| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 556 Registered: 7-2004  |
I think that this is an important issue, but it is also an issue that needs to be handled with great care and sensitivity. Seemingly small variations in understanding can lead to ugly, insulting and divisive debates. It seems that our theology is lifted above God's glory too easily. I am certainly not suggesting that we should avoid discussing this topic, only that there is much opportunity for all of us to express more grace towards those whose understanding varies from our own. | ||
| Deadmanwalking Registered user Username: Deadmanwalking Post Number: 3 Registered: 4-2006  |
Thank you all for your kind words of welcome. Stan, thanks also for noticing my screen name. It is an expression of the most important truth I know. It not only describes what I was before regeneration: A dead man walking only by the mercy that God's wrath was delayed, it also most accurately describes what and who I am today by the grace of Christ: Most truly a dead man walking for, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Galatians 2:20) Soli Deo Gloria, Richard | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 263 Registered: 7-2005  |
Stan asked a very important question: what is the source of the perfectionist theology of Ellen White? The source of Ellen White's perfectionism is internal, the concept of the SDA church as being the remnant, or the only true church. Remember the identity of the SDA church, the adventist are those who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" Revelation 14:12. From the beginning, the adventists presented themselves as more dedicated to God than other churches, they see themselves as those who keep ALL the commandments of God. The evangelical churches keep only 9, they keep 10, all of them. When God will judge the world, He will condemn the evangelicals who keep only 9 of 10, and will receive in His kingdom the adventists who keep all 10. The law of God is the standard, and keeping the WHOLE law is what makes the difference between being saved or lost. Adventists delight to quote James 2:10, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one, he is guilty of all." They use this text to condemn any Sabbath-breaker, and to back-up their end-time scenario. Of course, the law is a mirror who can show the adventists guilty as those Sabbath-breakers. by their own standards they can condemn themselves. In order to escape this condemnation, they must keep perfectly ALL commandments, without flaw. they must live without sin. If they sin in one point, they are in condemned, and are in the same position as the evangelicals who are Sabbath-breakers. To maintain their status as the one true church, the remnant, they need to adopt the perfectionism. Perfectionism is a must for maintaining their identity. Surely, today in the church perfectionism is in many places abandoned, due to the evangelical influence. They are trying to mix more grace in legalism, more grace in law, but the Old Covenant will not mix with the New Covenant. The grace is grace and the work is work. The original position on Sabbath as a dividing wall between believers and unbelievers, between christian and non-christians, or apostate christianity still exists. As long as this wall exist, the perfectionism will be present, even in diluted forms. Some type of "holier than you" attitude will exist, which gives birth to perfectionism, if the premise is followed to the final end, to the conclusion. What's interesting is the fact that as long as people are not dealing with the full implications of their theology, there is little chance for a change. Only when people try the system, try the adventist theology, and follow all methods and solutions presented for keeping the law, only after they discover that they are still sinners, and that their belief is not working, they are ready to change. This is a double edge sword: we can be happy because grace is preached in adventism, but this grace can be like a pain-killer who make people immune to the work of the law. If people are not feeling the yoke of the law, how holy God is, that the law is a ministry of death, that the law only kills, they will not need grace. They will still believe that the law will justify and not condemn them at the Investigative Judgment. When I presented to my scholar friend the role of law, that the law can only kill, can only condemn the sinner, I maked him furious. He said that we keep the law imperfectly, but the grace of God makes our works perfect. He recognized that the works of believers are not perfect, the law is holy and will condemn them, but, because of the grace of God, they are considered perfect. God will justify them, will justify their works. This mixing grace with works is more to be feared than pure perfectionism. Because the law can give pain to a pure perfectionist, but to one who thinks that he keeps the law when he really breaks it, and condemns others who are as guilty as he is of breking the law, his theology half works, half grace is blinding him. Better to be a perfectionist, than one who mix grace with law. Ellen White was clever to endorse the 1888 message of Waggoner and Jones, because they introduced in adventism a refined form of perfectionism, which has it's strength in the grace of God. Not the pure grace of God, of course, a mixture. This mixture is the most fearful danger for adventism. It prevents them to feel the condemnation of the law, and the need for grace, for the real grace. | ||
| Deadmanwalking Registered user Username: Deadmanwalking Post Number: 4 Registered: 4-2006 |
You are very right, Rick. We must always be as merciful and graceful toward those who might disagree with us as God is with us. No one has ever been saved by losing an argument to a Calvinist! Arguments are usually fueled by reason and emotion (The faulty hermeneutic of Adventism I mentioned above) rather than the careful exposition of Scripture. John Piper is most helpful on this subject: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/calvinism.html While Piper is one of the most clear and powerful teachers of Reformed Theology today, it is interesting that when he entered Seminary he set out to disprove Predestination in favor of Free Will. The result of his effort was not only his own coming to embrace Calvinism, but also the book, "The Justification of God" http://www.desiringgodstore.org/store/index.cgi?cmd=view_item&parent=1&id=156 which is the best and most thorough treatment of Romans 9 that I know of. It is also interesting that his father who was an evangelist his whole life has never embraced it. I recommend reading Piper's account of this: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/02/110302.html Or, better yet listening to his telling of it: http://www.biblicalpreaching.info/listentosermon.php?id=145&firstname=John&lastname=Piper Soli Deo Gloria, Richard | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4192 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jackob, what an insightful post. You have explained the "evangelical Adventist" deception so clearly. Your analysis that mixing grace with law is worse than pure perfectionism is absolutely true. I have never explained it as clearly as you did above, but I have long thought that the young Adventists who are not thoroughly trained in Adventist theology, who think they understand grace, but who are still bound to the Sabbath and hence the law are in a more dangerous position than are the true-blue Adventists who are admitting they are working toward perfectionism. "Evangelical Adventism" is syncretism. It is a mixture of tenets from Adventism and from Christianity. Syncretism is more deceptive than the "true-blue" false gospel; it deceives people looking in from the ouside, and it lulls the insiders into a complacency that the original perfectionism never allowed. People who are bound by the law but deceived into thinking they are excused by grace are just as dead in their sins as are people who are bound by the law without the luxury of thinking they have any excuse. The first group has less motivating fire to find truth than does the second. Praise God for His sovereign intervention. Last night I was talking after our summer women's Bible study with a friend (also a former SDA), and we agreed that we are overwhelmed by the realization that God elected us before our lives began, and we sensed His calling of us before we really knew Him. There is no way we can explain our having left Adventism and all that it was to us (everything!) apart from a sovereign act of God. Praise Him! Colleen | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 154 Registered: 2-2006 |
Welcome, Richard! I've appreciated your historical contributions on this thread. Please, continue to contribute to this forum and be blessed here. Everyone has made such excellent points on this thread, in various areas, I couldn't possibly name them all. But Colleen, you presented one of the best synopsis I have ever read. Jackob, your points about the SDA disdain are very true in my lifetime. I grew up in that atmosphere and, sadly, had it myself, until I knew better and Christ freed me from self-righteousness above others. (Jesus addresses this sin very strongly in the NT)I am no better than anyone else and a good deal worse than some. I am making up this term, but I guess I am an 'initial monergist'.  God's grace drew me to begin with, but I still have general choice-- to make. If one desires to call that 'synergy', so be it.Synergy can get all fuzzy-logic, when people discuss it, anyway.(I am not really intersted in the semantics anymore; only in what I see & know in practical life for myself and others I know--Reality) I know that even as I make good choices, his grace enables me to do so and gives me his strength & power to carry it through. Nothing is impossible through Christ and, through him, I can do all things. Yet, he was doing tons with me, for decades, in his grace before I ever heard of Calvinism, monergistic grace, et all, or even knew what the true Gospel was. Thank you, Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, for your mercy upon me! Grace to you all~ Cathy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1792 Registered: 3-2005 |
Richard, Thanks for all those great links. I liked Piper's approach to Calvinism so much that I thought I would paste it here: How to Teach and Preach "Calvinism" July 4, 1998 1. Be rigorously textual in all your expositions and explanations and defenses of Calvinistic teachings. Make it a textual issue every time, not a logic issue or an experience issue. 2. Don't be strident but gentle. Assume that working these great issues through to conviction may take years and that being in process is OK. 3. Speak of your own brokenness in regard to these things and how they are precious to you and why and how they minister to your soul and help you live your life. 4. Make Spurgeon and Whitefield your models rather than Owen or Calvin, because the former were evangelists and won many people to Christ in a way that is nearer to our own day. 5. Be an evangelist and a missions mobilizer so that the criticism that Calvinism dulls a passion for the lost is put to silence. 6. Work the five points out from the "I" in tulip not the "U". That is, show people that they don't really want to take final credit for their coming to Christ. They don't want to stand before God at the judgment day and respond to the question, "Why did you believe and others with your opportunities didn't?" with the answer, "Well, I guess I was smarter, or more spiritual." They want to say, "By grace I was brought to faith." Which is "irresistible grace." That is, grace that triumphs over all resistance in the end. 7. Out rejoice your critics. The one who knows and rests in the sovereign grace of God should be the happiest saint. Don't be a sour or glum or hostile false advertisement for the glory of God's grace. Praise it. Rejoice in it. And don't let that be a show. Do it in your closet until it is spilling over in the pulpit and the commons. 8. Don't ride hobbyhorses that aren't in the text. Preach exegetically, explaining and applying what is in the text. If it sounds Arminian, let it sound Arminian. Trust the text and the people will trust you to be faithful to the text. 9. Avoid theological jargon that is not in the text. The word "Calvinism" is probably not helpful. "Doctrines of grace" may not do it either. Just stick with what is there in the text, or come up with some new striking phrases that will cause the people to wonder and be excited. 10. Tell stories and experiences from biography and from the lives of living saints that illustrate their dependence on the sovereignty of God. Especially stories related to missions and evangelism and holiness of life. ©Desiring God Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Desiring God. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. ©Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 888.346.4700. Home Online Library Store Radio News & Events About Us © 2006 Desiring Go Also, Richard, the issue came up about where Ellen got her perfectionism. I think it was from John Wesley and possibly Finney, as she was the one with Methodist roots as you mention. You may be able to give us some more historical insight on that. Again, it is great having you here on FAF. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1353 Registered: 10-2004  |
Stan, You asked, "So, are folks any better off leaving Adventism, but then joining these other types of churches?" It sounds like you're saying that "free will" is a false gospel. If it isn't, and SDA does teach a false gospel then just based on that, they're better off, yes. But it sounds like you're watering down the meaning of a false gospel. A false gospel does not save people. Those who teach a false gospel are eternally condemned (Gal. 1). Therefore, if for example the Southern Baptists have a false gospel of salvation by works because of their "free will" belief--then they are not Christians. We can't water down the meaning of "false gospel." You said that you are taking the position of John MacArthur. But MacArthur does not believe that Arminians teach works salvation--he says that they are saved Christians, but that some might take it to an extreme to where they are trusting in themselves for salvation and in that case they would not be saved Christians. MacArthur says that Adventists who believe in a false gospel of works salvation are not saved Christians. He is unequivocal and very strong on this--he says that SDAs who believe the SDA gospel are lost. He definitely does not say that Baptists are just as bad as Catholicism or Adventism. But besides a false gospel, Adventism has many other problems. I do not believe the basic problem of SDA is free will. I believe that it is Ellen G. White, along with the denial of spirits. Their denial of spirits influences every other doctrine. But I just don't understand why if a group promotes a certain heresy that means that we should soften our stance toward that group. Should we soften our stance toward Mormonism, then, since they also teach free will? How about Islam? Or Hinduism? Or Buddhism? Are all of these groups automatically no worse than the Baptists just because all of them hold to the doctrine of "free will" in common with the Baptists? Is "free will" "THE thing" that is wrong with Mormonism? Is it "THE thing" that is wrong with Islam? Is it "THE thing" that is wrong with Adventism? If I were to say that people are no better off coming out of Adventism into a Christian church and understanding the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone and that whoever believes in Jesus has eternal life--I feel that I would be insulting many people and the marvelous work God has done in their lives, including many on this forum, who believe in free will and who are rejoicing in their freedom in Christ and the Gospel. And no, they're not rejoicing in a false gospel of works salvation. As for what Luther, Packer, Sproul, etc., say...--well, they're not inspired or infallible. Anyway, that is my current opinion and view of things. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 20, 2006) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 557 Registered: 7-2004 |
After leaving SDAism we visited churches that had less grace and more emphasis on our works in their messages than we heard in SDAism. If a doctrine is false in SDAism, I think we need to call that doctrine just as false outside of SDAism as well. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 264 Registered: 7-2005 |
Until Richard will come with the historical insight, I'll try to remember the fact that the Investigative Judgment is a unique adventist doctrine. No other church teaches it. The adventists pioneers invented it to sustain their deception about 1844. This doctrine is a modified form of the "shut door" doctrine. The "shut door" expression is taken from the parable of the ten virgins, and represents the point of closing the period of grace. After this point, the grace of God is no longer available nobody can be saved, the work of Jesus as a Mediator between man and God is finished. Another unique feature is the idea that this closing mooment will take place some time, nobody knows how long, before the second coming of the Lord. Between the shutting of the door of mercy, and the second coming, the believers will have to stay before God without a mediator, without the benefits of His intercession. The most insignifiant sin will decide their eternal doom. The only option is to live without sin, to be perfect. The shut door theory in the new clothes of Investigative Judgment requires perfectionism. After living many years in adventism, trying to be true to the message of it, I'm remembering the pressure to be perfect, the fearful thoughts to live in this period without a mediator, when every mistake is fatal. This is the unique spirit of adventism, the adventist unique heritage, the pressure to be perfect, which originates from the eschatological vision of the church. These thoughts about the second coming, the fearful time of living without a mediator, are entirely adventist. I don't know any other church who makes people so afraid of the second coming. I don't know any other churches which uses perfectionism to instill fear in their members, fear of everything, everyone, of themselves, and even of God. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1793 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I admit that of course people are better off leaving SDA churches which are more Arminian usually, and going to other churches even if they are also Arminian, but less so. I am not aware that I have said that Arminian churches are not Christian churches, and many of these Arminian churches do teach the basic true gospel. But, it is fair to ask at what point along the Pelagian-Arminian spectrum does a false gospel become a true gospel? I stand by, Jeremy, my comments on MacArthur, as I believe what he said in one of his Q and A sessions, and agree with him that most Arminians are Christians. He also said evangelical SDAs are Christians--I say amen to both--so no argument there. But here is a quote from an evangelical non-SDA church, from a pastor whose church I attended: "I tell people that, of course, I believe in eternal security. As long as I abide in Christ, Iím eternally secure. As long as I abide in Him, Heís going to keep me from falling and present me faultless before His glorious presence. I believe that and I experience Godís security." That is so similar to the gospel I heard in Adventism. Notice all the "I's", and "me's" in that statement. Doesn't that statement sound like good news? Why, or why not? If my salvation depends on me abiding in Christ, then I wouldn't feel like I really had assurance. What does it mean "if I abide in Christ"? How much do you have to abide? What if there was a day that you didn't abide in Christ? This may not be as bad as the IJ, but the same principle is there. Also, this same evangelical church I used to go to actively denigrates the Reformed faith. This is where my problem is with some Arminians--such as this particular large group. I don't see MacArthur out denigrating Arminians, yet this group actively promotes teachers who say the Reformed faith borders on blasphemy. There are of course hyper-calvinists who say Arminianism is not Christian, but I don't believe that. I also will say that I benefited greatly from this group after leaving Adventism, and still believe they are a Christian church. In the Christian spectrum of teaching there is wide diversity of teaching, and true Christians everywhere are united behind the cross of Christ, and Christ's imputed righteousness. Stan | ||
| Deadmanwalking Registered user Username: Deadmanwalking Post Number: 5 Registered: 4-2006 |
Stan, your right, I believe, about the root of Adventist perfectionism. The "Holiness Movement" began in New York in the 1830's and had a tremendous influence on young Ellen Harmon especially since that movement was both Methodist and led by deeply religious women. Also, of some considerable interest is the Millerite movement right after 1844. What has been described as "wild fanaticism" swept through the believers. Both James White and Ellen Harmon were part of the group that got pretty interesting in their practices. This was the time of EGW's first visions and some of the practices included crawling or creeping for hours on end to obtain humility, numerous rebaptisms (sometimes several times in one week). It has been documented that Ellen told several people that if they did not go into an icy river in the dead of winter for baptism they would go to hell. It was in this environment that she and James conducted their courtship. This is also the environment from which the Theology of the two most powerful Adventist leaders was formed. Someone questioned her being influenced by Finney since they were contemporaries and Finney was pointedly critical of Adventism. That misses the point that Finney was extremely influential in the Theology of the people who became Christians in the 2nd Great Awakening and later became Adventists. Almost all new Adventist converts were already Christians in another Denomination and Finney was the most influential evangelical of his time. Adventist evangelists quickly adopted his methods and his theology came along with the deal. Perfectionism really came to full flower in the years just before World War II and through the 50ís and early 60ís. M. L. Andreasen was by far the most influential theologian of the Adventist church during this time and his ìLast Generationî Theology is, in my opinion, the perfectionism that has been referred to in this discussion. Iíll be guilty of gross oversimplification and summarize his doctrine in 5 points: 1. Goes all the way back to 1840 and states that Godís people must cleanse their soul temple while Christ is cleansing the heavenly temple (Sanctuary and I.J. Theology). 2. Literal application of the EGW idea that we must go through the time of trouble without a mediator. 3. The idea that God is waiting for his people to perfectly reproduce the character of Christ and then, and only then, will he come to claim them via the second coming. 4. The incorporation of Jones and Waggonerís teaching that Christ was born with a fallen, sinful nature just as we are and thus can be our perfect example in every way in developing a perfect life. 5. Also from Jones and Waggoner, that this ìLast Generationî is an example to all the universe that ìHere are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.î which vindicates God and allows him to proceed with the destruction of Satan and evil. Of particular interest to this discussion is that perhaps Andreasenís most deeply held and overarching doctrine was that Christís atonement was unfinished on the cross. This core doctrine, which is the very definition of Arminianism, not only fueled the practices of perfectionism in the church, it established the absolute incompatibility of Calvinism and Adventism. Soli Deo Gloria, Richard | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1795 Registered: 3-2005 |
Richard, Thanks for that history lesson. There are a lot of good points, but there is something that really stands out that I never really thought of before, and that is your last paragraph where you compare Andreasen's incomplete atonement that seemed unique to Adventism, but compared it to the heart of Arminianism, in fact the very definition of Arminianism, and that is really interesting. Because, with Reformed theology, the atonement is absolutely complete on the cross. Jesus paid the substitutionary penalty completely for everyone that God elected for salvation. But with Arminianism, Christ's death on the cross really saved no one (please correct me if I am overstating the issue), because 1.) if he paid the penalty of sin for everyone in the world, then it seems everyone would be saved, and, 2.) means that it is up to every individual to appropriate the benefits of the cross to them at some much later time (depending on when they lived). So, in reality the atonement was not complete at the cross, but the benefits had to be applied later. In adventism's case, the benefits of the atonement were applied on sinner's behalf as part of the Investigative Judgment. But there are similar themes in Arminianism as well--thanks for pointing this out as it never occurred to me this way before. Stan Ermshar riverfonz@aol.com | ||
| Deadmanwalking Registered user Username: Deadmanwalking Post Number: 6 Registered: 4-2006 |
Stan, you are absolutely correct and not overstating the issue at all. Soli Deo Gloria, Richard | ||
| Deadmanwalking Registered user Username: Deadmanwalking Post Number: 7 Registered: 4-2006 |
Jeremy, Touchy subject! Your question and point probably touches all of us at an emotional place due to the fact that it is impossible not to have been deeply affected by our loss as we moved away from Adventism. We must not gloss over the grief of that experience and we must not just leave Adventism, we must move TOWARD something else. As I discovered that I could not support SDA doctrine with Scripture, and realized that this was in fact a call of God for me to come out, I found myself for a while with no trust of any groupís Theology, especially established creedal Theology. I thought, naively, that if I could just find out what doctrines were essential, which ones were ìorthodox,î that it would be a simple matter to then match up a church or group with those teachings and that would be that. My primary motivation was to get away from the heresy of Adventism. I was spiritually the proverbial ìBabe in the Woods.î What I found was a popular American Evangelicalism that is just as confused as Adventism. This confusion was totally unfamiliar to me, but it didnít take a rocket scientist to see that the root problem was the same, a man-centered gospel vs. a God centered Gospel. Just at the beginning of my journey I read ìWild at Heartî and then attended a weekend retreat in Colorado with John Eldridge. It was a wonderful experience and a rich spiritual blessing, but there was uneasiness deep in my soul that something was missing, out of place, or wrong somehow. I chalked it up to my old Adventist beliefs that still lingered. I figured that Iíd get used to going to church on Sunday, eating bacon for breakfast, etc., after all I was out of the heresy of Adventism! Wherever I was was better than that! About a year later I spent a week with Larry Crabb, also in Colorado. I knew that Larry and John knew each other and that in fact John had ìborrowedî many of his ideas from Larry. I thought that this was just another step in my journey from heresy. Boy, I had no idea what God was about to do! In less than an hour I was aware that Crabbís Theology was totally different, 180 degrees out from Eldridgeís. My heart ached as it had never ached before, and it was soothed and filled at the same time and the ache deepened and the soothing and the filling grew more sweet and the weight of it all was so heavy it laid me face down (literally) in my room, and it was so sweet and so light that I couldnít eat and my feet floated. On the second day I realized that Larry was a Calvinist and I almost left but I couldnít! Do you know what was turning my world upside down? Not the teaching on Spiritual Direction that I enrolled for, but the worship time each morning when Larry took an hour and preached the Gospel to us from the Old Testament prophet, Hosea! I have learned since that Larryís preaching was simply in the tradition of the Reformation understanding of the infinite Glory of Grace. That 100% of the Old Testament points to the Cross! It was my first encounter with a Calvinistic passion for the Supremacy, Glory, and Majesty of the Grace of God. It was a more awful display of the wrath of God than I would have ever heard or tolerated in Adventism and at the same time I found for the first time that I could trust this awful God completely, totally, without reservation, and I knew that really He was not only my only hope, but He is the BEST POSSIBLE HOPE! Larry showed us through Scripture what Godís love really is. I didnít know the Theological terms at the time, but it was my first exposure to Theocentric Theology rather than the Anthropocentric Theology of Adventism and virtually all of contemporary American Evangelicalism. I donít find any argument for better or worse Theology by degrees to be compelling. Scripture describes Truth in terms of darkness and light. Our post-modern culture has almost destroyed the concept of antithesis, Anthropocentrism and Theocentrism are antithetical! Virtually all of Adventism and Evangelicalism has chosen Anthropocentrism. That part is easy to determine, but the real issue is that God saves us while we are totally dead in our trespasses, and that is far worse than having a misunderstanding of Theology. I see the question not of salvivic safety, but rather an evangelistic commission to proclaim the Gospel and secondly a question of Hope and Joy. The more clearly we see Christ, the more will be our increase of hope in this life and Joy eternally. So, where was I better off? I dunno. I wouldnít trade the peace I have now for anything, but then I think of seeing my God face to face and where I am now seems as dark as Adventism once did. Itís probably clear by now that Iím an ardent 5 point Calvinist (7 point actually, but that will wait till later!) The reason I am is that Calvinism teaches the best Gospel I know But more important than that it coheres with the Truth of Scripture better than anything else I know. But I know that I see through a glass darkly now, and while I do I am drawn to proclaim what I do see clearly and to encourage others and to protect what Truth God has been merciful enough to show me. Hereís the point. Before even the world was created God knew me and knew every day of my life and loved me and even while I was deep in the darkness of Adventism he called me and when I went out and wandered for awhile in confusion he still led me and he still held me in the palm of his hand and he says that there, ìNo one can snatch them away.î Soli Deo Gloria, Richard PS: I have some problems with Crabb on some ancillary issues, but not his core Theology. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 265 Registered: 7-2005 |
George Knight's view of adventist history is flawed. His goal is to separate perfectionism from Ellen White and place the responsability on the shoulders of Andreasen. Withother words, he's trying to exonerate Ellen White. All the ideas mentioned have been sustained by Ellen White long before Andreasen or Jones and Waggoener appeared. The view about Christ's fallen human nature was in place long before 1888, and Ellen White said said that we will be without a mediator during the time of trouble, and for her and pioneers this means literally, they believed in a literal sanctuary. Andreasen's theology is not a ltieral aplication of the idea of being without mediator, it's the messgage itself. Long before him the perfectionism was in place and is the basic teaching on adventism. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4194 Registered: 12-2003 |
You're right, Jackob. We can't blame Andreasen for what was already in place. Richard, I really understand what you're describing. The more I have studied the Bible since leaving, the more clear God's sovereignty and grace becomes. It is SUCH a relief to me to know I am not the last word in my life. Here's my concern: while Arminianism has certain teachings, such as the need to overcome sin and participating in one's salvation, which are similar to Adventism, Calvinism also has certain teachings that resemble Adventism, such as the "third use of the law" and the related issue of Sunday Sabbatarianism. It also includes some arguable teachings such as infant baptism bringing children into the covenant. When people are just questioning and leaving Adventism, however, Biblical truths dawn slowly sometimes, and sequentially. I would have been quite off-put had I felt I needed to embrace Calvinism as a logical and theologically correct step when I left the church. I believe God continues to teach each person as he or she embraces the truth as He reveals it in His time. I am convinced that our individual responsibility is to continue to trust God and the Holy Spirit's leading and to submit ourselves to the Word of God. If we make God's Word the focus of our learning, submitting to it and asking for the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth, we can trust Him to teach us the reality of His own sovereign power and grace and glory. Most people are really shy of "Sunday churches" as they exit Adventism. If they are taught to fear "Arminianism" or "Calvinism", there is a good chance they will feel overwhelmed at the task of finding a theologically acceptable church. I have received countless emails, etc. from people who say they just can't find a church in which to worship because they can't agree with various teachings, such as a pre-tribulation rapture, or that the law still has a place, or baptism and communion as means of grace, or even that the dead go to heaven. I have one answer that I give people struggling with finding a church: ask God to guide you to the church where He knows you will be able to grow in Jesus and find true fellowship with other Christ-followers. I further tell them that these issues should not be issues of division. In the body of Christ, the bottom line is Jesus and Him crucified and risen again, and the centrality of the Word of God. People leaving Adventism are extremely vulnerable, and their theological maturity varies greatly. They need to be encouraged to find a Bible-teaching church where the pastors and people are submitting themselves to the Word of Godónot merely speaking of it, but actively living in and teaching submission of one's life to every word that proceeds from God's mouth. If people look for a healthy, Bible-teaching church where Jesus is central and where people honor the Lord Jesus and actively worship Him and grow in Him, God will be faithful to continue to teach them. We can trust Him to reveal Himself even in an "Arminian" church. My own experience convinces me that we can trust God to "bring people along" in His own time and way. I believe it's imporant to speak of these things, but I also believe that we must not put stumbling blocks in front of people who are taking that most difficult step of leaving the church. For them actually to begin attending a Sunday church is often frightening and viscerally disturbing. It's more important for them to begin worshiping with other Christ-followers and experiencing the joy of participating in the body of Christ than it is for them to find the perfect Reformed or Calvinistic church. Sometimes God leads people to certain churches just for a time in order to begin to ground them in His body and in the Bible, and then He moves them to other congregations where they begin to get more of the meat of the Word. I've seen this phenomenon happen with different people. So, while I agree that understanding Who God is and finding my own totally dependent position in Him is the most freeing reality of all, I also see that God is faithful to reveal these things Himself to everyone who commits to Himóand He reveals them according to His divine time table and plan. I have to trust God and submit myself to His Word. Then I can believe that even if other Christ-followers are worshiping in "Arminian" churches, God in His perfect plan will grow even them. The most important thing for each of us is to be obedient to Jesus and to step by faith into the uncharted waters of being in the body of Christ. I cannot decide that another person should not worship in a "free will" church. I can only pray that people will know and experience Jesus and the new birth from the Holy Spirit. If they know Jesus, they will be safe in Him. He will lead them ever deeper into the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding (Colossians 1:9). Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1796 Registered: 3-2005 |
Richard, You have summed up things quite well. There is so much bad theology out there. I believe that John Eldridge teaches open theism which was actually started by Richard Rice at Loma linda along with Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd. Open theism totally denies the sovereignty of God. A lot of evangelical Adventism is equivalent to Willow Creek and Rick Warren. The wrath of God, and the importance of the law of God to convict sinners of their need for a Savior is missing from a lot of this type of teaching. I don't know if you have seen this link to John Reisinger's web site www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index004.htm but this article says that there are only two religions in the world; Free-will and Free grace. I think this article identifies the basic issues quite well. Stan | ||
| Deadmanwalking Registered user Username: Deadmanwalking Post Number: 8 Registered: 4-2006 |
Jackob, I do not disagree with your point that James and Ellen White's perfectionism was well developed long before 1888. That was demonstrated by her parallel views with the mid 19th century Holiness movement. I have no interest in exonerating EGW. While Knight remains an SDA in good standing, I've never heard him attempt to place the origins of perfectionism anywhere other than on her and James's shoulders. Many historical sources both inside the church records and out have more than adequately documented the same root. You are correct that the doctrine of the fallen nature of Christ was not unique, nor original to Jones and Waggoner, Andreasen simply drew from their publications in his writing more than he did others. My point is that it was Andreasen who more than any other Adventist Theologian brought all the pieces of perfectionism to our generation and the resulting doctrine was greater than the sum of itís parts. You're right, almost none of his ideas were original, however, through his administrative influence and extensive writing I maintain that he did more to spread the heresy to greater numbers of people worldwide than anyone else in Adventist history. That isn't Knight's opinion, It's mine and it is based on as many historical sources as I can get my hands on as well as my experience growing up in the church in the 50's in a family that was in the middle of all of it. The saddest part of this is that most of Adventism outside North America still embraces Andreasen's Theology. You are also right in pointing out that the literal understanding of the sanctuary was part and parcel of original Adventist Theology. Even the Gospel was always seen through their understanding of the sanctuary doctrine. With all that having been said, I find that the most disturbing aspect of Andreasen's legacy is in regard to the inspiration of EGW's writings. During the period of his greatest influence, the crisis of Biblical inerrancy raged in the evangelical world. As far as inspiration is concerned, Andreasen couldn't or wouldn't ascribe any difference between her writings and the Bible. Remember, that EGW had fallen out of favor with the GC for many years in the early 20th century. It was M. L. Andreasen who was responsible, more than anyone else, for bringing her writings back to the center of Adventism. It was also during this time that many of the Compilations, massive editing and other distortions to her writings were done. Jackob, I mention these things NOT in an effort to indict or exonerate any of the SDA church leaders, In my view there is no way to mitigate or minimize what I believe is the heresy upon which the Adventist church was founded and continues to embrace. It has been helpful to me in the last few years to more fully understand who we were and how we came to believe what we did. I fully acknowledge that no historian is without his biases, and I surly have mine, as does George Knight. I expect and welcome other perspectives (I especially expect to hear about my comments on EGW and inerrancy above!) from those who have studied the subject or have grown up in it as I did. Soli Deo Gloria, Richard | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 452 Registered: 10-2005 |
I needed this thread. I stopped attending church for over a month now and have been looking at various churches in our area and looking at different theology. Minus the many details involved.... Every time I think perhaps I might want to attend a nearby church, something in the theology, leadership or culture becomes a barrier. I have a friend attending a nearby Methodist church, but my husband said he refuses to go to a Methodist church because they are too liberal. It is a family thing, we must both agree. So that is out. There is so much theology out there, different cultures and different lifestyles, it makes me just want to stay home. Perhaps I'm making the theology too important. Nothing seems to be right. Then I find myself in the same place where I was when I was an Adventist. Can't find a safe place to worship, so I'll just leave religion alone. Anyway, I think my family needs prayer. I want to just find a healthy church for my kids now. I don't even care about myself. |
