| Author | Message | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2005 |
Chris, Thanks for the link! And for the advice! The one thing we have liked the most in our visits with this new church has been the fact that they don't claim to necessarily "Know" all the facts. (The first bible study we stumbled into was "The State of the Dead" :-O, that was interesting!) And like I said these ìlessî important issues arenít mentioned in there statement of beliefs. Colleen, Thanks for your response also! I guess our recent experiences with beginning our trip out of 7th day Adventism has led me to question what I really think I understand on everything! It has been very refreshing to see the pastors come up to the pulpit, open the word of God and preach it only! Riverfonz, Thanks so much for the link to Reisingerís book on the tablets of stone. It had never even occurred to me that the 4th commandment was given with such different words in Exodus and Deuteronomy! Brian | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 447 Registered: 4-2000  |
The Evangelical Free Church of America takes no doctrinal position on eschatology (log unto www.efca.org). We have only twelve doctrinal statements. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 522 Registered: 7-2004 |
Benevento, Last year was my first year in BSF that I actually looked at the Bible with my NC beliefs. God, is His perfect timing, opened my eyes to clearly embrace His truths just before I began the study of Acts and the ministry of Paul. All my other years of BSF were done through SDA eyes, even though as I progressed each year God moved my heart closer and closer to NC beliefs without me even realizing what He was doing! I do remember thinking, mostly the years we were in the OT, why don't these Christians see Saturday as the true Sabbath? After reading the sites and thoughts of the posts above, I believe that BSF is CT even though they have a clear understanding and a strong belief of the NCT that was studied this last year in Hebrews. I was recently talking to one of the BSF leaders here in my area. I was telling her how much I am looking forward to studying Genesis again with my NC beliefs. She was very curious as to why my NC beliefs would change the way I see Genesis. I gave her the example of creation week/7th day rest and that it was God alone that rested - not man. I explained to her my belief that this was NOT a covenant God made with man that became part of the 10 commandments given Israel. This is a very Godly-woman and she found this new view very amazing even though she professes NC faith. I believe, as Colleen stated, that as former SDAs we have been blessed by the Holy Spirit to have a unique understanding of NCT. For me personally, I have to praise God for all the years that I was brainwashed! I would NOT want to miss a minute of the unfailing love of God that I experience TODAY all because of and in spite of Adventism! | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 989 Registered: 7-2003  |
Dennis, take a look at EFCA's belief #11.
This statement of faith would rule out the two other most common eschatological positions (postmillenialism, amillenialism). Your understanding of Revelation 20 has a large impact on how you understand all of eschatology, especially the OT prophecies. Chris (Message edited by Chris on August 17, 2005) (Message edited by Chris on August 17, 2005) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 656 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, You are right about NCT being a new theological system. I agree that SDAs have a lot to contribute to this dialogue. Dr. Wright stated it very clearly in the last Proclamation! That is why I am happy to see this NCT seminary just being started called Providence Theological Institute. I really like their doctrinal statement. Here is another link to that same site with an interview between John Reisinger and the faculty president Gary Long www.ptitx.org/News/Interview-Sep2004.htm I hope this starts a real trend in evangelical theology that many former SDAs could enthusiastically support. Stan | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 45 Registered: 4-2005 |
Dd I know with the policy of not discussing churches beliefs, I sometimes "chaf" I just wanted so much to talk about the changes in what I believed, and I couldn't. They have no idea what life changes the NC brings!! It is a good policy in principle, but then we need some other outlet, I am so thankful for this forum | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 660 Registered: 3-2005 |
Where did the SDA doctrine of the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan come from? Well here is a clue from John Reisinger's web site, www.soundofgrace.com/sep97/arminian.htm Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 995 Registered: 7-2003 |
Stan, you realize, I hope, that this twists Arminian thinking and theology and represents it as something it is not. It essentially sets up a straw man then knocks it down. A nice debating tactic, but intelectually vapid and not very Christian. I have to be very honest here and say that while I'm drawn to Calvinism intellectually, I'm equally repulsed by the fruits of contention, smugness, misrepresentation, and unfounded charges of heresy that I see flow out of it. In fact, the more I observe of these fruits the more I begin to think there is something very wrong at the very core of Calvinism. Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 996 Registered: 7-2003 |
Okay, after thinking about this over lunch I would like to apologize, Stan. I see a good deal of irony in my post. It seems to me that I am being hypocritical when I denounce others for denouncing others. As I look at my strong language I see that it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I do not offer the following as an excuse for myself; rather I am attempting to restate my thought in a way that better expresses my deep felt convictions on this matter. I am deeply frustrated by the fact that the Church has not been able to come to any unity on such an important subject. In fact, few subjects could be considered more important than Soteriology. How is it that not only have we not been able as a Church to experience unity on the subject of salvation, but the Church has been ripped apart by the debate? This is deeply saddening to me and I feel the sadness still more every time I see terms like "false gospel", "false doctrine", or "heresy" thrown about as a way of characterizing the other side. Let's face it, Arminians, Calvinists, and everyone else in-between are doing their very best to deal with very difficult and complex biblical data. Everyone along the spectrum wants to be true to God and His Word. Unfortunately, our fallen human nature and our finite nature prevent us from fully comprehending all the Bible has to say on the subject. Having said all this, it seems to me that we are not going to draw any closer to unity on this very important topic until all sides REALLY learn and understand what the other camps believe and why they believe it. It seems to me that mischaracterizing other positions runs absolutely rampant. Until we at least understand other positions well enough to be able to state them accurately, weíre not going to be able to adequately analyze each position and weight its merits. Mischaracterization of positions leads to increased confusion, anger, and polarization. I am earnestly appealing to all sides to take the time to learn the various approaches to understanding the Biblical data. How can anyone possibly know if their view is the correct one when itís the only view they truly know or understand? I have to tell you, the more I study each of the views and compare them to the Bible, the more I realize there is some mystery here that may go beyond what I will ever fully comprehend. This realization should lead to humbleness, a spirit of charity, and a lack of dogmatism. In Christ, Chris | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 661 Registered: 3-2005 |
Chris, I posted this because it did seem like a good illustration of what the SDA position was on the controversy between Christ and Satan. All I am saying is that short illustration Reisinger used which in a way is humorous, but it illustrates perfectly what the historical SDA position is. Does it not? Also, Chris, as R.C. Sproul pointed out, the evangelical church was significantly influenced by the outright Pelagian views of Charles Finney, and I am sure that there are many evangelists who presented salvation exactly like that illustration gave. That is what I was taught as an SDA growing up. I don't think Reisinger meant that to be a serious evaluation of all Arminian thought, as I have seen him be much more charitable in other writings that I could find and post to be fair. I agree with you that we shouldn't mischaracterize the side we disagree with, and sorry if this was offensive. I didn't mean it that way. I appreciate Chris your helpful input. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 662 Registered: 3-2005 |
So here is a very charitable view of what the simple gospel is and it has nothing to do with what your views of election are according to the same author www.soundofgrace.com/v6n5/whatgspl.htm Stan | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 119 Registered: 3-2005 |
The last couple of posts seem to address the very question I was struggling with last night! It has only been in the lasat few years (since studying for myself and leaving the SDA Church) that I have even heard of most of the terms such as Pelagian, Arminian, Calvinism (I had heard that one!), Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, etc. I was thinking about this, that as I have read discussions about each of these things, I come away with the feeling that the author has studied the Bible thoroughly and has decided on a position that she/he sincerely believes to be Biblical. Within the universal Christian Church there are such divergent views. Of course, the Salvational Issues are agreed upon. I am comfortable with that. I understand that the rest does not affect my salvation. Yet, I am curious to know more. And I also wonder how the various positions can be held if the Holy Spirit is leading in the search for truth. I don't mean this to be devisive, or taken as a challenge. I just want to learn the truth as I learn more everyday those things I never knew as an SDA. I pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance. And I believe I have been led on this journey I am taking! But how can I decide about Arminianism v. Calvinism, Dispasationalism vs. Covenant (or New Covenant) Theology, Millenialism, etc. when scholars much more learned and gifted than I can't come to agreement? I KNOW I don't need to understand all these details - But... Any thoughts? Thanks, Tisha | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 614 Registered: 7-2004 |
Dear Tisha, I hear you. I, too, cannot keep up with the learned discussions about Jesus. I love Him because He first loved me. I found this paragraph in one of the URL's provided by Stan, and it spoke volumes to me. Jesus said that a child's understanding is what we need, so I approach all of this vast information this way: --------- As our sins were reckoned to Christ, so Christ's righteousness is reckoned to us. This is justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. All we bring to the transaction is our need of it. Our faith in the God who bestows it, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is itself the fruit of God's grace. Faith links us savingly to Jesus, but inasmuch as it involves an acknowledgment that we have no merit of our own, it is confessedly not a meritorious work. ----------- So simple, so beautiful, and so "not as the result of anything that I can do!" Belva | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 998 Registered: 7-2003 |
Agreed.
Yes, I think you're right about that.
No, need Stan. I like Reisinger very much, find him to be quite even handed, and agree that he was probably being a bit humurous here.
No, I know you didn't mean it to be offensive, nor was I offended per se. After all, I disagree quite adamantly with classic Arminian theology and believe it can easily skirt close to semi-pelagianism if one isn't very careful (witness Adventism). I am theologically closer to Calvinism then I am to Arminianism. What you are seeing in me is my own extreme frustration that we as a Church can't be more unified on this topic and a whole host of others. To be a bit more introspective, I think it is probably also true that I am displaying a bit of my own personal frustration in not being able to make all the Biblical data fit nicely in one box. Intellectually, I would like to master this material, but I'm beginning to think that will never happen this side of Heaven (and possibly not even then). I think it probably bothers me just a bit when others are very sure that they understand it and yet I struggle so. Having said this, I have to say that I have enjoyed these series of discussions more than any others I have ever participated in on this site. And for that I thank you Stan! Okay, I've gone from the soapbox to the couch today. Time to sign off. :-) Once again, you have my apologies for being so touchy. Of course, if we were in the same room you'd be able to tell that I'm not nearly so irritable in real life as I sound in print :-) Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 999 Registered: 7-2003 |
I'm with ya Tisha! Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2420 Registered: 12-2003  |
Tisha, I so understand your confusion over these things! I really believe, as Chris suggested above, that there is some mystery here which has simply not been revealed to us. I've come to the place (for now, at least!) where I believe that it is not God's intent that we fully grasp HOW salvation works. He has given us complete understanding of how we are saved, but He has not given us a complete analysis of how His sovereign presdestination (which is Biblical!) and our responsibility to choose to serve Him (which is also Biblical!) work together. I also am drawn to Calvinism intellectually, and I find the certainty of God's absolute sovereignty and foreknowledge to make me feel unbelievabley secure. I really DO serve a God who is far beyond my ability to understand. Yes! On the other hand, I cannot get past the necessity for perseverance and obedience to Christ, for the ongoing responsibility to surrender. I have to say that the way I understand these things now is this: I must take the Bible absolutely seriously, even in these areas that seem opposed to each other. I must trust God enough to accept that reality (which is bigger than I can see) actually does involve these paradoxes. I must not try to explain away one or the other. God's call to us in not a call to UNDERSTAND. It is a call to BELIEVE. We have to trust Him with what we cannot see. This ongoing debate among Christians reminds me that Satan's deception to Eve was that she could analyze God's command to her and come up with an intellectual "insight" that transcended His clear word to her. He gently taunted her with a view opposing God's statement that she would die if she ate the fruit. The minute the serpent uttered those deceptive words, Eve began to analyze what God had said to her. She was interested in what Satan had to say that God might not have told her. The Bible says God chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless, and He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus (Ephesians 1:3-4). I have to believe that. The Bible says to choose whom we will serve. It says to persevere and not lose hope. It admonishes us to live by the Spirit and not by the sinful nature. I have to believe those commands as well. I really can't analyze away anything God has told us in order to make a certain "formula" work. I have to take the whole word of God seriously. I believe if we could see eternally, these things would not oppose each other. There is a unified theory of everything out thereóGod contains the entire mystery. What we cannot see is hidden in Him. Right now, our command is to trust Him. As the body of Christ, our calling is to surrender and to love one another with the love that is only available through His Spirit. At least, this is how I understand things right now! There is paradox and mystery, but we KNOW the One who holds the key to the mystery, and we know He holds us. Colleen | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 120 Registered: 3-2005 |
Since leaving the SDA Church, I have been SO HAPPY to realize that it is so simple! That has become my "mantra"! I really do revel in the knowledge that "all" I have to do is repent, believe and accept Jesus death on the cross for my sins. It's SO SIMPLE when compared to all that EGW nonsense! My humaness rears up and wants to understand it all right now! And I wonder how such earnest scholars can come to different conclusions. But, as Colleen says "There is a unified theory of everything out there--God contains the entire mystery." I just need to accept that and trust Him! And - I do know I AM SAVED - Praise the Lord! Tisha | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 663 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks everyone for all your comments. Chris, I hope you make it out next Feb. so we can meet. Posting on a site like this was brand new to me starting in Mar. of this year. I had even forgotten how to type. So, expressing myself sometimes in print is so different from having a conversation verbally. I probably at times have appeared to dogmatic on these topics, when I know there is a lot I don't understand. I believe it is healthy to debate these topics, but at times it can appear divisive. It took me eight years post Arminian Adventism to feel comfortable with the Reformed soteriology I now believe based on what I can tell is the best evidence. I can't logically mix the two systems of thought and be a Cal-Minian. But I suppose my unlearned method of Biblical interpretation is to go to the passages where there is the most detail about a topic, and then look at the more obscure passages and see how they fit. To me, John 6 is so very hard to refute, with those very words of Jesus about "All that the Father gives me will come to me" etc etc, and you go to Ephesians 1 and 2 and Romans 8 and 9. Frankly, it is Colleen's FAF Bible study we are doing in Romans 9 that made this issue even more firm in my mind. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." Or God creates vessels of wrath for destruction. Now I may not like these passages, but I can't explain them away. I can't find any truly systematic theology passages in the Bible that support Arminianism, and man helping God save him. I know we had this discussion on another thread. My original purpose was to tie in extreme Arminianism to SDA theology with regard to the blasphemous doctrine of the great controversy, and that is what I think my first link at least did, but it would have been more accurate to call it the Pelagian doctrine of election. In posting on Spectrum, I had a discussion with David Larson on open theism. He clearly stated that open theism is where Wesleyan Arminianism logically leads, and he, along with Richard Rice embrace this doctrine. That really is my point. Arminianism leads to all kinds of different heresies. Calvinism can lead to hyper-calvinism, and an arrogant attitude among those who hold the view. But the Arminians are as just as vicious about calling Reformed theology a false gospel. I will get off my soapbox also, Chris, but again these discussions have been interesting, and has forced me to think even more caefully about what and why I believe. But, no matter what, the basic gospel of salvation is so simple that a child can receive it. Of course we have to receive it with a child's humility also. Stan | ||
| Jwd Registered user Username: Jwd Post Number: 74 Registered: 4-2005 |
Ahem. <clearing throat> May I say something here? Chris, put away your legal pad and pen, I am not in possession of any great comments of wisdom and clarity that would be worth taking note of. I have been sitting over here in the corner, listening, even printing off some of this dialog. I enjoy listening. I sometimes get a bit testy with my Creator over the complaint/question of why, if He wanted me to be a vessel of clay to reveal His love to others, why did He not give me an IQ that pushed the limits of the chart? And then I hear Paul's words echoing: "Who are you, Jess, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, "Why'd you make me like this? and not like that?" (Rom 9:20,21 -JWD paraphrase) I come back to the thought that it isn't what I know and understand, but WHOM I know that counts. I read that once Karl Barth was asked by a student in one of his lectures, What is the greatest theological truth you have discovered? (or something akin to that) and Barth replied, "Jesus loves me, this I KNOW, for the Bible tells me so." Recalling that usually shuts me up pretty fast. I myself am struggling to sort out all the pieces of this puzzle, which, honestly, is a relatively new exposure to things rarely, if ever, examined while busily "sharing the MESSAGE within the narrow sectarian path of Adventism." How important is it to know if one is a Supralapsarian, an Infralapsarian or a Sublapsarian? It's kinda fun, actually, at least satisfying to be convinced intellectually of one's proper ID in theological circles; but I am relieved that it is not necessary. I personally cannot read any of these scholars without seeing yellow caution flags popping up. Why am I so gun shy? As was stated, which authority do you give credence to? Where and where not? Erasmus made a point here. Yes, but look what Calvin says? And Luther, look what he says? And then the Bible scholars and those intellectual giants who pull things out of their filing-drawer minds, all logically organized and so impressive. Martin Luther wrote more upon the subject of predesination than Calvin ever did. And while an awe-inspiring debate giant, he had this statement of balance to offer: "Everywhere we should stick to just the simple, natural meaning of the words, as yielded by the rules of grammar and the habits of speech that God has created among men; for if anyone may devise 'implications' and 'figures' in Scripture at his own pleasure, what will all Scripture be but a reed shaken with the wind, and a sort of chameleon?" [The Bondage of the Will, p.192] Further on page 202 he says, "...let us cleave to the pure and SIMPLE Word of God!" (Emphasis mine). I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that just when I am confident that I have the old barn yard dog of "egoism" chained up secure, I am often startled to stumble upon him on my way back to the my house with a feeling of satisfaction that I have been so eloquent, or so intellectually stimulating. My arguments silenced them all! But....what is that? That whisper of the wind coming through the canyon of centuries, .... "I am gentle and humble in heart..." (Mt 11:29 lp) The meek and lowly Saviour/Redeemer/Creator/LORD....His Majesty. And I find myself again lying in the dust, guilty, embarrassed, ashamed. I am convinced that the Spirit is endeavoring to bring me into "balance and harmony." Why do I resist so consistently? He is my ALL. My Source AND my Supply. I desire to learn more and I will continue to read and study and compare the more; but for me, knowing my fragile connection to the Vine, how often I tend to pull away prompted by thoughts saying, "I'd rather do it myself" - I know that I must ever keep my primary focus not upon these fascinating, stimulating, intriguing topics and my analytical nature to want to KNOW the "right" answer, the "right" interpretation, and be on the "right" side with the "right" group, wearing the "right" ID tag; SO THAT I will not be drawn away from my position at the feet of His Majesty, listening, loving, absorbing His soothing salve of Grace BY the sounds of the pots and pans of New Covenant Theology, Reformed Theology, Reformation Theology, this "ology" and that "ism" resounding in the kitchen, and ego's voice calling, "I need you out here!" My humble challenge to all of us is to keep probing, studying debating, and sharing BUT WHILE keeping the focus where it ever is to be held, upon the "Author and Finisher" of our faith, and putting forth our primary effort to hear and understand clearly what His Spirit is endeavoring to teach us of all those things Jesus wanted us to hear, understand and follow (Jn 14:26). Now, after all this weighty STUFF, whose job was it to make a pot of fresh coffee this time? And wasn't Tisha supposed to bring home made cookies? "With Jesus in the Forum, happy happy home!" :c) Don't shoot those spit-wads! I'm going.... Soli Deo Gloria :c) Jess | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 664 Registered: 3-2005 |
Well said Jess! Stan |
