means doing more and more homework, such as Lynn has been doing for a long time. But it also means speaking out with more confidence: If we know our message is true, then we must state it with authority and not only rely on luminaries who have never been SDA and who therefore will never experientially know what we know. What to the rest of you think? Jude | ||
| Colleentinker |
Jude, I couldn't agree more. When God reveals truth to us, we are accountable to him for sharing it. Only a former Adventist can really expose, explain, and understand the duplicity and deception inherent in almost all Adventist teachings. We shouldn't be at all surprised that non-SDA's are deceived by SDA's. The nature of deception is to be nearly impossible to identify. I am surprised at how many Adventist teachings continue to "uncover" themselves as I grow farther from the church and increasingly familiar with the Bible. I can't think of one doctrine that isn't tainted with subtle deception. God gives us the times, the places, and the words to speak for him. Part of living with him is to respond and to speak for him when he asks us to. We can't depend on others; besides, it's God's ultimate responsibility to reveal truth. He doesn't only depend upon the luminaries! | ||
| Susan |
Jude, like Colleen I agree with you too. And a huge AMEN to the comments you'all (yes, I have a little of the South still in me) have made! It's so difficult to expose the truths about adventism to other Christians. I think if we emphasize the teachings that distort the nature of Christ, people might listen. The false prophet approach works well, but as many have pointed out the church is now down-playing EGW stuff. Just the fact that they've changed who and what Christ is, should send up "red flags" to fellow believers. My biggest struggle right now is dealing with spiritual warfare. It seems the more I try to pursue ministry of any kind, (especially reaching out to former SDA's!) I keep getting knocked down. Sometimes it's more than I can take. I know I need to persevere, but it gets tiresome. The great thing is we have the body of Christ to help and encourage us! In some of my darkest times, I've been the most blessed by my Christian family. It's funny how your church family and even Christian friends around the world, can become more supportive than your own natural family. Anyway, I'd love to hear if anyone else has experienced some spiritual warfare. Especially if it pertains to reaching former or current SDA's. In Christ, Susan | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Is the will bound or free? This was the question of the historic debate between Erasmus and Luther in which the latter had the audacity (courage?) to call free-will the devil's fiction. My personal opinion is that Luther won the debate on that one. However, the reason I am posting here is to highlight the difference between the 'ability to choose' and 'free will'. They are not the same thing. Choice distinguishes humans from robots. The decisive factor that makes something a choice is contrary motive. Whenever different motives exist that are contrary to each other, a decision has to be made as to which one will be honored. This is true of all things natural and spiritual. A good example would be the choice of a mate. It is possible to be 'in love' with more than one person. However, in the final analysis the affections for one will tip the balance against the others. The issue in free will is something quite different than choice. It is whether choices can be made in a vacuum. Are there knifes-edge choices that have no motive of preference? Choices that are made 'just for the kicks of it'? I know that 'kicks' is a very poor substitute for the word that would usually go in that phrase--because the other word portrays what I'm saying and kicks really doesn't. It implies motive which is what I'm trying to deny in playing the devil's advocate. Those who deny God's complete foreknowledge (you certainly have those in S. Cal.) would say that the knifes-edge choices cannot be predicted, even by God. The reason is because since there is no motive of preference behind them, they are strictly loose cannons. There is no telling where things will end up. To me that is perfectly logical--if you accept free will as being true. In criticism of this logic, the great Arminian theologian Samuel Wakefield said that the Wesleyan God is bigger than that of the Calvinist. The reason? He can predict the unpredictable--choices with no motive of preference. He said the Calvinist has a 'small God': one that has to plan the future in order to know it. For me this is crazy--the notion of a God who is great because he can know things that he doesn't plan. Where is that in scripture? One of the great illustrations of free-will is the eye of the hurricane. I heard this type of thing a lot in Adventism. All of life's temptations, influences, & impulses are like the swirling wind around the eye. However, in the eye itself it is absoluetly still. Your will can turn to anything at any time and be immune from the influence of ALL outside factors. Why bring this up? I am simply appealing to the fact that we need to define our terminology. Using free-will and choice as parallel terms is very confusing and ignores the historical issues. The use of the term 'free will' in Christian thinking originated with Justin Martyr (if someone finds an earlier use, I'm interested) and in pagan philosopy long before that. --Twisse | ||
| Steve |
Bill, Your posts continue to enlighten and educate me. I have always believed that we need to define our terms. Especially in the area of theology. Because one person will use a word to mean one thing, while another person uses the same word to mean something completely different. Your example of Erasmus, Luther, and Wakefield help clarify the use of terms that we tend to throw around without much thought to the great effort spent by Christians that went before us. I personally have used free will and freedom of choice interchangeably. Although this post doesn't clarify all the issues for me, it will make me more thoughtful when I use the terms. Thanks for your continuing education classes here in FAFland. God Bless, Steve | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Steve, Great to hear from you again! It is wonderful to know that someone has benefited from the thoughts I have shared. I have been occupied with business travel for my work but hope to get back to these issues before long. I am going to take any spare time that the Lord grants me to finish my posts on the covenants. I'm interested in your challenges as well as your praise. In Christ's grace and love, Twisse | ||
| Rolaant |
The Myth of Free Will Most people say that they believe in "free will." Do you have any idea what that means? I believe that you will find a great deal of superstition on this subject. The will is saluted as the grand power of the human soul which is completely free to direct our lives. But from what is it free? And what is its power? The Myth of Circumstantial Freedom No one denies that man has a will -- that is, a faculty of choosing what he wishes to say, do, and think. But have you ever reflected on the pitiful weakness of your will? Though you have the ability to make a decision, you do not have the power to carry out your purpose. Will may devise a course of action, but will has no power to execute its intention. Joseph's brothers hated him. They sold him to be a slave. But God used their actions to make him a ruler over themselves. They chose their course of action to harm Joseph. But God in His power directed events for Joseph's good. He said, "You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good" (Genesis 50:20). And how many of your decisions are miserably thwarted? You may choose to be a millionaire, but God's providence is likely to prevent it. You may decide to be a scholar, but bad health, an unstable home, or lack of finances may frustrate your will. You choose to go on a vacation, but an automobile accident may send you to the hospital instead. By saying that your will is free, we certainly do not mean that it determines the course of your life. You did not choose the sickness, sorrow, war, and poverty that have spoiled your happiness. You did not choose to have enemies. If man's will is so potent, why not choose to live on and on? But you must die. The major factors which shape your life cannot thank your will. You did not select your social status, color, intelligence, etc. Any sober reflection on your experience will produce the conclusion, "A man's mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). Rather than extolling the human will, we ought to humbly praise the Lord whose purposes shape our lives. As Jeremiah confessed, "I know, 0 Lord, that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). Yes, you may choose what you want, and you may plan what you will do. But your will is not free to accomplish anything contrary to the purposes of God. Neither have you any power to reach your goals but that which God allows you. The next time you are so enamored with your own will, remember Jesus' parable about the rich man. The wealthy man said, "'I will do this; I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods ...' But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you'" (Luke 12:18-21). He was free to plan but not free to accomplish; so it is with you. The Myth of Ethical Freedom But freedom of the will is cited as an important factor in making moral decisions. Man's will is said to be free to choose between good and evil. But again we must ask, from what is it free? And what is man's will free to choose? The will of man is his power to choose between alternatives. Your will does decide your actions from a number of options. You have the faculty to direct your own thoughts, words, and deeds. Your decisions are not formed by an outside force but from within yourself. No man is compelled to act contrary to his will, nor forced to say what he does not wish. Your will guides your actions. Yet this does not mean that the power to decide is free from all influence. You make choices based on your understanding, your feelings, your likes and dislikes, and your appetites. In other words, your will is not free from yourself! Your choices are determined by your own basic character. The will is not independent of your nature but the slave of it. Your choices do not shape your character, but your character guides your choices. The will is quite partial to what you know, feel, love, and desire. You always choose on the basis of your disposition, according to the condition of your heart. It is just for this reason that your will is not free to do good. Your will is the servant of your heart, and your heart is evil. "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). "No one does good, not even one" (Romans 3:12). No power forces man to sin contrary to his will, but the descendants of Adam are so evil that they always choose the evil. Your decisions are molded by your understanding, and the Bible says of all men, "Their senseless minds are darkened" (Romans 1:21). Man can only be righteous when he desires to have fellowship with God, but, "No one seeks for God" (Romans 3:11). Your appetites crave sin, and thus you cannot choose Good. To choose good is contrary human nature. If you chose to obey God, it would be the result of external compulsion. But you are free to choose, and hence your choice is enslaved to your own evil nature. If fresh meat and tossed salad were placed before a hungry lion, he would choose the flesh. This is because his nature dictates the selection. It is just so with man. The will of man is free from outside force but not from the bias of human nature. That bias is against God. Man's powers of decision are free to choose whatever the human heart dictates; therefore there is no possibility of a man choosing to please God without a prior work of divine grace. What most people mean by free will is the idea that man is by nature neutral and therefore able to choose either good or evil. This simply is not true. The human will and the whole of human nature is bent to only evil continually. Jeremiah asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jeremiah 13:23). It is impossible. It is contrary to nature. Thus do men desperately need the supernatural transformation of their natures, else their wills are enslaved to choosing evil. In spite of the great praise that is given to "free will," we have seen that man's will is not free to choose a course contrary to God's purposes nor free to act contrary to his own moral nature. Your will does not determine the events of your life nor the circumstances of it. Ethical choices are not formed by a neutral mind but always dictated by your personality. The Myth of Spiritual Freedom Nevertheless many assert that the human will makes the ultimate choice of spiritual life or spiritual death. Here the will is altogether free to choose eternal life offered in Jesus Christ or to reject it. It is said that God will give a new heart to all who choose by the power of their own free will to receive Jesus Christ. There can be no question that receiving Jesus Christ is an act of the human will. It is often called "faith." But how do men come to willingly receive the Lord? It is usually answered, "Out of the power of their own free will." But how can that be? Jesus is a prophet. To receive him means to believe all that he says. In John 8:41-45, Jesus made it clear that you were born of Satan. This evil father hates the truth and imparted the same bias into your heart by nature. Hence said Jesus, "Because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me." How does the human will jump out of man to choose to believe what the human mind hates and denies? To receive Jesus further means to embrace him as a priest -- that is, to employ,and depend on him to sue out peace with God by sacrific and intercession. Paul tells us that the mind with which we were born is hostile to God (Romans 8:7). How can the will escape the influence of human nature which was born with a violent enmity to God? It would be insane for the will to choose peace when every bone and drop of blood cries out for rebellion. Then too, receiving Jesus means to welcome him as a king. It means choosing to obey his every command, to confess his right of rule, and to worship before his throne. But the human mind, emotions, and desires all cry out, "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke 19:14). If my whole being hates his truth, hates his rule, and hates peace with God, how can my will be responsible for receiving Jesus? How can such a sinner have faith? It is not man's will but God's grace that must be thanked for giving a sinner a new heart. Unless God changes the heart, creates a new spirit of peace, truthfulness, and submission, man will not choose to receive Jesus Christ and eternal life in Him. A new heart must be given before a man will believe, or else the human will is hopelessly enslaved to evil human nature -- even in the matter of conversion. Jesus said, "Marvel not that I said to you, you must be born again" (John 3:7). Unless you are, you will never see his kingdom. Read John 1:12-13. It says that those who believe on Jesus have been "born, not of the will of man, but of God." As your will is not responsible for your coming into this world, it is not responsible for the new birth. It is your Creator who must be thanked for your life, and if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). Who ever chose to be created? When Lazarus rose from the dead, he chose to answer the call of Christ, but he did not choose to come to life. So Paul said in Ephesians 2:4-5, "When we were dead in sins God has quickened us with Christ (by grace you are saved)." Faith is the first act of a will made new by the Holy Spirit. Receiving Christ is an act of man just as breathing is, but God must first give life. No wonder Martin Luther wrote a book entitled The Bondage of The Will, which he considered one of his most important treatises. The will is in the chains of an evil human nature. You who extol the free will as a great force are clinging to a root of pride. Man, as fallen in sin, is utterly helpless and hopeless. The will of man offers no hope. It was the will choosing the forbidden fruit that brought us into misery. The powerful grace of God alone offers deliverance. Cast yourself upon God's mercy for salvation. Ask for the Spirit of Grace that He may create a new spirit within you. | ||
| Max |
Thank you, Rolaant, I agree 100%. Your essay reminds me of the old story about the renouned philosopher Platotle and his slave Phaedro. One day Platotle's donkey Aestheus kicked Phaedo who immediately picked up a stick and started beating the animal. Platotle came upon the scene and, enraged, uncoiled his whip and began beating slave Phaedro. Whereupon Phaedro cried out, "Oh, master, why beatest thou me? "Many a time have I overheard thee lecturing thy disciples on the illusion of free will. According to thine own theory, therefore, I could not have prevented myself from beating thy donkey. So why beatest thou me, thy faithful slave?" Platotle's whip paused midair while the great philosopher considered his slave's question. Anon quoth he, "Nor could I, thy master, by mine own theory, have prevented myself from beating thee." Whereupon he resumed beating his slave Phaedro. It is said -- but without authoritative witness -- that the donkey Aestheus was seen heading for his feeding stall in a fit of braying laughter. Hoping you'll stay around, Max | ||
| Colleentinker |
Rolaant, your essay is wonderful. I agree completely. Thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful post. Colleen | ||
| Rolaant |
Thanks Colleen, But I cannot take credit for it. (8-) "The Myth of Free Will" is an article on my site (http://www.gospeloutreach.net/) by Walter Chantry. (8-) You should read "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther. A great book. He takes on the pre-eminent Roman Catholic apologist of his day and demolishes his arguments on man's free will. | ||
| Billtwisse |
Rolaant: Praise God for your courage to stand for the truth of scripture! I agree with your essay 100%. It was a refusal to acknowledge this truth that led to the apostasy of the leaders of the 'awakening' movement in the early 80's. I loved those men more than my life and the descent into heresy of scores of former 'mates' in the gospel was the greatest trial of soul I have ever experienced. I never wept over leaving Adventism, but I have certainly wept over and over when thinking of the 'glory' that once was in the fellowship of many of us--who left Adventism over the gospel. It is also this issue that is the main cause of my current differences with the well-published leaders of former SDAism. I love those men as followers of Christ: they have expounded a tremendous amount of truth. But I don't believe that their books and tapes, so far, have remotely owned-up to biblical truth of election. In fact, it is criticized heavily by implication. More to say in the near future. --Twisse | ||
| Patti |
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! It was a refusal to acknowledge this truth that led to the apostasy of the leaders of the 'awakening' movement in the early 80's. I loved those men more than my life and the descent into heresy of scores of former 'mates' in the gospel was the greatest trial of soul I have ever experienced. I never wept over leaving Adventism, but I have certainly wept over and over when thinking of the 'glory' that once was in the fellowship of many of us--who left Adventism over the gospel. It is also this issue that is the main cause of my current differences with the well-published leaders of former SDAism. I love those men as followers of Christ: they have expounded a tremendous amount of truth. But I don't believe that their books and tapes, so far, have remotely owned-up to biblical truth of election. In fact, it is criticized heavily by implication. |
