| Author |
Message |
Pauls
Registered user
Username: Pauls
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 5:40 am: |     |
somwhere earlier chris made the comment of how he had understood adventist soteriolgy:
"Jesus gives you a new house at justification, but you have to make the mortgage payments and if you miss one, He'll repossess it... "
in contrast to Chris current belief, and i paraphrase:
"Jesus bought the house and gave it to him, signed sealed and delivered. nothing due."
There seems to be another thread of theology in adventism, that is neither of the above.
I'll call it the "reformed adventist" position--don't know when the reformed adventist position occured, or if it came first, and the "you gotta earn it" part came later, but i think you can find this reformed position in SDA materials--perhaps post 1888, and it seems to reconcile Chris opposing experiences of grace nicely... so.... here is a theological construct, like the calvinsm--arminianism debate that has to be reconciled and here is how it might be done:
"Jesus gives us a house at our New Birth. The house comes with a mortgage, and we can try to make the payments if we are foolish enough to think we can--but of course, we are destitute and this is not a practical solution. However, simulataneously, or a short time after receiving the house (when we realize we can't make the payments), He comes to us and offers to move in with us. As long as Jesus lives with us, He will keep making the payments for us and we live free. If we ever kick Him out--if such a thiing were possible which it might not be--i'm not ready to go there yet, we would, in theory get stuck with a big debt, again.
this explains the necessity of two baptisms--one unto repentance and one unto the Spirit (Acts 18: 25-26, also acts 19:1-6) i.e. it allows for the indwelling of the Spirit, and gives that Spirit control of a person's life which Chris's earliest statement did not address because it left the control in the hands of chris--who was now saddled with a payment he could never make. However I can do all things through Christ Phil 4:13
Once again, i don;t know if this is truly reflective of any level of theology in adventism, but i think i've heard this somewhere?
Nor am i saying it is or is not scriptural. i am just going to throw it out for commment. What do others perceive about this modified analogy? how much water can it hold? It seems to pick up the thread of John 15:1-8, John 8:31, Matt 24:24, Rom 2:13, Matt 7:21-23 etc
I also want to touch on the subject of salvation of children. I know we all want kids to be saved. And I am not going to presume to make a statement of ultimate destiny for any specific child. But how do we reconcile the concept of "original sin" with our desire to have kids saved. Is original sin a biblical concept? what exactly is it? how does it apply here?
It seems to me that original sin teaches that i am destined for hell (rom 5:18-19), whether or not i personally sin (altough without doubt, I have sinned and deserve punishment because of what i have done)...however, even before i sinned personnally, as an accounable person (for until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law..NEVERTHELESS death reigned from Adam to Moses Room 5:12-15, also Rom 2:12)...this is to say that all kids, even in the womb (Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me...psa 51:05) are infected with a deadly virus...called sin..by genetics as much as by environment...and that God has clearly declared that all traces of the virus must result in the infected person NOT going to heaven.
Paul says that death is the sting of sin, and one could make a philosophical argument a child who dies dies from the sting of sin, thus gives evidence to original sin being in the child--since that which has no sin, should by God's own law not die....
Psul also seems to imply that original sin is the basis for not being saved (the natural condition of all men) in Rom 10:13-17 where he asserts that those who do not call on God because they not hear the gospel are not saved.
I have to believe in Paul's assertions of original sin in Rom 5 because Paul says its the same, only flip side, with our salvation--if by one man sin could not come to the entire world, then by one MAN salvation could not come to the entire world. Because God views all man as a species, Christ our second Adam is now the ceremonial/figurative head of our race, and His genetics and holiness pass to me in the new line of inheritance....so this original sin idea is tightly linked with the "original grace" concept--that I am justified and sanctified by divine fiat through no act of myself. That is good news! Is this not the theology of Rom 5?
also, Does the Bible only provide 2 options--could a person simply never be resurrected for either judgement--heaven or hell. i think eg white made a statement once about slaves where she said some in whome the image of God was particularly marred ---to the level of brute
beasts would go nowhere-- neither to hell or paradise--perhaps to an adventist purgatory of annihilation????)
|
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 237
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 1:50 pm: | |
Interesting analogy Pauls and rather complicated,
Here are a couple of issues I have. I was taught (nonAdventist) based on the verses you shared that there was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is what happens to every Christian (see also John 14:26 et al), and there is also the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which is just for special circumstances.
According to your analogy those who have not had the outpouring of the Holy Spirit are extremely vulnerable to losing their salvation, and I don't think that is true. The indwelling Spirit is the seal of the Christian.
Also, although you said "If we ever kick Him out--if such a thiing were possible," the Adventists I know would think even one little sin and you have kicked Jesus out the door. Over time, after Jesus has come and gone many times, Adventists wonder if Jesus even thinks it's worth the effort of coming back, so whether or not Jesus is even in the house, they are trying to make the payments.
Like I said, this may not be true of all Adventists, just the ones I'm familiar with.
Sadly,
Hannah |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3022
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 12:28 pm: | |
Hannah, you're right about the typical Adventist understanding.
Pauls, the problem I have with the "reformed Adventist theology" is that it assumes a certain underlying principle that's often not stated overtly. Since 1888, those who embraced Jones and Waggoner's theology have proclaimed pretty much the "reformed" theology you stated. The problem is, it assumes that the Holy Spirit will now help Christians KEEP THE LAW.
The NT gospel clearly says Jesus abolished the law with its commandments and regulations in His flesh (Ephesians 2:14 and also Colossians 2:14-15, and Galatians). That quote, Through God all things are possible" is a text I have read in conjunction with 1888 theology (the SDA version of Righteousness by Faith).
The Bible clearly teaches that the indwelling Holy Spirit seals everyone who places their faith and trust in Christ (Ephesians 1:13). Romans 7 and 8 describe in great details the ongoing struggle of Christ-followers to choose to live by the Spirit or to default to living by the sinful nature.
The law and its requirements is simply no longer in view AT ALL. When we are born again of the Spirit, He teaches us how to live. We need no written moral compass; we have the Eternal God of all living in us. The problem, of course, is that without the written "moral compass", living by the Spirit would never result in Sabbath-keeping. The believer would, rather, find his Sabbath rest where it really resides: in knowing Jesus.
No, I do not believe the "reformed" SDA theology accurately reflects Biblical teaching.
Further, as Hannah pointed out, a believer is baptized with the Holy Spirit only once: upon conversion (see Ephesians 1:13 again). The Holy Spirit gifts God's people according to His will, and He can empower them is special ways when needs arise, but as a Christ-follower grows in Jesus, the power and authority of the Holy Spirit becomes increasingly a part of that person's life. It's related how willing we are to surrender as the Holy Spirit reveals things we need to release from our tight grips.
In short, there really is no "reformed" Adventist theology. Adventism dos not see the indwelling Holy Spirit as separate from law-keeping. Rather, they see is as the means to keep that law. Further, because Adventism does not believe man has a literal spirit which is an entity separate from his mind and body, the new birth is a murky subject. They see the Holy Spirit as giving a person a clearer mind and more self-control.
In reality, the Holy Spirit brings to life our literal (not merely figurative) spirits by means of which we KNOW God. He also quickens our minds, but the real power of the Spirit is that He brings the essential US to life, and that essential part of us is what goes to God when we die, not merely our breath.
As for babies--you're right about original sin. But as Stan pointed out last week (I think it was Stan!), God can regenerate even infants so they do not die unredeemed. If He could indwell John the Baptist in the womb, thus bringing him to spiritual life before he was born, God in His sovereign wisdom can do the same thing for any child. We can't know exactly how or what God does in these cases, but we can know that He is faithful and just. The Bible never hints at any human being annhilated, and we cannot surmise that such a thing is part of God's plan. We have to stick with what we know the Bible says, and beyond that, we have to trust Him without knowing!
Colleen
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 1:08 pm: | |
Pauls, I agree with Colleen's last post both about the so-called Reform Adventist theology and salvation of infants. Just to re-iterate what I said above, it is a consistent Biblical position to believe that all children who don't reach an age of moral accountability, or are retarded, are forever lost because of the doctrine of original sin, EXCEPT, for God's sovereign grace and mercy, I believe he regenerates all these precious souls and there is plenty of room in God's heaven for all of them. I also believe this about aborted babies, as all children are precious in his sight. When Jesus said "suffer the little children to come unto me" I believe He meant it. Also Romans 1 clearly states that God's wrath is poured out on all who suppress the knowledge of the truth and ignore the obvious evidence of nature. This would imply that God will not be pouring out His wrath on infants and retarded children. The Bible teaches both God's sovereignty with regard as to who will be saved, but it also teaches personal responsibility of human beings for their choices, so those who will end up in hell will ultimately choose to be there. Yes, God chooses to regenerate some sinners, and to why and how he does that is a great mystery, but I find it comforting to be trusting God that He will be just. His ways are beyond our finite understanding.
Stan |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 507
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 3:42 pm: | |
Stan and Colleen,
Excellent posts on the topic of salvation for infants and retarded children. You are making me waver in my earlier stance on this topic. Your latest posts seem very biblical and plausible to me. Thank you for your insights.
Dennis Fischer |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 11:02 am: | |
Dennis, There is an honest difference of opinion on this subject of salvation of infants among Calvinist thinkers. Some of the older line traditionalists would express the viewpoint you did. I had always been troubled about this issue. But, when I heard Dr. Michael Horton, professor of theology at a traditional Calvinist seminary express the viewpoint I expressed above, then after a litlle thinking and scriptural evidence, then I found what seems to be a consistent position. I know scripture isn't absolutely specific on this issue, but I think the inference based on God's justice and mercy can be made.
Also, since on the subject of Reformed theology in general on this thread, I would like to refer to another good article by John Reisinger, who I mentioned on the "Sabbath" thread earlier today. This article I think summarizes very well the problems of "free will" theology vs. God's absolute sovereignty regarding salvation in an article entitled "There are only two religions in the world" www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index004.htm
One religion depends on man's will and works, and the other religion totally on God's grace.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 11:52 am: | |
Chris, I haven't seen any posts of yours lately and I have missed your input since your last post on this thread, as your input with a more moderate view is most welcome. I know you have been a fan of John Reisinger's website in the past, and I just re-read the linked article that appears above in my post 1063. The logical arguments he gives for Reformed theology seem irrefutable from the weight of the Biblical evidence. I agree with your statement in your post 1085, that this is a discussion worth having because the implications are very far reaching. Reisinger also agrees with you and presents his reasons why this is the case. While he doesn't believe Arminians who know Christ are lost, as he himself took years to come to the Calvinist position, he does believe that Arminianism and Calvinism represent two different religions, and he reasons that a mixture of the two systems such as the Cal-Minian approach that most of evangelical Chrisianity believes as being logically and Biblically incompatible. This can also be shown from the testimony of Reformation history in that Arminius presented his arguments after Luther (who was probably even stronger on the belief of monergistic regeneration than Calvin) and Calvin. Reisinger points out that it was Arminianism and semi-pelagianism which really came from Roman Catholicism, that infiltrated the evangelical church and caused the serious divisions that we have today, and not Calvinism causing the division as usually alleged. So, Chris, I would like to get your opinion about how Molinism, or middle knowledge fits in with Luther's doctrine of "The Bondage of the Will"? Does Molinism teach that it is ultimately man's free will that determines our destiny, or is it ultimately God's choice? Just interested to get your views on Reisinger's article, and how middle knowledge would deal with free will and counterbalance the Calvinist view stated above.
Thanks Chris,
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 2:34 pm: | |
Here is an article from John Piper's website about the salvation of infants. Piper is also a Calvinist who believes that God regenerates all infants who die before moral accountability. It is pointed out that Charles Spurgeon believed this also. www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/infant_salv/infants.html
Stan |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 238
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 6:48 pm: | |
Not to be insensitive at all, but rather just practical, I'm thinking that Heaven would consist of mostly children who have died some before birth and some after. (About one out of every four pregnancies ends in miscarriage, many of which the women don't even know about)In which case Heaven would be made up of people who never experienced a sinful earth. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me.
Maybe it is like the predestination argument. When I get to Heaven it will make perfect sense, and I will be perfectly happy with the conclusion.
Analytically,
Hannah |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3037
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 8:42 pm: | |
I've had similar questions, Hannah. I agree with your conclusion!
Colleen |
Derrell
Registered user
Username: Derrell
Post Number: 105
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:16 pm: | |
"In which case Heaven would be made up of people who never experienced a sinful earth. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me."
Is there anything more sinful than being murdered?
|
Derrell
Registered user
Username: Derrell
Post Number: 106
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:18 pm: | |
Or dying from the physical results of sin? |
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne
Post Number: 129
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 7:27 pm: | |
When David lost his child. He said - Can I bring him back again? I WILL GO TO HIM, but he will not return to me."
You will see your child or baby who has died.
2 Samuel 12
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
|
|
