| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1642 Registered: 10-2002  |
I just posted this in the "Eastern Gate and Messiah's Return" thread, but I think it could really have its own thread, and I don't want it to be missed, either. Please have a good read-through of this article. Bless you in Jesus! Ramone Post-script (from Ramone, not Brinsmead) - I believe that as we recognize these things and share them with our evangelical brothers & sisters, we (former Adventists) can be a great blessing and aid to the Body of Christ. However, if we fail to apply the same hermeneutics to the Prophets that we applied to the Law in our exodus from Adventism, then we are in effect looking back into the mirror and forgetting what we looked like before. It is a great comfort coming out of Adventism and finding Christian brothers and sisters in agreement. It is a great comfort to find ourselves in the mainstream of Christianity instead of opposing it. But if that comfort keeps us from seeing, acknowledging, or confronting such a great and obvious hermeneutical error as Dispensationalism, then we need to place our own comfort-in-agreement-with-evangelicalism on the altar for the benefit of our Christian brothers & sisters, and for the sake of the truth of the Gospel. Bless you all in Jesus Christ! Ramone (Message edited by agapetos on November 11, 2008) | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 1324 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wow! You certainly come up with some good material. I had not thought of it that way. This will give me something to contemplate the ramifications of for the rest of the week. I certainly am blessed by your contributions. Keep up the good work! Gilbert | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 330 Registered: 2-2003  |
There are some really good thoughts here. Very helpful, Adrian | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1643 Registered: 10-2002 |
PLEASE, PLEASE READ THIS! (The above article I posted by Brinsmead) In the last several years on the forum I've read several comments about being more and more convinced by dispensationalism... and I just ask that if that sounds like you, please, please, PLEASE carefully and prayerfully read the article above and begin to study more carefully. (I.g., look at the way that the New Testament writers interpreted the Prophets, etc.) I confess this is something on my heart greatly for the Body of Christ as a whole, but especially here at the Former Adventist Forum. Having entered the evangelical mainstream, there's a tendency to adopt dispensationalism instead of applying the New Covenant "fulfillment" hermeneutic to it (which had been so instrumental in helping us see the truth about Adventism). I truly believe that we were not called out of Adventism and taught by the Spirit about the New Covenant simply to help others out of the cult of Adventism. I believe we were also called into the Body to be a blessing to the Body. Because in one degree or another, the errors that underlie Adventism are things that cling to human nature instead of "SDA" exclusively. What we've learned in coming out of Adventism is meant to be a blessing to the entire Body, not just to Adventists who will be set free. And I believe our greatest contribution --if we will dare to offer it-- is to humbly impart the gift of not being afraid of being wrong about something, but rather seeing that Christ is "right" and that we must not fear being corrected. I believe we were called out through brokenness in order to help the mainstream Body of Christ face its own brokenness. Like a recovering alcoholic can be of assitance to someone who is just beginning to dip into the bottle. We are called to bring others to the Spiritual "AA" meeting at the foot of the cross! We were not just called "out" (of Adventism), but were called "in" (to the Body)! For such a time as this! Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 723 Registered: 7-2005  |
Ramone, thank you so much for the excellent Brinsmead article and your analysis of our purpose as Formers in the larger body of Christ. I totally agree with you. The Lord has blessed me to have an influence on the Christians with whom I worship and study the Bible every week. I am facilitating a small group Bible study. Right now we are studying Galatians. Next, we will go through Greg Koukl's "Tactics in Defending the Faith" program. I have a great passion for getting the New Covenant right, as Brinsmead's article teaches. One of the ladies in the group is convinced the 4th commandment applies to Christians today, only on Sunday. We've had some interesting discussions. I had her read Romans 14, where Paul says it doesn't matter whether we honor one day above another. She stared at it for a long time and then said, "I don't really know what Paul is saying there!" (Sheesh! It's hard to let go, isn't it?) This woman has a PhD, too! Honestwitness | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1527 Registered: 4-2000  |
The Old Testament canon fully stands on its own. It is not subject nor dependent upon the New Testament canon for interpretation. Since God is the ultimate author the Bible, we can fully trust His penmen. All Scripture is "God-breathed" (inspired) and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16 NASB). While the NT is a clearer, later, and final revelation to man, it does not supercede the OT canon in any manner. Furthermore, one part of the Bible does not contradict another part of the Bible. The ultimate step is to submit to Scripture and let it transform our lives. Be one who accepts the truth of God's Word even though it may cause you to change what you always have believed, or cause you to alter your life pattern. The Bible speaks with one voice. Any perceived contradictions are due to the reader's ineptness and frailty. Importantly, the common thread of Holy Writ is Jesus Christ from Genesis to Revelation. The idea that the NT must somehow interpret the OT is completely unbiblical. The Bible is God's voice speaking to us in all 66 books. Always keep in mind that the Bible is one book in sixty-six parts, and it contains a number of truths and principles, taught over and over again in a variety of ways and circumstances. By correlating and cross-referencing, we begin to build a sound doctrinal foundation by which to live. I strongly disagree with the analysis given by Robert Brinsmead, an avowed agnostic. Moreover, Adventism and Mormonism came out of the Restorationist movement. Remember how Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the "final link" of the Protestant Reformation? Likewise, Mormonism has a supposed last day message. Forms of so-called "remnant theology" comprise a major thrust in both groups. Dennis Fischer | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 559 Registered: 11-2007  |
I do have some serious questions as well about the above Brinsmead statement. He makes some sweeping generalizations that I'm not sure I agree with. While I think when this was written he had not yet "fallen away" - won't get into that topic, he is definitely at present no reliable interpreter of scripture for he no longer believes in it (see my other post on the related thread). The problem I see right now is there's all these neat little boxes that you have to take or leave everything in them. If I reject amillenialism, I automatically have to accept all the elements of the dispensational model? I lean that way, but I think BOTH sides are stretching quite a bit. I don't think ANYONE has it figured out and I don't believe anyone needs to place undue emphasis on their interpretation because these things are highly speculatory and to do so only creates division and needless infighting among believers while the world is going to hell. I'm not saying we should not read, meditate, ponder, form our own theories, investigate other people's theories, pray for guidance (the most important part - who discovered the new covenant through sheer intellectual effort??? Anyone?? ha.) but to make these point of division among fellowship (as my church does) I find to be distracitng, petty and not honoring Christ. Sondra | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 560 Registered: 11-2007 |
p.s. it just occurs to me that the area of "law" and "prophecy" are very different in purpose and content - and I'm not sure it makes sense that they must both be interpreted in the same manner. Just thinking.... | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 561 Registered: 11-2007 |
Sorry, I keep coming back to the computer because questions keep popping up in my head. This is the last one, I promise. When Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, I've always understood that to mean that he fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah - not all of them in one single event, and not all of them about himself even at his first coming. There are prophecies in there of kingdoms, about Israel, as mentioned earlier, etc.. etc... Ramone, are you identifying with a preterist position? Just curious which end of the stick you are coming from. =) Sondra | ||
| Aliza Registered user Username: Aliza Post Number: 172 Registered: 8-2006 |
While still an Adventist, I always needed to have a position on doctrines and just knew that it was right. Now, I'm so much more comfortable with recognizing that there are many things I'm just not going to know about in this earthly life. I'm with you, Honestwitness, about a passion for understanding the New Covenant. And I just don't see anything in the Gospel that says I just must know perfectly how eschatology is going to come about. What I've seen way too often in some segments of the Christian community is hot debates about doctrines surrounding eschatology or Calvinism, spiritual gifts or whatever. In fact, all too often it seems to result in angry tirades so reminiscent to how Adventists react when confronted by formers. I prefer to keep the main thing the main thing so that it doesn't impact our unity in diversity. Not that we shouldn't know the different positions, but I've come to believe that prophecy may best be seen as confirmation of our faith after the fact. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1528 Registered: 4-2000 |
Aliza, Since Seventh-day Adventists claim to be the "final link" of the Protestant Reformation, it is most appropriate, helpful, and revelant to expose their false claim of being somehow connected to or linked to Reformed theology. Thus, it is vital for former Adventist ministries to reveal what Reformation theology is really all about. The difference between the SDA belief system and Reformed theology is as stark as night and day. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 8972 Registered: 12-2003  |
Sondra, I agree with you. I have some significant disagreements with the Brinsmead article, too. The Law and the Prophets cannot be compared—their purposes were completely different. The Law WAS Israel's constitution. God established it to define Israel and His relationship with them. It served a specific purpose, and according to Galatians and Romans, that purpose was fulfilled in Jesus. He is the Perfect Israel, the promised Seed, the root of Jesse, the baby born whose name is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. EVERYTHING the law foreshadowed is fulfilled in Jesus. The prophets served a different function. Yes, in Luke 24:44 Jesus said He had to fulfill all that was written about Him in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms—and indeed, He did. All those prophecies were fulfilled. But even Adventists and non-dispensationalists would agree that the OT prophecies did not ALL end with Jesus. Daniel, for example, prophesied the Great White Throne judgment at the end of days (Daniel 7), and it even foretells the resurrection in chapter 12. Zechariah, Ezekiel, even Malachi and Joel include prophecies that stretch to the end of the age. Malachi, for example, prophesies the destruction of the wicked. To be sure, Jesus fulfilled all the promises of a Messiah and a Redeemer, but Jesus' first incarnation does not fulfill ALL Biblical prophecy. If all we had was the OT prophets, we could know that there would still be a future kingdom when the Messiah would rule. Now, however, we also have Revelation and even the Thessalonians which give more details about what is to come. The fact that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies for a Messiah does not render the OT prophets completed or entirely fulfilled. There IS a future! The biggest question is—what will it look like? Like Sondra said, I don't think we really know. There are certain things we can know, but we really don't know the details. But Revelation 20 really does describe a millennial kingdom that has Jesus reigning over the nations along with the resurrected people who will reign with Him. I don't think any specific system of belief has all the answers. But we cannot dismiss the idea that there really might be some physical fulfillments to prophecy. Jesus, after all, was a physical fulfillment—very different from what they expected, but physical nonetheless. God gave very specific promises to David regarding an eternal throne, dominion, and a ruling descendant. He gave very specific promises to him as well as to Abraham that God's people would live in the land with His promised king reigning. I know that most of us believed that these prophecies would be fulfilled in the New Earth—but Revelation as well as Ezekiel and Isaiah suggest that there is an earthly kingdom still to occur where these specific promises would be fulfilled. As Adventists we spiritualized away pretty much everything—except the law. Yet God relates to us in physical reality—not only spiritual. As born-again believers, we have spiritual life within still-decaying physical bodies. Further, God has promised to redeem our physical bodies, giving us eternal, spiritual bodies like Jesus' body. Moreover, Romans 8 promises that God will redeem even the physical creation which He subjected to decay. God has deliberately functioned with us in a physical framework. There is no reason for us to dismiss the still-unfulfilled OT prophecies as being fulfilled "spiritually" if they were for physical reality. Granted, the physical fulfillment may look very different from what we might imagine—just as Jesus incarnation caught Israel largely off guard because they did not expect the Messiah to be God. I think we can't dismiss Revelation, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, etc. as being entirely fulfilled—or by spiritualizing the more mystifying parts. The future has not happened yet—and I am convinced that we're in for some surprises. God made physical promises, and He's not finished with all of them yet. I don't pretend to know exactly HOW He'll do everything, but we can't assume He won't do things in tangible, physical ways just because we don't understand how that might "work". So that sums up my basic disagreement with Brinsmead. You can't compare the use of the Law with the use of the Prophets. Their functions were completely different. The end has not yet come—there are still fulfillments awaiting, and the symbols of prophecy are different from the shadows of the law. (Shadows and symbols are very different things, and they have different functions.) Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 412 Registered: 1-2004  |
Interpreting the Old Testament in the light of the present reality of Christ describes Eastern Orthodoxy perfectly. We experience the Kingdom of God, and we hear the Scriptures that foretold it read to us in the context of their fulfillment. This becomes especially clear in the services of the Church during the 40 days leading up to Easter. That said, we do believe in a physical resurrection of the dead, and after that happens, it is possible some of the Old Testament prophecies may find a somewhat literal fulfillment in the new heavens and new earth. Jeremiah | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1646 Registered: 10-2002 |
Sondra -- Re: Brinsmead himself. See my comment (#1645) on this thread: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/7954.html?1226557937 One of the really useful things in the Brinsmead article is his illustration (or cited example) of how OT prophecies were understood to be fulfilled in the New Testament by the apostles & believers. For example, Amos 9 was fulfilled by the early church. Yet if you look at Amos 9 and the greater context of the book, there are a lot of things that--if you take them literally--do not match up. Brinsmead answers (I believe correctly) that these things were fulfilled according to the Spirit, not according to the letter. Another useful example was a matchup of Isaiah 40 with John the Baptist, who was "the voice crying out in the wilderness". In some respects that matches John. Yet as Brinsmead parenthetically stated, John the Baptist obviously did not build highways in the desert! Regarding the milennium, I am actually not taking a postion. People have brought that subject out of the blue here! To be sure, it seemed to offer a somewhat convenient explanation for the end of Ezekiel (again, see the above linked thread), however, upon closer examination of "the prince" and his activities, the milennial explanation does not stand up to the test of context or systematic exegesis. ...So in answer to your question about "preterism", etc., I'm actually not prepared to comment because I haven't studied those positions (or their names) much! Sorry! But from a quick look on Wikipedia, I would say that preterist, historicist and futurist all have true and useful elements from time to time. What gets problematic is when one absolutely rules out the other. The obvious wording and nature of New Testament statements indicates that it is unbiblical to squeeze everything into preterism. Historicism also does not have all the answers, and is often just... arbitrary. I generally suppose I would be closest to Futurism, however, it is possible that a prophecy was given and God-intended to speak to more than one age at a time. The "abomination of desolation" is a prime example. First it spoke to and was fulfilled in the Maccabean time. Secondly, however, Christ brought it up in referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. But then He also mixed in things about the end of the age---the end of the world. In that case, the primary understanding seems to need to be based on the first fulfillment (the Maccabean one). However, that Christ our Lord found it useful to speak of to people in His day, and that He used it to illustrate the final events of earth -- this suggests strongly that there is something to be learned from it in all three times, and perhaps in any time as well. I also think it suggests that the spiritual situation was/will be the same in all three times (Maccabean, A.D.70, and the End). But I've digressed pretty far here from the main topic! Back to course...! I'll mention something which might sound a little to airy to some. I believe that all things are fulfilled in Christ. Because He is not physically on earth right now, all things on earth are not fulfilled. But in Him (who is Fulfillment), all things are fulfilled. So when He returns, Fulfillment will have come. Does that make sense? It's a general understanding, not meant for critical evaluation or proof-texting position. Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 381 Registered: 1-2006  |
Hi Dennis I read your comments above with a great deal of respect, but I do think the NT gives us understanding that is perhaps not available in the pages of the OT. For example, John declares "Behold the Lamb of God" and Peter refers to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. I'm writing this without checking Bible references, but I think I'm correct on these examples. Matthew devotes significant attention to proving the signs of the Messiah, and much of Paul's work is spent hammering out theology. Jesus now, in Hebrews 1, gives the final word. I have so much respect for your careful study that I really don't wish to challenge you, but even in the area of the law I see the NT as giving the final word. The people were astonished at the teachings of Jesus, they rejoiced in Acts 15, and Paul did not hesitate to go after the OT law (Romans 1,2,3, Galatians, Acts 13:38,39 etc.) I know that you are well aware of these things I have mentioned, so when I listen carefully to what you are saying I cannot help but think that we truly see things differently. I consider you to be far ahead of me in understanding these things, so I hope to draw you out thoughtfully and with respect because I sense that I could learn much here if really understand your views better. I wish we could meet sometime so I could just listen to you. Bob | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 382 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dennis, to state the obvious, we wouldn't know that Jesus was the lamb of God unless John had so declared. This is not a challenge, just an opportunity for me to ratchet up my leaning a bit. Bob | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1650 Registered: 10-2002 |
Bob & Dennis, I passed on Dennis' comment above because I think we've probably discussed it before, and it's kind of off the topic of this thread. But to briefly address, I understand the principle of wanting to say what Dennis said, however it needs to be recognized that certain parts of the Bible interpret other parts. Otherwise Adventism has a case for "soul sleep" (by its sole usage of Ecclesiastes to explain the matter). Context and content must be examined. The point Brinsmead made is therefore valid: that because the NT declares Christ fulfilled both Law and Prophets (and moreover because of Heb.1:1-3), therefore the gospel must be the interpretor of both Law and Prophets. As we look through the NT at how the apostles & Christian community interpreted ancient prophecies, we see that very dynamic at work. Bless you both in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 383 Registered: 1-2006 |
Ramone and Dennis Thanks to both of you for the input you already shared. I'm OK with letting this rest for now. Dennis knows that I am in study mode on a lot of these things, so I'm always glad to hear from him and others. May God keep all of us as we seek to know Him more fully. NOTE to Dennis I have read and re-read the posts from our recent discussion on another website, and have found them very helpful. My sincere thanks to you for your thoughtful posts and gracious spirit. Bob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 8982 Registered: 12-2003 |
Just one last comment: Jesus said, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." And then "he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures…" (Luke 24:44, ESV). Not everything about Jesus in the prophets has yet been fulfilled; the age to come is yet to come. Certainly everything yet to come will be fulfilled through Jesus, and we simply cannot say exactly how all the promises regarding the land and an earthly throne will look. But certainly all the prophecies will be fulfilled—and we can't explain them away because they don't make complete sense. Of course, we can see symbolism and spiritual reality in them. but we also must leave room for the literal fulfillment of God's promises. It's OK, though, not to understand it all. If God had intended for us to understand in advance exactly how it would "look", He would have made it more clear. He has, however, told us enough that we will be able to recognize things when they happen. One of my fears in the past was that I would miss God's reality because I was so confident of my opinions based on what I was taught. I still pray that God will protect me from deception and from self-deception, that He will teach me truth and reality. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1654 Registered: 10-2002 |
Very true, Colleen. I hope someone takes the time to investigate the thing I wrote about Ezekiel on the other thread. I understand the fear of not wanting to over-spiritualize things, but the Ezekiel passage(s) really illustrate how we take one half of a sentence literally and the other half spiritually, and that there is actually a framework which we are using which is not biblically consistent, and does not match with context or the New Testament revelation. In practice, the framework is very similar to Adventism in the respect that Brinsmead wrote of. Whereas Adventism looked at anything with "health" or "Sabbath" as being literal, dispensationalism does the same thing regarding anything with the literal land of Palestine and literal Jewish people. As a result of this, we're left splitting sentences and paragraphs in Ezekiel, and unwittingly contradicting the New Testament, Christology and Soteriology. Just like the errors of Adventism were obvious to outsiders, in the same way some of these things are very obvious to non-dispensationalists, but the contradictions are very hard for the people 'inside' to recognize or admit to. I believe there are better ways to exegete prophecies, but to admit this for many of us is going to make us uncomfortable because we'll be going "against the (popular) grain". Having just left Adventism's 'anti-grainism', we're often happily comfortable going with the flow. Suggesting an idea against the popular grain is like telling a former Adventist that there is real prophesying in the Body today. Both things trigger a knee-jerk reaction because they're emotionally associated with Adventism for us. Bless you in Jesus, Ramone |
