| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2662
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 11:35 am: |     |
Praying for your sister, Lisa.
Colleen |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 463
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 12:34 pm: | |
EPICUREANISM: An Early Model of Adventism
This morning while reading some historical notes in my CEV "The Learning Bible," I found an interesting depiction of Epicureanism. Here are some excerpts found on pages 1724 & 1725:
"Epicureanism was founded in Athens by Epicurus, who lived about 342 to 270 B. C....They did not believe that fate or destiny ruled their lives; instead, they believed in free will. Since they did not believe that the gods influenced a person's life, they were considered by some to be atheists. For them, true pleasure came from living nobly and justly and with a healthy lifestyle. They believed intellectual pleasure was superior to bodily pleasure....they believed death was the end of existence."
I couldn't help but be reminded of Adventism as I read this description of the Epicureans living in the Roman Empire. For example, their views were very humanistic--a self-centered "me-me" paradigm. Unlike Reform theology, they apparently were proud to embrace the deception of having an unbiased, NEUTRAL free will (having no masters).
Similarly, after Ellen White reported having a health reform vision in 1863, she wrote two books against bodily pleasure; namely, "An Appeal to Mothers" (1864) and "Solemn Appeal" (1870). Furthermore, she likewise stressed intellectual and health pursuits (i.e., formal education, healthy lifestyle). The Epicureans, like the Adventists, also believed that in death one becomes non-existent. All in all, I find it fascinating to observe the parallels between these two groups.
Dennis J. Fischer |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2666
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 3:52 pm: | |
That is amazing, Dennis. There is a distinct parallel. I also appreciate your statement about their belief in a neutral free will. It's all so very interesting.
These surprising links and similarities between sects and "isms" separated by centureis or millennia remind me of Solomon's statement that there is no new thing under the sun. Evil has always been evil, and it will continue until Jesus destroys it along with the heavens and the earth at the end of time.
Praise God for Jesus' unrepeatable death and resurrection that intersected history and defeated the power of evil to own us!
Colleen |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 428
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 4:17 pm: | |
HAHAHA free will, now that's a laugh and a half!
As if an unregenerated spirit could and would choose Christ over sin...
Paul makes it plainly clear in Romans that we are ALL slaves. We are either in bondage to sin or to Christ. None of us are free in this regard, and never will be. We were created to serve. To quote Bob Dylan, "You gotta serve somebody"
And we can't even choose bondage to Christ unless the Spirit of God calls us to make that choice in the first place! Even that which we deem to be our own choice has its origin in a soverign act of God Almighty. |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 859
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 5:34 pm: | |
Amen Dennis, Colleen, and Brian! Arminianism is the religion of the natural man, and sadly it is the religion of much of modern Christendom. A dead corpse cannot resurrect himself, nor can a dead spirit. How many of us had anything to say about our natural births? Then how can we possibly have any say in the new birth of our spirits? You cannot ask to be born. The Triune God has birthed us from eternity past, and for that only God gets the glory!
Adventism, epicureanism, Arminianism are all cut out of the same cloth of heresy.
Stan |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 7:24 pm: | |
But how far do you take that? Are we puppets in God's virtual soap opera? Do we have any free choice that affects what God would have willed for our life had we done differently? How can we comprehend that God may not "choose" our children? Do we make peace that they go to hell? Though I'm certainly not arminian, and believe strongly that God draws us to himself, the rest gets fuzzy and almost makes me feel a degree of ambivolence if I really get no influence at all.... (though I know that my influence is not always the best....) the alternative is to believe God has wanted me to go through these tortureous decisions and I'd much rather think I live the results of my own bad choices than think God is playing a game and I have to accept the situation for better and worse. I hope that doesn't sound too disrespectful...it's just my honest, non-sugarcoated ponderings. |
Marcell
Registered user
Username: Marcell
Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 7:32 am: | |
Please, Stan, I respectfully ask you to be careful with the 'heresy' term. If the opposite of Calvinism is Arminianism, then I'll take Arminianism. Calvinism has a horrible history, and a horrible pre-supposition.
Bottom line is that God is not constrained or defined by our terminology. Moderate Arminianism is completely within the mainstream of Christian thought, and being a Calvinist is certainly not one of the tests of faith, or an 'essential'. Not by a long shot.
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 866
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 9:07 am: | |
Marcell,
I did not say Calvinism is a test of orthodoxy. Arminianinism leads to much more heresy than Calvinism. Most of the great teachers of our time including J.Vernon McGee, MacArthur, Packer, Sproul,John Piper, Charles Spurgeon and most of the Dallas Theological seminary mainstream including Swindoll, believe in monergistic regeneration, that is God is solely responsible for saving us. I know we may not like it, but that is what the Bible teaches. Catholicism, Adventism, and much of evangelical fundamentalism is Arminian. Now, I ask, who has the better history? All those groups teach that man somehow helps God with our salvation.
Having said all that, there are many great and true Christians in the above mentioned groups. I am only judging the basic theological suppositions and how they square with the Bible.
I am unaware of the bad history behind Luther and Calvin, Marcell, even though they were not perfect, I will take their theology any day over what I was brought up in.
Stan
|
Marcell
Registered user
Username: Marcell
Post Number: 61
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 10:08 am: | |
Of course you are entitled to your beliefs.
I believe that there is a great difference between believing that we 'help' God with our salvation, and that we choose to recieve, as a free gift, our salvation, which we are of course only able to do with the consistent prompting of the Holy Spirit. Once again, I think it is best to remember that God is NOT defined by any terminology we apply to how He operates.
P.S. Having actually attended John Piper's church, I can tell you all is not what it seems and I would advise caution. |
Marcell
Registered user
Username: Marcell
Post Number: 62
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 10:14 am: | |
Pheeki,
After my recent bout with propaganda sending relatives, I am curious if you decided to respond to your brother. For myself, I think I will choose to not respond again. It was just me throwing Pearls in that case. It's almost like someone sending you porn in your email. eeeuuuwww.
Marcell |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2669
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 11:00 am: | |
I also see a difference between helping with our salvation and responding with "Yes" to Jesus.
The Bible is clear that God's sovereign will is at work in our salvation; "We were by nature objects of wrath, but because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ WHEN WE WERE DEAD IN TRANSGRESSIONS. It is by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:4-5).
We certainly can't choose to become alive while we are spiritualy dead. We don't have any choice but to remain dead.
The Bible is also clear that we can look right at Jesus, know who He is, and decide to reject him. The Pharisees in Matthew 12:22-32 did this when they accredited Jesus' miracles to the power of Satan. Jesus told them they had committed the unpardonable sin by blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
The warnings in Hebrews are for people in this positsion. In Hebrews 10:26-31 the writer points out that if the penalty for breaking the Mosaic law was death, how much more dreadful will it be for those who have "treated an an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified [them], and who [have] insulted the Spirit of grace"?
The parable of the seeds is, once again, helpful to me. Clearly there were plants that grew up from the seeds that landed on the rocky soil and in the weeds. Some even looked wonderful and healthy, but when the heat came, they withered, or they were choked to death by the cares of the world. They did not root deeply, so they could not stand up under life's assaults.
Jesus explained this parable by explaining what kinds of people each represented. I believe each of us, in order to be brought to be able even to consider accepting the gospel, must be wooed by the Holy Spirit. Romans 1 clarifies that God makes sure that all men are without excuse because God Himself takes resonsibility for giving each person the necessary revelation of His sovereign presence and power that would make it possible for him to want to know Him.
Many people flirt with the gospel and give mental assent to it without surrendering in a true faith commitment. Those are the ones who die.
Here's the paradox: No one can be saved apart from God's sovereign call and regeneration. Romans and Ephesians (and other places, too) clearly teach God's election and predestination before creation. We have to believe the Bible means what it says, or we have no dependable foundation. Romans 8:28-30 are unmistakable regarding this fact, as is Ephesians 1:4, 11-12, etc.
At the same time, Romans, for example, clearly teaches that all men are without excuse, and Acts 16:30-31 says the way to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus. (There are many other texts representing both sides of this paradox.)
I have to conclude that I cannot explain this fact fully. I have to trust God. My trust must include that God foreknows and calls those who are His. My trust must also include that I am to make disciples and share the gospel. Further, my trust must include the fact that I must actively say "Yes" to Jesus.
I believe we have no free choice outside the quickening power of the Holy Spirit. We are not born able to choose either right or wrong. We are born "by nature objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:4).
I have to hold these facts in some tension, trusting that in Christ the paradox actually makes a seamless whole. I can't expect to know how God does these things, I just know from His word that all of it is true. I've come to see the question of God's sovereignty and my choice as two parts of a whole, but I just can't see the whole.
It's a bit like the illustration I've read in Hugh Ross (there's that controversial name again!). If I observe a blank screen or sheet and suddenly see a protrusion in it, something from behind poking it toward me in one spot, I assume that there is one thing I can't see but whose effect I can observe. Now suppose there is suddenly a second protrusion from behind--and then a third. The protrusions all want to interact with me. I don't know what they are, but they are aware of me.
If I were able to look behnd the screen, however, I would see that each of those protrusion was a finger attached to a single hand. They really were not three unrelated objects; they were part of a bigger whole I just couldn't see.
Ross uses this illustration to explain our veiled view of the Trinity--three distinct person, each of whom interacts with us and each of whom we experience--but one God.
This illustration also helps me understand some of the Biblical paradoxes I can't fully understand because I'm stuck inside time with no physical (not spiritual!) access to eternity yet.
I believe God's absolute foreknowledge and calling of His elect from before the creation of the world it 100% true. I also believe that He truly leaves no room for man's excuse. We all come to points where we are faced with the decision to walk in truth or to walk in denial. How these two are parts of a unifed whole, I can't explain. I have to accept them both, however, because the Bible teaches them both.
I just know that I am aware that God called me; I did not decide to find Him by dissecting Adventism and thus discovering Him. Yes, I did study. Yes, I did ask questions that drove me to investigate. Yes, God prompted me to do those things. I think most of us would agree that we are aware that God called us; our knowing Him is completely a miracle of grace.
But I did not spiritually awaken myself by deciding to pursue God. God had to awaken me before I had a drive to know the truth. God's sovereignty overarches all our choices--which do have eternal consequences.
It all from Him! Praise God for His paradoxes.
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 867
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 12:58 pm: | |
Marcell,
Since you attended Piper's church, I am curious to hear what you have to say. Do you mean that he is really not a Calvinist? I don't agree with him on his view of Sabbath transference, which he is going to expand upon on his next sermon that will be posted at www.desiringgod.org But Piper's work on enjoying God is just overpoweringly great, especially with his new book "God is the Gospel".
I second what Colleen said above. True belief in sovereignty does not deny human responsibility so that we are "puppets"{ as Melissa alluded to above) It is just a great mystery this salvation doctrine, but all we can do is trust God's justice and mercy.
My statement about Arminianism being heretical is a reference to Charles Spurgeon's famous sermon on Calvinism at www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm where he says"What is the heresy of Arminianism? It is adding to the work of the Redeemer. There are various gradations of this, and Adventism started in Wesley Methodism which is Arminianism. It is because of these roots that I might appear more polemical than I actually am. Even Spurgeon recognized that even though he despised Wesley's theology, he said that Wesley would be much greater in the Kingdom than he would be. Individual Arminians are not heretics, but the theological system that says that we contribute anything to our salvation leads to all kinds of problems.
Stan |
|
