| Author | Message | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 416 Registered: 8-2008 |
I don't know if I'm the only one this happens to, but sometimes when I notice an SDA post something on Facebook, or read an SDA post on CARM, or hear an SDA say something, I get an attack of sorrow for them. It is quite obvious they just don't understand what is so overwhelmingly awesome about what Jesus has done for us. They seem to think the Christian life is supposed to be one of despair and failure. That is why they think Paul's soliloquy at the end of Romans 7:13-24 is a description of the normal life of a Christian, rather than Paul's life up until he met Jesus on the Damascus Road: Paul here is talking about life before he was a Christian, not after. As verses 1-13 show, he is contrasting what it means to be under grace, with what it means to be under Law. Verses 13-24 show how God used the Law to bring his old sinful man to death at the Cross. But Adventists believe verses 13-24 describe a Christian's normal life. How sad is that? The normal life of a Christian is not one of continual condemnation and despair. It is not one of fear of judgment and broken-heartedness at not being able to do enough or keep the Law well enough. Indeed, they find no one to save them from "this body of death" because they don't believe Jesus died to free them from that body. They think they have to purify themselves by keeping the Law. That is what Ellen White said in Testimonies, Vol. 5, page 214: Because Adventists don't understand the freedom bought by the blood of Jesus Christ, they can never get to Romans 7:25-8:4 Jesus didn't come to bring us into despair, into the bondage of trying to be good enough through the Law. He came to save us from that body of death. There is NO condemnation to us, no "Investigative Judgment" where our violations of the Law are kept in some books until Jesus can see if we have "cleansed the soul temple of every defilement," and are thus worthy to have our sins blotted out. Our sins are blotted out now! Adventists, I know you read this. You do not have to live in Romans 7:13-24. You can live in Romans 7:25-8:4, but you cannot do it while clinging to Adventism's law-centered theology. Keeping the Law will not set you free from this body of death. You will not be freed from your own failures to obey the Law by a greater effort. It is not possible. Only Jesus can save you from that. We have given up so much when we left Adventism to follow Jesus, but He has been more than worth it. We know what it is to live in Romans 7:25-8:4. That is the reality that Jesus purchased for us, and we can only honor Him by giving up the life lived to the Law, and accepting His life in us. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 7214 Registered: 3-2004  |
I feel that sorrow every time I post on CARM and on any SDA facebook place. I want to cry and then I pray for all the SDAs and individuals. I ask God to remove that veil and the spirit of adventism. Our awesome God is doing that is His time and way. Diana L | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 328 Registered: 3-2009 |
Brent, How do you come to the conclusion that Paul is talking about his life before conversion in Rom. 7:13-24 and after conversion in 25+? Hec | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 418 Registered: 8-2008 |
Really, you have to start at the beginning of Romans, but I'll start with Romans 7. The focus of this section is that the Christian has been "put to death in relation to the law" so that we might live to the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth. The law, as you will find in Paul's writings, relied on the power our flesh, but our flesh was sinful, so that our flesh merely used the law to bring about greater sin. It wrapped its tentacles around the law and used what was good to do evil. You will find this in the Pharisees who opposed Jesus, and more strongly in Saul's life persecuting the Christians before he was converted. Moreover, our flesh would not do the good things the law spoke about, but would rebel against it because our flesh rejected God. We who are in Christ have been "released from the law" so that we live now to the indwelling Holy Spirit, which alone is able to bring about the greater spiritual reality behind the law, of which the law was only a shadow. Paul continues: .The law relied on our power to be good, to do what goodness the law spoke of. But our flesh is in rebellion to God, so that His very act of commanding something of our flesh makes our flesh want to do the opposite. The flesh sees God's commands, not as statements about what is and isn't beneficial, but as quasi-arbitrary rules by which God withholds something from us that would otherwise be good to have. This view of God's commands to us is what Adam and Eve accepted as part of their nature when they accepted the Serpent's lie that God was withholding the fruit from them for selfish reasons, rather than for their own good. The Old Covenant commandment is indeed holy and just and good. But more holy, more just, and better is the New Covenant reality of holiness, justice, and goodness indwelling us in the Divine Person of the Spirit. Simply saying "the commandment is holy and just and good" doesn't mean the New Covenant Christian should live to the Old Covenant Law. All 613 commandments in the Old Covenant Law were "holy and just and good," but they had a specific purpose, outlined in Romans 3:19 and 20: It is this process of being subject to God's judgment, and thus realizing his need for the Cross, that Paul next describes: The "death" he is speaking of here points back to the beginning of the chapter, where he describes how we have died to the law. Then, he goes on to explain how sin brought death in him via the commandment, which we have already discussed further up in this thread. He then asks the question that he asked when he found his flesh unable to comply with the Law: "Who will save me from this body of death?" The reply is "Jesus Christ, Our Lord." This indicates that Jesus saves us from the condemnation we experience from the Law. Now, there never should have been a chapter break between Romans 7:25 and Romans 8:1. These chapters and verses were inserted long after the Bible was written, and largely serve to confuse good doctrine. I recommend getting a Bible like The Books of the Bible which has no chapter and verse markings. It is much, much easier to read and understand. That said, Romans 7:25 is a synopsis of what we just read earlier, where Paul's mind wants to do good, but his body wants to sin. This of course brings about his realization of his condemnation, but Romans 8:1-2 victoriously says: The indwelling of Christ through the Person of the Holy Spirit brings us to be the thing which the Law could only shadow. He brings to fruition in our lives the core "law behind the Law" as it were, the concept of love of God and love of others. Moreover, the Law of Moses--the "ministry of death" and "ministry of condemnation" as it is called in 2 Cor. 3--is removed as the goal of life of the Christian, so that he is not perpetually reminded of its condemnation and the power it gave to the flesh is removed. The Christian is given victory over condemnation by the death of Jesus, and victory over sin by the indwelling of the Spirit. Neither of these can the Law do. The Law can only bring condemnation, and it only awakens the power of sin over sinful man. In Christ, sinful man is put to death and the resurrection life of Christ indwells the believer. | ||
| Psalm107v2 Registered user Username: Psalm107v2 Post Number: 348 Registered: 10-2008  |
Bskillet, I do agree. There is one fellow I have been going back and forth for years who uses Romans 6, 7, and 8 to show that we can and must be sinless. He is an incredibly intelligent and articulate young fellow and the sense I get from him is that he really believes that his vast knowledge about the bible and other topics gives him more knowledge ABOUT Christ but unfortunately he does not KNOW Christ. My heart goes out to them as I was once the kid who knew all the Bible stories in the Bible but yet had a hurting heart because I didn't know Jesus | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10118 Registered: 12-2003  |
Brent, I was just having similar thoughts re: Romans 7 last night. Yes, Adventists do not understand the new birth, so they have no way to understand how Romans 7:13-24 is about being in the flesh instead of alive in the Spirit. Missing the meaning of "new birth" is devastating. It leaves all of one's understanding of Christianity in confusion and leads to despair. Colleen | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 331 Registered: 3-2009 |
Thanks, Brent, for the explanation. Hec | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 420 Registered: 2-2003  |
I agree, I read somewhere that the first person in church history to apply Romans 7 to the Christian life was Augustine in the fourth century. Romans 8 describes life in the Spirit in constrast to Romans 7. Carry on reading chapter 8 up to v.17. Romans 7 describing Paul as a religious Pharisee before conversion makes more sense in the light of the whole letter. Adrian | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1064 Registered: 11-2007  |
My sda family believes they have to be "born again" every day... and I have some material that basically says the same thing. I think learning what this means was the single biggest revelation to me when we saw the New Covenant. Changed EVERYTHING.. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 428 Registered: 8-2008 |
Doesn't surprise me. Augustine said some good things, but he was often a little bit "off" in his views. I think, like a lot of the Church Fathers, he tried to answer pagan philosophy with "Christian-ized" pagan philosophy, and this is not at all possible. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 898 Registered: 7-2007 |
When I read the article (I think it was by River in Proclamation awhile back), about the plumline of the Bible versus the false gospel of Adventism; I had an attack of sorrow for my relatives. I read the article at work in between my duties (toward the end of the work-day) and then when I got off work, I went out, sat in my car and cried. All I could think of was their clinging to Ellen White and their flat refusal to read only the Bible.  | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1721 Registered: 4-2000  |
Paul's use of present tense verbs in verses 14-25 of Romans 7 strongly supports the idea that he is describing his life currently as a Christian. Of course, the personal pronoun "I" refers to the apostle Paul. So in verses 14-25, Paul must be describing all Christians--even the most spiritual and mature--who, when they honestly evaluate themselves against the righteous standard of God's Law, realize how far short they fall. He does so in a series of four laments (vv. 14-17,18-20, 21-23, 24, 25). Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on July 14, 2009) | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1728 Registered: 5-2007  |
Dennis, That is the way I see it. Fearless Phil | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 268 Registered: 3-2009 |
Actually, there is a debate among theologians regarding the Romans 7 passage. It seems that struggle Paul is depicting happens when we're focusing on the law rather than Christ (which I believe does happen to all Christians periodically). | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1722 Registered: 4-2000 |
As a "ministry of death," the righteous standard of God's Law brings us to our knees before our Savior and Substitute, Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Law candidly reveals our depravity and shortcomings--even as the apostle Paul realized in his four laments in Romans 7. Thus, we find ourselves in desperate need of a Savior and Substitute. Since "None is righteous, no, not one...no one seeks for God" (Romans 3:10,11), our salvation is 100 percent dependent upon our awesome and sovereign God. We cannot choose what we do not desire. I find this to be true even when I go grocery shopping. How can we even remotely claim to somehow become the captains of our eternal destiny by having the last word in our salvation? Getting the Gospel right creates a soteriology that provides a greater doxology. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GigErxNu6X4) Born again believers are still sinners, but sin no longer reigns in their hearts. We are assured, and thereby comforted, that our sovereign God will complete the work He has begun in us. Although the Law only condemns us, we find our complete security in Christ alone. We persevere because of God's grace that preserves us. "Salvation belongs to the Lord" (Jonah 2:9 ESV). Too many Adventists believe in perfectionism, the idea that we can, and must, develop perfect characters prior to the time of Christ's return (see COL, p. 69, ad nauseum). This is one of the most pernicious of all heresies, and it has caused many to give up on God altogether. Others have been led to put up a facade of holiness that in their hearts they know is not true. We are all merely sinners saved by grace, and we will be until Christ changes us in the "twinkling of an eye" at His coming. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on July 14, 2009) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1723 Registered: 4-2000 |
Correction: The link to the music is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlgErxNu6X4 Dennis Fischer | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 429 Registered: 8-2008 |
I think part of this debate is because of many theologians' adherence to Covenant Theology, which makes it impossible for them to believe the Law isn't to reign in the conscience of a Christian, no matter what Paul says. Adventism's perfectionistic soteriology is the logical conclusion of Covenant Theology: If the 10 Commandments are God's highest "eternal moral law," all other morality must be subject to them, meaning justification by faith, apart from keeping the 10 C's, is impossible. Covenant Theology is another gospel, which is no gospel at all. | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1732 Registered: 5-2007 |
Bskillet, Somewhere, you lost me with your train of thought. Are you saying that "the Law", meaning the written Mosaic Law, is to be written upon our hearts in defiance of what the Apostle Paul teaches? Is not Paul giving us a direct understanding of this subject direct from Jesus Christ? Are you saying there is a contradiction between Paul and the rest of Scripture? What did you mean? And, how do you arrive at the idea that Covenant Theology a logical consequence of Adventism's perfectionistic soteriology? The two seem to be opposites in thinking to me? Fearless Phil | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 430 Registered: 8-2008 |
Phil - Covenant Theology says there is only one covenant across both Israel and the Church, and that one covenant is the covenant given at Sinai. Covenant Theology says the 10 C's are God's eternal moral law, and no greater expression of morality than the 10 C's is possible. Adventism takes this to its logical conclusion. Sinc ethe 10 C's are the greatest expression of moral righteousness, the greater righteousness of Christ's crucifixion cannot truly be a greater act, since it is not provided for in the 10 C's. Christ's crucifixion must therefore be lesser than the 10 C's, so that it is still keeping the 10 C's that saves us. Or putting it another way, if the 10 C's are the eternal moral law, than Christ's death for sin must be subordinate to the Decalogue, since the righteousness of the Decalogue is greater. Ergo, we cannot be justified by faith, but must be justified by keeping the 10 C's. This is, in essence, what Adventism argues, and it is a direct implication of Covenant Theology. But in Romans 3:21 Paul says the Cross is the demonstration of God's righteousness "apart from the Law," though it was "attested by the Law and the Prophets." The Law and the Prophets foreshadowed the greater righteousness of God that would come in Jesus Christ, but they themselves were not that righteousness. Thus, the Beloved Disciple can write (John 1:17), "although the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." What I said was that Covenant Theology teaches that the Law, rather than the Spirit, must reign in the conscience of the believer, because the Law is a greater moral reality than anything else. In their view, like the SDA view, the Spirit merely writes the 10 C's on the heart, but it is still the 10 C's that we live to, not the Spirit Himself. Therefore, when a Covenant Theologian reads Romans 7:13-24, he must believe Paul is describing the normal Christian life lived under the Law, rather than the life lived to the Law before being born again. Now, I agree with seekinglight that Christians sometimes lose sight of Jesus and go living to relgiious obligation for a time, and thus experience Rom. 7:13-24 when they shouldn't, but that is simply part of the same basic concept that living to religious obligation brings death, but living to Christ as He lives in us brings live. Because the Law is, in Covenant Theology and in Adventism, the eternal moral reality, the eternal and perfect expression of righteousness, then Covenant Theology and Adventism both take the first part of Rom 7:25 out of the Bible. "Who will save me from this body of death, [the body of death that tries to keep the Law's demands in order to achieve righteousness, but cannot]?" SDAism and Covenant Theology both answer: No one. Paul answers: "Jesus Christ Our Lord." I used a double negative in there that was a bit confusing: I didn't mean the 10 C's are written on the heart. I meant Covenant Theology cannot believe that the Christian is to live to the Spirit rather than Moses, so consequently in CT's view Rom 7:13-24 must be the regular life of a Christian. Covenant Theology is different from New Covenant Theology. Like Adventism, CT essentially says there is no such thing as a New Covenant. It says the New Covenant is merely the Old Covenant "re-newed." Or, in other words, righteousness by works is still the overriding theme, and grace is a sort of divine accident to get us back to achieving righteousness by works. CT is a false gospel, pure and simple, and the attemps by theologians to marry the "one covenant, two administrations" view to the gospel of Jesus Christ has failed misrably: If the law of condemnation is allowed to flow over into the life of the redeemed and uncondemned (Rom. 8:1) Christian, then the Gospel is of no effect. We are still condemned. NCT, in contrast, simply takes Paul and the Law at their words: The New Covenant is indeed New. The Old Covenant was to show people their condemnation, to take them through Rom. 7:13-24, to show them the need for the Cross of Christ in order to bring them to Rom. 7:25-8:1. The OC was fulfilled in Christ, nailed to the Cross forever. Now the Old Testament stands as a prophetic indication of Christ's coming, as tool for theology, but not a rule for life in the Spirit. Covenant Theology, like a lot of Christian ideas, came about because people were trying to build governments and institutions out of religionized Christianity, so they had to have a law-based system to do it. The Gospel is neither government nor religious institution. It is God's power to salvation for all who believe. (Message edited by bskillet on July 15, 2009) (Message edited by bskillet on July 15, 2009) | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 567 Registered: 7-2008  |
The gospel is simple enuff that even a child can understand it. So why all the controversy? Old covenant vs New covenant IS NOT the gospel. Yet many people here and at other forums pride themselves in their "understanding" of Covenant theology. I am not impressed at all. The Bible is the final authority on this issue..... Christ died so I can live with Him forever. I am a sinner. I need a Savior Christ is my savior, my only hope of salvation. He stands at the door of our heart and knocks. I accept His invitation and surrender my life to Him. The only Covenant that really matters is MY covenant relationship with MY creator. Simple as that !!!.Yet we have all these books and sermons concerning OC/NC theology. I refuse to be bothered with such things. I find the Bible to be sufficient enough to lead me to understand the love of God for me. Please quit making the gospel message so "technical". Keep it simple so others may come to a saving relationship with their creator....Thank you, ....Animal |
