Archive through June 20, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » Calvinism » Archive through June 20, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4176
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 2:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob, very interesting analyses. I'd never thought about Des Ford's position in terms of honoring free will before. In other words, humanity's "rights" trump God's power. What you say makes sense.

Richard just said to me that he was taught that our free will was the most important thing in the universe. In fact, by our choices, we can determine when Jesus returns, and we can make things happen that would be against God's perfect will. Adventism really does teach that our choice is the all-important thing in the universeóthe thing God will protect at all costs.

This belief, I think, is why so many people who leave Adventism are so surprised to discover that God is actually sovereignóand why they find so much comfort in that knowledge.

There is, even in modern "evangelical" Adventism, a deep "it's all about me" attitude. Giving up the IJ in favor of God's sovereignty would mean giving up a list of things: identity, "special" status, the "safety net" of having a "prophet voice" in Ellen White; special knowledge (via EGW), the Health Message, the belief that Satan will suffer for our sins, etc.

Bottom line, in order to walk away completely from Adventism, people would have to face the truth about Adventism's foundation. I really believe that honestly facing the deception that IS the church's bedrock is too upsetting for a great many people. It would mean admitting they had been "victimized" or deceived, and that admission just seems too threatening to one's own view of one's mental and spiritual strength.

If one deals completely honestly with the IJ, one is forced to face the reality of Ellen White. Even Des Ford (to whom I am personally grateful!) could not call her a false prophet. That step is just too threatening to one's own identity. To admit one had been under the influence of a false prophet is just scary to many peopleóthe implications of that admission put the whole heritage in question. No longer can a person look at it as essentially benign.

Colleen
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 756
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 8:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The following is a sampling of my favorite quotes from Dr. Desmond Ford:

"No one is saved by what they do, nor lost by what they do not do. It is taking hold of the merits of Christ that is alone essential. We do not have to be good to be saved, but we do have to be saved to be good."

Dennis Fischer

Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4178
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 11:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That is a wonderful quote, Dennis. I am eternally grateful to Desmond Ford.

Colleen
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1785
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 8:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, Dennis, and Jackob,
I am very interested in reading your comments above. I am especially interested in what Jackob pointed out about free-will, and what Richard said about free-will. It is very interesting to see how many former SDAs on this board as well as in our FAF Bible study have come to receive the Reformed faith on issues of soteriology. In other words, the Bible does not support the fact that man can choose the time or conditions of his salvation. Man cannot exercise free-will to be born again.

So my question is this. What really is the basic problem of Adventism? If we acknowledge that salvation is 100% God's doing and nothing of our own doing--in other words, grace means grace. It seems to me that salvation by works is the basic problem of Adventism. The one unique doctrine of Adventism is the IJ and sanctuary doctrine. Other Christian churches (especially pentecostal churches acknowledge that certain prophets of theirs have the gift of prophecy, and in my opinion many of those prophets are also false), so Ellen White is a major problem, but to me doesn't seem to be the very basic problem of what is wrong with Adventism.

In light of Jackob's comments, it would seem that this matter of free-will and man centered theology, which was Wesley's theology and most of it was Ellen's theology as well. In other words, should it make us secure and confident that since we have left SDA, and joined another Christian church that also teaches a basic works theology? Because, exercising free-will with regard to salvation is also a work of man. Luther was clear that if free-will was exercised even in the slightest, then we deny grace. This was also emphasized by J.I. Packer in the quote I posted above. Any kind of work of man with regard to salvation is still consistent with the religion of Rome.

So, this problem is really the basis of what some may perceive as a weakening of my position with regard to Adventism in the past two months. I really believe that the true gospel is salvation totally by grace alone--100% total a gift of God. Eph. 2 'For by grace you are saved thru faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works so no man can boast.'

Now Adventism and Catholicism are obviously clear salvation by works systems, but logically so are a lot of so-called protestant churches--especially if we take Luther's and J.I. Packer's admonition seriously. And in so many churches the doctrine of justification by faith alone is becoming blurred and considered to be not important. So, are folks any better off leaving Adventism, but then joining these other types of churches? With regard to the true gospel of grace there can't be any compromise.

While I am stating the above, I am acknowledging that through God's sovereignty many current SDAs as well as Roman Catholics have come to true faith in Christ. I have acknowledged many times that many other churches who are Arminian are also Christian churches, and people are truly saved despite what in my opinion would be compromised theology. I am thankful that it doesn't require a theology exam to get into heaven, but it is truly being born again by a work of grace on a heart of stone, and by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ that we are saved.

Part of my softening on Adventism has to do with just being consistent. It is hard for me to pick on Adventism, while at the same time I see so many things similar in other evangelical churches who are not really preaching the true gospel of grace. I take the position of John MacArthur that there is just enough truth being taught in a lot of churches that are Arminian in their theology, to save many of those folks.

In my own experience, and now through my retrospectoscope, I believe that I truly left Adventism not necessarily when I abandoned Ellen White--which is a necessary first step--but when I came to acknowledge the great truths of Reformed faith--but I was truly saved eight years before I came to this realization.

But anyway I have been maybe too wordy, and perhaps not made my question clear, but I wonder if you believe it is really Ellen White that is the basic error of Adventism, or is it really salvation by works, the IJ, and the doctrine of free-will?

Stan
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4181
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 11:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, works salvation is the state of natural man. It doesn't take a denomination or a religion to come up with that. We are born working for rewardsóand no human in the natural state wishes to give up his own control over his own life and salvation.

Being regenerated by the Holy Spirit is an act of God alone, and it comes in a mysterious way in conjunction with our hearing the gospel message as it's presented in the Word of God. People are saved whether or not they believe in free will. It is a mistake to equate the term "free will" with "works religion". They are not the same things. True "free will" is the result of regeneration and causes us to respond to the gospel.

Friday in our monthly Systematic Theology class with Elizabeth Inrig, we discussed Chapter 20 on Regeneration from Wayne Grudem's "Bible Doctrines". Here is a quote from Elizabeth's study guide based on page 303 of the book: "When we say that regneration 'comes before' saving faith, it is important to remember that they usually come so close together that it will seem they are happening at the same time. At God's effective call of the gospel to us, he regenerates us and we RESPOND (emphasis mine) in faith and repentance to this call. From our persepctive, it is hard to tell any difference in time because regeneration is a spiritual work that we cannot preceive with our eyes or understand with our minds."

If a Christ-follower understands his experience with Jesus to include his own response to God's call, that subjective understanding has nothing to do with "works salvation". We cannot equate "works religion" with "free will". In Christ we are finally free to make real choices; in Christ we are finally free to choose Jesus.

The works religion of Catholicism and Adventism is a doctrine of demons as stated in Galatians. It absolutely has the power to prevent people from being born again. The belief in free will as expressed by many Christ-followers does not equal the works religion that gives humanity center stage in the universe. Free will as explained by many Christians who know Jesus still sees God as sovereign and in charge of all that happens. The "works religion" of Adventism and Catholicism (and all other religions) does not give God centrality.

Adventism (and Catholicism) have a very deep problem that is fundamentally different from true orthodox, evangelical Christianity: they have human authority figures that interpret Scripture and add to the Bible's revelation. Since we're dealing primarily with Adventism on this forum, I'll refer to it.

Ellen White represents "inspiration" to Adventists. They believe her heresies to be given by God. The Bible calls such deceptive prophets "false prophets", and they have power not because they are merely clever but because they are functioning outside the kingdom of God's beloved Son and are, instead, functioning in the "domain of darkness" from which God has rescued His children.

Epehsians 6:10-18, Colossian 1:13-14, Galatians 3 and 4 and 5, etc. clearly say that we are not dealing with mere human misunderstandings when we deal with these false gospels. We are dealing with rulers, authorities, and powers of this dark world and with spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Paul asks the Galatians who has "bewitched" them.

The teachings of false prophets and human authorities who claim to speak for God, interpreting Scripture and establishing doctrine and pracitces, come from the "spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient" (Ephesians 2:2).

Adventism was not built on the gospel. It was built on fabrications designed to save face when Miller's false prophecies failed. The doctrines were all designed to exonerate themselves and to support the idea of an incomplete atonement. If you go to the roots of Adventism, you will not find the gospel; you will find a false prophet and non-biblical doctrines. These things are the foundation of the entire church, even though it has been giving itself external face-lifts to appear more mainstream.

If you follow Methodist, even many Pentecostal and Calvary-chapel types churches to their foundational core, you will find Jesus and the cross and a totally complete atonement. Even if they teach that people "come to Jesus", they still have JESUS as the central value and the grace of God as the eternal, overarching value in the universe.

You will not find Jesus, the grace of God, the cross with the blood of the eternal covenant, or the power of the resurrection at the foundational core of Adventism. You will find instead a messenger who was "more than a prophet" who taught that Jesus could have sinned and had a fallen nature, a Jesus whose death simply transferred our sins to heaven where they defiled heaven; you'll find Satan bearing the final weight of punishment for humanity's sins, and you'll find an uncompleted judgment that leaves everyone uncertain of salvation. You'll also find salvation based on becoming perfect and perfectly reproducing the character of God, and you'll find humans in "charge" of when Jesus will return based on how dilligently they have spread the Adventist gospel.

No, Arminianism isn't the basic problem with Adventism. The deception of a false prophet who exalted "works religion", who reflected the teaching of the spirit at work in the disobedient is the bottom line problem with Adventism.

The fact that God sovereignly calls and regenerates people within Adventism (as He does people within Islam, etc.) does not "normalize" Adventism or Islam. It simply says that God is not limited by heresy and blasphemy. He is sovereign, and He calls whom he will, wherever they are.

We, however, are to be very clear and discerning. We are expected to identify doctrines of demons and to expose them. And we must be very careful not to equate the "inside arugment" of "free will" with "works religion". I do not believe most born-again people who still understand their experience as including "saying 'yes' to Jesus" and being saved are guilty of thinking they contributed to their own salvation.

Such thinking is the result of believing our "works" are part of our position in Christ. Even though they may overlap in some instances, we can't equate "free will" with "works religion". They are different things.

Colleen
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4182
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 12:15 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One last observation: Churches that teach "half a gospel" without stressing the depravity of humanity and the need for repentance are teaching a doctrine of demons. Similarly, when Adventism teaches "free will" and God's valuing of it, they are not using the term to mean the same thing that other born again Christians mean when they say the words.

Adventists exalt humanity to the central value in the universe. "Free-will Christian" are quibbling more about the steps or responses in the salvation process. While this quibbling can lead to grave problems and can lead to works righteousness, the words "free will" do not mean the same thing to most Christians that they mean to Adventists. Most Christians still understand God and His grace to be the central values of the universe.

Again, Adventist definitions can completely confuse us and prevent us from understanding the church's true theology.

Colleen
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 261
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 9:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I't hard to post after Colleen had given such an answer, but because the question was directed also toward myself, I'll say something about it.

I will adress the core of adventism evil, by cause and effect. The cause is Ellen White and the effect is an almost indestructible monolith which prevents people to believe the gospel. The adventism trough the influence of Ellen White immmunises the people to the gospel. Adventism is a powerfull vaccine, a powerful antidote for the gospel.

By her claims to be God's messenger, to be God's voice for the church, combined with other mind-control techniques, she succeded in instilling a phobia toward the gospel, no matter what people believe about the free will. But not only a phobia, more, a contempt for the simple gospel.

By this I mean the simple message of the gospel. That evreybody who believes in Jesus, in His death for our sins, and in His resurrection, is saved. For adventists, only believing in the cross, in this manifestation of the marvelous holy love of God, only accepting the pure, unadulterated love of God, this is sentimentalism. For them, this is "cheap grace", a gospel for people who are lovers of sin, or for weak people. The adventists look with disdain to those who are crying when they are singing about the love of Jesus, about His marvelous grace. They pity all who are in this situation. And their hearts are closed to this love. They are afraid of it, they are afraid to be loved by God, as God wants to love them.

There is a huge monolith, a wall of partition, put between the people and gospel. Ellen White, claiming to be the voice of God, placed herself between people and love of Christ.

That's all folks.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4185
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 11:15 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob, you have, again, clearly stated the core reality. You observed that Adventists "look with disdain to those who are crying when they are singing about the love of Jesus, about His marvelous grace. They pity all who are in this situation." This observation was also my observation as an Adventistóeven as an Adventist in "progressive" Adventist churches in Southern California.

Ellen White DID instill a contempt for the gospel into Adventists. She IS the embodiment of the church's deception.

Colleen
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1788
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 11:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen,
Then if the issue of free-will has relative unimportance, then why did Luther and J.I. Packer say in this article www.modernreformation.org/rc01pelagian.htm that true evangelicalism stands or falls on the issue of the bondage of the will.

To quote R.C. Sproul on this issue:

Godís Sovereignty in Salvation

This is the issue: Is it a part of Godís gift of salvation, or is it in our own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanityís utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder then that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being, in principle, both a return to Rome because, in effect, it turned faith into a meritorious work, and a betrayal of the Reformation because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the reformersí thought. Arminianism was indeed, in Reformed eyes, a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. For to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle than to rely on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment.

And yet this view is the overwhelming majority report today in professing evangelical circles. And as long as semi-Pelagianism, which is simply a thinly veiled version of real Pelagianism at its core ó as long as it prevails in the Church, I donít know whatís going to happen. But I know, however, what will not happen: there will not be a new Reformation. Until we humble ourselves and understand that no man is an island and that no man has an island of righteousness, that we are utterly dependent upon the unmixed grace of God for our salvation, we will not begin to rest upon grace and rejoice in the greatness of Godís sovereignty, and we will not be rid of the pagan influence of humanism that exalts and puts man at the center of religion. Until that happens there will not be a new Reformation, because at the heart of Reformation teaching is the central place of the worship and gratitude given to God and God alone. Soli Deo gloria, to God alone be the glory.

Notes
1. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, ìIntroductionî to the The Bondage of the Will (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming Revell, 1957) pp. 59-60.

2. Ibid

Do you think RC Sproul is overstating the problem in his article above?

I am not building up Adventism in anyway or denying that EGW was a false prophet. But when RC Sproul lays out in detail Charles Finney's Pelagianism denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and preaching perfectionism, and when you read Ellen's perfectionism, I have to ask myself, 'What is the basic problem?' Ellen had to copy this type of theology from somewhere, and if not the arminian perfectionists like Finney and Wesley, then where did she get her theology from? That is the basis of my question. What really is the route cause of Adventism's false gospel of works?

Stan


Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4189
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 5:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Again, the terms "Arminianism" and "Calvinism" and "Pelagianism" are clouding the issue for (probably) most people.

Arminianism is NOT the same as Pelagianism. Adventism is far more Pelagian than Arminian. Arminiansm, in spite of other problems it might have, holds God as the ultimate value in the universe. Pelagianism holds humanity up there. (I realize I'm oversimplifying, but this is a practical difference...)

Your original question was this: "So, are folks any better off leaving Adventism, but then joining these other types of churches? " This is coupled with your recent question, "What really is the route cause of Adventism's false gospel of works? "

We have Biblical and historical evidence to evaluate the sources of Ellen's false gospel of works. She didn't only copy contemporary theologians; she also copied the Bible. She referred extensively to Luther. She used ghost written material by Marion Davis and Fanny Bolton (who wrote Steps to Christ). She seemed to be no respecter of persons when it came to finding useful material.

Portions of her work sound very close to the real gospel. Portions of her work sound like advice and theology from darkness.

Ellen herself said that either all of her writings came from God, or none of it did. Either we were to accept them all or reject them all.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 states what to do about a false prophet whose prophecies of signs and wonders come true but whose advice is to follow other gods. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 explains how to test a prophet according to the reliability of his prophecies.

Jeremiah 23:30-32 says God is against the prophets who "steal from one another words supposedly from me. 'Yes,' declares the Lord, 'I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare, "the Lord declares." Indeed, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,' declares the Lord. 'They tell them and lead my people astray with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them. They do not benefit these people in the least,' declares the Lord."

Ellen got her theology from her husband, from Joseph Bates, from Loughborough and Andrews, Crozier, etc. She got her theology from the books she copied and from her ghost writers. Yet we cannot simply attribute Adventism's gospel of works to Ellen's copying misled teachers, since she also referred to responsible writers as well.

Ellen was a false prophet. The Bible is clear that they do not come from God. Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9, "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

False gospels are serious. But we cannot avert Ellen's culpability by saying she got her false gospel from Finney, et al, because they were by no means her only sources. She fits the Jeremiah passage; she stole words from other people and claimed they were from God. Ellen was not functioning from a position of ignorance or confusion. She was clearly dishonest. She was not writing from a position of being led by the Holy Spirit. She was working from the domain of darkness.

The root cause of Adventism's false gospel is Ellen White and her fellow founders. They compromised the gospel for their own power and gain. They created a church built not on Jesus but on a false theological system which depended upon doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3). This is the source of Adventism's false gospel of works.

Even though other people also are guilty of preaching false gospels, we cannot compare a church built on a false prophet with one built on Jesus Christ. The Galatian church, for example, was not a false church. It was a true church being infiltrated by a false gospel.

Adventism is not a true church that's been infiltrated by a false gospel. It is entirely built on a false gospel. It is in a different category from other Christian churches.

Colleen
Deadmanwalking
Registered user
Username: Deadmanwalking

Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 7:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, I guess Iíll jump in here. This is my first post although Iíve been reading the forum for quite a while. Let me introduce myself by recopying the statement I sent to the forum moderator when I registered:

I was born into an Adventist family, attended church school, academy, and college in the Adventist school system. A faithful, active church member until a couple of years ago.

I began to study the doctrines of grace about 4 years ago and increasingly found that what the Bible teaches is incompatible with Adventism. I took a class last spring on the history of Adventist theology from the Seminary at Andrews University. That class confirmed my growing belief that from the very beginning of the Adventist movement there has been a faulty hermeneutic which inevitably resulted in erroneous theology. George Knight, our professor, was very thorough in his lectures and clear in defining the present and historical theological tenets of the church.

Most helpful was an understanding of the rejection of Reformation Theology on the part of early Adventist Theologians (which continues today) and his definitions of what he calls the" 4 Pillars of Adventism": Sabbath, Sanctuary (Includes Investigative Judgment, and 2300 day prophecies), State of the Dead, and the Soon Second Coming of Christ. While I enjoyed Dr. Knight and his class, I could not escape the fact that I can't find Biblical support for these doctrines as taught by the Adventist church. The more I studied the more I came to affirm the doctrines of the Reformation instead of the Adventist beliefs.

I began to attend a nondenominational church a little over a year ago and am beginning work on a Masters degree at seminary deeply rooted in reformed theology.

I am not angry at Adventism, I am just not one anymore.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Richard

Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady

Post Number: 2617
Registered: 3-2004


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 7:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Richard,
Welcome to FAF. I am so glad you know Jesus and have gotten out of adventism.
Diana
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b

Post Number: 555
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan and Colleen,
I think you have both made some valid points. I am a firm monergist, although not a 5 point Calvinist. But I think we need to be careful in suggesting that because someone sees "free will" operating that they aren't a Christian. I know that none of us would conclude that, but without care our statements can sound that way. Personally I don't believe that a person who believes in free will is necessarily denying the doctrine of grace alone. But my personal experience is that the more I have understood God's sovereign acts in salvation, the more gloriously clear grace has become. And the more I can be assured that I can't mess up His work! I think that those placing more emphasis on "free will" lose some of the awe of how grace operates, but that doesn't mean that they are losing their salvation.

The problems of SDAism do run deeper. And I think that Ellen White is a key component of why the problems run deeper. Adventism is not simply a re-hashed Wesley. SDAism takes these concepts far further. SDAism is not simply arminian, the teachings border on full pelagianism.

At the same time, I understand the frustration of stepping out of SDA errors of effort-based salvation only to walk into one church after another than taught some version of that same error. That was quite disheartening as we searched for a new church home. Nearly every church we attended seem to think that God needed our help to accomplish our salvation or our sanctification. And many blurred the lines between salvation and sanctification. I would feel like a hypocrit if I accepted an error in one church while condemning that same error in another. But at the same time I think there is a need to recognize degrees of "error". Some "errors" have little impact on our daily lives, for instance whether I am an amillenialist or a pre-trib dispensationalist probably has very little impact on my experience of the grace and joy in Christ. Still other errors may have an impact on our joy, freedom, and assurance as a Christian, without keeping us from being Christian. And the worst of all errors may keep us from ever truly becoming a Christian.

Excuse my rambling and semi-random thoughts on this subject. I find it hard to put into words the distinction between the importance of proper doctrine and wonderfully good news that salvation is not a theology exam.
Deadmanwalking
Registered user
Username: Deadmanwalking

Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 9:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As is the case in a lot of misunderstandings, we must really look closely at history to see how we got to where we are and to have a framework within which to define our current discussion. It was most helpful for me to read a wide variety of works on the history of the church from apostolic times, the rise of the Roman Church, The Reformation as well as the history of the theology of the reformers and especially the paths taken by various followers in different locations in the years since. With my background deep in Adventism ( My Great-great-Grandfather was a Millerite), I wanted to know where did our theology come from? Was it really totally and completely new in 1844? At the risk of repeating what others may already know, I was surprised to find that in reality most of our theology was simply a continuation and refinement of what is know as the Radical Reformation. Most of the founders of Adventism, with the notable exception of Ellen Harmon, came out of a movement called the Christian Connexion, also know as Restorationists. (Google those for some fun!) The followers of Menno Simon have a long and continuing history of date setting for Christís return. Adventists are much more closely related to Mennonites and Anabaptists than they are to Evangelical Protestants. As has been noted by others here, Ellen Harmon brought Wesleyís perfectionism to James Whiteís Christian Connexion views and the movement was born.

What was extremely interesting to me was to discover in their own words the hermeneutic early Adventist theologians took. Like most enlightenment thinkers they held a very high view of human reasoning and rationality but then they mixed into it (I think as an emotional response to the ìGreat Disappointmentî) an experiential, mystic spirituality based on dreams and visions of EGW and others. This hermeneutic has remained essentially unchanged in mainstream Adventism to this day.

This historical framework has helped me understand the animosity to Reformed Theology (Calvinism) I encountered from Adventism and along the way it has clarified the arguments over what I will call the Doctrines of Grace.

I have come to love Calvinism. It has opened to me an understanding of Grace that I found nowhere else. Nothing else comes close to revealing the beauty of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus. Iím quick to acknowledge that many who call themselves Calvinists donít seem to display the grace of the cross that their doctrines teach. I must remember three things: 1. ìWe have this treasure in earthen vessels . . .î somehow it is to Godís glory to use sinners saved by grace to be His representatives. 2. Tares and wheat continue to grow together. My experience has shown me that not all who accurately understand and proclaim correct doctrine are Godís elect for salvation. At the same time, my personal experience has been that the happiest, most authentic, and most grace-filled Christians throughout history have been Calvinists. That is actually what brought me to the study of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. As I read the stories of Jim Elliot and his companions, the writing of his widow Elisabeth, began to read Francis Schaeffer, John Piper, and especially the Puritians, met Nate Saint and other great inspirational Christians, I realized that virtually all my heroes of the faith were Calvinists! 3. The greater the truth, the greater the counterfeit will be. As Iíve been following this discussion many of the misunderstanding of Calvinism itself are actually confusion as to what it is! Most people really think ìHyper-Calvinismî is Calvinism.

No Theology is good theology unless it more clearly reveals the Glory of the Triune God. The higher the view of God that a set of doctrines take, the closer to the Truth it will be. I have discovered no doctrine that takes a higher view of God than does that of Calvinism, especially that of the Puritans.

I hope to be useful in this discussion to share my experience, discoveries, struggles, basis of my belief, etc., but most of all I hope to share with you the deep, weighty, blood-drenched Joy that Iíve discovered.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Richard
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 757
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 9:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Richard,

A hearty FAF welcome! We are delighted that you have joined our discussions.

Dennis Fischer
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 262
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Welcome to FAF Richard

I'll add something about the mystic spirituality of adventism. Another thing which separates adventism from another churches is their way of arrriving at truth. When Christ did not come in 1844, the adventist message could no longer bear the test, it proves to be a lie. To keep it, the pioneers need to adopt another method to arrive at truth, a mystic way, which cannot be proved or unproved by historical events. They moved he truth in the heaven when nobody has access, only the enlighten ones, like Ellen White. How can one prove that IJ did not start in 1844? There is nothing on earth, nothing which can be historical proved to confirm or contradict this message. The only way of confirming is by Ellen White's visions, by a mystic way of arriving at truth.
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1790
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Richard,
A hearty welcome to you. I fully agree with you. Adventism is built on a faulty hermeneutic, as are some other churches. You bring a great sense of history and perspective to this discussion. I agree that the Puritans, John Piper, Spurgeon, and the others you mention bring such a high view of God that is indeed awe inspiring. I never get tired contemplating the doctrines of grace, and like you have come to love the doctrines of the Reformed faith, after a long time of fighting against them, which I suppose is the reaction of human nature.

Your screen name deadmanwalking describes what we were before unmerited grace came and regenerated us. Again, welcome Richard.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Stan
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4190
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Richard, welcome to the forum! Praise God for His work of grace in your life. He is faithful!

Colleen
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4191
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 11:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

By the way, Rick, I appreciate the way you said "But my personal experience is that the more I have understood God's sovereign acts in salvation, the more gloriously clear grace has become. And the more I can be assured that I can't mess up His work! I think that those placing more emphasis on "free will" lose some of the awe of how grace operates, but that doesn't mean that they are losing their salvation. "

You completely summarized what I was trying to say about this dilemma!

Colleen
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1791
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 12:15 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And I agree with Rick on that as well. I hope I was not misunderstood. If somewhere along the line I implied that Arminians (along with SDAs) were somehow not saved by sovereign grace, then I want to emphasize that that was not the case.

Stan

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration