| Author | Message | ||
| Chyna |
here's a list I got from a recent talk by Des Ford have we outgrown some doctrines? the following are typical doctrinal positions once held by SDa's but now rejected by most Adventist scholars 1. shut door of matt 25 pointed to close of probation for all except adventists in 1844 2. the first angelís message ceased in 1844 3. christ was a created being, not equal with the father 4. the holy spirit was a power not a person equal with the father 5. christ possessed a sinful nature at birth like ours 6. the work done at the cross was not the atonement 7. the ìdailyî of daniel 8 was pagan rome 8. the last power of daniel 11 was turkey soon to come to her end 9. last power of daniel 11 was turkey soon to come to her end 10. armageddon pointed to a middle east conflict rather than religious struggle 11. daniel 12:4 pointed to increase in travel and communication and scientific inventions 12. ìthis generationî of matthew 24:34 meant the generation which saw the signs in the heavens 13. the ìheathenî of joel 3 to be awakened meant the powers of the East such as China and Japan 14. ìwithin the veilî meant within the first viel 15. the year/day principle is explicitly stated in num 14:34 and ez 4:6 16. the ij is concerned only with those who have claimed christ as savior and who have their names written in the book of life ñ not with Antichrist or the wicked in general 17. Rev 9:15 points to August 11, 1840 18. two literal apartments in the heavenly sanctuary 19. EGW was an original writer not dependent upon uninspired sources 20. EGW comments on religious history include details gained from visions 21. not the little horn but the sins of the saints defiled the sanctuary 22. ìcleanedî in dan 8:!4 has to do with cleansing the record of the saintsí sins not the defilement of the litter horn 23. heb 8 and 9 used with dan 8 and 0 are basis of our sanctuary teachings 24. the Father not Christ is the judge 25. the sacrificial blood of sin offerings polluted the sanctuary 26. the law in Galations is the ceremonial law only 27. the term ìrighteousness by faithî in the Pauline letters include sanctification 28. the 1335 days began in 508 and finished 1843 29. the ij concerns only those whose names have once been entered in the book of life 30. the sabbath of the fourth commandment should be kept from 6 pm to 6 pm des does go on to say that not all SDA ministers or even administrative leaders are aware or agree with all these changes. some still believe with the former GC president that "SDAs have never taken a stand upon Bible exegesis which they have been compelled to surrender." quite honestly sometimes I think that Adventists are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. they *want* to be accepted as mainstream Christians (or at least that's why I've heard from them) yet their doctrine is so different than mainstream Christianity that it would compromise either groups to unify. something Des Ford said was that Adventist scholars have known things for quite some time, but all they done is respond in silence. which i think goes well with the proposition that criticism is deeply frowned upon in the adventist church - a cultic property. speaking of cultists. i walked into my discount Christian book center, and saw a book "What Cultist Believe" (having the biblical response to their false doctrines) and lo, and behold, all i had to do was flip to the back index and look under Seventh Day Adventist. I wonder if Adventists would want so badly to be recognized as mainstream Christians if they realized more Christians classify them as cultists. I really wish there was some official stance that we could solidly dispute, but there is none and there doesn't seem to be a move to create on within the Adventist church either. just some thoughts, Chyna | ||
| Allenette |
Chyna: If I recall aright, you were dating and "broke up with" an SDA fellow. You guys are what we old fogies call, "quits", right? And, basically, you never "were" SDA, right? And your former perhaps, betrothed, isnt beating you over the head with SDA, since he's history, right? And you have already realized that. So.....what's the attraction to yakking on and on about a denomination you would not join anyhoo? Why not just get on with your life and put it in your mental archives? I dated/thenlived with, a very nice Roman Catholic Italian in the 70's....when it was over, it was over. HINT HINT. | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Allenette, Here I go again, if I, my friends, X-friends or even strangers have "re-called" ********* Tires and get them replaced, I'll continue stirring the Tire Pie till I think the message is out to all involved. Especially if I or someone close to me was in an accident because of the re-called tires. Chyna had an accident and only recieved bruises. She's on the "warpath" of truth! Maryann | ||
| Chyna |
dear allenette, not everyone travels the same paths in life, or arrives at the same kind of destination the same way. maryann is right in the sense that clinging to the truth of God's Word is what is reassuring me right now. my ex and i broke up because he is SDA and I'm not, and am never going to become SDA. i thought we were going to make a life together, but from the very onset of the relationship it was impossible because he wanted me to become SDA and live the SDA lifestyle. so, right now i've been struggling with trying to figure out SDAism, why he chose to deceive me about it, and why it has such rigid definitions. maybe it doesn't bother you that I have started to define SDAism as a cult. well, i can tell you it disturbs me. you and I can probably both agree that the best thing the world has to offer is love - unconditional love. and what bothers me about people in SDAism is that the elitist attitude does not reflect God's love. you don't have the same problems as I do. I love my ex, maybe too much, but I love him enough that I pray that God will help him not to be blind about adventism anymore. sometimes I feel like it's hard to relate to you allenette because we have different life perspectives. for you, it's like randomness prevails, for me, God's in charge. so why did have this painful experience with SDA's? I still don't have a complete answer. maybe I'll never know until heaven, but until then I'm going to try to expose every corrupted hideous root Adventism has grown from, or whatever doctrine it espouses. why? because as a Christian, I don't think there is anything that makes me more upset than to have God's Word misrepresented because it misrepresents God. why outrage on behalf of God? only because of God have I experienced a love that is so transforming, so comforting, so faithful. more and more, I realize God is all I have left to cling to. think of it as someone defaming your best friend. you'd do everything to defend your best friend and to adequately describe and depict him/her to the world if they were saying lies about him/her. thanks for askin', Chyna | ||
| Chyna |
and maryann is right. i continue to write about these things because I don't want anyone to get burned the same way I have been. i also don't want anyone else to stay in adventism either b/c they're not going to be able to experience the fullness of God's love and grace within it. | ||
| Allenette |
Chyna: guess what? I agree with you. MANY people agree with you. Some of them have felt strongly enough about it to write books about it! For example, Amazon.com offers a book called "The Four Major Cults" and guess who's listed ON THE FRONT COVER??? And guess WHEN the book came out? 1969, before you were born! And there are many others available. You are also RIGHT that we have different life perspectives. The older I get, the more I subscribe to the "Chaos Theory" because, for one thing, if I were of your spiritual persuasion, personally I would find it MORE COMFORTING to perceive that God does NOT choose to let MY son die in a car wreck and DOES choose to let my neighbor's son live (meant most kindly to those recently involved). For that would smack of favoritism and I would hope my heavenly Father does NOT play by those rules. (My earthly one didnt and I always thought he was pretty fair ggg) Do you remember the Smother's Brother's? How about Tommy Smother's usual accusation to Dick, "Mom always liked you best!" ;-) I am much too pragmatic for my own good at times. Maybe I hoped a good LOUD, "SNAP OUT OF IT" might be useful. I was (doing my best Fonzie imitation now) wr...wr...wr...wr...not right ;-) If it helps, you would probably have just as much trouble assimilating into the 3 other Major Cults listed on the cover of that book: Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, and I think, Christian Science? Best wishes for a speedy recovery :-) | ||
| Patti |
Dear Allenette, You may find this surprising, but I find myself in agreement with you much of the time. More and more I believe in the "chaos" theory. I believe that God saved us by His Son Jesus Christ, but beyond that, I am not sure of the degree of His personal intervention in our lives. With a single exception, and that is the revelation of His grace to us because of Jesus Christ. And I am comfortable with that. I see no conflict in believing that Christ saved me, and now it is up to me to muddle along the best I can using my God-given brain and the "wisdom" of fellow creatures to try and survive. But I will tell you one thing: When the Gospel was revealed to me, when it became clear to me that there was absolutely nothing I could do to save myself, it was a life-changing experience. Not that I became a Miss-goody-two-shoes; on the contrary, I was that BEFORE I understood salvation by grace alone. Knowing that I could do nothing to save myself freed me up to live as a human being, a creature of my King, and to try to find the best way to do this as comfortably for myself and for the creatures around me as possible. It is wonderful to be able to accept people without worrying about what day they worship on, what they eat, wear, drink, where they go on Friday nights, etc, etc. And I believe that a major part of faith is leaving God's business in His hands, and to try to make this mess of a world as good a place as I can while I am a part of it. I wrote you a note last week in answer to your post abobe, but it did not post properly. You think much the way I do; God never intended for us to check our brains at the church door. And I believe that God would not expect us not to question, to enquire, to wonder at the things we cannot understand. Then, again, FAITH is being able to accept things without tangible proof. So I have to leave those unanswerables in God's hands. Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Allenette |
Hi Patti: big wide grin firstly. NO I'm not surprised that we agree on a lot of basic human issues...we have a LOT in common, despite the different directions we took at the crossroads :-) I dont have a "faith" bone in my body, anywhere, and many people have looked for it on me gggg. Trouble is, I'm not a rocket scientist who can give equations and show archeological evidence for my lack of faith (no evidence, which I requre after leaving SDA). On another forum, which has recently been called Atheist Today rather than its real one, (figure it out ggg its Colleen's former residence) there are ongoing discussions of merit IMHO, by former SDA's who have asked the same questions I asked myself (having no one else to talk to at the time gggg) and their conclusions are much more well thought out, and much more "heretical" than I concluded, but still meritoreous in that many would have shuddered to continue a logical progression on the subject :-) OTOH, "Fools Rush In, Where Angels Fear to Tread" thank you Elvis and Ricky Nelson ;-) | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Allenette, :):)You said: "I dont have a "faith" bone in my body, anywhere, and many people have looked for it on me gggg." :(:( You also said: "MaryAnn: Looking forward to you getting however re-wired you have to for voice yakking again :-)" Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???????!!!!!;-)) It appears to me that you have "FAITH" that both of us will be alive for another day....That's 2 counts of "FAITH!" Foolish as it seems, you have "FAITH" that "I" will be able to re-hook up my computer AND hook up the yak yak thingy....That's 2 more counts of "FAITH!" You have "FAITH" that there will be power tomorrow. That's 1 count of "FAITH!" You most likely told 6 people today, see ya tomorrow. That's 6 counts of "FAITH" that those 6 people will be well and alive tomorrow! You may have made plans for this weekend with hubby and son. That's 2 more counts of "FAITH!" I have "FAITH" that my addition added a lucky 13 counts of "FAITH" for you today!!!!!!!! You are NOT so agnostic to believe that GOD had nothing to do with any of that........So hahahahahahahaha, I found 13 "FAITH" bones in your body;-)) At that rate, in less then two weeks, every bone in your body will have "FAITH!!!!" ggggggggggggggg....Maryann.....ggggggggggggggg;-)) | ||
| Allenette |
MaryAnn: "Sez YOU !!" ;-) To quote Mark Twain, a famous agnostic, "I hope it, and I doubt it." To quote Popeye, "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam...." | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Allenette, You "yam?" Hmmmmmmmmm, God created yam's too gggg! Sooooo, you yam what you yam. Doubt that!!! When you can sit down in your kitchen and abba ca-zabba your hands and make a yam, (out of God's clear air) I'll have faith that you don't have a "faith" bone in your body!! ggggg :-))))))))))....Maryann:):):):)ggggggggg | ||
| Billtwisse |
To me, the fact that Des Ford congratulates the SDA leadership and himself for shedding many of these frivolous doctrines is like Pilate congratulating himself by proudly proclaiming "What I have written, I have written." Luther stated that only a soldier who fights at the real battlefront is standing true. He may fight nobly where the battle does not rage. However, this is mere flight and disgrace. Des Ford once fought nobly. He was mightily used of God as a catalyst in the turning of souls to the true gospel. Today, in continuing to debate these purely SDA issues, his testimony is very stunted. What a witness he could have been to the world if he had shed the SDA baggage and used the gospel to judge everything! Instead, he continues to try and gain acceptance by the SDA leadership. Believe me, acceptance from such persons is no honor. --Twisse | ||
| Max |
Thanks, Chyna, for the list of doctrines Des Ford says Adventists have abandoned. Here's my list: 1. Ford's list is outrageously optimistic, at least from Des' point of view. I mean, if he showed it to some of the hysterical (oops, I mean historical) SDA groups -- such as the Waymarks crowd or the Pilgrim's Rest gang, not to mention the "gentlefolk" at Wiemar -- he might be risking more than the frock he surrendered at Glacier View. 2. He claims that SDAs have "outgrown" these teachings? If so, he confuses being clubbed over the head by Reality with HGH (human growth hormone). I mean, they were teaching that the "door" to salvation is "shut" after the 1844 "disappointment" and only those who went through the experience are "saved." But then, after everybody alive then has passed to cemetary rest and only succeeding generations are alive, then those decendants HAVE to change their doctrine, don't they? I mean, it's like saying, "We're all on the wrong side of the "shut door" (translation: lost) but we're all still have the Truth, we're all still believers, still Seventh-day Adventists, bet your beaver hat, hightop-laced shoes and Sabbath-go-to-meetin-hot-n-scratchy-black-w ool suit! Huh? Ford needs a quick Reality transfusion. Those folks changed not because they grew, but because they had to change. Reality bonked them over the head. They had no choice in the matter. They were forced into saying, "Oh, well, we never really meant to say what you say we we said!" Again, Huh? How our heavenly Father's endorphins must be flooding as with his feet resting comfortably on his footstool he roars with laughter! 3. Is Ford rehabbing? Or being rehabbed? Is there a place at last back in "the church" for the greatest heretic since Dudly M. Canright? Hmmm? 4. Why can't Ford just "outgrow" the Sabbath heresy to boot? Some random thoughts in late summer from, Max of the Cross | ||
| Billtwisse |
Dear Max, I certainly agree with you. However, what Ford says about 'most scholars' in the SDA authority-structure probably refers to the academic 'elite.' His statement is somewhat accurate if applied to them. At one point, I never believed the day would actually come when Ford would be received back into the 'fold.' However, we are now in the 21st century--a long distance away from 1844. Adventism will have to reinvent itself--more sooner than later. Apocalyptic movements are all about a continuous process of redefinition and reinterpretation. The history of prophetic interpretation since 1800 proves that to be true. Ford's redefinition of the meaning of 1844 would still make the Advent movement the final subject of prophecy (wishful thinking!). For many reasons, I believe that Dr. Ford is our most subtle SDA opponent. He has engaged in the strongest effort to use the gospel to justify Adventism of anyone I have ever seen. I have never heard him renounce the false doctrines of Christ's ability to sin, the Sabbath as the final test of salvation, the divine calling of Ellen White, or the Advent movement as the last vindication of God's truth. --Twisse | ||
| Patti |
I am inclined to agree with you, Bill. I know your background with Brinsmead, et. al., and I strongly relate to this. Not that I was a part of any "inner circle," but the messages of the Gospel that Brinsmead delivered in the late '70's, early 80's were like cooling rain on very parched earth. The same thing that bothered me most about Ford also bothered me about Brinsmead. They were both far to kind to Ellen White. Even Brinsmead wrote a very loving article (I think it is available at presenttruthmag.com) about the Gospel of Ellen White, completely glossing over all of the horribly perfectionistic statements, the passages that described the sinful human nature of our Lord, and other such anti-gospel stands. Why were they both reticent about exposing the very SOURCE of all of the confusion in SDAism concerning the Gospel? Brinsmead tried to tear the house down and rebuild it without damaging the foundation. Ford merely tried to remodel the old house. The fact of the matter is, the house was built on the sand (Ellen), and no remodeling, rebuilding in the world could ever give it stability. And Ford still supports unique doctrines of SDAism, which, in essence, still gives credibility for many people to a system of legalism. Your thoughts? Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Max |
Greetings Bill, You're right. Ford, with his list of "outgrown" doctrines, was no doubt speaking only of the SDA "academic elite," which is now firmly embedded within the SDA "administrative elite" (conference and institutional admins), along with the "professional elite" (physicians, lawyers, etc.). These are probably the folks he's appealing to. And are not these the only ones he's ever tried to appeal to? He's never fared well with the "historicals" or even the moderately conservative and mainstream, whose numbers are legion. I think that this fact is the political reason why "they" were able to isolate and defrock him. But is he back? I seriously doubt it. Administrators tend to be conservative because, politically speaking, they are "elected" by the vast membership, which is overwhelmingly conservative, easily gulled and mis-led. They have NEVER bought Ford's package, and when taps are sounded, they rule still. Agree? | ||
| Timo |
Chyna, Can I copy the list of abandoned doctrines, you presented sep.9. I like to send it to Finnish advlist. I do not agree with all Dr. Ford's points, but it is an interesting list. I hope it is true that all these 30 points have been wiped out from the list of errors adventist have held. I plan to translate them also into finnish. timo | ||
| Colleentinker |
BilltwisseóI agree with your statement that Des Ford "may be our most subtle SDA opponent". I've thought similarly for a long time. How confusing to hear the man who brought the untruth of 1844 into light still to be defending the Sabbath, etc. Colleen | ||
| Billtwisse |
Responses to Various Recent Quotes: Where I express disagreement, I'm speaking my heart. I hope that all will take this into account. Patti: You may find this surprising, but I find myself in agreement with you much of the time. More and more I believe in the "chaos" theory. I believe that God saved us by His Son Jesus Christ, but beyond that, I am not sure of the degree of His personal intervention in our lives. With a single exception, and that is the revelation of His grace to us because of Jesus Christ. And I am comfortable with that. I see no conflict in believing that Christ saved me, and now it is up to me to muddle along the best I can using my God-given brain and the "wisdom" of fellow creatures to try and survive. Twisse: I hope and pray that God will make you uncomfortable with that, Patti. I have rarely been more uncomfortable with anything! Psalm 139 is one of my favorite passages on the intervention of God in every detail of our lives. Even Deism is better than the chaos theory, in my opinion. In that view God has direct intervention at the beginning, at the end, & invested the universe with enough 'order' and moral conscience in the interim to guarantee its reasonable continuance. Of course, I'm horrified at Deism also because it denies the reality of grace in Christ and God's application of it to us personally. The rest of what you have to say about Christ is wonderful and does not square with this statement. If God sent his Son, will he not also freely give us all things--now and forever? Patti: I am inclined to agree with you, Bill. I know your background with Brinsmead, et. al., and I strongly relate to this. Not that I was a part of any "inner circle," but the messages of the Gospel that Brinsmead delivered in the late '70's, early 80's were like cooling rain on very parched earth. The same thing that bothered me most about Ford also bothered me about Brinsmead. They were both far to kind to Ellen White. Even Brinsmead wrote a very loving article (I think it is available at presenttruthmag.com) about the Gospel of Ellen White, completely glossing over all of the horribly perfectionistic statements, the passages that described the sinful human nature of our Lord, and other such anti-gospel stands. Why were they both reticent about exposing the very SOURCE of all of the confusion in SDAism concerning the Gospel? Brinsmead tried to tear the house down and rebuild it without damaging the foundation. Ford merely tried to remodel the old house. The fact of the matter is, the house was built on the sand (Ellen), and no remodeling, rebuilding in the world could ever give it stability. And Ford still supports unique doctrines of SDAism, which, in essence, still gives credibility for many people to a system of legalism. Twisse: The gospel movement of the 1970's was a strange hybrid of viewpoints. The continued defense of some form of Adventism & Ellen White was a 'last farewell' on the way out the door. That hybrid cannot be resurrected today. It has lost its power, since it is no longer relevant. God led us out step-by-step but we are now really out. That is history. Others who get out do not need to repeat the same mistakes that we made. The gospel light is readily available to all whose hearts are touched by God. I'm not faulting either RDB or DF for anything they said in the 1970's. They followed the increasing light of those times. I fault both of them very much for what they are saying today--because it is so out of harmony with the foundational gospel that they taught. Ford has turned back to SDAism as Lot's wife turned back to look at Sodom. Brinsmead didn't look back. Instead, he founded a new 'city of the plain' by prostituting the gospel with demonic philosophy--as Lot's daughters committed incest and became mothers of reprobate nations. I agree with you, of course, about the tragic end of the doctrines of both. Max: on Dr. Ford He's never fared well with the "historicals" or even the moderately conservative and mainstream, whose numbers are legion. I think that this fact is the political reason why "they" were able to isolate and defrock him. But is he back? I seriously doubt it. Administrators tend to be conservative because, politically speaking, they are "elected" by the vast membership, which is overwhelmingly conservative, easily gulled and mis-led. They have NEVER bought Ford's package, and when taps are sounded, they rule still. Agree? Twisse: I mostly agree. However, I stand by my original statement that Adventism will very soon have to reinvent itself. However this is accomplished by the administrators and scholars (who are increasingly in collusion, as you say), the populace has no choice but to fall in line. They will gossip about how the 'church' is going to the dogs but will never leave it. Ellen White said not to and that settles it. Ford is definitely gaining a new acceptance in some SDA circles. However, it may be after his death before the 'great metamorphosis' takes place. They will come up with something very similar to his interpretation and claim that it is theirs alone. Much like Luther denied that his doctrines had anything to do with those of Huss. I want to emphasize that I love Dr. Ford very much. If I were to praise and not condemn his present direction, it would show that I have nothing but contempt for his soul. I pray that he will yet turn away from 'looking back to Sodom' (this is the age of grace!) and be smitten on the 'rock of offense' of the true gospel that abolishes all darkness. Colleen: BilltwisseóI agree with your statement that Des Ford "may be our most subtle SDA opponent". I've thought similarly for a long time. How confusing to hear the man who brought the untruth of 1844 into light still to be defending the Sabbath, etc. Twisse: You are so, so right! And unfortunately, he is still defending a 'reinterpreted' view of 1844 according to his 'apotelesmatic' principle. It is still proposed to be the great restoration moment of the end-times, when God started to revive the true gospel illustrated in the Saturday Sabbath! My comment on that: "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere on the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!" Gen. 19:17 --Twisse | ||
| Patti |
Bill: Ford is definitely gaining a new acceptance in some SDA circles. However, it may be after his death before the 'great metamorphosis' takes place. They will come up with something very similar to his interpretation and claim that it is theirs alone. Patti: Probably what will happen is exactly what happened with Waggoner. They will some 100 years hence, claim that Ford had a message from God that if the church had only accepted it, they would have been in the kingdom of heaven decades earlier.... And then some other heretic will come along to be canonized again yet later on (after it is too late to do anything about it, and after it no longer matters exactly what the message was because everyone who was privy to hearing the exact message is dead...) | ||
| Chyna |
timo, yes. max, you're welcome. well, to gage the reaction of Adventists my age, the twenty-some's, they view the whole Des Ford thing with something akin to amusement. they have vaguely heard of him. most definitely there is more of an attitude of benign acceptance than anything else. they know that there was a big deal in the past, but when you look at Des Ford today, he's an old man with not much fire or controversy about him. all throughout Des Ford's talk he kept saying how he loved Ellen and how she was a dear old woman who told everyone to "look to their bibles" anyway, the talk was at Loma Linda University, so that may speak of something of Des Ford regaining some kind of acceptance. the bottom line of the talk was that IJ does not exist in the bible and none of the Adventist scholars who can read Hebrew support any evidence of IJ in Daniel 8 or the Day of Atonement in Hebrews. gaging the crowds reactions, it didn't seem like they were very convinced that IJ didn't exist anymore (i mean it's been part of the Adventist church since its conception!) speaking to my adventist ex, he said that there was a real separation in the Adventist church worldwide. basically he was claiming that the General Conference is run by International people (who he claimed are ignorant and believe in some of the more aberrant beliefs) and then there are the North American people, who don't believe in the same things as the General Conference. does this ring true with any other former adventists? this atttitude? although the ironic thing was that he kept claiming that it was some other church, or some other adventists that were believing in aberrant beliefs when he, himself, is a Traditional Adventist package and parcel (EGW prophet, Sunday Law, Jesus is Michael, IJ) and also is an MK who lived abroad and who was probably propagating a bunch of these doctrines. to be honest, I do agree that there is an optimistic attitude Des Ford espouses. For him to be able to reject IJ was a humongous step forward, and allowed him to reject other things about Adventism, but I believe many in the church are too frightened to reject any part of Adventism because it is all part of the "special truths" given to them through Ellen. in Him, Chyna | ||
| Max |
Bill, Back to paradise -- oops, I mean, paradox -- the theology of. I think we have different opinions of what it means. I'll tell you what it means to me: The theology of paradox is in itself not a complete approach. It is only a subset of the theology of mystery. Theology of mystery rests on the assumption that we know almost nothing about God the Father, EXCEPT as he has been and is being revealed through God the Son. The Old Testament Yaweh, who made the universe is himself God the Son. Therefore all the messages sent through creation come through God the Son and all the pre-incarnation messages (revelations in "bits and pieces") come from God the Son. But 99% of the messages/relevation came as historical reality through God the Son, Jesus Christ on earth. John said "We touched him with our hands!" Theology of mystery says, John touched God with his hands! Many paradoxes are thrown up by this of mystery. For example: How can Jesus be fully divine and fully human at the same time? These paradoxes are not created by human minds. They emerge from the "thick darkness" of the witness -- Scripture -- itself. At this point I need to say that God, even God the Son, is clothed in "thick darkness" as Scripture says. But God the Son Jesus Christ himself is light and in him is no darkness at all. This is another example of paradox thrown up by Scripture itself. In mystery theology the paradoxes do not emerge from the minds, much less the arguments, of human theologians. The only paradoxes of interest are those presented -- often against our puny human reasoning -- by the revelation Himself. The maleness/femaleness of God is another paradox. The Old Testament has indisputable images of God as female. You suckle at God's breasts, for example. Yet the pronoun is always male: he/him. Trinity is yet another paradox. How can there by three Persons in one God and one God in three Persons? One times one times one equals one is a nice try, but it doesn't begin to approach the problem, much less solve it or make it "reasonable" to our human minds that are always seeking to "control by understanding," as though God were the sun or DNA or anything else in all creation. The theology of paradox does not seek to resolve these abundant paradoxes with human logic. It seeks rather to appreciate them, to "stand in awe," to worship a God who could present to our "wondering eyes" such stunning concepts! For this reason I sometimes refer to the theology of mystery as the theology of humility. The theology of humility says that western, rationalistic, naturalistic theology tends inevitably towards arrogant, errant nonsense and "Tower of Babel" building. In this sense the theology of mystery escapes postmodernist criticisms, such as Darrida's deconstructionism. The reason my daughter likes it is because, "It is unassuming." Mystery theology does not attempt to explain the unexplainable. It seeks rather to restore divine worship -- rather than human reason -- back in its rightful place as the supreme human response to the revelation of God in human experience and history. The individual and corporate Christian life is thus grounded in experience: * Moses at the burning bush. * The Children of Israel at the base of the burning, thundering, lightening, smoking Mt. Sinai. * Isaiah in God's smoke-filled temple. * Gideon on his thrashing floor. * Nathaniel under the fig tree. * Peter walking on water, then falling, only to be rescued by the loving arms of God in person. * Abraham with trembling knife stayed above the body of his living son Isaac. * Saul on the road to Damascus. * The congregation at Trinity church singing and swaying and raising their hands toward heaven or crunching the body and drinking the blood of Jesus of Nazareth. * You in your prayer closet, or taking your elderly neighbor's garbage out, or swallowing your tongue at an insult. The theology of mystery does not deny human reason. But it does subject it to divine reason. It lets God be God. Max of the Cross | ||
| Max |
Billtwisse again, You penned, ^^ I believe that Dr. Ford is our most subtle SDA opponent. He has engaged in the strongest effort to use the gospel to justify Adventism of anyone I have ever seen. I have never heard him renounce the false doctrines of Christ's ability to sin, the Sabbath as the final test of salvation, the divine calling of Ellen White, or the Advent movement as the last vindication of God's truth. ^^ And I couldn't agree more. | ||
| Billtwisse |
Max & Brethren, I only have a moment but hope to continue this and other discussions at a more opportune time in the future. For me, the line between mystery and revelation is just that: mystery is that which God has not revealed about himself or the universe and how it goes. The arena of mystery is, of course, infinite. The gospel revealed to Paul was a mystery in all ages prior to that moment. It had not been revealed to any other creature. Christ did not reveal it in his incarnation but only after his ascension and only to one person. Even the other apostles understood the fullness of the gospel only after Paul revealed what he had seen and heard. There is no more revelation of truth to be given after God's final revelation to Paul, only illumination. All study, reasoning, teaching, preaching, & sharing are grounded in illumination from the Holy Spirit of the final revelation. The only problem I have with some views of mystery (including the liberal, modernist, and post-modern versions of paradox theology) is that revealed truth is ignored and almost everything is left to mystery and paradox. I believe that if God has given a revelation--we are free to explore the meaning of it fully in the Spirit. The reason I stopped using the paradoxical model to explain truth is because the terminology is confusing. When a liberal uses the term 'paradox' he really does mean contradiction, impasse, unreasonable concept--with reference to almost everything. Not merely a set of concepts difficult to reconcile. Well, I'll try to explain myself better sometime. --Twisse | ||
| Max |
No, Bill, That is an excellent explanation, as usual. I have no quibble at all. And I always appreciate your mind. I especially appreciated your point about Paul. Somewhere he made a point about the fact that his encounter with Jesus was not a vision, and that this experience was what qualified him to be an apostle. And so I have personally speculated that it was Paul and not Mathias who should have taken Judas Iscariot's place. But that's no big deal with me. I also appreciated your point about Paul being the last apostolic witness to the risen Christ. John underscores the "no more witnesses" theme at the end of his Revelation of Jesus Christ. He reveals that there is a curse on anyone who would add or detract from the closed revelation. Thus does he rule out with a flew strokes of his quill the likes of Ellen G. White, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith and innumerable others. Praise God for your insights, Bill, Max |
