You are not logged in.
Martin Luther vs. SDA’s
Question for Tom Norris:
I am a Seventh Day Adventist and I believe that God has led me to this website to contact you. I am currently an undergraduate student at Augustana College in Rock Island, IL. I am taking a class on Martin Luther, which covers his life, thought, and legacy/influence on more recent theologians. I had decided to take this class because the Great Controversy covers Martin Luther. I believed that if Ellen White thought Luther was important enough to write 2 chapters on him, then his writings should speak Truth.
Truth, if the SDA church had truth we would be growing in an exponential rate. This is not the case though so I wanted to find the problem. One issue that bothered me was the subject of the Gospel. Every time I asked myself ‘What is the Gospel’ I could never come up with an answer. It was not until after reading a selection of Luther’s texts, I have a sense of what the true gospel is.
Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans 1522, revised 1546 proves this to me. This being a recent event, I still need to read Romans myself.
In the beginning of the term, my professor gave us a heads up for a final project. It was to relate Luther’s writings to anything relating to the present. I decided that because the Seventh Day Adventist church and Martin Luther both claim Sola Scriptura, I would have my project compare and contrast Martin Luther’s Theology with the SDA’s Theology.
When I went to the SDA website and looked at our fundamental beliefs, it looked like there are no differences except that Luther does not mention the 3 angels messages and prophetic ideas, though one of my books makes me believe that Luther was very aware of prophesy.
Today, I goggled sda criticism on Luther and quickly ended up here
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … -SDA-s.htm
What you explain does not only support my beliefs of Luther and his theology, but also supports my beliefs as to what is truly important for our church and the world. To make sure that you where a reliable source I checked your profile and found myself at Adventist Reform. I have never heard of this before but from what I have read from your introductory note, you are trying to bring the church back to the truth.
It is my belief that God led me to this college, to this class, to these conclusions before reading any of your writings, to this website, all in order to find the Truth. This is no coincidence, for it is my belief that a new movement is on its way.
As for my question, sorry for the long introduction:
I originally wanted to conclude my project by saying “if Luther were alive today he would probably be a Seventh Day Adventist.” My thoughts of this have dramatically changed after reading your answer.
So I now want to say ‘The SDA church began as a church Luther would be a part of but it eventually pointed the wrong direction’. I would like to somehow parallel this with the early church “protochristians”--Roman Catholic Church and a greater emphasis on the American Lutheran Church, Luther--Americanized Lutherans.
Are there any texts that you would suggest for me? Are there texts where Luther discusses bible Prophesy? Do you think Luther would be a SDA if it followed the Protestant Gospel?
If I said anything in heading in the wrong direction or if you have any comments in general, please let me know.
God Bless,
Alex
--------------------------------------------------
Answer: Alex, good to meet an honest searcher for truth!
Eternal life is the grand prize for all that embrace the correct Gospel. But with so many versions being promoted today, how can anyone know truth? Only those that study the Word with open and humble hearts will find truth. Only those that are prepared to be honest with church history and confess their false doctrines can understand and be saved. So be alert, and stick close to the facts at all times.
Many within the SDA Community are content to live a Laodicean life based upon myth, delusion, and doctrinal self-deception. The leaders are especially guilty of this fatal Pharisaical mindset that prevents the truth of the Gospel from being understood and embraced. Such spiritual blindness denies the obvious need for repentance and reform, and the Advent Movement is self-destructing as a result.
Good to see that you are wide awake to the possibilities of Gospel Reform within Adventism. Many are reaching the same conclusion. So I welcome you to a growing number that demand Adventist Reform.
As for how Luther would rate the SDA’s, this is an interesting and instructive question. There are some points where they agree, but many more where they do not.
First, Adventist theology is a Protestant paradigm. The 1st Angels Message features the Protestant Gospel, as well as the Judgment, which is only the Second Coming. Luther would have no problem with such theology.
But understand this; Luther would denounce the doctrine of the IJ, that the SDA’s added to their articulation of the 3rd Angels Message. He would say that the Judgment in Rev 14: 7 is only the Second Coming and never the IJ, which is a false and incorrect doctrine.
Miller understood Luther’s Gospel as well as the literalism of the Second Coming as the Day of Judgment. This is why Miller, a Baptist, refused to embrace post millennialism, which had no Judgment, or the Holiness Movement that was also rampant in his day. Unlike his contemporary critic Charles Finney, Miller understood that no one would ever reach any level of sanctification or perfection before the Second Coming.
So Luther would not have a problem with Miller’s Gospel, or JUDGEMENT but he would have repudiated Finney’s, Sanctification oriented theology in the most blunt terms possible, as well as his eschatology.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
Although the SDA’s adopted Miller’s correct Gospel theology, including his interpretation that only the Second Coming was the Judgment in Rev 14: 7, they soon back peddled on the Gospel. Why? Because of the Sabbath. In their efforts to unmask Sunday as a fraud, they became legalistic. Just like the first century Jews in the NT.
The SDA’s have been legalists for most of their history. While Waggoner and Ellen White tried to correct this during the 1888 period, they failed. And the church self-destructed and moved to Takoma Park as a consequence.
In the 20th century, Dr. Desmond Ford tried to once again bring the SDA’s back to the correct Gospel of Paul and Luther. But the leaders repudiated the Gospel for all to see at Glacier View, and once again the church self-destructed.
Luther would see this history and understand immediately that the SDA’s were acting like Peter and James in the book of Galatians. He would react like Paul and condemn them for their hypocrisy and false doctrine.
If the SDA’s want to complete the Protestant Reformation, they must first better understand Luther and the Gospel, because at this point they understand neither. Luther condemns the SDA Gospel, and no one should think otherwise.
Luther & the SDA’s Agree
Although Luther would hotly condemn the modern SDA view of the Gospel and the Judgment, there is another point where Luther and the SDA’s agree. It is the controversial doctrine about State of the Dead. The SDA’s are correct, and so too is Luther, who embraced it long ago.
Many SDA’s give credit for this doctrinal discovery to George Storrs and to James White’s and Bate’s because of their association with the Christian Connection. Luther seemed to play no role. Note the following SDA view of this doctrinal development:
Deacon Henry Grew of Philadelphia became a believer in conditional immortality while serving as a Baptist preacher. He later wrote a tract on the subject, which was read by George Storrs, a Methodist preacher, in 1837. Storrs then wrote his own tract in 1841, and published six sermons on the subject in 1842. Copies of his six sermons eventually amounted to 200,000, and even reached England.
Just after their publication he heard of Miller’s teachings and became a Millerite preacher himself. He preached to thousands in New York, Indiana, and Ohio. A number of Millerite ministers joined with him in his belief on conditional immortality.
Miller, Josiah Litch, I. E. Jones, and the Signs of the Times all came out against his views on conditional immortality, so his views were anything but unanimously held. But the point is that the idea of conditional immortality was definitely introduced before a consensus was reached among Sabbatarian Adventists regarding the investigative judgment. See Froom, vol. 4, pp. 805-807; Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 300-315.
Joseph Bates and James White were members of the Christian Connection, which “as a body rejected the inherent-immortality-of-the-soul-position.” Ibid., pp. 283, 672, 675. Bates and James were therefore acquainted with the idea long before Storrs introduced the subject among Millerites.
Today, because of advanced Lutheran research, the SDA’s are now starting to use Luther, even as they cite Dante, Wycliff, and Tyndale to buttress their correct position about death.
http://www.signsofthetimes.org.au/archi … cle10.shtm
While the SDA’s misunderstand Luther on the Gospel, and many other things, it is a fact that they are in agreement with him about the state of the dead. (Although few know this.) But unless the SDA’s can come around to Luther’s position on the Gospel, it will do them no good. Sinners are saved by the Gospel, not by any belief about the state of the dead.
For the record, here is some more information about Luther. Most people have no idea that Luther has the same exact view as the SDA’s. Most people are very wrong about this doctrine, and it is one of the few places where the SDA’s get good marks for doctrine.
Luther and Death
In Luther’s day, there was debate about the soul. In fact, in 1516, an Italian professor that denied the immortality of the soul wrote a popular book on the topic. The Inquisition burned the book and repudiated this position. However, the very next year, 1517, Luther posted his famous 95 Theses. And guess what? Number 27 deals with this topic.
# 27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm
From the very beginning of Luther’s Reforms, he understood that the Word does not teach that the souls of the dead are transported anywhere, much, much less from purgatory. This was only the beginning of his correct position about death that would become more clear and articulated over time. Note this:
The immediate cause of Luther’s stand on the sleep of the soul was the issue of purgatory, with its postulate of the conscious torment of anguished souls. While Luther is not always consistent, the predominant note running all through his writings is that souls sleep in peace, without consciousness or pain.
The Christian dead are not aware of anything—see not, feel not, understand not, and are not conscious of passing events. Luther held and periodically stated that in the sleep of death, as in normal physical sleep, there is complete unconsciousness and unawareness of the condition of death or the passage of time.† Death is a deep, sound, sweet sleep.‡ And the dead will remain asleep.
The Lutheran scholar Dr. T. A. Kantonen; The Christian Hope, 1594, p. 37, likewise referred to Luther’s position in these words:
“Luther, with a greater emphasis on the resurrection, preferred to concentrate on the scriptural metaphor of sleep. For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, ‘we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death.’” “We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, ‘Doctor Martin, get up!’ Then I shall rise in a moment, and be with him forever.’”
†See "Auslegung des ersten Buches Mose, 1544 in Schriften, vol. 1, col. 1756; Kirchen-Postille,1528, in Schriften, vol. 11, col. 1143; Schriften, vol. 2, col. 1069; Deutsche Schriften, Erlangen ed., vol. 11, p. 142ff. vol. 41 1525, p. 373.
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/luther-tyndale.htm
Here is Luther; in 1528, speaking about death in a famous sermon about the “True Bread of heaven.” It is taken from volume III of, The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI. It was originally published in 1907 in English by Lutherans In All Lands, Minneapolis, MN, in a series titled The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 12.
Note Luther’s words:
13. The bread from heaven the fathers ate in the wilderness, as Christ says here, was powerless to keep them from dying; but this bread makes immortal. If we believe on Christ, death cannot harm us; yea, it is no longer death. The Lord utters the same truth in another passage when he says to the Jews: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my Word, he shall never see death.” John 8:51. Here he speaks definitely of the Word of faith, and of the Gospel.
14. But one may say, as did the Jews, who took offense at these words of the Lord: The saints, nevertheless, died, and Abraham and the prophets likewise died. We reply to this: The death of Christians is only a sleep, as the Scriptures everywhere call it.
A Christian neither tastes nor sees death; that is, he is never conscious of any death; for this Saviour, Christ Jesus, in whom he believes, has destroyed death so that he no longer needs to taste it and pay its penalty.
Death is to the Christians only a transition of life, yea, a door to life: as Christ says in John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my Word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life., and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/sermons.vii.iv.html
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/ … nfaith.htm
Luther was obsessed with death all his life. His brother died of Plague, even as death was a very common, feared, and expected event during this time period. So he spoke of death often, along with the resurrection.
For example, in 1532, Luther preached the funeral sermon for the late Duke John of Saxony. He preached on 1Thess 4: 13-14, a well used text at all SDA funerals.
Luther went on to compare Christ’s death with ours, and concluded that ours was nothing more than sleep.
In fact, Luther coined a new phrase for those who died in Christ. He called them “holy sleepers.” Christ death was the real death, while ours is only sleep. For Luther, Christ’s death devoured all other deaths.
Consequently, Luther told his audience: “Do not look at the dead body of the prince before you, but look at the death of Christ, through which our death is destroyed, so that we see this prince, not lying smelly in the coffin and grave, but in Christ.”
Luther then called him a “holy sleeper.” One who is saved by the Gospel, awaiting the resurrection.
Luther went on to say that our physical death is a “baby death;” it is only half a death. Thus, Luther said that “we shouldn’t even call them dead people-- but sleepers, in such a deep sleep that they won’t even dream.”
Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, Edited by Donald K McKim, Cambridge University Press 2003, pp 145-146, by Fred Meuser
Here is a RC web site that is hostile to Luther. They acknowledge his position that death is a “deep, strong, sweet sleep,” but refute it as heresy. But they are wrong; Luther and the SDA’s have the truth on this point.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/02/ … -soul.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num10.htm
Luther is the real Protestant source for the SDA doctrine of soul sleep, (Calvin does not agree). Even though most Protestants do not accept his view, or even know about Luther’s position. But the SDA’s have it correct, even if they failed to understand that the great Luther was far ahead of them on this point of doctrine, (like on the Gospel).
Luther risked his life to support his position on death because the Church had taken the opposite view. Thus, his position was branded “heresy,” even before he reached such a conclusion.
Rome Declares Soul Immortal
On December 19, 1513, in connection with the eighth session of the fifth Lateran Council, Pope Leo X issued a Bull (Apostolici regimis), declaring, “We do condemn and reprobate all who assert that the intelligent soul is mortal.”
“Damnamus et reprobamus omnes assertentes animam intellectivam mortalem esse.”
This decree was directed against the growing “heresy” of those who denied the natural immortality of the soul, and avowed the conditional immortality of man. The Bull also claimed “all who adhere to the like erroneous assertions shall be shunned and punished as heretics.”
Then, on October 31, 1517, Luther posted his famous Theses on the church door in Wittenberg. In his 1520 published Defense of 41 of his propositions; Luther cited the pope’s immortality declaration, as among “those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals,” a reference to proposition 27.
So let no one tell you that Luther and the SDA’s do not agree on this point. They do indeed. The fact of the matter is that Luther correctly embraced the position of soul sleep. Which is why scholars today conclude the following:
“The immediate cause of Luther’s stand on the sleep of the soul was the issue of purgatory, with its postulate of the conscious torment of anguished souls. While Luther is not always consistent, the predominant note running all through his writings is that souls sleep in peace, without consciousness or pain.”
The Christian dead are not aware of anything—see not, feel not, understand not, and are not conscious of passing events. Luther held and periodically stated that in the sleep of death, as in normal physical sleep, there is complete unconsciousness and unawareness of the condition of death or the passage of time.”
† “Death is a deep, sound, sweet sleep.‡ And the dead will remain asleep.”
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/luther-tyndale.htm
Luther & the SDA’s
While Luther and the SDA’s agree about the doctrine of soul sleep, he totally refutes their view of the Gospel, which is a core metric to define all Protestant theology. In fact, not only does Luther repudiate their Sabbatarian legalism, he has entered into their 19th century discussions on the topic and tested them for all to see.
How did Luther become involved with the SDA’s? Luther’s theology lay at the heart of the failed 1888 debates that destroyed the Battle Creek Empire. It was his Commentary on Galatians that started the great debates and turned Uriah Smith and Ellen White into lifelong enemies.
In fact, it was Luther’s writings about the law and the Gospel that was used by E. J. Waggoner to infuriate the leaders. Waggoner created a great schism within the SDA church because he stood with Luther about how the law and the Gospel should be defined. This placed him in direct opposition to Uriah Smith and most all of the SDA leaders that had embraced a Roman Catholic view of salvation.
Luther was at the center of this uproar that few SDA’s understand correctly. He has already tested the SDA’s and they have failed. They do not understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants correctly, or the law and the Gospel. So no wonder most all of what they teach is wrong.
The fact of the matter is this: Luther’s correct definition of the Gospel, as contained in his great Commentary on Galatians, was rejected by the leaders. Even though Ellen White supported Luther’s view, and urged a doctrinal change on this point, they leaders would not admit they were wrong. As a result, both Waggoner and Ellen White were exiled for their failed attempt to separate the law from the Gospel as Luther correctly taught.
So Luther would be furious at the SDA’s for what they did in 1888 and what they have since gone on to do at Glacier View in 1980. Here Dr. Ford stood up for Luther’s Gospel, but the SDA’s are famous for being like the Jews, and they once again rejected the only truth that can save them.
Today, the SDA’s stand in open rebellion against Luther and the fundamentals that define the Protestant Faith. They no longer represent the Pioneers, much less Jesus and the Apostles. They are truly blind and wretched.
Long List of Errors
Luther would demand that the SDA make the necessary corrections to their false theology or stop pretending that they are Christians.
Luther would also condemn them for their hierarchical church structure that is strictly forbidden by the NT, even as he would mock their reliance on Old Covenant tithe paying, which has no basis in the New Covenant. What arrogance and blasphemy it is for them to claim to be like the Temple “storehouse” for the church. There is no such doctrine as tithe in the church.
Luther would further condemn them for their incorrect hermeneutic that gives doctrinal authority to Ellen White’s writings. (This is something that Ellen White never approved). He would be livid with their double-talking clergy that preaches propaganda and worthless drivel every week. Luther would not be fooled by the SDA’s at all, and neither should anyone else.
Luther would also condemn the SDA’s for their absurd and outrageous view that wine in the Bible is grape juice. He would call them fools for teaching such utter nonsense and myth.
This means that SDA’s do not even know how to celebrate the Lord’s Supper properly. They think they are so smart, but they have made fools of themselves for all to see. They have much to repent about, but they have no intention of doing any such thing. There is good money in playing church.
In conclusion, Luther would NOT BE AN SDA TODAY. He would demand that the SDA church embrace Gospel Reform or stand condemned at the Judgment Day of the Second Coming.
He would demand that they repudiate the IJ and re-organize their entire organization.
He would quickly understand that the SDA’s are following the same incorrect theology as the Christian Pharisees of the Circumcision Party that battled so fiercely against Paul’s Gospel. He would comprehend that the SDA zeal for the Moral law has led them into great heresy, just like it did with the apostles Peter and James as recorded in Galatians.
Galatians is the downfall of the SDA’s. This book exposes their false Gospel in no uncertain terms, which is why they refuse to understand their own debates about this book that has caused them so much trouble. This is why they are so ashamed about 1888. They don’t want the Adventist Community to know that they have repudiated the Gospel.
It is clear that the SDA’s have turned their back on Luther’s clear and correct position about the law and the Gospel. Unless they repent for 1888 and for Glacier View, they will continue to self-destruct in myth and cultic false doctrine.
I trust that this helps with your study, even as it helps everyone to understand that the SDA’s must embrace Gospel Reform if they want to play a worthwhile role in the final events.
The Advent mission to prepare the church for the Second Coming is a noble one that Luther would embrace. But without correct theology, it is all a great waste of time. Without repentance and Gospel Reform, the SDA’s are doomed like all others.
There must be a Protestant Reformation within the Adventist Community. There must be Gospel Reform within the SDA church.
Tom Norris for All Experts.com and Adventist Reform
Offline
Tom, after all that, you mention nothing of:
1. The Discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. Would Luther have been one of the original NCTers, believing in Jesus as the True Rest for our souls or cling to Sunday as the fulfillment of the Chistian Sabbath?
2. The Essence of the Soul - Note in 1 Thess
1 Thess 4:13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.
If one studies the WHOLE Bible on this topic, the essence of the righteous dead returns with Jesus Christ. Who else can restore them to the original selves, only without sin?? Is it a sould sleep, probably, but Christ has retained their essence for this moment.
3. Neither you nor Luther, unless I have not seen it in some nook and cranny of both your writings, ever talked of the standard of life for the saved&; Christian. No mention of Paul's standard he said he was still under, Christ's Law. What is it, and is it legalistic of Paul to say he is under it??? Is it the Decalogue II, or the New Covenant, with new tenets???
4. Sanctification - What of the race to run, the fight to be fought? You mention none of it. I believe SDAism has a place in Christendom's history if they can get this right. Luther, did he have it right??? Not so sure???
Offline
Tom, after all that, you mention nothing of: 1. The Discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants.
Bob there is no such “disconnect” between the Old and New Covenants as you suppose. You have made a great theological blunder to think otherwise.
Bob asked: Would Luther have been one of the original NCTers, believing in Jesus as the True Rest for our souls or cling to Sunday as the fulfillment of the Christian Sabbath?
Luther was not a follower of Marcion. You are!
Luther never repudiated the Moral law, even as he embraced the weekly Sabbath because it was part of the Moral law given to the Jews by God.
The fact that is was Sunday, was not an issue for him, because it was still based on the 3rd Commandment. (4th for P’s.) He viewed it as a time for all to hear the Word of God. It was duty for the church, just like all the rest of the Moral law. (But duty and law for Luther were not salvific like it was for the RC’s.)
Bob said: If one studies the WHOLE Bible on this topic, the essence of the righteous dead returns with Jesus Christ.
Luther CORRECTLY concluded that the Bible teaches “soul sleep.” Go back and read what was posted. Your view of “soul essence” is wrong. Luther is correct and so too are the SDA’s. This is one of their most correct doctrines. It is a true Pillar within the Three Angels Messages, and so it will always be.
Bob said: Neither you nor Luther, unless I have not seen it in some nook and cranny of both your writings, ever talked of the standard of life for the saved Christian.
Luther wrote much about Sanctification. You must not have looked very hard. Just as you have not understood his position on the law or soul sleep correctly. Just Google Luther and Sanctification and do some research.
As for me, Sanctification is also a valid doctrine that is beyond refute. But those that confuse it with the Gospel have contaminated this wonderful doctrine that is all about growing in grace and knowledge and virtue.
1Pet. 3:8 To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;
1Pet. 3:9 not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.
1Pet. 3:10 For, “THE ONE WHO DESIRES LIFE, TO LOVE AND SEE GOOD DAYS,
MUST KEEP HIS TONGUE FROM EVIL AND HIS LIPS FROM SPEAKING DECEIT.
1Pet. 3:11 “HE MUST TURN AWAY FROM EVIL AND DO GOOD;
HE MUST SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT.
1Pet. 3:12 “FOR THE EYES OF THE LORD ARE TOWARD THE RIGHTEOUS, AND HIS EARS ATTEND TO THEIR PRAYER, BUT THE FACE OF THE LORD IS AGAINST THOSE WHO DO EVIL.”
Without JBF, which is the heart of the Gospel, there is no worthwhile or true Sanctification, which represents the law. So the real secret to correct living is the Gospel, not the law. Today, the church has neither correct.
Only when the law and the Gospel are understood correctly, and in the context of the Judgment and the Second Coming, will the church be able to truly become a sanctified people. Right now the Laodiceans are only pretending. They are neither Justified nor Sanctified, and unless they repent and reform, they will stay in their doomed position forever.
Bob said: I believe SDAism has a place in Christendom's history if they can get this right.
We all have a place in the Kingdom of God if we can understand the proper relationship between the law and the Gospel.
The SDA’s are correct about the fact that Sunday is a fraud and also about soul sleep, but they are wrong about the Gospel and many other things. They are even wrong about the definition of the Three Angels Messages!
So yes, I agree that if they can embrace the Gospel and the law correctly, and repent for Traditional Adventism and for how they have abused and manipulated Ellen White and the Word, -then Advent Movement will soar.
If they return to their ORIGINAL version of the Three Angels Messages and get serious about contemporary eschatology, people will flock to see a comprehensive theological package that makes sense in the 21st century.
The SDA’s today have a wonderful opportunity to re-energize the Advent Movement and Reform the church into something worthwhile and salvific. But so far, their corrupt leaders are blocking the way.
Bob asked: Luther, did he have it right??? Not so sure???
Luther is the one that penetrated the complex theological fraud of the RCC Gospel and gave the real Gospel to the world. Thus, he was correct to separate the law from the Gospel, which is foundational to all Protestant theology. All should praise the great Luther and thank God for him.
Luther did not remove the Moral law, nor do away with Sanctification or obedience. He separated the Gospel from the law and thus repudiated the RC Gospel that blends the two together in a lifelong process of probation and uncertainty. Just like the false Gospel of TA.
Luther was correct to make such a separation. But his view of the law was wrong as to the Sabbath. This was a minor error that has been left for others to correct. In fact, this is what the SDB’s and the SDA’s have been trying to do for many years. Thus the way has been paved for the major revelation that there is a Gospel Sabbath for the church. The church is primed to understand that the Gospel is a Semitic paradigm and that the Gentile control the Gospel is past.
Luther would have liked such a concept as the Gospel Sabbath, even as he would have to admit the truth that Sunday is a RC fraud.
What a pity that the SDA’s became like the Jews? They too embraced the law to the exclusion of the Gospel. They too became legalistic and refused to subordinate the law to the Gospel. This great error resulted in two major schisms in both the 19th and 20th centuries.
But guess what?
There is one more schism left. It will take place in the 21st century and it is almost here. Those that are left in the SDA church today will be stunned to discover that most everything they thought was true is not. They will be shocked to know that their leaders have been perpetrating a massive fraud about both doctrine and church history. Thus the public call for the leaders to repent for their many false doctrines will divide the church and cause another uproar. And of course, Ellen White will be at the center of all this.
So there is a lot of excitement in store for Adventists. Even though the church appears dead and useless today, there is great power and potential in the prophetic paradigm of the Three Angels Messages. No one should count the SDA’s out just yet.
I hope this helps,
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
If Luther was so right, why his position on the purging of the Jews from Germany. Hitler followed the message of Luther, using it as an excuse for his position on the Jews. Beside having a nasty mouth, his position on the Jews puts him right up there with Calvin's erroneous positions. Just because Luther hits a few notes you like, it is like a battery opperated clock who's battery is dead, but has the right time at least twice a day, eh????
Offline
"If Luther was so "right", why his position on the purging of the Jews from Germany. Hitler followed the message of Luther, using it as an excuse for his position on the Jews. Beside having a nasty mouth, his position on the Jews puts him right up there with Calvin's erroneous positions. Just because Luther hits a few notes you like, it is like a battery opperated clock who's battery is dead, but has the right time at least twice a day, eh????"
You hit the nail right on the head there Bob.If Luther was to start a true reformation of the Church he would have had to backtrack to "square one" as depicted in Acts 2:44-47 and Acts 4:31-35.
Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
They would have had to return to their first love, as was told the Church at Ephesus, which was laying down their lives from the worlds system and living of one heart and one mind in unity for each other where the Holy Spirit dwelled in the Body.
The Church did not do that and having the "Candlestick"(Holy Spirit) removed it evolved into the corrupt Roman Catholic Church with "another Jesus", "another spirit" and "another gospel", and all that do not return to their "first love" are her daughters in apostacy. The Holy Spirit can not/will not dwell in division.
The Head, Jesus, is always connected to the Body through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In this you will pass the litmus test of 1st, 2nd and 3rd John. One heart, one mind, in total unity,"on Earth as it is in Heaven".
1John 3:14
We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
1John 4:12,13
12 If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
13Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1John 2:15,16
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Offline
Bob said: If Luther was so right, why his position on the purging of the Jews from Germany?
For the sake of argument, let’s assume Luther was wrong. But your attempt to slander and denigrate him still fails.
Why? Because there is error all around. No one is free from it, except Christ. So the issue is not about what Luther got wrong, but what he got right. This is the point. The object is not to embrace errors, but truth.
This is how SDA’s treat everyone. They try to find fault with all others, even as they can claim to be free from error. But this is all wrong. Luther has forgotten more correct doctrine than the SDA’s have ever understood. So you need to back away from the bad habits that you picked up as an SDA.
By your logic, we should not read Paul or trust anything he says. Why? Because he was the Grand Inquisitor for the Jews, against the 1st century Jewish Church. Paul was like a little Hitler as tried to wipe out all those Jews that followed the crucified Jew, Jesus.
Paul persecuted the Jewish Church and made war against the Gospel. This is the greatest of all errors, far worse than anything that Luther may have said about the unbelieving Jews.
Thus by your logic we should say: “If Paul was so ‘right’, why did he want to purge the Christians from Jerusalem and Israel?”
The same goes for Peter and all the apostles. They were very wrong, many times, about many things, even the Gospel.
So by your logic, we can dismiss the entire NT because the authors all made errors. Thus the OT must be disregarded because those men also made many errors and mistakes.
Do you see how absurd your position has turned out to be?
Luther’s was a brilliant scholar and University professor. He was a talented and sharp debater, as well as a genius when it comes to theology and the doctrine of the Gospel. He was even a talented musician.
No one ever said his views toward the Jews were without error, or that he never made any errors. The fact the he embraced the Sunday Sabbath proves that he does not understand how the Jews fit into church doctrine and eschatology. But so what? No one is saved by how they treat the Jews? That is not the definition of the Gospel.
Why slam Luther for a minor point, when he has so many major contributions to share? This makes no sense and you need to apologize to Luther and start viewing him with much more respect. He is far smarter than most all theologians today.
Bob said: Hitler followed the message of Luther, using it as an excuse for his position on the Jews.
Absurd. Hitler never understood nor embraced the Gospel. He used all religion for his own twisted ends.
Bob said: Beside having a nasty mouth, his position on the Jews puts him right up there with Calvin's erroneous positions.
The perceived flaws in one’s character are beside the point. Unless of course you are an SDA perfectionist, in which case, to have a “nasty mouth” would keep one out of Heaven.
But for those that understand the Gospel, Luther is still a great man, nasty mouth and all. In fact, just because you may be offended at his course language directed at the Pope, do not assume that heaven was blushing. Hardly. They stood up and cheered when the mighty Luther castigated the man of sin. You need to grow up and learn what kind of behavior matters to heaven and what does not.
The great men of the Bible had nasty mouths, active libidos, and sharp swords. Some, like David were killing machines. They were hardly polite and without error or sin.
I wonder what kind of profanity David spoke in battle as he slaughtered thousands? No doubt there was some very nasty talk during these very nasty conflicts. But yet, David was a great man by the standards of heaven. And so too is Luther. You have seriously misjudged the situation.
Bob said: Just because Luther hits a few notes you like, it is like a battery operated clock who's battery is dead, but has the right time at least twice a day, eh????
Luther not only hit the right Gospel notes, he composed a Gospel symphony that changed the world. His Gospel Opus is still making heavenly music and challenging all to understand religion better.
In fact, Luther has set the church and the nations on a very different and improved path, even though many today have no idea about his many contributions to theology and world events. The very fact that England broke away from Rome was because of Luther, and so too is the fact that both Kings and Pontiffs no longer rule the nations.
So you should thank Luther for freedom and democracy, not slam him for his faults.
In fact, Luther is also to blame for injecting the Gospel into the SDA Denomination in the late 19th century. It was his views on the law and the Gospel in Galatians that started the infamous 1888 debates that brought down the Battle Creek Empire. Few know this fact.
Luther is the one that caused all this trouble for SDA’s and he is not sorry in the least. He will not relent until every Protestant group understands the Gospel, or at least is confronted with the facts of the Gospel.
Consequently, until the SDA’s comprehend what he is saying, they will be forever trapped in a cycle of legalism, myth, and schism. Which means that it is a dangerous thing to ignore or minimize Luther’s teachings.
I really can’t speak too highly of Luther and his theology and accomplishments and you would be wise to stop throwing stones at the greatest of all Roman Catholics.
David said: You Bob, hit the nail right on the head there. If Luther was to start a true reformation of the Church he would have had to backtrack to square one as depicted in Acts 2:44-47 and Acts 4:31-35.
Luther DID start a true Gospel Reformation. Let there be no doubt of this historic fact.
Your complaint that he did not develop the same social structure as did the 1st century Jewish Church is absurd. He lived in a very different world from the 1st century church. So there is no reason to expect that he would try to restructure the church to live like the 1st century Jewish Christians. Where in did you come up with this nonsense?
Luther discovered Paul’s Gospel, and risked his life to make sure the world knew this great truth. At a time when it was a crime for the public to own a Bible, Luther gave it to the people anyway, in their own language, so that they could understand that the RCC had been perpetrating a massive doctrinal fraud.
Such an act of bravery, on behalf of the Gospel, should not be taken lightly. In fact, in an age when the Church routinely tortured and killed those that challenged their doctrine and authority, Luther stood up, as an expert and a church insider, and exposed the many errors of those in charge of religion. He never expected to live very long, because to do what he did was to become a marked and most wanted man.
So Luther had to run for his life and work in secret to translate the Bible. But yet you scold him because he did not set up a church community as the apostles did in the book of Acts? How absurd.
David said: They would have had to return to their first love, as was told the Church at Ephesus, which was laying down their lives from the worlds system and living of one heart and one mind in unity for each other where the Holy Spirit dwelled in the Body.
Luther risked his life to translate the Bible into German. He risked his life to explain Paul’s Gospel to his County. And for this he should be thanked and praised, not slandered for his faults. He was a man of God, doing the will of heaven. Who dares condemn or slander him? No one who claims to be a Protestant can do such a thing.
Luther was no phony Christian as you imply. In fact, he is the greatest articulator of Paul’s Gospel that the world has ever known. He is the hero of every Protestant, even as he should be a hero for all SDA’s. Waggoner and Ellen White certainly viewed him a great man who understood the Gospel, even though Traditional Adventism does not understand nor embrace his correct theology. If that were the case, both 1888 and Glacier View would have turned out very differently.
I suggest that you study Luther so that you can better understand his great contribution to church doctrine.
Tom Norris, who supports Luther’s Gospel
Offline
This is how SDA’s treat everyone. They try to find fault with all others,
Tom, you know this is not quite true. Many Adventists do this but I submit here evidence that not all do:
These are all a DjVu files
* A TRIBUTE TO HULDRYCH ZWINGLI
by KENNETH A. STRAND
* A LUTHERAN UNDERSTANDING OF PRAYER
by FAITH E. ROHRBOUGH, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Editor's note: Rohrbough's article is an edited version of the homily she presented at Seminary Chapel, Andrews University, on April 13,1999. On that occasion she was given the Andrews University President's Medallion in recognition of "exemplary professional achievement," specifically in connection with her leadership role in the Adventist-Lutheran dialogue.
by Hans K. LaRondelle, Th.D., is professor emeritus of theology, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.
Produced by the General Conference Education Department in 1956, this work presents in positive terms the era of the Reformation, the Pilgrims, and the Protestant missionary movement. (pages 113-140)
This list is just a few of the available Adventist publications which speak postively of others. We could do better still. Adventists, including yours truly, have a strong and positive regard for the Christians past and present.
(Message edited by Don on May 24, 2009)
Offline
Tom, excuse me, but you are the one finding fault with the SDAs. When I point out crucial points on Luther you wish to defend him. Why not become a Lutheran. I would suggest you are well on your way.
Offline
Hi Bob,
Did you get my email, re: the 24th.
You and Elaine, both have mentioned the idea of becoming Lutheran. It is possible to admire the thinking of a leader like Luther without agreeing with him on other crucial points. <BR> <BR>
In my most recent foray into his writings, I have been impressed with his thoroughness and clear-mindedness.
Offline
Don responded to Tom’s statement: This is how SDA’s treat everyone. They try to find fault with all others,
Don said: Tom, you know this is not quite true. Many Adventists do this but I submit here evidence that not all do:
I disagree. SDA’s think that they have better theology than all others. This is what they say and teach and there is no sense in denying it.
The SDA’s only give lip service to Luther and the Protestants, even as they teach that Luther did not get things correct like the SDA’s.
Most SDA’s have no idea what Luther is really teaching, much less that it was his theology about the Two Covenants in the book of Galatians that CAUSED, and started the 1888 debates.
The fact of the matter is that the SDA’s view of law, Gospel, and hermeneutics, as well as prophecy is very different from Luther’s CORRECT positions. The state of the dead is a major exception, but few, if any SDAs, give credit for this correct doctrine to Luther.
Don said: Adventists, including yours truly, have a strong and positive regard for the Christians past and present.
While the SDA’s have a “positive regard” for Luther, they deny his correct views on the Gospel and the law, as well as hermeneutics, the Two Covenants, and many other things. Luther would repudiate the IJ, tithe, food laws, and the SDA hierarchical structure that mimics the RCC. He would view the SDA’s as a confused and dishonest cult that uses Ellen White like the Bible. So Luther is not going to be fooled at all by the SDA's and neither is Dr Ford or Tom Norris.
The fact that a handful of people, like Jones, Waggoner, Ellen White, and Dr. Ford have unsuccessfully tried to inject Luther’s Gospel views into SDA theology is very telling. It proves that the SDA’s are just pretending to be Protestant. They are faking it! They are far more RC than Protestant, and Luther would be the first one to condemn them.
So stop saying that the SDA's embrace Luther. They don't. They are at war with him on the most fundamental and important points of theology.
Bob Sands said: Tom, excuse me, but you are the one finding fault with the SDA’s.
Ha! I think that legions of people have been “finding fault” with the SDA’s for many years before Tom Norris was around.
So the many problems with the SDA’s can’t be blamed on me. Even Ellen White found major fault with the SDA’s, even as she predicted that there would be a great shaking because of their errors at the end of time. Which means that they really do have some serious problems.
The problem is not that SDA’s have errors, because all denominations have errors. The problem is that they will not honestly face up to these errors and resolve them. They even pretend that they don’t have any errors or false doctrine.
What a joke that is! But guess what? Jesus is not joking in the LM. He says that the SDA’s, -as well as others- are blind and naked and all wrong. They are headed straight to hell if they don't repent and reform.
Thus, it is Jesus himself, the head of the church that has found great “fault” with the SDA’s. I suggest that they pay attention and repent as directed.
Bob said: When I point out crucial points on Luther you wish to defend him.
Ha! Since when is being mean to the Jews that insult and attack the Gospel, “a crucial point of error”? This is nonsense. Besides, the story of the OT is largely about the sins and errors of the Jews. Then, in the NT, Jesus came along and cursed them for their Gospel rebellion and they lost their Temple and their Nation.
So Luther is on solid ground when he rails at the unbelieving Jews. He knows that they are great enemies of the Gospel. You are the one that is confused and wrong. Not Luther as you think.
Luther, like everyone, has errors and blind spots, but it is his view of the law and the Gospel that makes him a great man. It is his view of hermeneutics and even prophecy that proves his genius, even as his courage to defy Rome elevates him to legendary status. No wonder he was a superstar and celebrity in Germany. He deserves such fame.
Bob asked: Why not become a Lutheran? I would suggest you are well on your way.
The Lutherans do not have the prophecy of the Three Angels Messages. Nor do they have the law or the Sabbath correct, even though they have correctly separated the law from the Gospel, which most fail to do. I can assure you that the final Gospel proclamation will feature Luther's fundamental Gospel theology.
SDA theology is meant to be a more complete, mature, and correct view of Protestant theology. The SDA’s were supposed to make the correction to the law that would lead the last church to embrace the Gospel Sabbath. But they became like the Jews and elevated the law over the Gospel, even as they followed the error of Rome and made Sanctification salvific. These fatal errors left them promoting the Old Covenant Sabbath of the Judaizers; even as they operated like the RCC, which is forbidden by the teaching of the NT. None of this is Protestant.
But guess what? At the end of time, all Laodiceans, including the Lutherans, are judged as having faulty theology. They too will have to face their own errors, which includes the Sunday Sabbath, which is a hallmark of the RCC and their false Gospel.
So there is no more reason to become a Lutheran today then to become an SDA or a Baptist. It is time for the Adventists to get serious about developing the final Gospel Message that will surpass all denominations in truth and clarity. This is the point of the 4th Angels Message. This is what the SDA’s are supposed to be doing. But they have failed for all to see. THIS is the problem.
Rev. 18:1 After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory.
Rev. 18:2 And he cried out with a mighty voice, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!
Where is the true church for the last days? Where is the correct view of the law and the genuine Gospel? Where is credible, contemporary eschatology for the 21st century?
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform
Offline
Here's the problem. The SDA "movement" is trying to make us believe that TRUTH was not completely known until the 1800's when Miller stumbled across it. What does this say about God? He allowed Christianity to go on believing all kinds of falsehoods for nearly two thousand years, until someone had an idea in the cornfield. -DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, GUYS.
This is not about Luther or Miller or White. This is supposed to be about the salvation of all mankind. OK, truth may be cumulative, but according to the traditional SDA take on things, not until the 18th Century did very crucial information come to light, information that goes to the very nature of the incarnation and the means of salvation. We are lead to believe that a couple of thousand years of church teachings were simply not enough to gain the salvation of believers. In fact, the very same beliefs that the church held in the past, would doom people to eternal death if believed today. DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
Offline
In fact, the very same beliefs that the church held in the past, would doom people to eternal death if believed today. DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
Obviously, the progression of understanding over the centuries needs to be looked upon more positively. Some of us Adventists maintain a high regard for all people of faith, in all ages of the church. God's commendation of the centurion in Acts 10 should be our commendation to all who live like he did prior to meeting the Gospel. God acknowledges "good" people; so should we. We certainly believe we have a message of importance, but this does not negate the commendable nature of individuals with whom we meet.
The Adventist movement has progressed from its earliest days. Consider the parable of the Ten Virgins of Matthew 25. Early Adventists believed that they were the people in the parable. In the spring of 1844, they were the Ten Virgins. When the spring of 1844 rolled into the summer, they "all slumbered and slept". When S. S. Snow brought the October 22, 1844 message in August, the believing Adventists called this the Midnight Cry. When Jesus did not come on the specified date, they went back to the parable and noted that the door was shut at one point. Thus, they concluded that the door had been shut to the world. Only as time progressed and some of "the world" accepted their new "third angel's message" did they extricate themselves from the "shut door" teaching.
They looked to Revelation 10 and John's experience of eating the little book and they saw themselves as symbolized by John. The little book was Daniel. The sweet experience was their joyous anticipaton of Jesus' immediate return. The bitter experience was the Great Disappointment of October 22. The end of the chapter records a directive to "prophesy again." They gained hope from this and believed that their mandate was to continue on preaching truth.
Through all of this was a kind of "living by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." The 1888 message was forwarded by this detailed use of Scripture applied to Christ. That was kind of refreshing. But, there was another 1888 feature, detailed in nature, regarding the law in Galatians and the nature of "the daily". The debate over the daily highlights this attention to detail. Many Adventists look back and are amazed that the church could pivot on such detailed disagreement.
I guess we have similar problems when a person suggests a new way to look at the "seven trumpets", or the King of the North as Turkey or the Papacy, or a new way to look at the PreAdvent Judgment, etc.
The early publications reveal an Adventist community that explained prophecy as though they really knew the meaning. When they admitted being in error, they adopted a new view just as dogmatic as the old.
Today, many Adventists don't work the Scriptural details so thoroughly, or dogmatically. I believe in a kinder, gentler Adventism. One that presents Jesus as Savior, the Ten Commandments as the "Commandments of God" and the Gospel as our grand enterprise. This Adventism acknowledges prophecy but admits to interpretation rather than dogmatism. I believe in an endtime scenario which will prove itself when the end times develop, meanwhile the focus is on Christ and our interpretation rather than on our dogmatic assertions.
Offline
Today, many Adventists don't work the Scriptural details so thoroughly, or dogmatically. I believe in a kinder, gentler Adventism.
Yes, well, that was thrust upon us by the events in the 70's and 80's. Adventism had no choice; but it wasn't about gaining new insights. It was about survival.
It's well and good to change opinions on peripheral issues like the
shut door" or when Sabbath begins, and what to eat for breakfast. I'm talking about core issues that go to the heart of Christianity and the salvation it promises.
When the group on the hill didn't experience Jesus' return and had to go back to their unplanted fields they had to come up with explanations or dissolve the group. At that point salvation became exclusive to only those who had been "dissapointed". Christ's death and resurrection became secondary to all other requirements. It wasn't enough to "believe and be saved"- and in some circles it still isn't. The SDA message with all its charts and pictures is a far cry from the simple Gospel of Christ that spread around the world and apparently lulled its believers in a false sense of security.
Offline
You and Elaine, both have mentioned the idea of becoming Lutheran.
How you could ever reach that conclusion, Don, is surely amazing! That I agree with Luther on some points, is no different than I also agree with Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, even Mormons on perhaps a few things.
As for ever joining another church, I can assure you that I never will. I got immunized within Adventism and much prefer to follow my own heart, not any organized religious institution.
As for the "gradual" development of Adventism; it's a rather confusing, and garbled story. The recent cult in New Mexico also were predicting the Lord's return in October 2007. People have been proclaiming a specific time for that since the first century; in fact during that first century it was expected that he would return any day.
To proclaim an "imminent return" for more than 2000 years becomes a laughing stock and is no longer significant except to a tiny group of people, mostly SDAs who cling desperately to that hope. It will be reached only at their death.
All religion evolve, but when there must be a constant editing, adding, eradicating and changing its unique pillars, it soon loses credibility with thinking people.
Today, many Adventists don't work the Scriptural details so thoroughly, or dogmatically.
Think so? check out the Spectrum blog for the battle of evolution and literal Creation story being taught at La Sierra for what's ahead.
Offline
Elaine Said at:
http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=14&post=5308#POST5308
Then why are you not a Lutheran?
Don Said:
You and Elaine, both have mentioned the idea of becoming Lutheran.
Elaine Said:
How you could ever reach that conclusion, Don, is surely amazing!
Now:
Ah Elaine, how our memories fail us. :-)
______________________________
Think so? check out the Spectrum blog for the battle of evolution and literal Creation story being taught at La Sierra for what's ahead.
Note that I said, "Many Adventists." I didn't say "All" or even "Most." I do try to be careful with what I say. lol
Yes, the La Sierra situation can be an opportunity for the church and its scientists to learn how to make their way forward into the church's future.
Offline
the La Sierra situation can be an opportunity for the church and its scientists to learn how to make their way forward into the church's future.
There are various forces at work:
* Individuals, and their websites, who believe that the teachings of the church have been undermined by certain science professors at La Sierra;
* The Science professors who have been accused;
* The students who take the classes from these professors;
* Families of those students who finance their education;
* Church administrators who have the responsibility of oversight;
* The unofficial media such as Spectrum and Atoday;
* The other professors of science and theology from any, and all, of our schools;
* Church members at large.
The challenge lies with the Administrators who have oversight. Our schools certainly must support the 28 fundamentals of the church. They also need to prepare world-class scientists. Our administrators need to be scientific thinkers and men of faith. They need to know how to get to the bottom of an issue; how to protect their faithful scientists from unwarranted attacks; and how to defend the broad goals of Adventist education at its best.
(Message edited by Don on May 30, 2009)
Offline
Don, I re-read what I had said, and I never said I would become a Lutheran. To agree with some statements of Luther is, in no way, a conclusion that I wished to join that church.
Whose memory is failing?? The link did NOT say I had even thought of becoming a Lutheran. You have read entirely too much in my statement.
Offline
Don, you agree with the doctrine of the Trinity which was the consensual statement of the Catholic church in the fourth century. So why are you not a Catholic??
Offline
The link did NOT say I had even thought of becoming a Lutheran.
I agree.
Look over carefully what I said.
"Both you and Elaine mention becoming Lutheran."
You and Bob have reacted the same way. Someone supports Luther, you wonder why they haven't become Lutheran. Of course, you are not talking about yourself. I never intended that.
I agree, neither you or Bob have said you want to be Lutheran. Rather, when you see support for Luther, you have wondered why the supporter hadn't become a Lutheran. This is a rather minor point. I focus on it because it highlights how we can misunderstand what the other has said.
(Message edited by Don on May 30, 2009)
Offline
It's those monor points that to often become false assumptions.
Of course, there is truth in all belief systems with which I can probably agree. None can contain all the truth.
Offline
Maintaining "world-class scientists" while still adhering to a literal 6-day creation is almost insurmountable. Accreditation is absolutely essential for student's acceptance to grad.school and if the teachers were forced to teach a literal 6-day creation, as literalists belief in the Bible demands, then what?
Too often in the past we have seen professional reputations destroyed; teachers, even college presidents resign who were forced to go against their integrity in such matters. Should the faculty take an oath of teaching a certain way?
Should they be limited in what they are allowed to teach? Can't all points be taught without assigning any one position as the only "true" one? As a SDA teacher, what solutions do you offer to overcome what seems to be an impossible impasse?
Offline
As a SDA teacher, what solutions do you offer to overcome what seems to be an impossible impasse?
Here in Canada, we have faced the evolutionary dragon and have no significant problems. To offer provincial diplomas we must present the provincial curriculum. This includes evolutionary science. Our science teachers all believe in the Genesis account. They present the curriculum re: evolution, as informational.
We have actually capitalized on the issues for educational purposes with debate segments, etc.
Evolutionary science is not totally contrary to Genesis 1. Evolution up to the family level on the taxonomical ranking is quite palatable for this creationist. The processes for these levels are really the same processes the naturalistic evolutionist recognizes for the whole process. I have come to believe that God created life with the ability to evolve (adapt).
I believe in presenting my students with rather difficult questions. In the area of evolution and creation, I would present some of the facts which have persuaded Christian biologists to believe in evolution and then ask my students to offer a faithful explanation. They will apply their minds to the task admirably.
I think one of the goals of the creationist should be to explain to his students how intelligent people can believe in evolution without taking leave of their senses. My students come to my classes not understanding how that can be.
I do believe that our professors should be able to articulate in a positive way how the scientific community views evolution. These same professors should accept the Biblical account of Creation as a revelation of God's creative ways.
Professors of science must also speak respectfully and supportively of the Biblical assertion that God created life. Students will come into their classes unprepared for the power of the evolutionary argument and they will be offended that it is given any credence at all. Professors must deal gently and supportively with our young people who may get outraged at what they see as "teaching evolution". Those professors must also be people of faith and strong confidence in the Scriptures as well as the scientific process.
Maintaining "world-class scientists" while still adhering to a literal 6-day creation is almost insurmountable.
Most of the sciences present no major problems for the creationist. There are areas such as geology, biology, etc. which present major challenges. But we have accomplished scientists in these areas as well.
(Message edited by Don on May 30, 2009)
Offline
we have accomplished scientists in these areas as well.
yes.... the problem is that once they learn whatis really the truth, they now have the dilemna of telling the truth, or hiding it and keeping their jobs!!!
for example: theBio prof at LLU LaSierra Campus at the center of the complaints was a grad of my college..AUC....and hismother a bestfriend of my parents... so I had the occasion to converse with him...specifically about the age of the earth and creationism and evolution....
he would not admit to me anything other than his research led him where the research led him.... and that often that conflicted with what we had been told....
the fact that he was hired at LLU LaSierra Campus by a past president of AUC was therefore no surprise...
I had enjoyed chats with the former AUC Prez, Larry Garrity, who became prez of LLU/LaSierra....
he was fascinated with tapes I had recorded off the discovery channel about astronomy, the age of the earth, etc.... probably because his other vocation was as archeologist...specializing in Jericho...which he told me was over 10,000 yrs old....and when I asked him how that could be correlated with Biblical chronology, he said it couldn't, and that we needed to reinterpret Genesis chronology.
so, apparently, slowly, the truth is coming out!!! but it must be a painful process to those who do not want to hear new truths, since that may render outdated if not completely suspect all the Old truth we all were taught.
SDA hashit an iceberg..a mountain of science... and some pretend that the ship hasnot been affected, while others rearrange the deck chairs, and others try to find a lifeboat.
when a ship goes down, it is best to be far away, as the sinking ship causes such disturbance that it drags down even those with lifejackets who remain too close!!!
(in the ocean, its the air bubbles rising up from the sinking ship which decreases the waters bouyancy, and if you're too close , you also sink in a column of bubbles....)
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
Re-Thinking Hell- SDA Theology Defended
While the SDA’s have self-destructed over their unique and strange doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, as well as other errors, they do have solid truth. A good example is their teaching about the State of the Dead, which is a Reformation doctrine from Luther. Today, this doctrine is gaining support, particularly because of Edward Fudge, a non-SDA.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fudge
Fudge Interview
http://www.christianpost.com/news/inter … ell-51497/
Lecture - Edward Fudge - The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4
http://rethinkinghell.com
--------------------------------------------
Robert Brinsmead Promotes State of the Dead
It is ironic to see that Robert Brinsmead played a major role in the promotion of this (correct) SDA position. While he is responsible for exposing the IJ as error, he is also responsible for promoting the SDA doctrine about death to Fudge, personally. Fudge then worked for Brinsmead to research the topic, which resulted in his 1982 book, “The Fire That Consumes.”
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fire-That-Con … 0595143423
*************************************************************
Below is the NY Time Interview with Edward Fudge, October 11, 2014:
Tormented in the Afterlife, but Not Forever
In August 1976, Edward Fudge, a minister and Christian publisher, wrote “Putting Hell in Its Place,” an article in Christianity Today exploring biblical language about hell. After the article appeared, Mr. Fudge heard from an Australian publisher named Robert Brinsmead, who shared his interest in hell. Mr. Brinsmead offered to travel to Mr. Fudge’s home in Athens, Ala., to talk to him about a project.
“We chatted for 16 hours in one day and night,” Mr. Fudge, 70, said in an interview this week. “And then he offered me a research job for one year, to research the final fate of the wicked.”
Mr. Fudge’s inquiry into the nature of damnation resulted in his seminal 1982 book, “The Fire That Consumes,” in which he argued that the suffering of the wicked in hell is finite, that after a time their souls are extinguished. This view, called “conditional immortality” or sometimes the more macabre “annihilationism,” is in direct opposition to the traditional Christian view that suffering in hell lasts forever.
Conditional immortality is not new — it has been proposed by Christian thinkers almost from the beginning — but it is having a moment in the (gentle, non-fiery) sun. Several new scholarly volumes about conditional immortality have been, or are about to be, published. In July, leading proponents of the theory gathered in Houston for Rethinking Hell, a conference in honor of Mr. Fudge. The group that produced the conference maintains a website, rethinkinghell.com, dedicated to its theology.
And in 2012, Mr. Fudge achieved the ultimate mark of American celebrity, the biopic. “Hell and Mr. Fudge” can be streamed in its entirety on the web, allowing one to see Mr. Fudge — played by Mackenzie Astin, best known for his childhood role on the 1980s TV series “The Facts of Life” — first as a boy, then in his college days, courting his wife, and, as an adult, doing the research that led him to renounce the traditional view of hell.
Advocates of conditional immortality say that their view reflects a common-sense reading of the Bible. They point to passages like Romans 6, where Paul says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The “eternal life” of the saved is contrasted with the ultimate “death” of the unsaved. And in the Book of Revelation, Jesus refers to a “second death,” which these theologians say means the dying-again of the resurrected wicked. Their final, irreversible punishment may involve torment, but it will come to an end.
“I don’t think the traditional view became popular among Christians until the late second and early third centuries,” said Christopher M. Date, a software engineer and independent theologian who helped organize the recent conference. He believes that conditionalism was the rule for early thinkers like the second-century bishop Irenaeus, who wrote that God “imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved,” while denying that same continuance to the unsaved.
But Shawn Bawulski, who teaches at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix and has written in opposition to conditionalism, said that while “you can find early Christian writers who would say things sufficiently vague” that they might support a conditionalist view of hell, “you don’t have much by way of conditionalism in church history until Victorian England.”
That chronology squares, almost, with the findings of Kathryn Gin Lum, an assistant professor of religious studies at Stanford University. In “Damned Nation: Hell in America from the Revolution to Reconstruction,” she writes about Rowland and Elizabeth Willard, who believed, as followers of William Miller’s end-times movement, that the world would end in 1843. When the world did not end, they “went down the path of conditional immortality, that hell is not going to be eternal torture.”
If you stop and think about it, some conditionalists say, theirs is a compassionate theology. Which is the kinder God, they ask, one who lets sinners suffer forever, or one who gives them, say, a few decades of hellfire, then administers “capital punishment” (to use Mr. Date’s matter-of-fact term)?
John Stackhouse of Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, said that was the message he took from “The Goodness of God,” published in 1974 by the Englishman John Wenham.
“I was immediately converted,” Professor Stackhouse said. “It describes, first, what we understand to be the goodness of God, which it breaks into two ideas: God is holy, and therefore intolerant of sin, evil or brokenness. But secondly, God is good, in the sense of kind, merciful and generous. God is paradoxically both of those things, and hell has to be understood as being consistent with both of those poles.”
Professor Stackhouse said that even great theologians like Thomas Aquinas “had to bend themselves in knots” to explain how God’s goodness could be enhanced “by these writhing souls being unhappy for all of eternity.”
For now, conditionalism is a scholars’ movement; it has yet to work its way into the pulpits. Most evangelical preachers still hew to a traditional view of hell, and mainline and liberal preachers are often “universalists,” who believe that everyone goes to heaven, at least eventually.
As for laypeople, conditionalism could be a tough sell. Many Christian churches and organizations have statements of faith, which members must sign, attesting to a belief in eternal torture for the unsaved. Professor Stackhouse also says that, for it to catch on, the movement at least needs a new name — he prefers “terminal punishment.”
Mr. Fudge, for his part, is optimistic that conditionalism’s time has come. After all, he said, “it’s always been there, smoldering.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/us/to … s%3As&_r=0
Today, the SDA’s need to confess their many false doctrines and reform every teaching to comply with the New Covenant and the Protestant Hermeneutic. Where they have found truth, like their correct, Reformation based doctrine about the State of the Dead, they must stand firm and tell the world.
Tom Norris for Adventist Reform / New Covenant Adventism
Offline