| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 639 Registered: 7-2004  |
I posted this on CARM (where it has not generated much comment from the SDAs) and thought that I would share it here too. I came across an interesting article online in some other research that I was doing. The article had a parapraph that really stood out to me making a compairson between Rome's rebuttal of the Reformation at Trent and the teachings of the Reformers. Many of you are certainly aware of Paxton's comparison of some of the articles of Trent with SDA teachings on salvation. But I do not recall him discussing the view of sin. It struck me in reading this that SDAism also has a very Roman Catholic view of sin, rejecting the Reformers' view on this subject as well. I would be interested in hearing your comments.
| ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2305 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree Rick, the comparisons between SDA and RCC run rampant, and the view presented above presents a very low view of sin. That is why SDAs and some other Holiness Pentecostal groups present a doctrine of perfectionism which says that it is possible to live lives without breaking a specific command. When righteousness is reduced to a checklist of specific commands, then this lowers the view of true holiness. Because even the righteous acts and good deeds we do are thoroughly tainted with sin and motives that are sinful. This is why the gospel of justification by faith alone must be held up at all times and constantly preached, as our sinful hearts will condemn us and make us feel unworthy. Since we are on the subject of RCC vs. SDA, I thought I would re-post the link to John MacArthur's website where he gives a powerful presentation of how RCC is opposed to the gospel in every way, and by reading this, one can see many oher areas of similarity between RCC and SDA: http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231488 Here is a simple statement of what justification by faith alone is according to MacArthur: "Salvation is by faith alone through Christ alone through Godís grace alone. When you put your trust in Jesus Christ, God declares you righteous. Not because you are, but because He imputes the righteousness of Christ to you, because He imputes your sin to Him. Christ bears your sin, you receive His righteousness. This is the glory of the great doctrine of justification." ------------------------------------------------- This is the gospel that we need to be reminded of constantly. We can't possibly come close to measuring up to God's standard of true Holiness. And any doctrine that reduces sin to a mere act of breaking a command, such as RCC does as documented by Rick above, just have no clue to the idea of God's infinite Holiness. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4977 Registered: 12-2003  |
Rick, that is an interesting quote. Yes, the RCC viw does reflect the view I learned in Adventism. I'm not surprised it didn't generate much discussion on CARMóI suspect a lot of people (especially Adventists and Catholics!) haven't deeply thought about what "sin" actually means. Yet the foundational, core nature of sin in our identities is why we need a Savior! Thanks for sharing this quotation. Colleen | ||
| Aliza Registered user Username: Aliza Post Number: 92 Registered: 8-2006 |
Just curious Rick. Once you got the stock SDA answer "sin is a transgression of the law" what texts would you use to support the Protestant position? Anyone raise Catholic? Just wondering what they would answer. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 643 Registered: 7-2004 |
Well I prefer not to go with the "proof text" methods and an understanding of this goes beyond what one would find in a couple of one text responses. For those who insist on the proof texts I would suggest they look to Rom 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. For those looking for a deeper understanding of the principle, I think it is fairly clearly taught in Romans chapters 3 through 5. It is directly related to the truth that because of sin we are Spiritual dead, Eph 2:1-10. That we are all dead in sin because of Adam (Romans 5) and that our salvation is due solely to a gift credited to us by God, attained by Faith. (Romans 4:1-5). It is recognition that we were God enemies, seperated from Him. And reconciled only through the death of His Son. (Romans 5:6-11). | ||
| Aliza Registered user Username: Aliza Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rick, thanks for the quick response. Isn't it amazing when we see how much SDAs are related to the Catholics? Great texts. I would like to examine this more closely because it just really shows me the contrast between the behavior modication "just keep the rules" approach compared to the heart changed through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 703 Registered: 8-2004  |
Yes Rick, that verse, "whatever is not of faith is sin" (and it's twin, 'the just shall live by faith") has had a huge impact on my life. It brings sin much closer home than a simple (or complex) law code, reaching even to the dividing asunder of the thoughts and intents of the heart. A number of years ago I studied Romans in some depth. When I got to this verse I remember realizing that all my theories of 'giving the church the benefit of the doubt' would get me nowhere in my walk with God. My idea had been that SDAism (being what I was raised in and had been taught was the truth) had to be right, so I would just do what it taught me while I did my own research that would bring me out to the same place in the end anyway. Now I realized that my Sabbath keeping, even if Sabbath keeping was required, WAS SIN unless I could do it by faith - not just because it was what was expected of a SDARM church worker's wife. I realized that when God asked me what I'd done with my life and why I had done one thing and avoided another using the excuses 'but my church taught,' or 'my husband said,' or 'my parents raised me' would be of no use with Him. The issue was what had I done with Jesus? Had I believed Him or not? Had I accepted his grace by faith or not? Had I opened my soul to God and surrendered to Him to be taught or was I hiding behind 'this is how it has to be'? What was my motive in serving Him? Was it because I thought it was what I was supposed to do? Was it because people would laugh at me or make fun of me if I didn't? Was it for any reason other than faith in the Jesus Christ? And so, before I came to understand that the seventh day Sabbath is a beautiful, fulfilled shadow; before I came to learn that Ellen White was not just a hard to understand 'messenger' whose books I was highly afraid I'd never manage to get through all of, but was actually a false messenger along the lines of Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy; before the veil of SDA deception was removed from my eyes; before the Bible opened up to me as a wonderland of coherence and joy: I learned the beautiful twin truths that whatever is not of faith is sin, and the just shall live by faith. Sin being a matter of unbelief, being an issue of spirit rather than letter, it is not something that you can legislate away. This is why making up rules by which you measure yourself or others never works. The thing to be measured is faith vs. unbelief: something you can't use a law code for! There was a third awesome treasure I found as well - a clearer understanding of the 'weak brother' and just who it is that we are to avoid offending, but that's material for another post! | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 567 Registered: 10-2002  |
Just to be aware of one they would use, remember that in 1st John it says, "Sin is lawlessness". I believe the answer to this, however, is something Jackob mentioned earlier in the 5-questions discussion with WalkOnWater... | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 321 Registered: 4-2006  |
Ric, interesting. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 184 Registered: 7-2005  |
Dear Helovesme2...I believe you also go by Mary... You said: There was a third awesome treasure I found as well - a clearer understanding of the 'weak brother' and just who it is that we are to avoid offending, but that's material for another post! My response: Please let's do discuss that. If you would like to start another post, I'd be very grateful. Even though I left Adventism a year ago, I'm still following my SDA husband's pattern of Sabbath observance, so as not to offend him. I'm using Romans 14 as my guide in this. But I'm curious sometimes whether my not making waves with hubby is allowing him to continue comfortably in Adventism...sort of like "enabling" him. Honestwitness | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 185 Registered: 7-2005 |
Speaking to the topic of different views of sin, I'm very glad you brought this up, Rick. I've had sort of a vague awareness of the two ways of defining sin, but never really put it into words, as you've done so well. A few years ago, it dawned on me that, not only are all my righteousnesses as filthy rags, but I was a sinner even before I was born. If Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that was BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned. I inherited my sin, not from Adam's sin, but because God declared me a sinner in need of a sacrifice even before the first human was ever created. The amazing thing is that, although one could argue that God could not be just in declaring humans to be sinners before they had ever had a chance to prove themselves, the fact that He did just that is the ultimate proof that He is totally sovereign. The Sovereign One not only declared us sinners, but in His extravagant love He provided the Sacrifice that would absolve us of that very sin. Amazing grace indeed! Honestwitness | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 244 Registered: 2-2006 |
I second that request for a discussion about who is my 'weak brother', Honestwitness. I think it is vitally important to understand. Cathy | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 709 Registered: 8-2004 |
Great idea Honestwitness. I'll start a new thread on it. Blessings, Mary | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 648 Registered: 7-2004 |
I have heard it described in more simple terms as the difference between I sin because I am a sinner contrasted with I am a sinner because I sin. I'll look for the weak brother thread. It should be interesting. |
